2024-08-20 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 20 August 2024

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

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I might just first of all, before I make a declaration, give members some information on arrangements for today. Obviously, in a moment we will receive a bill from the Senate and start debate on that, but before we get to that I just want to let people know the government will also be seeking for the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024 to be able to find its way to the Senate during the course of tomorrow. At the moment there are only two speakers on it, so it might not require any management, but, if we do end up with a number of speakers, we may end up using one of the resolutions to sit later tonight. But it'll be the usual principle of no divisions or quorums after 6.30 pm. BILLS 1 BILLS Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 1

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

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

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

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 12:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I should have mentioned a moment ago--I apologise, Mr Speaker—that ordinarily, as has been the practice no matter who's been in government, when senior frontbenchers have stood down from the frontbench on a sitting day, they get to make a speech to the parliament. Because, obviously, the member for Gorton and the member for Barton stood down during the break, they'll be seeking indulgence, after the MPI today, for the member for Gorton to make a speech of that nature and, after the MPI tomorrow, for the member for Barton to make a speech of that nature. BILLS 1 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 1

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 12:03 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I present the revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. Since July 2024, serious allegations have come to light about the conduct of some members and associates of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU). The Australian government takes these allegations seriously. There is no place for criminality or corruption in the construction industry, and bullying, thuggery, and intimidation are unacceptable in any workplace. On 2 August 2024, the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission applied to the Federal Court of Australia to have an independent administrator appointed to the Construction and General Division and the Victoria-Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland-Northern Territory, and South Australian divisional branches. The minister has intervened to support the application on behalf of the government. The government made it clear that if the matter was not resolved before parliament returned, we would introduce legislation to facilitate administration. This is the strongest action available in these circumstances. The bill amends the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Actto provide a clear pathway for the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU to be placed under administration. The bill will allow the minister to determine a scheme of administration for the division if satisfied it is in the public interest to do so. The bill contains a list of the matters that must be included in the scheme, such as the suspension or removal of officers, taking disciplinary action, and making changes to the Construction and General Division's rules. A scheme of administration would not apply to any division or union other than the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU and would be time limited. The bill includes strong powers for the administrator and would allow them to take action necessary to restore the effective management and operation of the Construction and General Division. This would enable the administrator to take all necessary action to manage the affairs of the division in the interests of members. Current and former officers and employees would be required to assist the administrator, such as by producing requested documents. Penalties would apply for noncompliance with this requirement. The administrator would also be required to cooperate with inquiries undertaken by a law enforcement or regulatory agency. The bill includes strong anti-avoidance provisions to prevent people from undermining an administration determined by the minister. Contravening these provisions would attract civil penalties and, where avoidance behaviour is deliberate, criminal penalties. Anti-avoidance civil penalties would apply retrospectively. Criminal sanctions apply from the commencement of the bill. Amendments made by the Senate modify the operation of the bill in the following ways: to change the date for retrospective anti-avoidance civil penalties from 17 July to 1 July 2024 to require the administrator to provide reports to the minister every six months, with reports tabled in parliament to prohibit officers and delegates who have been removed or suspended from office, or who have their employment terminated, as a result of the scheme of administration, from acting as a bargaining representative or holding office in another registered organisation, unless and until the Fair Work Commission certifies that they are a fit and proper person to establish an internal complaints process and whistleblower protection to prevent the minister from varying or revoking the scheme without a request from the administrator to establish a minimum three-year administration period, unless the administrator is satisfied that a particular branch or the division is functioning lawfully and effectively to extend the maximum duration of the scheme to five years to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that the administrator can conduct investigations into past conduct of the Construction and General Division and its branches to change the list of matters the scheme must address in section 323B from optional to mandatory, and adding anything else the minister considers appropriate. The allegations about the behaviour of some Construction and General Division members and associates are serious, and unlawful behaviour in any workplace is unacceptable. This bill provides a strong and effective mechanism to place the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU into administration to address these allegations. Working in construction is hard, dangerous work, and those workers need a strong, clean union to represent them. I acknowledge the constructive contribution of the Senate crossbench in proposing sensible and practical amendments to strengthen the bill. I also acknowledge that amendments have been put forward by the member for Wentworth and the member for Warringah. The government supports the intent of both and are confident they have been adequately addressed through the Senate amendments to the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately. 12:09 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Let me start by saying that, for students of irony, for students of the political backflip and for students of those who have spent years in the political equivalent of receiving stolen goods and now have been found with their hand of the cookie jar, looking shocked, this is quite a moment. It's no surprise that the member for Watson has scuttled out of the chamber immediately after mumbling his way through that complete reversal of everything he's done for his more than 20 years in this place. For the member for Watson and the Labor Party to be involved in putting the CFMEU into administration is an extraordinary moment in Australian political history. The member for Watson is the man who, in his previous portfolio as the minister for workplace relations, gave control of the construction sector in Australia to his mates at the CFMEU, who cheerfully and rapidly abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, in cahoots with his mates in the Australian Greens, and who danced to the tune of the CFMEU, as he has done consistently throughout his career and as has been done consistently throughout the political careers of just about every Labor MP in this place. It's no exaggeration to say that it was the lifelong political dream of the member for Watson to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and to give the thugs, bikies and criminals of the CFMEU free rein on Australia's building sites. What have been the results of the actions taken by the member for Watson in those heady first few months after Labor came to power? The results have been chaos, criminality, disorder and an explosion in the cost of construction to the detriment of every Australian, be it people who are building a new home in which to live or anybody who works in a new building, who is affected by what happens in the construction sector. That is every Australian. We have seen nothing short of chaos, bullying, violence, intimidation, harassment, thuggery, bribery, corruption and criminality. All of that has followed from the actions enthusiastically taken by the member for Watson with the full support of the Prime Minister and the entire caucus since Labor came to power. They abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They introduced tranche after tranche of legislation to remake the framework which applies to industrial relations in this country, to grant unions, including the thugs, criminals, bikies and misogynists of the CFMEU, unprecedented rights to enter workplaces around the country. The damage they have done has been legion, and it will last, sadly, for a long time. How did the Prime Minister respond to this set of actions and outcomes orchestrated and delivered by the member for Watson? The Prime Minister promoted him. He promoted the member for Watson following his disastrous performance as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The legislation that is before the House today—the legislation that a shamefaced member for Watson has very briefly spoken about this morning before deciding he had urgent business elsewhere—is necessary and is occurring as a direct result of the incompetence of the Albanese Labor government, the incompetence of the Prime Minister, the incompetence of the member for Watson and a series of disastrous choices they have made to look after their mates in the CFMEU, regardless of their proven, incontrovertible track record of corruption, criminality, thuggery and bullying over 10, 15, 20 or more years. They ignored all of that and made a series of dreadful, dismal, disastrous decisions. Now the consequence is that there have been very detrimental impacts on the Australian economy, on the people of Australia and on regulation and the rule of law in the construction sector. This Prime Minister and the member for Watson were very happy to change workplace laws in Australia to directly benefit the CFMEU. Why? It's because their path into government has been smoothed—facilitated—by the millions of dollars in donations paid by the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. In exchange, for well over $6 million received by the Labor Party since the current Prime Minister became the Leader of the Opposition, we have seen his government happy to tear down much of the fabric of Australian industrial relations legislation, very much to the detriment of just about everybody in Australia who is not a union boss. Of course, the actions of the Albanese Labor government and the member for Watson were warmly welcomed, perhaps unsurprisingly, by the thugs, crooks and criminals of the CFMEU. Let me turn to the Western Australian branch of the CFMEU and their Construction Worker magazine from the summer of 2023, which had a picture of a tombstone with the words 'ABCC dead and buried: The ABCC has been laid to rest under 10 tons of concrete happily poured by CFMEU members'. That is an occasion when they do happily pour concrete. On other occasions, they have been perfectly happy to interrupt a concrete pour at a cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars—one of their preferred modes of industrial thuggery. The CFMEU and the Labor Party knew full well that, by abolishing the ABCC and through the other actions that the member for Watson and this Albanese Labor government took, they were handing effective control of the construction sector in Australia to this militant, corrupt, criminal union and the rich array of convicted criminals, bullies, thugs, drug dealers, bikies and other undesirables who are key officials of this union across the country. The opposition has sought to raise these issues in the public interest at every turn. The member for Watson has been very happy to shut down that debate repeatedly—for example, during the second reading debate for the fair work legislation amendment bill in November 2022 and the fair work legislation amendment bill in 2023. In both cases, every possible procedure of this House was used by the member for Watson to gag debate, to reduce the time allowed for consideration in detail and to reduce the time allowed for scrutiny of the cosy arrangements entered into by this government on repeated occasions to make life easier for the crooks and thugs and criminals and bikies of the CFMEU, at the expense of the welfare and the interest of the great majority of Australians. The repeated behaviour of this government—of the member for Watson and of the Prime Minister—is nothing short of a disgrace. Let me take a moment to remind the House of aspects of the track record of the CFMEU. I want to start by speaking about a former judicial officer Anne Gooley. According to media reports and telecommunications records, Mr John Setka, a well-known former CFMEU official, convicted criminal and thoroughly undesirable person, on a single evening in October 2019 called the former judicial officer Anne Gooley on 25 occasions and sent her 45 text messages. I'm going to resort to my usual principle of using code words in place of the actual words used by John Setka. He called her a 'weak flipping piece of shoe', a 'treacherous Aussie flipping cart' and a 'flipping dog'. It would not take much imagination at all to work out the actual words used by Mr Setka. Of course, there is another well-known episode. None of this is a secret and none of this was unknown to the Prime Minister and the member for Watson as they engaged on their long legislative program of delivering favours to the CFMEU in exchange for over $6 million of donations. We know from court records in relation to the 2011 Melbourne markets case that a court found 'deliberate flouting of the law by the CFMEU to obtain industrial advantage'. The court imposed $250,000 in fines and awarded $190,000 in costs against the CFMEU after finding that the union had 'deliberately and illegally prevented work from going ahead on the new Melbourne market site in Epping, Victoria'. Let's speak about Mr Shaun Reardon, another deeply undesirable individual. He was named in the findings of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. A witness told that royal commission: 'Shaun Reardon, who was an organiser, would regularly attend the Pentridge Village Site'—a particular construction site—'and taunt by shaking the fence and yelling, "We're going to get you and your family!" to a subcontractor and other staff on site.' Let's look at one of the many other moments when the CFMEU has come to the attention of Australia's court system and judicial officers. In December 2015, Justice Jessup of the Federal Court fined the CFMEU $245,000 for intimidating a scaffolding company into hiring a shop steward. Let me read what Justice Jessup said about the union in his judgement. He said: The case is devoid of any mitigating circumstances. The Union has shown no contrition, and has not cooperated with the regulator. … there is no circumstance to which counsel could point as tending to exert a moderating influence upon the level of the penalty which the court would otherwise impose. Let's turn to the member for Maribyrnong, who has a long history with the CFMEU. It depends which personality we're getting from the member for Maribyrnong because he, in his political actions, has a case of multiple political personality disorder. In August 2012, he issued a media release denouncing the actions of CFMEU officials in the Grocon dispute and said: 'I would expect the CFMEU to respect and comply with orders of the Victorian supreme court.' By 2017, the member for Maribyrnong was opposition leader, and it seemed his position in relation to the CFMEU had evolved. In December that year, well-known journalist Sharri Markson reported that the member for Maribyrnong had been 'cooking up a secret deal between the CFMEU and the so-called industrial left'. Who was the point person in the CFMEU dealing with Mr Shorten at that time? It was none other than the highly savoury Shaun Reardon, who I mentioned earlier, the same individual who showed up at worksites and threatened workers' families. Justice Burnett of the Federal Circuit Court said: The CFMEU … has an extensive history of contraventions dating back to at least 1999. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the organisation either does not understand or does not care for the legal restrictions on industrial activity imposed by the legislature and the courts. Another judge, Justice Flick, said that the CFMEU: … has long demonstrated by its conduct that it pays but little regard to compliance with the law and indeed has repeatedly sought to place itself above the law. Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court said: The CFMEU has an egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws. Justice Jessup of the Federal Court said: The CFMEU's record of non-compliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious. That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement. Can I remind the House that this organisation, with its longstanding record of flouting the law and its longstanding notorious record of criminality, corruption, thugishness and the involvement of bikies and other undesirable people, is the one that the Prime Minister and the member for Watson have been running a protection racket for for over two years, introducing bill after bill and passing act after act to advance and protect the interests of these thugs, crooks and criminals. Then, just a couple of months ago, there were extensive media investigations, and I want to commend the journalists involved. It takes some personal courage to stand up to people who have a track record of threatening the families of those they disagree with, of threatening and, indeed, executing all kinds of physical violence upon people with whom they disagree and of threatening their pets and all kinds of unsavoury things. So it takes courage, and I want to congratulate the journalists involved. Just in July this year, there was extensive media coverage by 60 Minutes and the Nine Entertainment newspapers outlining corruption, intimidation, bullying, thuggery, bribery and criminal behaviour on building sites run by illegal motorcycle gangs, and the member for Watson was shocked, the Prime Minister was shocked and the entire Labor Party was shocked. They apparently had no idea that this had been going on. It came as a dreadful surprise. You almost have to feel sorry for them. They engaged extensively with all of these highly unsavoury individuals, who I might remind the House were critical in the preselection of many members in this place and were critical in providing the dollars used by the Labor Party to campaign—over $6 million of donations. But apparently, in doing all of that, in receiving the rivers of money as they flowed into the ALP and in engaging with all of these heavily tattooed individuals who suddenly had an interest in Labor Party preselections and promised to deliver a whole lot of people to vote for Labor candidates, the trusting, naive, credulous members of the Labor Party never even noticed that they were thugs and criminals. Apparently they didn't notice what was written on their T-shirts and they didn't notice that they were heavily tattooed. All of that went over their heads. So, in July, when all this appeared in the media, it was such an enormous shock that they had to call for the vapours; they needed to be revived. One almost has to feel sorry for them, these trusting, credulous people who believed the best of everybody, including the thugs and criminals of the CFMEU. All of a sudden their idealism was facing a considerable challenge. It was as if the blindfolds were lifted from their eyes. Many of us have enjoyed that moment in the classic movie Casablanca, when it's alleged that gambling is occurring in the casino and the police captain—I think it was Captain Renault—says that he's shocked. But his performance was nothing compared to the performance that we've seen from the member for Watson and the Prime Minister. The simple fact is that this would be funny if the stakes were not so high. This would be funny if it were not for the fact that we know that the Labor Party, for over two years, has engaged in abetting and aiding the crooks and criminals and thugs and a whole range of people who have been found guilty by judges of the court. This is not a political point; these are findings made by independently appointed judges. This whole collection of individuals has a rich array of criminal convictions and has consistently and repeatedly, for more than 20 years, engaged in the kind of conduct that most Australians and most decent people would regard as utterly reprehensible. As the Leader of the Opposition said in this chamber yesterday, one of the consequences is that taxpayers are paying the CFMEU tax on major big build projects across the country. Up to 30 per cent more has to be paid on major projects because of the thuggish tactics of the CFMEU. On this side of the House, we have consistently warned against this. The very first question that the Leader of the Opposition asked in this place after the 2022 election was about the CFMEU. And it turns out—what a surprise!—that everything we warned of was entirely accurate. Thanks, in significant measure, to good work by some brave journalists, even the member for Watson and the Prime Minister have been forced to at least pretend that this is an issue of concern to them. As a result of that, we have before this House a bill. Now, let's be clear, the first draft of this bill could have been co-authored by John Setka. Indeed I suspect it was co-authored by John Setka. It was weak. It was so weak you could drive a truck through it. It was the kind of thing you produce when you want to look like you care but in reality you don't care. But, thanks to the extraordinary and assiduous work of Senator Cash, shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, this bill has been significantly strengthened. We made it clear that we would only support it if there were amendments made in a whole range of ways. We have, for example, secured an amendment, which is now contained in the version of the bill that's before this House, that the administration period must last for a minimum of three years. This is essential if there is to be a serious attempt to tackle the appalling culture of the CFMEU. When you have this entrenched degree of criminal activity, bullying, thuggery and intimidation, that is not going to be something that can be solved overnight. It will take assiduous and determined work. With the way that the bill was drafted initially, the minister, Senator Watt, could have chosen to stop the administration one day after it started. 'Why?' you might ask. 'Why would anybody of good will contemplate doing that?' Well, you need merely look at the track record of this government, of which Senator Watt is a significant part, in looking the other way for over two years and in ignoring all of the damning evidence on the public record over close to 20 years of the thuggery, criminality and corruption of the CFMEU. If this Labor Party is prepared to overlook that in exchange for more than $6 million, I tell you what: if the act did not require that the administration last for at least three years, they would have been looking to shut it down within weeks. You would have to be naive not to expect that that was the inevitable outcome with the drafting as it was originally presented to us. We said, 'Quite frankly, that's a joke, and we're not going to agree to it.' And, thankfully, that point has been acknowledged. There is also enhanced transparency, with the government agreeing that the administrator must report to parliament every six months so that there can be oversight from all parties and not just from the political lapdogs of the CFMEU who make up the current government. The administrator will be required to provide the detailed financial information of the CFMEU in these reports. That is very important, and on this side of the House we will be scrutinising those reports carefully. It is important that the administrator be given the tools to do his job properly, and it is essential that progress be made. A very important point is that, while the CFMEU is in administration, it would be entirely inappropriate and improper for the CFMEU to continue to shovel millions of dollars towards the Labor Party in political donations. I'm pleased to say that, thanks to the assiduous work of Senator Cash, the administrator has now set out in writing the guiding principles and goals he determined before accepting the role. One of those is as follows: 'The union will not engage in party politics during the administration: donations, positions at political party conferences, and promotions of particular candidates.' So, by the way, a tip for Australia's tattooists: don't go and set up temporary parlours near ALP conferences coming up, because one of your major sources of business won't be there. He also said, 'Further, I can advise you that I intend, should I be appointed as administrator, to vary the rules of the construction and general division of the CFMEU to prohibit the making of party political donations or the funding of party political campaigns.' Other amendments have been secured thanks to the assiduous negotiation of Senator Cash and the determined work of the coalition, informed by the bitter experience of the victims of CFMEU criminality, corruption and thuggery around this country, who have been in constant dialogue with any parliamentarian of good will who is willing to listen to them. On this issue, that excludes more than half of this House. There have been so many victims of the CFMEU's thuggery. We have listened carefully and we have studied the grim history of the consequences of the CFMEU's behaviour and criminality over some 20 years. Amendments secured by the opposition, the coalition, and contained now in the form of the bill that's before this House include that the administrator will have the ability to ban rogue CFMEU officials for life. The government had a maximum five-year ban in the original legislation. There's an extension of the administration to a maximum of five years, up from the three years proposed by the government. There is a list of matters in the bill that the administration scheme needs to address. The wording has been changed so that they 'must' address these matters, whereas previously the word was 'may'. Here is a very important change we've made. It turned out that the draft bill set out a date before which the retrospective application of civil penalties could not occur. By a remarkable coincidence, an extraordinary coincidence, that date was after John Setka had resigned from the union. Imagine that? What a coincidence! Extraordinary! Deidre Chambers, what a coincidence! Thankfully, that particular outrageously transparent attempt to protect their mate has been removed and replaced with a date that will allow retrospective civil penalties to apply to a date before Mr Setka resigned from the union. Other amendments secured include confirming investigations into the past conduct of the CFMEU. All of the amendments secured by the opposition now contained in the form of the bill before the House are ones that are critical to the operation of the administrator and will mean that we have a tough scheme in place to address lawlessness in the construction sector. But this is not where it should stop. I want to make this point. This legislation is important, but it is not sufficient to address the problems in the CFMEU. We on this side of the House have made clear what needs to happen to restore law and order in the construction sector, but—surprise, surprise!—the Albanese government is too weak to take those next steps. If the Prime Minister wants to clean up the construction sector, he needs to bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is critical that we have a body which can combat lawless activity in the construction sector. The Albanese government also needs to pass the measures from the ensuring integrity bill, which the government rejected in 2019. The opposition leader has just this week introduced two private member's bills which would achieve these aims. All the government need do is program these bills for debate and we can get these bills through the House. The legislation we have before us today, critically including the amendments secured by the coalition, is an important first step towards cleaning up the construction sector. It will be a long journey to change the truly atrocious culture entrenched by the CFMEU. We on this side of the House made it clear that we're not going to give the government a blank cheque so that they can pretend they are cleaning up their CFMEU public policy disaster only to have the crooks, thugs and criminals of the CFMEU run riot again a couple of years down the track. We will not support a weak response. It is vital the administrator has the teeth to clean up the disaster in the CFMEU and to regularly report to the Australian parliament about what it is doing. The amendments we have secured go a long way towards achieving this aim. This legislation, though, is not enough and must be complemented by bringing back the ABCC and removing criminals from the construction sector once and for all. I encourage all members to support this legislation and also to support the other bills the coalition has introduced designed to address these issues. 12:39 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth When the news broke about the extent of allegations against the CFMEU and that all became clear, I called one of my friends who works in construction to get his take. He said to me, 'Look, Allegra, I'll talk to you about what is going on, but under no circumstances can you ever mention my name and that we have spoken, because they could ruin me.' This is the level of intimidation and corruption that is in the construction industry. It matters to those people in the industry, but it matters to all of us. This is why this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 is so important. It matters to all of us because there are individuals in the construction industry who have had terrible personal experiences because of the behaviour of the CFMEU, because of the criminality, because of the thuggery, because of some of the issues that were outlined by the previous speaker talking about the physical intimidation, harm and hurt that have been caused by people within the CFMEU. That personal piece is incredibly important. But it also matters because it has a broader impact on our society. If there are businesses in this country who cannot operate as good, decent businesses can, because of corruption, because of threats or because of thuggery, this is a concern to all of us and is a potential contagion to other sectors of the community. This sort of corruption and behaviour has no place in any Australian industry. Finally, it matters because construction is critical to this country, and it's critical right now, probably more than ever. This is a time when Australia has an acute housing shortage. We know the future of this country and the future of generations behind us having a fair go, owning a home or bringing up their kids with stable housing depends on our ability to build the houses that we need. We know that this government and governments around the country are spending tens of billions of dollars on public infrastructure—public money. The construction industry is critical to this country right now, and with that CFMEU and the impact that it has had on that industry in terms of cost, lost productivity and setting a culture for that industry is profound and has an impact on every single Australian out here who cares about the future for their kids, about housing and about good public infrastructure. It matters to all of us. So why do we have to have this bill? Frankly, it's because the CFMEU has forfeited the right to clean itself up. The insidious behaviour of union officials and the iron grip that they have wielded over the construction industry for decades appals me. I'm also going to be moving in a moment to provide an extra layer of security on any appointments made by the independent administrator. I supported the adoption of an independent administrator because I could see no other way for us to really have a root-and-branch reform of the CFMEU. It has to start here. It's critical that we start here. I also acknowledge and highlight my support for the opposition's amendments that they negotiated in the Senate. They are a really important range of amendments and they're ones that I thoroughly support. I support this bill. It is critical and it is important. I have put forward an amendment, the spirit of which I think the government has mainly picked up but could still, I believe, go further. The question for me is: is this enough? Is this bill enough? This is where I absolutely say no and this is where I will be holding the government and the whole parliament to account to truly deal with the issues that face the construction industry. It is the time now that we got rid of the problems facing the industry once and for all. I want to raise two areas of why I believe this is not enough. Firstly, because we have had, I think, four royal commissions into the building industry since 1982, with a combination of 11,500 pages worth of findings and recommendations in terms of how to improve the construction industry and, particularly, the unions within it. We've had all this work done and still we are here, more than 40 years on from the original royal commission. I was four years old in those days—that's how long this has been going on. We have a systemic issue in the construction industry that no government has managed to solve. We've reformed the unions, we've done all sorts of things—I do not believe, and insiders in the industry do not believe, that we are going to get far enough by just appointing an administrator. The second reason I do not believe this is enough is because of the insidious relationship between the CFMEU and the Labor Party. This is one that does need to be broken. I note that the Labor Party received $4.3 million worth of donations at the last election from the CFMEU. This is one of the biggest donations that the Labor Party got. I note that the history of corruption and intimidation in the CFMEU is extremely well known—has been known for decades. Frankly, as one of my colleagues did earlier today, if you type in 'CFMEU corruption and misconduct' into an internet search bar, the date range of media articles goes back more than a decade. This is what's been going on, but the Labor Party consistently—including in this term of parliament—has turned a blind eye to these issues because of the influence that the CFMEU has had on the Labor Party through its money and through other areas as well. It's frankly appalling that the Labor Party has stood by this union and the behaviour of this union for so many years and accepted the money knowing full well what has been going on. I do not buy the Premier of Victoria's claims that she basically didn't respond to concerns related to the CFMEU over a year. I do not buy the faux outrage that we have seen from the Labor Party on this issue, saying: 'Oh no; what a terrible situation. We had no idea. Wow; we really need to clean this up.' This has been something that has been hiding in plain sight, and the Labor Party has not wanted to deal with it. In fact, what the Labor Party has done in this parliament is abolish the ABCC, which was at least a watchdog to focus on the construction union. Now, I'm not claiming that the ABCC was perfect; there were many issues with it, not least, I understand, that many of the allegations against the CFMEU right now happened while the ABCC was in place, so obviously it wasn't strong enough. But the Labor Party in this government abolished the ABCC, said everything was going to be fine and did not set up any alternative body, and here we are again. I heard the minister on the radio the other day saying: 'The system is working. We didn't need the ABCC, because, when there's a problem, now we're rushing through two pieces of legislation to deal with it. This is the system working.' The only reason we're in this House dealing with this issue is the work of the journalists who have exposed this issue. This is not the Labor Party's doing. This is not the Fair Work Ombudsman who's exposed these issues. This is the work of excellent journalists, and I pay tribute to them. They have uncovered, at significant personal risk to themselves, what has been going on, to a point that the Labor Party could no longer deny it. And so, to be honest, I do not trust the Labor Party to be able to clean up this union or its administrator point of view. We have years of evidence of issues in the industry and we have a government that has sat by and, frankly, made it easier for the CFMEU to do what it wanted to do without proper accountability, and that is a stain on the government. For me, this is the time that we need to go further. This is about short-term changes that we need to have in place and about long-term changes. On the short-term changes, I wrote with my crossbench colleagues to the Prime Minister a few weeks ago and said: these are a number of the changes that we want in the short-term. One is the appointment of a robust administrator, and I am glad to be speaking to this in the House. Two is for the Labor Party to suspend all donations from the CFMEU indefinitely. Now we have a time scale on this, and that is a positive thing. Three and four are that we need the resourcing to support police at different levels of government to conduct thorough investigations involving the misuse of public money, abuses of power in the union and fraud by actors in the sector. We need to make sure that the police are there as part of these investigations. Finally, there should be a commitment by the federal government to withhold infrastructure funding from projects—the stuff that we are funding—until states can show evidence that they are dealing with potentially criminal activity on their building sites. Those are what we need to do in the short term. I'd like to finally come to the long term. The truths is that, as I said, we've been concerned about issues within the construction industry for 40 years. We probably were before then, but that's just the royal commissions. I think the opportunity now is: can we in this House come up with a way to fix this for the long term so that workers are protected? I want to acknowledge that construction is hard work and it is dangerous work and workers do need protection. I think that is important. Workers need protection. But they also need representation by people who are not trying to intimidate and are not, I think, thugs. They need proper representation. We also need a sector that has high productivity. Because, frankly, we all rely on construction in this country, we need to get it right. We do need to come together. There are cowboy builders out there. There are people who don't pay their bills. There's dodgy stuff that goes on in the construction industry, and I don't want to see any of it. There is an opportunity—and I think it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to try and clean up this industry for all. This is where I part ways somewhat with the opposition. The opposition wants to reinstate the ABCC. I support that. I voted against its abolition. But the truth is that, if we play politics again, we will not get a solution. I acknowledge that while the ABCC is better than what we have at the moment, which is nothing, it also didn't fix things. The current opposition was in power for almost 10 years, and we still had these problems in the industry. It's the political football on this issue between the major parties that has created, over a long period of time, this situation where we have pendulum politics. Someone comes in; they abolish it. Somebody else comes in; they bring it back. It's all great for the major parties, but it's actually not making a fundamental difference in the construction sector for the long term in a way that protects workers, protects businesses and allows that industry really to flourish. That is what I'm seeking. I'm seeking for once—it could well be too much of an ask—for everyone to put the politics aside on this and to say, 'What would it take to come together—for the good union officials who are there to bring what they think is important, for the good businesses that are there to come forward and make their contribution, and for every group in this House to come together and work out what is the right regulatory framework, what is the right legislative framework, what are the right protections for our workers, what are the right safety conditions and what are the right productivity frameworks to make this industry work over the long term?' I'm seeking this because it matters. It matters to every Australian whether we can build the houses and infrastructure that we need; it matters because a corrupt industry in any part of our country sets a terrible precedent and has terrible tentacles throughout the rest of the country; and it matters because there are individuals out there whose lives have been ruined because of what goes on in the construction industry, and it is up to all of us to fix that. So that is the call that I'm making across all the parties. This is the time to grow up, to take responsibility for what has failed over the last 40 years and to say that politics as usual is not going to deal with it. This is an opportunity for people to come together in this House and show that we mean it when we say that we're here to represent the best interests of the Australian people. 12:52 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I'm not sure how many people in this place have actually read the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I note there are not that many people from the government speaking in support of it. But this bill does contain some unprecedented provisions, and, when civil liberties groups make the point that this threatens some of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the way that processes are usually followed in this country, we should listen to them. It, of course, goes without saying that criminality and corruption are serious matters. That's why we as the Greens were pushing for an independent anticorruption commission before anybody else in this place. We introduced legislation to bring it about. We pushed to strengthen it. There is zero tolerance, I suspect, from anyone in this place for violence, including on workplaces and in organisations, whether it happens in a corporation, in a union or anywhere else. We have also fought very, very strongly, and we'll always fight, against sexism wherever it occurs in society, because it is a society-wide problem. But what usually happens in our society when there are serious allegations of criminality is that the law enforcement authorities investigate; if there's evidence, they bring a matter before a court; the court decides whether or not a crime has been committed; and then it issues a sentence on the basis of that. And also outside the criminal sphere, if there are allegations of other kinds of wrongdoing, there are processes for dealing with that as well. Indeed, in the Fair Work Act there are processes for dealing with putting unions into administration. In this instance a process was in fact underway and was working its way through the courts, including about the very allegations that have been referred to here by the government and by the opposition. Given all of that, the approach we the Greens take is to say, 'Well, if there are strong laws in place already and strong law enforcement agencies in place already, then investigate every claim, and if someone has done something wrong then the appropriate punishment should follow.' We've seen something very different here from the government, though. The government has brought in legislation that, in its own words, is unprecedented and is the toughest action ever taken against a union or a corporation. They were I think the words of the minister. So, they brought in unprecedented legislation to override all the existing processes that are set up and that are part of what we would call the rule of law here in this country. You would think that bringing this legislation in such a rushed way, doing something that has never been done before, would be worthy of very serious scrutiny, to justify why it needs to be done and why it needs to be done in this way, and then to make sure that, if you're going to do it, there are no unintended consequences. But, coming back to my point suggesting that no-one has actually read the legislation: under this legislation, if there's a change of government then Michaelia Cash will be able to appoint Tony Abbott as the administrator of the construction union. That is what is being pushed through here with this unprecedented, rushed and flawed legislation. They're basically handing over the keys to an incoming coalition government should there be a change of government at the next election. There are also provisions in this legislation, as has been pointed out, that make offences retrospective. Now, sometimes, in very rare instances, legislation is released that says, 'This operates from date X; here are the provisions'—even if it might not have been legislated—'and if you breach them from now on, that is what is going to apply.' This legislation says it is a civil offence to breach rules of a scheme that have not even been made public yet. In other words, under this legislation, going back several months, you can be prosecuted for or found guilty of breaching rules that haven't even been enforced yet, that aren't even public yet. Again I make the point about whether anyone has actually read this legislation. In the Federal Court they said, 'Well, here are a number of branches of the CFMEU against which a number of serious allegations have been made, and we're seeking administration against those.' This bill applies to the whole union, even those branches where no suggestion has been raised that they've done anything wrong. All those officials, all those employees, are now caught by this, even though there's not even a newspaper article that suggests something wrong has been done. This legislation also provides for the administrator to put individuals on a blacklist that means not only that they can't work in the industry again but also that they can't work in many other areas again. Crucially, though, there's nothing in the legislation that requires the administrator to do any kind of investigation or satisfy themselves in any way before they do that. In other words, there's no test. So a basic principle of procedural fairness—which is that you at least ought to have some grounds against you and be entitled to know what they are—doesn't apply here. This is why it's so important that legislation like this is not rushed. If you give people power to do something like that, what if they make a mistake and someone who's entirely innocent gets kicked out of their position and put on a blacklist and has no guaranteed way of getting back in? There are no safeguards in this legislation for people who've done nothing wrong, they're caught up in it. Why is this happening? This is happening because the government has decided to introduce rushed legislation that is draconian and that offends against the rule of law and takes away people's basic rights, and they've decided to go and work with the anti-union, anti-worker Liberals to get it passed. We pointed out these matters to the government. We said that they needed to be fixed and we said that there needed to be a different approach taken because otherwise you are fundamentally threatening the rule of law. Instead, the government has decided to work with the Liberals to—in their words—'make the bill tougher'. In this situation, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said this, and it's important to listen to what they said because they made some very, very serious points. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties has serious concerns with the Federal Government's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 and the Government's accompanying amendments. While any allegation of criminality is serious and must be addressed, the powers set out in this bill are far-reaching and establish a dangerous precedent for the trade union movement, membership-based organisations, and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness. The rushed nature of this legislation which is designed to override a process begun by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court threatens the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. We note that the proposed legislation would set a precedent where membership-based organisations can have democratic control externally removed on the basis of untested allegations. This is of concern to all Unions, registered Clubs, and Australian membership-based organisations. The Bill violates Australia's obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948. The NSWCCL has long held that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. If this legislation is passed next week, it threatens this fundamental right. The right to freedom of association and the nature of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected. They are absolutely right in saying that. We now have a situation with the passage of this bill where Labor is potentially handing over the keys to one of the country's biggest unions to Michaelia Cash if there's a change of government at the next election, without having put in place any basic protections for the entirely innocent individuals who will get caught up in this legislation. All the while, they're removing the basic principle that if you've got an allegation against you, it should be tested. That's something that, up until this legislation, if you asked most people in this country, 'Do you think that if there's an allegation against you it should be tested? most people would say yes. Labor and the Liberals say no and that they're prepared to take away your rights and potentially put Michaelia Cash in charge of a union. That is being done in order to rush legislation through this parliament. I'll repeat the point that we made these points to the government repeatedly and suggested ways of dealing with it. But that's clearly not what the government wanted to do. As a result, there will be a lot of people around this country who will be concerned. After the passage of this legislation, they will be wondering who's next. As the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said: if this is the test that now gets applied, what will it mean for my rights and for my organisation's rights? That will be on the Labor Party's and the Liberal Party's heads. They clearly want this legislation to pass, even with all its flaws, and that is something that should be very concerning to people in this country and to anyone who believes in the basic principles of freedom of association, of the rule of law and of respect for individuals' rights. We're witnessing today, in the boastful words of the minister, the passage of some of the most serious and powerful legislation ever brought against a union. They seem to be cheering it through. I would urge people who think this is so good to consider why no-one from the government is here speaking in favour of it. Labor and Liberals, when you read the legislation and you realise what you're actually doing, you ought to understand why so many people across this country will now look at this and be worried, thinking: am I next? 13:06 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The reality is that Labor and the Liberals are going to team up to pass some of the most draconian antiworker laws this country has seen. No matter what you think of the CFMEU, this should worry you, because Labor has set a precedent where parliament can seize control of a civil society group that the government doesn't like and suspend its basic rights. As the member for Melbourne said, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has summed it up perfectly. It's worth quoting here because I don't think every member of this place is taking their responsibility as lawmakers nearly seriously enough, given the enormous overriding of natural justice and of the basic separation of powers that this country is meant to run on. They are almost flagrantly disregarding our responsibility to uphold the rule of law and natural justice. If those two principles are to be worth anything, then they should be applied universally. Obviously we have seen some serious allegations made in the media, and those allegations should be tested in a court under the usual processes. Indeed, precisely because of the seriousness of those allegations, we should go through the courts and legal system, which this parliament should trust, to get to the truth. But instead, as the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said: While any allegation of criminality is serious and must be addressed, the powers set out in this bill are far-reaching and establish a dangerous precedent for the trade union movement, membership-based organisations, and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness. The rushed nature of this legislation which is designed to override a process begun by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court threatens the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. We note that the proposed legislation would set a precedent where membership-based organisations can have democratic control externally removed on the basis of untested allegations. This is of concern to all Unions, registered Clubs, and Australian membership-based organisations. The Bill violates Australia's obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948. The NSWCCL has long held that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. If this legislation is passed next week, it threatens this fundamental right. The right to freedom of association and the nature of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected. As the member for Melbourne said, they are entirely correct, but the problem is that none of this been tested or aired in parliament or inquiries. There has been no coming to terms with the fact that this is an historically unprecedented piece of legislation that sets an extraordinary precedent. Is the government suggesting that it no longer trusts the courts, the Fair Work Commission or the Federal Court to get to the bottom of this? Is that the suggestion here? That would surely necessitate a full-scale review of our legal system, not overriding basic natural justice and the rule of law. Let's step out some of the things that this legislation allows the government to do: entirely seize control of the CFMEU through an administrator for a minimum of three years; permanently ban officials/workers from ever working for a union again without any proof of wrongdoing; fire any elected officials or staff they wish to without any proof of wrongdoing and effectively deny those staff or officials natural justice or even standard employee rights; take control of all union assets; decide when and if elections are called; and completely override the union's own constitution. Now, again, even if you do not like the CFMEU—and clearly neither Labor nor the Liberals do—a lot of the people in this place seem to just simply want to crush this union without any recourse to natural justice or procedural fairness. Remove the CFMEU, for instance, and insert another membership based organisation and imagine if the government was doing that to them. That is the precedent that this sets. The precedent this sets for a future government when they decide they do not like a membership based organisation or a civil society group that happens to offend the government in some way is that the government then, rather than taking that organisation through the courts for any legitimate allegations of wrongdoing reason, can pass a piece of legislation that effectively annihilates that organisation. There is a reason that we have a separation of powers, and we are meant to respect natural justice and the rule of law in this country. Corruption, sexism and intimidation should be strongly opposed. Precisely because they are serious and should be opposed, they should be prosecuted through the court and a system that we have established to determine the truth of allegations and test them properly. Effectively what parliament has done is override that separation of powers and declare that it is going to pass judgement on those allegations without any formal legal process. No wonder there are no members from the government who are willing to speak on this bill apart from the minister. At the end of the day, I think a lot of organisations and civil society groups will be wondering: What happens when we offend a future government? What happens when a future government decide that they want to crush a membership based organisation? What happens when that organisation in some way falls foul of the government or the media? Well, now we're seeing what the government can do. The deeply irresponsible nature by which this law is being rushed through parliament without any consideration of those basic elements of what is meant to constitute how this country is governed is genuinely remarkable. It displays a genuine irresponsibility. We hear all the time accusations in this parliament about the Greens being irresponsible and 'How dare the Greens do this?' or 'How dare the Greens do that?' But you would think that every member of this place would respect the separation of powers, natural justice and the rule of law. This bill makes a mockery of all those things. Again, principles are only worth the paper they are written on if they are applied universally. That is how liberal democracy is meant to work. But clearly, in this case, the government has decided to throw that completely out. I will finish with this. We have seen serious allegations made against all sorts of institutions in this country. We saw the devastating impact of the banking royal commission and the impact that the banks have on people's lives. We have previously seen serious allegations made against institutions around systematic sexual abuse. We have seen serious allegations made time and again against institutions in this country and never have we seen a piece of legislation like this. Why is it that this reaches the threshold to override natural justice and the rule of law but all of those previous ones didn't? We have never seen the government come and propose to place a bank into administration, but all of a sudden, when it comes to a trade union, Labor and the Liberals are happy to team up and completely override all the basic principles that are meant to define how this country is run. 13:14 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to speak on this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 bill, which aims to address the widespread corruption and criminality of the CFMEU. I do so confronted by the deep irony that the Australian Labor Party, which has been joined at the hip with the CFMEU, is trying to pass itself off as the saviour of Australian tradies on building sites. So let's just, first, call that out. We have Senator Murray Watt and his mate the ambitious member for Watson in this place trying to play the 'We are cleaning up the CFMEU' card. Some of the contributions we've seen in this place and in the media are frankly farcical. With faux concern and confected anger, Labor members have piled in here and beaten their chests, talking tough about the CFMEU. To those members I say: whatever helps you sleep at night. If you need to talk tough about the CFMEU to make you feel okay, sure, go right ahead. But, for those of us on this side of the House that have been calling out the CFMEU for years and years, we know it is all a facade and we know, if it hadn't been caught on tape and exposed by Nick McKenzie, we wouldn't be where we are today. In fact, as these tough Labor members come in here and tee off at the CFMEU, to me, it's like watching a Siamese twin punch its other head, because the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU are joined right at the hip and always have been. It's a symbiotic relationship. That might be a long word that our Prime Minister might not understand, but what it means is that the ALP and the CFMEU rely on each other to survive. Millions and millions of dollars in donations are proof of that. Anyone who has stood at a polling booth in a marginal seat knows that the CFMEU makes their presence known at elections too. So, yes, the ALP is the slightly better-looking side of the coin, but on the other side of that coin is the corrupt and criminal CFMEU. While Labor are focused on hitting themselves and focused on their confected collective Deidre Chambers act, I want to call out the human carnage that the CFMEU have wrought on Australians across the country. As a bit of a teaser to keep viewers on the hook, I will point out one Labor member who sits in this very chamber who not only turned a blind eye to accusations of domestic violence against John Setka but actively supported him to try to rehabilitate his image. We have text messages which show that Labor members and their allies in the Labor ranks have been aiding and abetting the CFMEU for years. We know without doubt that the CFMEU is driving up the cost of construction and have perpetrated violence and corruption across this country. Others will rightly talk about the CFMEU's role in driving up housing costs and the impact that has on the Australian dream and on families across this nation, but I want to focus on the role the CFMEU has played in perpetuating gender based violence on our building sites and making the work place unsafe for apprentices and trainees. This is the dark irony. The Labor speakers who will talk on this bill will tell you the construction union just needs to be let back on site so they can do their job and protect people. The lived experience is the complete opposite. The CFMEU has taken a real toll on women—women who are interested in entering the construction workforce and women, more broadly, across Australia. The CFMEU has all too often damaged dreams of a career in construction and killed aspirations with their violence and thuggery. We mustn't forget John Setka, who went after Rosie Batty, whose 11-year-old son was murdered by his father in 2014. Rosie Batty was made Australian of the Year in 2015, recognising her steadfast advocacy in this space, which began when she spoke publicly, addressing the media the morning after Luke's murder, about her experience of domestic violence. Rosie Batty is a national hero, and John Setka and his CFMEU mates thought going after her was the right approach. John Setka did not like that Rosie Batty was calling out bad behaviour, because bad behaviour was John Setka's MO. What does that tell you about the way the CFMEU thinks about domestic violence? They have failed apprentices too. We mustn't forget Tammie Palmer, who said that her 18-year-old son, Ben, was bullied by the CFMEU on his worksite and that those actions led to his death. What was his crime? It was wearing the wrong shirt. His shirt had on it a logo of a small Indigenous construction company that had an AWU agreement, not a CFMEU agreement. So the CFMEU locked him in a shed for four hours. He later died at home following an overdose that Tammie, his mum, has attributed to the stress and torment he faced. I thought the CFMEU was there to protect young people like Ben. How do you explain that, Labor members? We mustn't forget that John Setka pleaded guilty to harassing his ex-wife with barrages of text messages and calls, with threatening expletives I do not wish to hear ever directed at a woman. How did the Labor Party respond to such vitriol—the Labor Party that purports to support women, that claims they will drive a better deal for women and that wants to see more women supported into work and supported to remain in work? Behind the scenes, the Labor Party supported the CFMEU, and they supported John Setka. We have text messages that were published in the Australian Financial Review that prove that, instead of admonishing the CFMEU and John Setka, Labor women helped him. The former head of Labor women's forum EMILY's List, Tanja Kovac, helped craft Setka's public messaging strategy to avoid pressure for his resignation. The member for Bendigo, a woman who sits in this very chamber, who may even now speak on this legislation, checked in on John Setka after a so-called tough interview, commending him for his efforts. This is proof that even those opposite can't be trusted on this issue. They talk tough on the CFMEU in public, but in private they are there helping the CFMEU behind the scenes. The Labor Party are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. The behaviour of the CFMEU and the actions of John Setka are inappropriate and unacceptable. We see all of this, and then we have Labor come into this place and issue demands. Get real. We did the work to make this bill passable. Labor wanted a blank cheque to let the CFMEU off the hook. Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash has sorted Senator Watt out on this one. The criminal activity, bullying, thuggery and intimidation within the CFMEU must stop, and we must crack down on this rogue union. We were not going to let this be a light-touch moment, because we know the need to clean up the construction industry. The government rushed this legislation into the parliament without adequate consultation and were dragged kicking and screaming to make sensible changes suggested by the coalition. We secured a key amendment: that the administration period will last for a minimum of three years. That will ensure that the CFMEU faces scrutiny today and tomorrow, over coming months and after the election. When we win government at that election, we will be going through all the work that is being done very closely—very closely indeed. We secured enhanced transparency by requiring the administrator to report to parliament every six months. Labor wanted to keep the important work being done out of the public spotlight because they have been on the take from the CFMEU for years and years. We have forced them to have basic accountability to this parliament. This bill gives the ability to ban rogue CFMEU officials for life and changes the retrospective civil penalties avoidance clause to before John Setka resigned from the union. Frankly, we know exactly who needs to be banned. The coalition is committed to restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission and enhancing the integrity measures and combatting criminality on our nation's building sites. Labor has been forced to the table on this matter, and they hate it. Labor has comprehensively failed to confront the CFMEU, and they have comprehensively failed our construction industry. We have forced them to deal with the thugs, but there are other failures too. Our construction industry is being hammered by Labor's bad decisions on the economy and on skills and training. Unfortunately, since Labor took office, Australia has seen 85,000 fewer apprentices and trainees, a loss of one in five. The number of female apprentices and trainees in training has fallen by 25 per cent, and female commencements have fallen by 40 per cent. Analysis of the National Centre for Vocational Education Research conducted by Build Skills Australia found that new starts or commencements for construction apprentices have dropped from record highs in 2022 under the coalition to new lows in 2023 under Labor, a 22 per cent drop or a loss of one in five construction trades apprentices. This means that there are fewer Australians starting a construction trade under Labor. The analysis has also found that the number of construction apprentices finishing their qualification has dropped 15 per cent. That's 3,700 less construction apprentices finishing their apprenticeships. This means that there are fewer Australians becoming qualified construction tradies under Labor. Businesses that were able to keep apprentices on through a once-in-a-century pandemic are shedding them under the economic crisis created under this Labor government. Under Anthony Albanese, Australia is building fewer homes, skills shortages have worsened, and we have lost one in five apprentices and trainees across the country. This is all adding to increasing inflation and prices. The bottom line here is that we need more apprentices and trainees, not less. Labor promised that they would skill more Australians, but their programs are not delivering. The Australian Labor Party are failing Aussie skills. Today is an important day in our national story. It is the day that the Australian Labor Party has been forced to deal with a monster of its own making. We're here today because weak Labor leader after weak Labor leader failed to stand up to the thugs and instead let them trade in corruption and coercion. We're here today because, when CFMEU thugs were called out for their bad behaviour, Labor MPs and their allies helped union officials duck scrutiny. We're here today because the Australian Labor Party made a Faustian pact with some of the darkest elements in our nation, all in the name of funds for political campaigns and seats in this chamber. Well, I know what happened to Dr Faustus, and it's not a Disney ending. To those opposite: you might have won the last election because of the CFMEU, but you aren't running the show now. Only the coalition has what it takes to stand up to the CFMEU. Your name might be on this bill, but we did the work. I command the bill to the House. 13:26 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise today to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 with—I don't know how I feel. I feel moments of irony. I also feel some degree of satisfaction, because I've come in here over the eight years that I've been the federal member and spoken about this issue on 65 occasions. On 65 occasions in eight years I have spoken about the illegality, the criminality, the bullying and the harassment by some CFMEU officials and about how they conduct themselves in the construction industry throughout this country. And on every occasion that I have spoken about this I've been met with derision and scorn by members of the Labor Party. So, when Channel 9 produced its documentary identifying the illegality of the CFMEU, it was a bit of a 'Well, I told you so' kind of moment. But I'm just the federal member for Fisher; I'm just one person. Why would the Labor Party believe me? Those opposite might say I've got a political axe to grind. But what amazes me, what causes me utter disbelief, is how they could discount, disregard, ignore the comments that have come out of our courts about the CFMEU for years and years and years. Mr Coleman 241067 They didn't know about it; never heard about it. Mr WALLACE 265967 I'll get to that in a moment. But it was absolutely fascinating, when the news of this story broke, to watch the Prime Minister and to watch the member for Watson and Senator Watt saying, 'We had no idea this was going on.' The member for Watson, last time I checked, in a former role was the industrial relations minister. One would think that as the industrial relations minister he would have had a keen eye on decisions that were coming out of the Federal Court. Admittedly, those decisions long pre-date his being the minister for industrial relations, but he was in that role or a similar role as the shadow minister for many years prior to the Labor Party taking government. The member for Watson said, 'Look, we had no idea this was going on, and yet the Federal Court spoke regularly in their judgements. 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 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Harverson, Ms Elysia 14 13:30 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to pay tribute to Elysia Harverson, a much-loved member of my staff who last week, sadly, lost her battle with cancer. I first met Elysia in 2017, when she ran for the state seat of Collie-Preston. She didn't win against a long-term sitting member, but I was impressed by her commitment, courage and cheeky sense of humour, so I asked Elysia to join my team. After four years managing my Collie, Narrogin and Manjimup offices and advising me on media matters, Elysia went on maternity leave. While on leave she was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer. This would have knocked many of us for six, but she continued to serve as a Collie shire councillor. She continued as a director of the Collie River ValleyBulletin, a newspaper which she co-founded during the pandemic to champion Collie local voices. With all her achievements, it's hard to believe that Elysia was only 36 years of age. However, her finest achievement was her devotion to her husband, Josh, and their beautiful two-year-old daughter, Nava. After Elysia's diagnosis, she and Josh decided to travel the world with Nava. Like many of Elysia's friends, I greatly enjoyed following her travels on Facebook, because they showed Elysia's unwavering faith, courage and strength. My condolences go to Josh, Nava and all of Elysia's family and friends. Elysia's funeral will be held in Bunbury on Friday 6 September with a wake later at the Collie Golf Club. Vale, Elysia Harverson, one of the most energetic, brave and positive people I have ever known. Rural Women's Award 15 13:31 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Tonight is the annual Rural Women's Award, sponsored by AgriFutures, and I am proud to stand here today to say that the Victorian winner, who will represent our state, is Grace Larson, from my electorate. It is exciting to have another winner from my electorate as the Victorian representative in these great awards. Grace is a paediatric critical care nurse who, with her sister, founded The Sisterhood Project. The Sisterhood Project aims to address unfair health disadvantage faced by rural children. She is an outstanding advocate for children and rural health and a superstar from our region. Grace has said that she will use the grant money that she received with the Victorian AgriFutures Rural Women's Award to continue to support children and families through education and in regional Australia. AgriFutures Rural Women's Award is in its 22nd year. It is the night where we come together in this place to celebrate the contribution that women make to our regional areas. In the Bendigo electorate, we have had our fair share of winners over the years, all achieving great things. I wish Grace the very best of luck tonight. Hopefully, she will get to bring the top prize back home to our region and our state. Book Week 15 13:33 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies By virtue of being in this place, I am not the best parent, but, when I can impart a lesson, it is this: always show up, never give up and, wherever you can, be a reader. In this Book Week, I would like to say to my children and all children in Australia that I never met Dr Seuss but I know because of books that Dr Seuss said: The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you'll go. I never met Walt Disney, but I know from books that Walt Disney said: There is more treasure in books than in all the pirates' loot on Treasure Island … You will be surprised to know that I never met Napoleon Bonaparte, but Napoleon Bonaparte said: Show me a family of readers, and I will show you the people who move the world. Maybe Napoleon should have read less! I never met Margaret Fuller, but I know from books that she said: Today a reader, tomorrow a leader. In this Book Week, it is more than just dress-ups. It is about this country acknowledging the power of books and the power of reading in this digital age more than ever, because through books the whole world is there for you to travel, through books you will learn from people long dead and through books you will learn the true beauty and opportunity that comes with being a human. Cunningham Electorate: Battle of the Businesses Boxing Tournament 15 13:34 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham Some days in this chamber, unfortunately it can feel a little bit like we're in a boxing ring going toe to toe with those opposite on the very important issues facing Australians. Karlie and Adrian from Tiny Tins; Darren and his daughter, Orlane, from Wollongong Crane Trucks; and James and Aimee from Grechys Boxing and Fitness have taken this metaphor to heart by teaming up for a remarkable cause. They've provided local businesses with the chance to step into the ring and literally go toe to toe, all in the name of charity. The Battle of the Businesses boxing tournament is an extraordinary event aimed at raising funds for the i98FM Illawarra Convoy. This convoy is the largest truck and motorbike convoy in the Southern Hemisphere and one of the largest regional one-day fundraisers in the country. The funds raised provide direct support to individuals and families affected by potentially life-threatening medical conditions, as well as the charities and the local hospitals that care for them. I was fortunate enough to attend the boxing tournament this year to watch one of my friends, Daniel Hastings from MMJ, go up against Trent Knight from LINX Port Services. Last year, the boxing tournament raised just under $105,000—a testament to the incredible community spirit of those involved. Although Tiny Tins, Wollongong Crane Trucks and Grechys Boxing and Fitness narrowly missed out on first place for the lead truck position, this year they're going harder. I wish Marty, Christian and Bella from i98FM all the very best for this year's convoy. Schools 15 13:36 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah The state of many public schools in New South Wales is a concern, and there is concern that it has been politicised by the current government. The federal Minister for Education Jason Clare, here in this place, has acknowledged that Australia's funding and education gaps needs to be fixed, and frequently raises the importance of public education, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Under the current New South Wales government, the public schools in the state are underfunded by $1.9 billion. Many public school facilities are past their prime, including in Warringah. Balgowlah Boys Campus—or Bally Boys, as we know it—is an amazing schools. One of five campuses of the Northern Beaches Secondary College, Bally Boys is the highest ranked non-selective public school in New South Wales. I want to congratulate these young men for their work. The boys' impressive performance is despite the quality of infrastructure they learn in, which remains a significant community concern. There are demountable classrooms on playgrounds catering to growth in student demand, asbestos in buildings, limited toilets, sporting halls and music rooms that are from an entirely other era, and limited access to outdoor space. The request to the New South Wales Premier and education minister to address this have been ignored. Further, we now have a review by the New South Wales Department of Education, which is consulting on whether a significant change should be made to the number of campuses at Northern Beaches Secondary College, including changing from year 11 and 12 at Freshwater Campus to it going from year 7; and Bally Boys and Mackellar Girls going to co-ed. These are high-performing school that really address the needs of our community and our young people and their education, so I encourage everyone in the community to have their say on this consultation paper and I urge the New South Wales government to be mindful of our schools. Australia-Japan Society of Western Australia 16 13:38 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I recently had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the federal government at the Australia-Japan Society of Western Australia to commemorate and congratulate them on their 50th anniversary. It was an absolutely amazing evening, with more than 150 people there to witness and celebrate the history and the achievements of the society including the Consul-General of Japan, Yasushi Naito, and industry and cultural business leaders. I commend President Ben Wholagan not just for the fantastic new opening of their Tuart Hill centre, the Japan Education and Cultural Centre of Western Australia—which is only the second Japanese cultural centre nationally and houses a large collection of Japanese related language and cultural materials—but also because he and the team have secured a three-year community investing funding agreement with INPEX. That is a testament to the support and the bilateral relationship that exists. The work of the society is indispensable in strengthening the already strong economic, academic, cultural and government connections between our two nations. For me it is personal, as I recalled on the night and recall now, because of my own journey from the little country town of York to Japan, and to Seki-shi and Gifu-ken, where I lived for 12 months. There began a long and wonderful journey of understanding of Japan's some 2½ thousand years of tradition. Being able to continue that connection in Perth is an absolute asset to our state. Vietnam Veterans Day 16 13:39 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo On Sunday I attended the Mount Barker RSL Vietnam Veterans Day memorial service to acknowledge the service of Australian personnel in the Vietnam War. Mount Barker's contribution to the Vietnam War was 47 young men. Seventeen of our boys were drafted under the National Service Scheme. Branch secretary Rebecca Douglass shared the story of a young Mount Barker man, Private Thomas Johannes De Vries Van Leeuwen, or Tommy as he was known to his mates. Tommy attended Mount Barker High School and played for the Barkeroos football team. After leaving school, he worked at the local Jacobs smallgoods factory until he was called upon for national service. He, unfortunately, lost his life in a battle defending the major US logistics base of Long Binh. No dreaded knock came to the door for Tommy's parents, who, sadly, learnt of their son's death in the obituary column in the Adelaide Advertiser. His Excellency the Hon. Hieu Van Le AC, former Governor of South Australia, concluded the formalities at the RSL by unveiling the branch's new honour board, which commemorates and remembers those who served for our country in the Vietnam and Korean conflicts. Lest we forget. Early Childhood Education 16 13:41 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean It's often said that it takes a village to raise a child, yet there are few roles more vital in that community than those of early childhood education and care workers. I've had the opportunity to speak with many of these workers across my electorate, such as those at the Wonderschools in Woden and Conder and Jenny Wren Early Learning in Mawson, and consistently I've heard that they love their work but that, without support for a meaningful wage increase, many early educators could not remain in the sector. That's why it was great to meet with early education workers here in Parliament House last Tuesday to discuss this government's funding of a 15 per cent wage increase. By supporting these workers, the government is also supporting families and the broader community, as a thriving and accessible early childhood education sector provides more opportunity not only for the next generation but for working parents as well. This commitment will help retain our existing educators and attract new employees for generations to come. This is a win—a win for workers, a win for families, a win for communities and, most importantly, a win for our most precious resource, our children. Bangladesh 17 13:42 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise today to speak about the recent Bangladesh civil unrest. I extend my heartfelt support and solidarity to all the wonderful Australian Bangladesh community, who are facing a challenging and very distressing time in light of the recent civil unrest and protests in Bangladesh. I'm deeply saddened to hear about reports of deaths and injuries of civilians, including many students. Many have been killed during the protests. Freedom of expression and peaceful protest are a fundamental right of any democracy. The voices of the Bangladeshi people deserve to be heard and should be met with respect and consideration. It is also very concerning and distressing to hear about the recent attacks on the Hindu community and Hindu temples and on Ahmadiyya and other minority communities in Bangladesh. The crisis is becoming a widespread humanitarian crisis. I condemn any violence and urge all parties involved to seek a peaceful resolution. I call upon the interim government to take all necessary action to protect and safeguard all ethnic and religious communities in Bangladesh, and the Australian government should provide all necessary support to those affected in the crisis. I have a very strong association with our wonderful Australian Bangladesh community and have been in touch with many since the protests first broke out. I give my heartfelt condolences again for all those who have lost their lives and all the loved ones and families involved. Down, Mr Daniel 17 13:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Everyone loves an antihero, whether that's Deadpool, Wolverine or Taylor Swift—at tea time, everybody agrees! So I'm pleased to introduce a community antihero in Spence, a local legend who can't help but give so much to the people around him: Mr Daniel Down of Gawler. Daniel just loves photography. He has a genuine passion for capturing and sharing incredible pictures of local scenery in the north. Once the people of Gawler saw the amazing talent Daniel has, they couldn't wait to ask him to bring his hobby across the entire community. So, without even meaning to, Daniel has since become an icon of one of the oldest towns in South Australia. He continues to share incredible works of art for our community to enjoy, launching the From the Roots Up exhibition just over a week ago. Hosted underground under a century of Gawler history, this exhibition showed off the outstanding creativity of local artists in the north. It's a fantastic experience, and I can't recommend it enough to anyone passing through Gawler on Murray Street. To Daniel: whether you meant it or not, thank you for your amazing contributions to our community. You are our antihero and so much more. In closing, to the people of Spence: on my Facebook page there is an electorate map. If you're inside that, my photography competition closes at 11.59 pm on 23 September. Please get your photos in. Groom Electorate: Bunker's Hill State School 17 13:45 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Happy birthday to Bunker's Hill State School, 125 years old—an absolutely fantastic achievement. This is a school just outside of Toowoomba, past Westbrook, in a part of the world where agriculture has been king for such a long time, and schools like this play such an important part. You find all these little townships where there's just a school and a post office left. Bunkers Hill is one of these places, and it's absolutely fantastic to see 270-odd children from prep to year 6 still attending, still carrying on the traditions. In these schools, it's not just an education. You learn about our way of life—the wonderful way of life on those agricultural areas. Congratulations to Principal Sharon Wilson for keeping the school running so, so well. I want to make a point. I think it's great that the Queensland government has kept this model of small country schools alive and going strong, because it's a great way for us to maintain that connection with our local communities. At the celebrations, they opened a time capsule that was laid in 1999 at the celebrations. I'm not sure much has changed since 1899, when the school started. But, when you look at the school now, see the technology that's used in the classrooms and think about the opportunities that are there for young kids going through Bunker's Hill State School, it's fantastic to think of the future that awaits them. Congratulations to the P&C and to everyone who makes the school such a special place, and a big shout-out to all the kids. Bissaker, Ms Karen 17 13:47 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Today I want to speak about someone very special: Karen Bissaker, from my team, who is retiring today after a 40-year career with the Australian Labor Party. Karen has worked for Labor greats Barry Jones, Kim Beazley and the current Prime Minister. For the last five years, I've been lucky enough to have her on my team. She's here today with her husband, Greg, and daughters, Ellen and Sophie, and she never would have been in here if she had known I was going to do this. Karen personifies the dedication and professionalism that it takes to be an amazing staffer. As a newly elected MP, I was so lucky to have someone of her expertise and experience in my team, and she's been integral to building my team, mentoring staff and helping me to develop as an MP. Her advice and guidance have meant the world to me, as has her commitment to Canberra constituents and the hard work she has always been happy to do. I know so many constituents have been thankful for her help solving problems and always taking the time to listen. Everything I've achieved as the member for Canberra, Karen has had a hand in. Our staff are the unsung heroes of politics. Everything we as politicians achieve, we can thank our staff for. Today we farewell one of the absolute best from our Labor team. These are demanding jobs, and it's a rare and special thing to make such a long commitment. So thank you, Karen, for all you've done for the Australian Labor Party and the Australian people. Dawson Electorate: Resource Industry Network Awards 18 13:48 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson ():  I rise today to speak on one of Mackay's nights of nights for the Dawson electorate, and that is our Resource Industry Network Awards night. With over 350 attendees, it was a fantastic night, with industry leaders and a chance to celebrate our businesses doing great things. I would like to make special mention of the following winners. From the Road Accident Action Group Mackay, congratulations to chair Rod Erwin on receiving the Standing Out from the Crowd Award. Congratulations to Twin Hills Engineering & Drilling on taking home the Expansion into New Markets Awards. The Inclusion and Diversity Award was won by KAEFER Integrated Services. The Safety Foremost Award was taken out by the Empower Safety Training program, delivered by BMA Hay Point Coal Terminal. Ausgroup Industrial Services epitomise what championing culture is all about, and they took home the Champion Culture Award. The Manufacturing Excellence Award went to KCL Industries. Last but not least, congratulations to the Muscle Garden Health & Fitness Centre on receiving the Connecting in the Community award. Too often, our businesses don't get the accolades and attention they deserve. Thank you to all the sponsors. I personally congratulate all the nominees and winners. I am proud to be a federal member of an area with so many outstanding businesses. Congratulations RIN. Early Childhood Education 18 13:50 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham Recently, we celebrated Early Learning Matters Week across the country. High-quality early childhood education gives children the best start in life. In an electorate like mine, where one in four people are under the age of 14, early childhood centres are vital to our community. During my time in parliament, I have met with hundreds of childcare workers across Hampton Park, Narre Warren South, Lynbrook, Cranbourne, Cranbourne West and Clyde. I have seen firsthand the hard work and dedication these workers put into caring for and raising our children. That's why I am proud to be a part of a government that recognises their efforts by funding a 15 per cent pay rise for all early childhood educators nationwide. This means an extra $103 per week for these essential workers. This wage increase is tied to a commitment from childcare centres to limit fee increases. We want to ensure workers are fairly paid without passing the cost onto families. This builds on our increase to the childcare subsidy last year, and is another way the Albanese Labor government is supporting families in Holt. Bass Electorate: New Horizons Tasmania 18 13:51 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I have spoken previously in this place of the wonderful work of New Horizons Tasmania, and I rise to acknowledge them again today. Since 1986 they have been providing sport, recreational and social opportunities for people of all ages who live with disability, and are a much-loved and -valued organisation in our community. Recently, I had the privilege of attending the graduation ceremony for one of their recent courses, the Champion Program. The eight-week program is designed to empower individuals of all abilities to become leaders and champions in their own lives. It certainly achieved that objective, and listening to the graduating Champions share how the program had empowered them was emotional and inspiring. The participants shared their thoughts on the program in a wonderful video that captured how much impact the experience has had on their outlook. I'm hopeful that funding can be found to continue this extremely valuable and innovative program. While I am talking about New Horizons, I also give a special shout out to the Boccia team who had terrific results at the Queensland state titles last weekend. Congratulations to Minna Blaney, Rohan Eastley and Nick Milner, who each achieved silver medals in the tournament. I also give a special mention to Kane, Chloe and Hannah, who took to the dance floor with style in front of a large audience at the recent Tasmanian Dance Sport Championships. Well done to everyone at New Horizons: we are so proud of you. Robertson Electorate: Pacific Link Housing 19 13:53 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Pacific Link Housing, a leading tier-one community housing provider based in Gosford on the Central Coast, is this year celebrating its 40th anniversary. Pacific Link Housing was founded by Sheila Astolfi in 1996, following the merger of two housing associations—Mid Hunter Housing in Maitland and Gosford Woy Woy Rental Housing. Altogether, both associations represented a history of service since 1984. Pacific Link Housing manage properties owned by the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation, homes leased from private landlords, and dwellings it has developed and constructed. In 2024 the housing provider manages close to 1,200 properties spanning six local government areas, including in the Central Coast, Lake Macquarie and the Hunter regions. The organisation's mission is to provide safe, secure and affordable homes for those in need and to promote thriving and inclusive communities that benefit everyone. The Commonwealth government understands the important role housing providers like Pacific Link Housing play in helping provide affordable housing to our communities, and that is why our government established the Housing Australia Future Fund and is investing billions into building additional, affordable and social housing for vulnerable Australians. I take this opportunity to commend Pacific Link Housing on its 40th anniversary milestone, and to thank its current CEO, Ian Lynch, as well as its board of directors. Pacific Link Housing: thank you for all that you do for our Central Coast family and beyond. Albanese Government: Community Grants 19 13:54 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland When a person says something but does not do it themselves, it is known as hypocrisy. But when a group of people say something and don't do it themselves, it is known as the Australian Labor Party. The hypocrisy of those opposite is most evident with the Stronger Communities Programme, which was a huge success under the previous coalition government, with more than 15,000 projects completed, in every electorate around Australia. We know it was a huge success because those opposite want to share in the glory. I did a little bit of social media stalking on the weekend—I know, I need to get a life. I was checking out some of the Facebook pages of the front bench and it was informative when it came to the Stronger Communities Programme. They loved it. They took credit for it. They had their photos taken with the community. They made certificates with their names on them. They had big cheques posted on their Facebook pages. They loved the program so much that they abolished the whole thing—talk about hypocrisy. Everyone from the Prime Minister to the Treasurer, the Attorney-General, the minister for local government, the education minister, the infrastructure minister and to the Minister for Social Services—every minister I bothered searching for—had something positive to say about the Stronger Communities Programme. And they abolished it! In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, they've abolished a program that was taking pressure off community groups and they're putting that pressure back on Australian families. The collective noun for hypocrisy is the Australian Labor Party. Early Childhood Education 19 13:55 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter For too long, early childhood educators have been treated as little more than babysitters. But early childhood education plays a critical role in the development of our littlest Australians. By the time they reach the age of five, children have experienced around 90 per cent of their brain development—well before they set foot in primary school. Quality early childhood education makes all the difference, with impacts that last a lifetime. This overwhelmingly female workforce gives generations of Australians their best start. Those opposite might not believe in this, but they are not babysitters. They are not childcare workers. They are highly skilled and dedicated educators and they deserve to be paid appropriately. That's why the Albanese Labor government is backing in a 15 per cent pay rise for these essential workers. Clare, a local early childhood educator, rang me last week to tell me how much it means to her. She said: 'It's a remarkable step forward. The wage rise means about $100 more in my weekly pay packet. But it means so much more than that. It's finally being recognised, valued and needed.' The pay rise boosts women's economic security, it boosts women's workforce participation and it boosts our nation's economy. This pay rise is a testament to the generations of educators who demanded to be seen, heard and valued. As Clare said, 'This is for the next generation of early childhood educators too.' Gambling Advertising 19 13:57 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks The Albanese government is tearing itself apart over gambling advertising policy, and this unseemly spectacle is playing out in public because the Sydney Morning Herald tells us on the gambling laws, 'There are divergent views … among cabinet ministers'. The Financial Review says it is 'also aware of cabinet ministers who are uncomfortable with Labor's position' and also tells us, very interestingly, 'When Rowland updated cabinet this week about the government's response to the inquiry'— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I will remind the member for Banks that you've been here long enough to know you should not use personal words but the correct titles of members. Mr Coleman 241067 I'm quoting the Financial Review. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 No, a quote does not give you protection on this matter. You know the standing order well. Mr COLEMAN 241067 I meant the Minister for Communications, Deputy Speaker. There's a problem with that, because you can only say to someone who works at a newspaper what happened at cabinet if you are at the cabinet meeting, and you're not supposed to do that. The government asked people to sign nondisclosure agreements to not talk about gambling advertising policy, but they forgot to ask their own cabinet ministers to sign that document, because they're telling anyone who will listen how dissatisfied they are with the shocking conduct of the Minister for Communications. This is a weak and incompetent government. Wages 20 13:59 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke After a decade of deliberate wage suppression at the hands of the Liberals opposite, the Albanese Labor government is delivering the real wage growth that Australian households need. Last week we saw the fourth consecutive quarter of annual wage growth exceeding four per cent—the first time this has happened in 15 years. In fact, in the nine long dark years of Liberal mismanagement, they were unable to achieve this level of wage growth in a single quarter, let alone four times in a row. The Albanese Labor government's record on wage growth is no accident. It's the result of deliberate, targeted policy decisions designed to ensure our workers receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We repeatedly called on the Fair Work Commission to deliver substantial minimum and award wage increases, with the minimum wage increasing by over $7,000 a year since we came to government. We announced a significant pay rise for our aged-care workers. We brought balance back to the bargaining table, empowering workers to get a fairer deal. And just a couple of weeks ago, we announced that the Albanese Labor government would fund a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators and care workers. While the Liberals want people to work longer for less, the Albanese Labor government wants people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Middle East: Migration 20 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Processing a visa application while somebody is offshore in a third country like Jordan means a person of concern can be stopped before getting to Australia. The last government used this process when bringing people in from Syria. The Prime Minister says the process for granting 2,900 tourist visas to those coming from the terrorist controlled Gaza zone follows the same process. Can the Prime Minister advise which third-party country these people were sent to for screening before they came to Australia? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler No matter where a person comes from or what visa they hold, our security agencies are involved in the process. We trust their expertise. We take the same advice from the same security agencies, even the same security personnel, as the previous government. In this case, we've rejected more than 7,000 visa applications; fewer than 1,300 people are here. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Rafah border crossing is controlled by the Israeli and Egyptian authorities. Let's be clear about what is happening here: Israel closed the Rafah border crossing in May. They're not letting people out. Three months later, the Leader of the Opposition decided to call for a ban on Gazans coming to Australia even though no-one is. International Relations: Australia and Indonesia 20 14:02 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the visit by President-elect Prabowo Subianto? How is the government strengthening our relationship with Indonesia? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Solomon for his question and for his deep interest in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, which is a neighbour to the electorate that the honourable member represents. Today I welcomed Indonesia's President-elect Prabowo Subianto to Australia. Our partnership with Indonesia is profoundly important to Australia. We'll continue to strengthen our ties as economic partners, security partners and partners in the global transition to net zero, and this morning we announced the conclusion of negotiations on the Australia-Indonesia Defence Cooperation Arrangement. Let's be very clear: when the Deputy Prime Minister travels to Indonesia in the coming days to sign the agreement, this will represent the most significant defence cooperation agreement between Australia and our largest and most important partner in South-East Asia. It signals our shared commitment to a peaceful and stable region where sovereignty is respected. This will be a legally binding treaty-level defence cooperation agreement that deepens bilateral defence cooperation in key areas, including maritime security, humanitarian assistance and disaster response, peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and education and training. It will enable stronger defence cooperation by supporting increased dialogue and strengthening the interoperability of both of our defence forces. It creates a legally binding framework to conduct cooperative defence activities and includes training and exercises, the exchange of information and personnel and the sharing of scientific and technological data. This is a great day for Australia and Indonesia and our long friendship. The Deputy Prime Minister hosted the President-elect for lunch. I'll be hosting him for an early dinner this evening. This is an important relationship. We celebrate this year 75 years of diplomatic relations between our two great nations. Indonesia, of course, is on track to be by 2040 one of the largest economies in the world, with a growing middle class and with a real opportunity for Australia to benefit from this relationship. Deepening our links helps both countries to grow our economies, to support jobs and to strengthen our supply chains. Our partnership on defence and security helps to promote stability and peace in the region. We'll continue to engage, of course, at the ASEAN summit later this year, but Indonesia is also a partner at the PIF. This engagement over coming months will be very important, indeed, for both of our countries. 14:06 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to offer our full support to the efforts of the government here and congratulate the Prime Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister as well, on advancing the relationship. I had the great fortune to meet with the now President-elect and then defence minister, Prabowo, in Jakarta a couple of years ago. His appreciation for Australia and his genuine interest in the relationship and the friendship was obvious during the course of that meeting, but it has been obvious during the course of his career. I believe very strongly, as the Prime Minister does, that Indonesia and Australia have a shared past but it is incredibly important for us to ensure that the future is even more emboldened, as well as the fact that we can work together closely not just on defence matters but on national security and otherwise—on people movements, on drugs and on illegal fishing within the region. Indonesia obviously brings a very significant effort to making sure that with near neighbours we can protect and defend our equities as we go forward. I welcome any opportunity to work with the Prime Minister and to support the work of the government in what is a very important bilateral agreement, arrangement and friendship between our two countries. Middle East: Migration 21 14:07 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. Today it was reported that, before approving visas for people coming from the terrorist controlled Gaza war zone, Canada requires applicants to submit to face-to-face interviews and biometric testing in a third country—Egypt. Why didn't the government have a similar arrangement in place before granting more than 2,900 tourist visas? 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. I note, as I said yesterday, that under the former government, of which he was a member but not a minister, there were over a thousand tourist visas granted to people from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Leader of the Opposition's response to that, of course, is that that was before October 7, but the member for Berowra knows full well that Hamas didn't become terrorists on October 7. They have had a terrorist ideology for a long period of time and indeed have been in charge of Gaza since 2006, when they received less than half of the vote from the people of Gaza in that election, and they haven't had one since. They are enemies not only of the people of Israel; they are enemies of the Palestinian people because Hamas do not respect the human rights of Palestinian people. After they seized control there, they engaged in violence against their own people in Gaza in order to secure their position. They've continued to do that. I did see a report today from Plestia Alaqad, who spoke about her own personal journey, and I know that the member for Berowra does respect human rights and people and has a record of it. Plestia Alaqad went on to say this in her article today: Every person who fled Gaza after October underwent rigorous checks by both Israeli and Egyptian authorities. The idea that those who have successfully passed these screenings and arrived in Australia still pose a threat is unfounded and perpetuates harmful stereotypes, alienating those of us that made it to safety here … The member for Berowra knows, as do other members of this chamber, the danger in stereotyping and targeting people because of their race or their faith. People know that people from Gaza, or the West Bank, for that matter, are certainly not automatically Hamas supporters and shouldn't be seen as being so. Economy 22 14:10 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government's responsible budget management helping in the fight against inflation? What options were ruled out? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher! The member for Boothby will resume her seat, and she'll start her question again. I'm not sure how many times I have to tell the chamber this, but I will do it every single time, to call this out. Members know the importance I place on individual members rising in their places and asking a question, from the Leader of the Opposition to the crossbench to members of the government. To yell out when a member is asking their question is completely disrespectful to the member and also disrespectful of question time. So, the member for Fisher will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Fisher then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 And it will apply equally across the chamber. The member for Boothby will begin her question again. Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government's responsible budget management helping in the fight against inflation? What options were ruled out? 14:12 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The member for Boothby cares about the cost of living, even if those opposite don't. There were no surprises in the minutes which came out today from the meeting of the Reserve Bank board earlier this month. We are as a country are making really substantial progress on inflation, but we do need it to moderate further and faster, because people are under pressure, and that's something the government understands as well. Governor Bullock has made it really clear in the last week that the government and the Reserve Bank are aligned when it comes to the fight against inflation. She's also made it clear that we have the same objective here—to get on top of inflation—but we have different responsibilities as we go about it. But the responsibility we have in common is to get on top of inflation together without smashing the labour market or smashing the economy, which is a really soft, at a time of substantial global economic uncertainty. Because we know that people are doing it tough and because cost-of-living relief is our highest priority, we're giving every Australian taxpayer a tax cut, rolling out right now. We're also giving every Australian household energy bill relief, rolling out right now. And we're making sure that medicines are cheaper, that early childhood education is cheaper, that there's rent assistance and also that people are getting the pay rises they need in order to provide for their loved ones at a difficult time. We've deliberately designed that cost-of-living relief to be meaningful and to be substantial and to be delivered in the most responsible way. That's an important part of our strategy, but it's not the only part of our strategy. We're also turning two big Liberal deficits into two big Labor surpluses, and we're working through the structural pressures on the budget. Government spending is not the primary determinant of prices in our economy, but we can help—and we are helping—and surplus is a part of that effort. The points the Reserve Bank governor has made in recent weeks—that we are aligned as a government and a central bank, that we have the same objectives with different responsibilities, that public spending isn't the main game and that our surpluses are helping in the fight against inflation—absolutely obliterate the dishonesty peddled by those opposite and repeated by people who should know better. Those opposite want higher inflation and they want higher interest rates so nobody notices that they have no policies and no credibility in the third year of a three-year term. And they won't tell us where $315 billion in cuts are coming from and what that would mean for Medicare and pensions and the broader economy. We are fighting inflation with cost-of-living help that they don't support, with responsible economic management they know nothing about and can't be bothered asking about and with a couple of surpluses that they couldn't deliver in almost a decade in office. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 22 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Member for Ovens Valley 22 14:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Mr Tim McCurdy MP, who is the member for Ovens Valley in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, the shadow minister for water and the shadow minister for consumer affairs, as a guest of the member for Nicholls. Welcome to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Growing Regions Program 23 14:15 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the minister for infrastructure and regional development. Round 1 of the Growing Regions Program opened for applications in July last year. Successful projects weren't announced until May this year. We're now in August, and successful applicants are still waiting for their funding so they can get shovels in the ground. Why are regional communities waiting this long for much-needed funding under your government? 14:15 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Indi for her question and, of course, her ongoing advocacy for integrity in government. The member for Indi and I both care deeply about regional communities. I know we share in common our mobile office caravans that we take out into towns big and large. Mine is a 1970s Franklin. I'm not sure what the member for Indi's is, but I don't think it's much younger than that. Can I be very clear that, when we came to office, we made it very clear that we were wanting to build in better transparency and integrity into our grants program. Of course, you mentioned round 1 of the Growing Regions Program. Through that, we are delivering 40 community infrastructure projects across regional Australia, including the Seymour Community Wellbeing Hub, the Mission Beach town upgrade, the Kununurra runway extension and, of course, the Swan Hill Reinvigorating Our Riverfront project. It includes two projects in the member for Indi's electorate: $1.4 million for the Mansfield Shire Council Lords Around the Ground package and $2.97 million for the Benalla Art Gallery redevelopment. Projects, of course, were carefully selected in accordance with the grant guidelines and underwent a rigorous process designed to enhance integrity and transparency—clear guidelines that didn't include secret ministerial panels or other factors as a reason to award funding. The process, of course, included a multiparty disciplinary panel of which you were a member. We are now working closely with state and territory governments to establish a partnership arrangement to deliver the Growing Regions Program as we are now required to do. Under this arrangement, the Australian government will fund state and territory governments to work with approved applicants to prepare and execute a funding agreement and make payments based on agreed milestones. It is normal practice for the Australian government programs to require a funding agreement to be in place with agreed payment milestones before payments are made, as this is a prudent financial management system and helps ensure delivery success. For the first time, of course, all communities, whether they be in our regions or our suburbs, will have access to an open and competitive community infrastructure program. We've done away with what those opposite did, having a community development grants program where no-one was able to apply for funding and the coalition simply decided where they were going to actually deliver. I don't make any apologies for cleaning up the mess of what those opposite left. Opposition members interjecting— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR I take that interjection where they say, 'Just let the bureaucrats decide.' We know absolutely what happened on that side of the House when it came to community grants, when it came to sports rorts and when it came to colour coded spreadsheets. We are putting integrity back into the grant system and cleaning up, frankly, a mess that was left by all of you. Future Made in Australia 23 14:19 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. How will the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia create jobs and a resilient critical minerals industry to create secure jobs and a strong economy? Are there any threats to the production tax incentive being delivered? 14:19 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Pearce for her question. The Albanese Labor government's production tax incentive for critical minerals will support the onshore processing, rather than having these commodities shipped overseas for their refining. It will create secure jobs and a resilient economy as we capitalise on the world's soaring demand for critical minerals. It is a significant policy that backs Australia's resources sector. It is one of the biggest resources announcements in a budget in a generation. The resources industry called for the production tax incentive, we worked with them on it and we will deliver it. But there are threats to delivery of the production tax credit, and they are all sitting over there. The coalition recently has been speaking on the Future Made in Australia legislation. Twenty-nine Liberal and National MPs have spoken so far on that legislation, and in a rare outbreak they have all stuck to the script and all opposed the production tax incentive. They want higher taxes. Those opposite have stood up and turned their backs on the resources sector of this country. When they had the opportunity to talk about critical minerals as part of the Future Made in Australia framework, they totally ignored it. Barely any of them spoke about it. They spent more time talking about nuclear power and uranium than they spoke about critical minerals and the tax incentives offered to the resources industry. They oppose a costed, responsible, industry led response to the critical minerals industry's geopolitical challenges. They call it welfare for billionaires; well, they support an absolutely friendless, uncosted, unknown policy to have nuclear power stations right around the country in places the Leader of the Opposition has failed to visit. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Assistant Treasurer will cease interjecting. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 We've talked about the Leader of the Opposition's WA script— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor is now warned. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 and his east coast script, but what about the Leader of the Nationals? I want to know what his WA script is going to be the next time he pops along to visit the new seat— Mr Littleproud 265585 Next week. Mr Taylor 231027 We'll go see Nick West and see how it's going. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Leader of the Nationals and the member for Hume will cease interjecting. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Well, great. I hear from the leader of the Nats that he's going to be in Bullwinkel. Well, what is he going to say to the people in Bullwinkel? We know the leader of the WA Nationals has said, 'It is essential not just for Western Australia and not just for Australia but for the Western world to pursue production tax credits.' Then there is the Nationals candidate for Bullwinkel. Mia Davies has said, 'Downstream incentives are welcome.' This is a Nationals candidate in the seat of Bullwinkel running counter to the Leader of the Nationals. Mr Littleproud 265585 Be ready; we're coming. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Okay. I really look forward to that. I doubt you know, Leader of the Nationals, exactly what the mining industry of Western Australia is all about. I have seen a fair bit more than you have, Leader of the Nationals, I can assure you. You reject the resources sector of Western Australia. You fail to understand it. You don't support what they are calling for in the critical minerals production tax incentive. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor will now leave the chamber under 94(a). If you're warned, particularly when I'm about to hear from the member for Wannon, that is definitely not a time to interject. Trust me. There are consequences for actions. The member for O'Connor then left the chamber. Middle East: Migration 24 14:22 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, of those granted a visa to come to Australia from the terrorist controlled Gaza war zone, how many have had their visas cancelled since the horrific attack on Israel on October 7 last year? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The member for Wannon uses a couple of incidents in his question. One is to quite rightly speak about October 7, and there's no question that certainly anyone of any decency opposes the atrocity that Hamas committed on October 7. But he also speaks about the terrorist controlled Gaza strip. Hamas did not take control of Gaza on October 7. They took control almost two decades ago and in that time have refused to have any elections or any democratic process or to engage with the people of Gaza, and of course they certainly don't represent the people of the West Bank either. The member knows that we take the same advice from the same security agencies. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for Wannon on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 It's relevance. The question was very tight, very specific. It was: how many have had their visas cancelled since the horrific attack on Israel? It was a very, very specific question. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, it's yet another example of them getting up on a point of order on relevance and only quoting a portion of the question that they asked. The relevance rule allows any part of the question. If the Prime Minister is being relevant to any part of the question— Mr Tehan 210911 Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon will resume his seat. The way we'll do this is, when someone is on their point, on either side, there's no point getting up until that person has concluded. If you wish to further debate the point of order, that's okay, but this collision at the dispatch box has got to stop. The Prime Minister has been dealing with sections of the question regarding October 7 and Gaza control. He was talking about the process of the visas. I can appreciate the member would like a number or a figure, but, as I've said many, many times, I can't compel the Prime Minister to give that figure, as much as the member may wish that. He just needs to remain directly relevant, so he can't go off topic. He's got to remain directly relevant to this question, and I'm listening carefully. He was talking about visas being issued, so I want to make sure that it is relative to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition said: I don't think people should be coming in from that war zone at all at the moment. It's not prudent to do so and I think it puts our national security at risk. That's what he said last Wednesday in welcoming Olympians home. The fact is that that came three months after there was a shutting of the Rafah border crossing, which occurred in May. Future Made in Australia 25 14:26 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia benefit regional Australia, and what challenges stand in the way? 14:27 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Paterson for her question. She's another great champion of the regions, who's doing a great job advocating for her community. I know she would have been very excited yesterday to see the girders going up on the M1 Raymond Terrace, a project that we're currently building in her electorate. We understand that people are under pressure and that some people are doing it really tough. The Australian government's No. 1 priority is delivering cost-of-living relief through tax cuts, energy bill relief and of course pay rises. But at the same time as we are helping people earn more and keep more of what they earn, we are setting up for the jobs of the future, particularly the jobs of the future in our regions, through our Future Made in Australia plan. It's an economic plan for a better future for our regions, making Australia wealthier, more secure and more independent. More than anywhere in the world, Australia has the opportunity to create those new jobs, those new industries and those new skills, but we of course need a government that is willing to step up to partner with the private sector to build a stronger economy and a future made right here in this country. That is exactly what we're going to do through the development of a low carbon liquid fuel industry here in Australia, helping hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy haulage to reduce their emissions while creating new jobs and opportunities across the country, particularly in our regions. From growers to refineries, this policy will create new income streams and job opportunities across regional Australia. Right now, as I've said before, much of our feedstock, including 60 per cent of our canola, is exported to Europe for use in biofuels that we then have to buy back. We should not be doing that; we should be actually processing and keeping those jobs here in this country. We know this is a policy that is supported by industry. GrainCorp has said that federal budget funding for low carbon fuels initiatives is: … playing into its strategy to become a major player in the renewable fuels supply chain. We know that Bioenergy Australia has said it: … will create jobs in regional Australia, boost economic growth, bolster economic energy security, and future proof our tourism and transport industries. We know this policy is supported by our farmers as well. I know the member for Gippsland is very supportive of that as well. The National Farmers Federation said: The NFF has long supported the development of the Australian bioenergy and Low Carbon Liquid Fuels (LCLF) industries, with Australian agriculture playing an important role in the supply chain … But we know those opposite are not supporting this policy. You have to say: 'What have you got against regional jobs? Why do you not want to see low-carbon liquid fuels, jobs for our farmers or jobs for people in refineries and processors across the country? What have you got against the regions?' Middle East: Migration 25 14:30 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. How many of the 2,900 visas from Gaza have been cancelled? 14:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. I refer him to my previous answers. We have rejected more than 7,000 visa applications. Fewer than 1,300 people are here. I remind the member that the Rafah border crossing is controlled by the Israeli and Egyptian authorities and that it was closed in May. They're not letting people out. They could have asked a question about the cost of living. They could have asked a question about the visit of the President-elect of Indonesia. They didn't see it as a priority. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance and following your earlier advice, that is as tight as that question could possibly be, yet the Prime Minister still refuses to give a straight answer. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Mr Dutton 00AKI I have a question, and that is whether your ruling is that the Prime Minister is relevant to the question that was asked. The SPEAKER 53517 Talking about the opposition is not being relevant to the question unless it is in a compare and contrast, so, if the Prime Minister has concluded his answer, we'll move to the next question. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There's no need for commentary. Defence 26 14:32 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What are the difficulties the Albanese Labor government has faced in the Defence portfolio, and what difficult decisions are being made as a result? 14:32 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Today, the Albanese government has concluded negotiations for a historic defence cooperation agreement with Indonesia. In February, our government announced a complete restructure of our Navy, which saw the first of a new class of surface combatants enter into our fleet this decade. Last year, we restructured the Army. Next year, we will see the beginnings of the manufacturing of guided weapons in Australia. The Defence Strategic Review has completely reassessed our strategic circumstances and has reshaped our Defence Force, and, most importantly, these decisions have been funded by record increases in Defence spending over the forward estimates and over the decade. All of this has happened in just two years. The contrast between the actions of the Albanese government and the vaudeville and hoopla which we saw from those opposite could not be more stark. The shadow minister for defence has said that he wants to see— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Canning is entitled, just like any other member is entitled, to raise a point of order. Mr Hastie 260805 It was on relevance. There were no alternative approaches mentioned, and Happy Gilmore here has just gone nuts with his— The SPEAKER 53517 No. Resume your seat. That remark is not necessary to make. A reflection on a member is not appropriate. We are not having a question time where people put digs into each other unnecessarily— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're just going to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Speaker, just on the issue of relevance, the question went specifically at the start to the difficulties that are being faced in the Defence portfolio. On those difficulties, the minister is clearly drawing on the legacy we inherited. That makes it completely relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is entitled to talk about the difficulties, but he simply can't have the remainder of his answer regarding criticism. He'll need to make it relevant to government policy, which I'm sure he will do. Mr MARLES HWQ The shadow minister for defence has said he wants to see a dramatic increase in defence capability by 2026, but he cannot even secure agreement within his own ranks to support Labor's increase in defence spending. What makes it worse is that those opposite, when they were in government, chronically underfunded defence, an underfunding of defence which, under them, would not have seen new amphibious craft for our army until the 2030s, a new surface combatant for our navy until 2034 or the manufacture of guided weapons until 2035. What made it even worse was that they were completely incapable of making a difficult decision. They were elected in 2013. Having changed their minds twice, it was not until 2021 that they settled on the successor submarine to the Collins class. Even then, they were saved by the fact that they were thrown out of government seven months later, before they could change their minds again. Underwriting it all was a complete incompetence, incompetence that was led by their last defence minister, the Leader of the Opposition, incompetence which saw seven different defence ministers during the course of nine years, incompetence which saw 28 different defence projects running a combined 97 years over time. That has all changed because, in the last two years, the Albanese government has been making the decisions to do what it takes to rebuild our Defence Force and to keep Australians safe. Middle East: Migration 27 14:36 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. How many of the 2,900 visas from Gaza have been cancelled? 14:37 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. We are being guided every single step of the way by our security agencies. Anyone who has been given a visa has passed the same security standard. What our agencies do—and I suspect the member might know this—is constantly examine issues. That doesn't stop when someone is granted a visa. Our security agencies continue to do their job. This is an ongoing process. That is what they do, regardless of where people are coming from and the circumstances. Their priority is security. Early Childhood Education 27 14:37 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How will Australian families benefit from the Albanese Labor government's investment in the early childhood education and care workforce? Are there other approaches to early childhood education the government has rejected? 14:38 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Spence for his question. I also want to show my appreciation for his ongoing advocacy to help families access early childhood education and care in the electorate of Spence. The Albanese government is focused on delivering cost-of-living relief for Australian families, even though those opposite might not be. We have already made early childhood education and care more affordable for over one million families right across Australia. The ACCC review has told us that that has decreased out-of-pocket costs on average by around 11 per cent for families. And work is underway for us to deliver our vision for a universal early learning system that is affordable, accessible and inclusive. We know we can't do that without a strong and stable early childhood workforce, and that's why, earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced an historic 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood workers. What this pay rise means is that, by the end of this year, 200,000 early childhood workers across Australia will get at least an extra $100 in their pay packet. By the end of next year, that will be at least $150 a week in their pay packet. Dr Ros Baxter, the CEO of Goodstart, said this: With this $3.6B commitment the Prime Minister has demonstrated he is serious about delivering a truly universal early education system for all of Australia's children and families—because the first thing a universal system needs is a strong workforce. We agree with Dr Baxter, and that's why we're taking action to retain workers in the sector and attract workers back into the sector. We know that early educators shape lives and change lives. We're not only supporting early childhood educators; we're supporting families as well. To be eligible to receive this funding for the wage rise, early childhood education services won't be able to increase their fees by more than 4.4 per cent for the next 12 months. That important condition is putting downward pressure on fees for families. Now, this stands in stark contrast to those opposite. They want to make this all about outdated ideas of modern Australia—a version of Australia straight out of the pages of a 1940s women's home journal. Australia has moved on, and so should they. They should get behind this increase in wages for early childhood educators. They should get behind a modern Australia where a feminised workforce is valued and where early childhood educators are valued and recognised for the important work that they do. Gambling Advertising 27 14:41 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Communications. Today on the ABC, one of the pioneers of online sports betting Stewart Kenny said in relation to gambling advertisements: … if you want to protect the children, you go ahead with a total ban. If you want to protect bookmakers profits, you go ahead with a partial ban. Minister, who do you want to protect? 14:41 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question and the imputations in it. Can I make it very clear that it's taken a Labor government to embark on the most thorough review of an area in need of overdue reform, rather than any other government. It is also a Labor government that is standing up to a number of very well resourced vested interests who do not want change. This is a government that is being consultative and evidence based and that is committed to three things: firstly, to ensuring that we break the normalisation between gambling and sport; secondly, that we protect children; and thirdly, that we focus on the saturation of ads and the fact that they are targeted at one of the most vulnerable cohorts in Australia—namely, young men aged 18 to 35. We're doing that in an orderly, consultative manner. We're doing this in a way that is evidence based. The member has never—and I am happy to stand corrected—sought a briefing on this matter directly with me, but my door is always open. Energy 28 14:43 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government getting on with the job of delivering cheaper, cleaner power backed up by batteries, and what other approaches to energy has the government rejected? 14:44 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member not only for the question but also for her contribution in this parliament as an engineer from Kalgoorlie with a passion for climate action. The honourable member asked me about progress in introducing cheaper renewable energy, and we're pleased that it's up by 25 per cent since we came to office. But, of course, our policy is also renewable energy backed by batteries, backed by gas and backed by transmission. I'm also pleased to inform the honourable member and the House that the number of household batteries is up 21 per cent in the last 12 months, that this government is delivering 420 community batteries across Australia and that in the first seven months of this year we've had 2.8 gigawatts worth of big batteries start construction, which is part of a pipeline of nine gigawatts. The honourable member and other Western Australian members will be interested to know that two of those big batteries that will be open next year are in a place called Collie in Western Australia. We have the Synergy battery in Collie, which, at 2,000 megawatt hours, is one of the largest batteries in the world, and the Neoen battery, which will have the capacity to charge and discharge 20 per cent of the needs of the south-west grid in Western Australia. Those are two big batteries under construction in Western Australia and opening next year. I'm sure all this will come as a considerable surprise to the Leader of the Opposition, for two reasons. He's never been to Collie and he doesn't know where it is. Also, he doesn't know that batteries exist. He said in an interview in March this year, 'Hopefully, the battery technology is about to be discovered.' It was actually discovered in 1800, but I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will catch up. When the Leader of the Opposition eventually gets to Collie, he will have some explaining to do, not least of which is: when will Collie get their nuclear reactor? To be fair to the member for Fairfax, he's been to Collie. He was asked, 'When are we getting our nuclear reactor?' and he said: Our plan, we talked about it with (Collie) council today, is that we would see the first electricity coming to the grid in a 10-year period. So it will be 10 years, with one of the first ones in Collie. The Western Australian senator Senator Michaelia Cash was asked the same question, and she said: … so we are likely to be part of the second tranche, which is in the lead up to 2050. Which is it to be? The first 10 years, or this new policy of a second tranche which is in the lead-up to 2050? They don't know where Collie is, and they can't say when it's getting its nuclear reactor. This is important. The Muja Power Station in Collie is closing in two tranches: this year and in 2029. Where are the power and the jobs going to come from between 2029 and 2050? Where are they coming from under the Leader of the Opposition's crazy plan? They do not have a plan. All they've got is a fantasy. (Time expired) Middle East: Migration 28 14:47 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. How many of the 2,900 visas of people on shore from Gaza have been cancelled? 14:47 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question, but the whole premise of it is wrong. There aren't 2,900 people on shore, and I've said that. If he'd followed that, he would have known—including from earlier questions today. But I am asked about visitor visas, and I can tell, because of the financial year issue, that visitor visas for Ukrainians were 9,027 between 24 February 2022 and 30 June 2022. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Wannon on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 It's relevance. Of those who are here on shore, of those 2,900—that's what I asked—how many have had their visas cancelled? That is what I asked. How many? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! It's not an opportunity— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease laughing. The member for Wannon is entitled to raise a point of order. The Prime Minister's answer has got to be directly relevant to the question he was asked. I ask him to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I inform the member that the figure is less than half of the figure that he used, of 2,900; therefore, the whole premise of the question is simply wrong. For visitor visas for Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis, who have, of course, also been subject to conflict and control—Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban and Syria has been in a civil war with parts of it controlled by ISIS, as, of course, has Iraq as well—those figures, from the 2013-14 financial year to 2022, are: 1,991 people from Afghanistan, 4,994 from Iraq and 1,505 from Syria—all granted visitor visas by the former government, all in circumstances where Islamic State was in control of large parts of Iraq and Syria from 2014 to 2019, Syria has been in civil war since 2012 and the Taliban have been in control of large parts of Afghanistan for that entire period. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order, we'll hear from the member for Robertson. National Disability Insurance Scheme 29 14:50 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. How are the Albanese Labor government's reforms to the NDIS ensuring that the scheme is restored to its original intent and participants are put back at the centre of the scheme? 14:50 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I'd like to thank the saxophone-playing, Indonesian-speaking emergency doctor from Wyong, the member for Reid, for his very good question. Even though it was his birthday last Friday, he understands that the NDIS is changing lives for the better. We are returning the scheme to its true purpose. We are making sure that support gets through to the people for whom it was designed and that it's sustainable for future generations. The legislation is currently in the final stages of consideration by the Senate, and I do acknowledge the constructive engagement with the opposition. If this legislation is passed, it's a significant step towards a stronger NDIS. The legislation does a few simple things: it'll stop the automatic top-up of participants' plans which are exhausted early; it'll create the architecture to implement the NDIS review's recommendations to put a total capped flexible budget in place for all of the participants; and it'll exclude supports that are supposed to be funded by other service systems or, indeed, supports which were never intended to be funded by the NDIS. If we're able to pass it this week, the necessary legislative framework to improve the participant experience will deliver fairer decisions which will be more transparent and more consistent. It will allow us to get on with the work of designing the finer practical elements of NDIS reform with participants, the people who love them, the people who work with them, and their advocates. There are a number of amendments in the Senate contributed by the disability community, and we will continue to listen to stakeholders, including the states, the opposition and, of course, people with disability and their representatives. This has been a huge body of consultation. The review, which we set up after promising it at the election, talked to 10,000 people, took 4,000 submissions and listened for literally 2,000 hours. I've personally attended 18 town hall meetings, where I've heard from over 10,000 attendees. Indeed the first of the Senate inquiries went for 12 weeks and heard from 200 stakeholders. This is very thorough. What I hope we can tell Australians who support the scheme by the end of this week is that we've got the foundation of a new budget-setting process, that we're also clamping down on fraud, that we've got clarity about what you can spend, and that we've also got the registration taskforce to make sure that we register providers so that we know who's actually providing the services. I commend the legislation when it comes back here, hopefully on Thursday. Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games, Comparative Religion 29 14:53 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Treasurer, doesn't federal government backing of Brisbane's Olympics confiscate $30 billion off North and Central Queensland's coal and copper miners and cane and cattle farmers, giving it to the IOC, whose Paris opening ceremony was an 'orgiastic pagan ritual' denigrating Christianity? Treasurer, didn't Christians abolish slavery, create from a brutal imperium the Pax Romana, and create from the Dark Ages the Renaissance? Didn't communism murder 78 million people? Didn't Gorbachev, the Pope and Charlie Wilson, as Christians, abolish communism? Didn't pagan rituals sacrifice children to the tree and crocodile gods? Do such rituals still live on, Mr Treasurer? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Kennedy has asked his question. He will resume his seat. There are a number of elements of that question that I don't think went to the Treasurer's responsibilities, particularly the— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No, I heard every word. I absolutely heard every word. 14:54 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank my fellow Queenslander for the characteristically colourful question. I think the House will forgive me for steering well clear of the pagan rituals and the tree gods, and I will spare the House a gallop through a couple thousand years of human history. I want to focus on two important parts of the member for Kennedy's question: one that I agree with and one that I respectfully disagree with. Where we agree and where we have an affinity is the really quite immense contribution that the workers, industries and employers of regional Queensland make to our national economy. That's one of the reasons why I'm so proud that 71,000 workers in the member Kennedy's electorate will be getting a tax cut and 83,000 households will be getting energy bill relief in addition to the Queensland energy bill relief scheme. It's why I'm so proud of the investments we're making in the Flinders Highway and the Bruce Highway, and it's why a future made in Australia envisages an absolutely central role for places like the North West Minerals Province. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. I'm just going to deal with this. Members on my right and left, every member is entitled to ask a question of their choice. The majority of that question was not within the Treasurer's responsibilities. He was asked about the '$30 billion funding' regarding a significant infrastructure project, so the Treasurer is being directly relevant regarding that part of the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It's certainly more coherent than anything that shadow Treasurer has said in recent times! The reason I am acknowledging—indeed, celebrating—the big contribution that the North West Minerals Province and regional Central, North and Far North Queensland make to our national economy is that I do recognise and I know the Prime Minister recognises as well that, when we make decisions about roads funding, investment in industry or in the Olympics, regional Queensland and regional Australia are always foremost in our minds, because we know that, if we want the national economy to be strong, the regional economies of this country need to be a bigger part of the story. Now, when it comes to the Olympics, this is where the member Kennedy and I respectfully disagree, because I think the Olympics in South-East Queensland are going to be amazing. One of the reasons why I think the Olympics will be amazing is that it will be good not just for South-East Queensland but for the whole country. In a way that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand, the Olympics that we just saw in Paris were a unifying moment for this country, no matter how much people might try to divide and diminish us. I believe that the Olympics have the capacity to bring people together, and I think that will be especially the case when it comes to the Brisbane Olympics. I know the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government have the same optimism and the same belief. And we're not investing $30 billion, as the member Kennedy said in his question, but about $3½ billion in 20 venues right around South-East Queensland. That will create jobs and opportunities right around Australia, not just in South-East Queensland, and that's why I'm such an enthusiastic supporter of the Olympics in Brisbane in 2032. The SPEAKER 53517 No, the member for Kennedy doesn't get to—there are other forms of the House where the member for Kennedy may raise his concerns. Elections 30 14:58 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Why is it important to have rigorous, transparent and fair election processes? Is the minister aware of any examples of groups seeking special treatment outside the rules? 14:59 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Cunningham for that question. Of course Australia's electoral system is the envy of the world. The Australian Electoral Commission continues to deliver elections in an independent, robust and transparent way. The AEC is in charge of nominations and managing the electoral roll, the selection of polling places and the appointment of polling officials. These are, rightly, free from interference by political parties seeking to game the system for their benefits, and are essential to maintain the confidence in the results of our elections. Just like other electoral commissions, the New South Wales Electoral Commission is currently conducting local government elections. These include— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause and cool it for a moment while we hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The New South Wales Commission is not within the responsibilities of this minister. The question and the answer are out of order. The minister should be sat down. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The ministers on my right will cease interjecting. The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, the final part of the question said this: 'Is the Minister aware of any examples of groups seeking special treatment outside the rules?' And I reckon she has one. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B What the Leader of the House has just said is no answer to the fundamental proposition that the New South Wales Electoral Commission is not within the responsibilities of this minister. The question and the answer are out of order. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is within order. If there was problem with the question, the time to raise that was probably at the beginning of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for Industry and Science is not helping the situation. Given the minister has outlined the responsibility of the Electoral Commission, she was asked about any other groups and about the rules of electoral cycles. I'm going to listen to what she says, but she has to remain directly relevant. She won't be able to focus on the entire part of that, but I'm sure we'll all listen carefully to her examples. The minister has the call. Ms RISHWORTH HWA Of course, the AEC, along with all electoral commissions in this country, deserve to be able to go about their business independently, and that includes setting deadlines and for all parties to adhere to those deadlines. These are not surprising deadlines. I found in 2021, the New South Wales Office of Local Government published a guide clearly stating that the ordinary local government elections in New South Wales would be held in September 2024. Unfortunately, owing to the chaos and incompetence of the New South Wales Liberal Party, they were the only ones not able to get their nominations in. I am asked about any group seeking special treatment outside the electoral rules. It might come as a surprise to the House that the Liberal Party are now blaming the independent umpire, threatening legal action against the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner for their own incompetence. This makes a mockery of our independent processes and our democracy. I'm sure that the New South Wales Liberal Party is a little disappointed that Scott Morrison is no longer prime minister, because he could have secretly appointed himself as the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner and overturned the decision. They don't always have trouble with their paperwork; I'm sure if the local government association forms looked more like visas for French au pairs, they would have got it in on time. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will return to the question. Ms RISHWORTH HWA Anyone looking at this chaos would have been surprised to see the Liberal Party also miss the deadline for the Logies for best comedy entertainment, because this has been a comedy of errors. Instead of blaming the independent umpire, the Liberal Party should abide by the rules, admit their chaos and not risk our democracy. Middle East: Migration 31 15:04 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. How many of the 2,900 visas from Gaza have been cancelled? 15:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler As I've said before: I thank the member for his question. We're being guided every step of the way by our security agencies. Our agencies constantly examine issues. That doesn't stop when someone is granted a visa. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume and the Prime Minister will cease interjecting so I can hear from the— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I seek your ruling on whether the Prime Minister is relevant to the question he was asked. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House on the point of order? Mr Burke DYW I'm presuming he's raised a point of order on relevance. It was phrased as though it was a question at the end of question time. But, to speak to the point of order, the standing orders provide that the answer be relevant to the question. The terms of the question went to those visas, went to the concept of cancellation. So, for the Prime Minister to be talking about those visas and to be talking about the processes that were used with our security agencies is clearly relevant to the terms in which it was asked. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker and the Attorney-General! We'll deal with this in an orderly and respectful way. Member for Wannon, further to the point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 Mr Speaker, the question didn't go to 'the concept of', as the minister for immigration has said. It was very clear. How many of the 2,900 visas from Gaza have been cancelled? There's no 'concepts of'. It's just a question, 'How many?' The SPEAKER 53517 I can appreciate that the member for Wannon would like, as I've said in my earlier remarks, a number, would like a figure. And that's the question you've asked. Within that question, obviously I can't make the Prime Minister give the member the number, just as I can't ask any minister to answer a yes-no question. The Prime Minister has to be directly relevant, has to talk about this set of visas or how the visas were issued or why the visas were issued to be directly relevant. If the Prime Minister strays off into another topic or another area he won't be directly relevant, and I'll bring him to order. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I am speaking about the process that happens with the granting of these visas, and that is what I am asked about. And from a group of people who held press conferences and used to say they wouldn't discuss anything at all about whether there were any visas at all, because of security issues like on-water matters—it is unbelievable that they expect that they will get answers on details. When it comes to the granting of visas, they're granted in the same way; our security agencies are involved—the same security standard. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister is talking about the visas being issued. I'm just going to make sure he's being directly relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 And I am, Mr Speaker. And that doesn't stop when someone is granted a visa. Our security agencies continue to do their job. That is what they do. I haven't been speaking about other things—if I was asked about cost of living or if I was asked about anything that they seemingly don't care about. But all they care about is going down this negative road, because we know who this bloke is. He showed us from the time he walked into this place, and the time he walked out. Cost of Living 32 15:09 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Treasurer. Why is cost-of-living relief the No. 1 priority of the Albanese government? How does it compare to other approaches? 15:09 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It's a real honour to serve with the member for Holt, who's an absolute champion for her local communities and her local people. You wouldn't know it from those opposite, but the No. 1 pressure that people feel right now is cost-of-living pressure. That's why it's our No. 1 focus as a government, from the Prime Minister right through our government. We know that people are doing it tough, and that's why we are providing a tax cut for every taxpayer, energy bill relief for every household and help with medicines, early childhood education and rent and boosting pay at the same time. But all we get from those opposite is another day of doubling down on divisiveness and diversion, another day of scaremongering from the Leader of the Opposition and another day of silence from the shadow Treasurer on the economy. I was thinking a moment ago, when Minister Rishworth was talking about Prime Minister Morrison swearing himself into multiple portfolios: the former government had two Treasury spokespeople; this opposition has none. So it averages out—one each, either side of the election. One of them is on the dog whistle; the other one is in the doghouse. Whenever the shadow Treasurer plays his little dog whistle, he rolls over. Every time he plays his dog whistle, he sits there voiceless and clueless on the most important issue that people face right now. Today in question time, every single question was on the Middle East and not one single question was on Middle Australia. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Paterson is warned. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN Speaker, you have ruled several times on imputations about other members' language use in descriptions of character. I seek your ruling about whether the Treasurer is in order with that answer. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm just going to ask the Treasurer to temper his language, to return to the question and to get through this answer. The Treasurer has the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 They're playing politics on national security because they are hopeless on economics. That's the truth of it. MOTIONS 33 MOTIONS Treasurer 33 15:12 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is the member be no longer heard.    

The House divided. [15:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

53 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) 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. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 92 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. 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. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 34 15:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Treasurer in continuation. 15:19 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin That break was actually useful. It was a good opportunity to clean up the little shards of the opposition leader's glass jaw over there—another display of extreme weakness and extreme sookiness from the Leader of the Opposition. The point that I was making before I was so rudely interrupted is that we are providing cost-of-living relief that they don't support, we are delivering surpluses that they couldn't deliver in nine attempts, and we're providing responsible economic management that they can't even be bothered asking about in the question time of the people's house of the national parliament. They stir chaos and conflict because they have no costed policies, they have no economic credibility and they won't tell the Australian people why they don't support cost-of-living relief, but they do have $315 billion in secret cuts, and they need to tell us what that means for Medicare, what it means for pensions and what it means for the economy. Mr Albanese R36 Having just wasted time with that previous motion by the Leader of the Opposition, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 34 DOCUMENTS Presentation 34 15:21 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to the honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 35 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's weak response to the CFMEU driving up the cost of housing. 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— 15:22 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Not that you would know it from question time last week, but nobody questions the fact that the actions of the CFMEU over a long period of time have driven up construction costs in this country, including in the residential housing industry. What does that mean for everyday Australians? It means that, for a young Australian couple or individual looking to buy their first home, the bar to getting into that first home is higher and harder because of the actions of the CFMEU. I'd say that that was what we expected to be well understood on both sides of the chamber until last week, when the hapless new housing minister, who has failed her way into the housing portfolio, made a quite extraordinary claim at the dispatch box. The housing minister claimed—and this is novel; I've never seen anyone argue this, let alone a minister or even a member of the Labor Party—that there were experts out there who believed that the CFMEU does not drive up construction costs. I thought that was a very interesting throwaway line. So, on a number of occasions, I gave the minister an opportunity to name who those experts were. I asked her on multiple occasions whether she was willing to illuminate us as to who those experts were that claimed that the CFMEU has no impact—none whatsoever—on housing costs in this country. It was a pretty cringeworthy effort, and I saw members opposite putting their heads down as the minister filibustered and weaved and couldn't answer the question, of course, because we know that there are no experts that claim that the CFMEU doesn't drive up construction costs. The truth is that the CFMEU drives up costs by 30 per cent in this country. If you're a first home buyer desperately scratching around for every single dollar so you can put it into a deposit to get into your first home, imagine what a 30 per cent reduction in the cost of that home would do. Imagine the difference it would make for that young couple or individual trying to buy a home in this country. The truth is that every single member of the government is complicit with that tax on first home buyers. It's a 30 per cent Labor tax on first home buyers. Let's be honest: this is the CFMEU's business model. Their business model is funding and putting Labor members of parliament into this chamber. So they're like puppets. They've got to do what the CFMEU ask. Every single one of them has benefited from the millions of dollars kicked into their campaign coffers every single election. It's just like the famous Bill Hunter line in Muriel's Wedding—Deidre Chambers! There's bad behaviour in the CFMEU. I'm seeing the acting that's going on on that side of the chamber. Their feigning ignorance as to the costs that are imposed on Australians has, I think, been one of the more shameful episodes for this government. There's been independent modelling undertaken. We talk about 30 per cent. We have people in the gallery today. Australians are listening in. We talk about a 30 per cent increase to construction costs and what that will do for first home buyers. The Queensland Economic Advocacy Solutions, which was commissioned by Master Builders Queensland, did some work on what it practically means. What does this unholy alliance between the thuggish CFMEU and the Labor Party, the people that they put into this parliament, do to first home buyers in this country? The truth is, according to this modelling, for a one-bedroom apartment in Queensland, the CFMEU tax imposed by the Labor Party on first home buyers is $128,543. Every single member of the government is happy to impose that $128,000 tax on first home buyers because it means more money into their coffers each election, with more thugs on their polling booths handing out their how-to-vote cards. That's what they are willing to do. For a two-bedroom apartment in Queensland, what does Labor's CFMEU tax on first home buyers amount to? It's $257,086. I know there's theatre in this place and I know that I'm having a go at the government here, but does anyone on the government benches have a conscience? First home buyers should not be bearing that additional tax. Surely every decent person in this chamber wants more first home buyers to get into the market? We know the deposit hurdle is one of the hardest parts of getting into a home. I'm sure many people in this place have experienced the same thing. You decide: 'I want to buy a home. This is the amount I think I'm going to have to save before I can go to the bank and get finance and buy something.' Often by the time you've saved that amount, the market has moved, house prices have increased, construction costs have increased and what you thought was going to be your deposit is short. One of the reasons that deposit is short and one of the reasons it's even shorter than it should be is the Labor-CFMEU tax imposed on first home buyers around this country. There are howls of protest from those opposite when I refer to the fact that they are just part of the CFMEU business model—shake down employers for money, make first home buyers pay more for their homes, kick money into the coffers of the Labor Party and—heck!—actually pre-select the candidates with their votes on the floor of their state conference. What does that get you? What it gets you is this: one of the first items of business of this government was removing the ABCC. It was No. 1 on John Setka's hit list. John Setka had his wish list—'Here are the top 10 things you need to do.' Labor has been busily going about it in a studious fashion, crossing those things off. First on the list was the ABCC. Ernst and Young conducted a whole-of-economy modelling exercise to look at the impacts of abolishing the ABCC. For those who don't know what the Australian Building and Construction Commission did, it was the cop on the beat to try and deal with the thugs in the CFMEU—the bikies, the criminals and the Labor Party members who cavort with them—and get them under control. Opposition members interjecting— Mr SUKKAR 242515 So what did this government do? What did every member who is now interjecting do? They voted to abolish the ABCC. That did this. It reduced worker productivity by 9.3 per cent, a total economic loss of $47.5 billion. It cost 4,000 jobs and contributed to that CFMEU Labor tax on first home buyers that I've just referred to. It's quite shameful that this government would continue to run protection. It's even worse that it's a new minister. It's a minister who, quite frankly, failed so badly in the Home Affairs portfolio that she was moved. As I've said repeatedly, housing is far too important to Australians to treat the portfolio as a dumping ground for a failed minister. It only took us one day of question time to see why the issues with housing are likely to get worse, not better, under her stewardship. She couldn't even level with the Australian people that the CFMEU has increased construction costs. To debase yourself so badly by claiming that the CFMEU has not impacted on residential house prices and construction costs is something that, quite frankly, I know, shocks many people on the other side of the House. Even the Daily Mail reported colleagues of the housing minister asking the question, 'Is it too soon to have another reshuffle?' The truth is that, if the minister cannot even agree that the CFMEU imposes a tax on first home buyers, what hope does this government have of addressing the housing crisis that their big Australia migration policy has created? 15:32 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner My grandfather Roly Stebbins was born in a tent in 1922. At age 14, in the middle of the Great Depression, he left school to provide for his family. He worked as a boilermaker. Then, after World War II, he and my grandmother Jean Stebbins, a teacher, set about building their first home. They got a cheap block of land in Seaholme near Williamstown and fired the bricks by hand. Roly would get help from his mates, building the house bit by bit when they could. My grandfather's story was the story of Australia in those postwar decades. Through the interwar period, the homeownership rate in Australia was about half. By 1966, it had risen to nearly three-quarters. This was a huge surge in the homeownership rate spurred initially by the Curtin and Chifley governments and, to their credit, continued by the Menzies government. But it's a very different situation today. Under the former Coalition government, the homeownership rate hit a 60-year low and their policies only made the problems worse. We had the HomeBuilder program, which blew out to five times the expected budget and which, according to the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, increased construction costs. We had the former government's policy of raiding your superannuation to pay for a home, which Malcolm Turnbull referred to as the 'craziest idea I've ever heard'. We had the government walk away from social housing and from investing in tackling the problem. As a result, here in Canberra you have families like Michi Moses and her husband, a professional couple who say that they may have to leave the city in order to buy a home. We have the second-highest house prices in the country. Australia faces a huge challenge on homeownership. But to hear the Liberals talk about it is like hearing the arsonist shouting, 'Fire!' It is coming from a party that did nothing to tackle these serious challenges. Believing the Liberals are the party of homeownership would be like believing they're the party of multiculturalism and Medicare, the party of gender equity and workers' rights. They are anything but. Since coming to office, Labor has set about investing in housing. In just our last budget, we invested more in housing than all of the nine Liberal budgets put together. That's how important it is to us and how unimportant it was to them. We've ensured that 110,000 people move into homeownership through the home guarantee scheme—twice as many people as under the former government. We've put in place back-to-back increases in Commonwealth rent assistance, helping a million Australian renting households to the tune of more than $1,000 a year. We've set an ambitious target to build 1.2 million homes over five years. That will involve working with states and territories. Next week, the housing minister will be out in Western Sydney bringing together state and territory housing ministers. This is usual business for us, but for the last five years of the former government, it didn't happen once. While we have the Liberals who are blocking any serious moves to act, we also have the Greens—the housing supply denialists, whose spokesperson says that Australia has enough homes, against evidence from every serious think tank and the fact that on the OECD measures the number of homes per person in Australia is lower than the advanced country average. While Labor is building, the coalition and the Greens are blocking. 'Build to rent' and 'help to buy' are being stalled by an unholy coalition of Liberals and Greens, and now we have the Liberals claiming that the reason that homeownership is pushing out of reach for many Australian families is construction workers are being paid too much. Let's go through some of the facts. The biggest factor driving up costs in the construction sector are supply chain issues such as the cost of materials driven by the war in Ukraine and the Houthi rebels restricting access through the Red Sea. Labour costs as a share of total expenses have actually been falling over the recent period for which we have data, from 2020-21 to 2022-23. Labour costs in the most recently available year were 18.7 per cent of total costs—they were 19.6 per cent of total costs two years before that. And if you look in building construction, labour costs are 10.2 per cent—significantly less than the average for the construction sector as a whole. Labour costs in construction have been growing more slowly than other costs, suggesting that labour costs are not the primary driver of total costs. Don't take my word for this—this is Treasury analysis that I'm speaking about today. Differences across states don't support the idea that the chief driver of housing affordability is labour costs. It is the cost of materials that is the single biggest challenge on housing affordability. That's not to say that we shouldn't be tackling bullying and thuggery in the construction industry. The construction union members and construction workers deserve a strong, effective union—that's why this government has moved legislation to put an administrator in place in the construction division of the CFMEU. If the Liberals had supported that last week then the administrator would have been more quickly at work cleaning up the CFMEU. Extraordinarily, we've had the Greens political party voting against that—voting against an administrator going in and cleaning up the problems in the CFMEU which are undermining the rights of workers to get a strong, effective union. Housing affordability is a major issue for Australia, as is the cost of living more broadly, but while we have those opposite asking not a single question in question time about the cost of living, we on this side of parliament are getting on with the job, with tax cuts for all Australians and energy bill rebates for all households. We've got an increase in the Medicare levy low-income thresholds, benefiting over one million low-income earners. We've had an increase to the JobSeeker payment, and our cheaper medicines policy ensures that Australians are better able to access the medicines that they need. Around three million Australians have benefited from the change to HECS-HELP indexation, championed by the minister at the table, which has benefited those who have gone to university in order to get the additional skills that the economy needs. Capping the student loan indexation rate to the lower of the CPI and the WPI ensures that debt can't outpace wages or prices. We're also investing in the skills that we need in the construction sector. Not only is this government committed to vocational training for early childhood workers and for aged-care workers but we also recognise it's vital to have a pipeline of construction workers. Fee-free TAFE has been vital in the construction sector for ensuring that we have more well-trained workers to build the homes that Australia desperately needs. We've also been dealing with the cost of living through our competition reforms. When we came to office we banned unfair contract terms and raised the penalties for anticompetitive conduct. We're making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, and we've tasked CHOICE with quarterly grocery price reporting so that people can ensure that they get the very best deal. We've got the biggest merger shake-up in 50 years, and we're tackling unfair contract terms that make it harder for workers to move to a better job. We understand that competition is a Labor value, and it is vital to ensuring that we put downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on wages. Only Labor can be trusted to build the homes Australia needs. Only Labor can be trusted to tackle the cost-of-living crisis. Only Labor can be trusted to deliver back-to-back surpluses, turning Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses and delivering for all Australians. 15:42 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I think some of those comments from the member for Fenner are, quite frankly, laughable. Let's look at who it was that said, 'It's time for the corruption and criminality to come to an end.' The admission is from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, when he leaned into his apparent watershed moment and realised what the activities of the CFMEU were and that the government could no longer avoid the truth about the situation. It's like it was an epiphany—a light bulb moment. The light actually went on. It's like the government had no prior knowledge of the activities of the CFMEU. See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, as if the ALP had just heard about the corruption and criminality that's been allowed to run roughshod through the construction industry for at least two years under this government and, most likely, for two decades. It's indefensible. So what do those opposite do? They act surprised. That's what they do. In fact, it was a moment in time when the Prime Minister, his ministers and the ALP—all of those opposite—were forced to admit what they knew all along, but they did it with faux outrage. The outrage is that the Albanese government has been making life too easy for the CFMEU, their mates, since one of the very first acts of this Labor government was to abolish the ABCC—the cop on the beat—on those worksites, and they have been out of control ever since. The ABCC successfully brought 91 per cent of cases for 1,661 contraventions of IR law against the CFMEU into the courts. The courts found the CFMEU were in breach of industrial law on no less than 80 occasions. I've been getting text messages from members in my electorate that are thanking the coalition for fighting back with amendments—from the shadow minister the Hon. Senator Cash—against Labor's bill. This is one of text messages that I got: In a free economy, enterprise needs to respect the rights of the workers and at the same time the organisations have to be able to increase productivity and create more efficient production for the betterment of the public. We agree with that. They say: We are suffering in Australia with housing affordability and yet the main reason is the cost that we have to pay because of a corrupt system that no one wants to accept. The cost of our production— that is, for a builder— can be reduced by 30% if we don't have unions. Another developer says: The Government keeps talking about Housing affordability and the lack of supply on one hand but on the other continues to allow the CFMEU to operate in thuggery that is completely driving up house costings. It costs more than 30% extra to construct housing because of them. The CFMEU needs to be stripped of all its powers and deregistered. It's pretty clear that the CFMEU has been pushing up the cost of housing for Australians through its demands, its thuggery, its bullying and its intimidatory tactics. It's not just true of housing and the cost of housing and how this is pushing up that cost for Australians; it also has flow-on effects for taxpayer funded construction. One example is stage 3 of the Gold Coast Light Rail from Boradbeach to Burleigh in my electorate. It's 6.7 kilometres of light rail that will transform the central Gold Coast for tourists and Gold Coasters alike. Originally it was costed at $709 million. The most recent cost has blown out to $1.2 billion. Now, the public has every right to ask why. Firstly, you could say that it's the Miles state government's and the former Palaszczuk state government's inability to manage their budget, and you would be right on the money there. So I urge Queenslanders to show them the door in '24. But you would also be right to say it's because of the demands of the unions to be paid more per hour to work at night and on the weekends, with time and a half and loadings, to stop work when it sprinkles with rain and, of course, for higher hourly rates, including for stop-go sign holders. These are examples of why housing construction in our country is out of control. This is why young families cannot buy their first homes. They can't keep up with the price of housing, which is increasing because of the actions of the CFMEU, enabled by the Australian Labor Party. Those opposite cannot defend the indefensible. 15:47 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I do enjoy it when those opposite get up and talk about cost-of-living measures. I enjoy it because, at every single opportunity that they've had, they've voted against cost-of-living measures that would help Middle Australia. At every single opportunity, those opposite have come into this place and opposed measures. They have opposed the caps on coal and gas prices. They've opposed every single measure to help with housing prices. Every single time that we've brought in a wages policy that is going to increase the wages of working Australians, those opposite have come into this place and said, 'Not on our watch.' Thankfully they don't have the numbers to stop that, and thankfully our cost-of-living measures have flowed through to Australians, no thanks to those opposite. It's funny when they come in here and give us lectures about the way in which we're managing the budget and managing our economy right now, because costed policies aren't exactly their strength right now. Costed policies are not the strength of those opposite. I'm yet to see a costed policy of their nuclear arrangement. I'm yet to see the numbers on their nuclear power plan—all seven plants that they are proposing build. Maybe they don't have enough ink in their printers to print all the zeros on that one. But what they have printed before in the past are some mugs. I remember the mugs, the 'Back in black' mugs. You can just imagine what it was like in the coalition party room. They're all there with their boxes. 'Make sure you take a mug into question time. Make sure you grab one of the "Back in black" mugs.' Except, of course, they weren't back in black. What they delivered was the largest deficit in the history of our country. It was close. I'm a glass half-full kind of a guy, but that wasn't quite the case. They didn't quite get their 'Back in black' mugs to come to fruition. But we on this side of the House have a different approach. We are serious about ensuring that Australians have cheaper medicines. We're serious about ensuring that Australians get real wage increases. We're serious about how we want Australians to pay less for childcare so that women can be back in the workforce, especially because we know that it has been a prohibitive measure. We know that childcare and early education is an economic policy as much as it is a social policy. But we also know that, on this side of the House, we want to see cheaper electricity prices. That's why we capped coal and gas prices, that's why we've been putting in renewable energy—the cheapest form of energy—and that's why we have looked at the economic madness and vandalism of those opposite wanting to put in nuclear power plants. The other thing that is also a big contrast between those on this side of the House and those on that side of the House is around housing policy. I remember the mover of this MPI, the shadow minister—during the dark days when he was the housing minister in this country—when he said that social housing was the responsibility of the states and territories, and that the federal government had nothing to do with social housing. We take a very different approach. One of the first things we did was set up the Housing Australia Future Fund. And while the Greens like to rant and rave, they were eventually shamed into supporting the construction of thousands and thousands of social housing homes for Australians who need it, including for women and children who are fleeing domestic violence. We're very proud in this House that we are ensuring that there are more homes for more Australians. What's their approach—the cost of policy geniuses on that side of the House? They want Australians, and especially young Australians, in my electorate to raid their superannuation in order to buy a home. I'm not sure if anyone on that side of the House has ever spoken to someone who's under the age of 30, but the average superannuation for most young Australians isn't enough for a house deposit. The average superannuation for young Australians is $20,000 to $30,000 if you're in your 20s. That's not enough for a deposit. All they're doing is making it harder for Australians to afford their own home, and they're also leaving Australians with less superannuation. If you contrast that with this side of the House, we are making sure that Australians who take time off work and receive paid parental leave are going to get superannuation paid on their paid parental leave. We're also ensuring via the bill in the other place, that there is a help to buy scheme—much like governments have set up in states and territories—that will ensure that people can get into the housing market with only a two per cent deposit. Just like the cost of policy geniuses on that side of the House, they are opposing it, just like they've opposed each and every cost-of-living measure that we have put forward in this place. We are not going to be guided by those people. We're going to do our bit for the Australian people and that's what we'll continue to do. 15:52 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I'm a great fan, as many are, of that wonderful 1942 movie, Casablanca, with Ingrid Bergman and Humphrey Bogart. One of the classic scenes in a classic movie is where the French chief of police Captain Renault is ordered to shut down Rick's Cafe. Rick says to Captain Renault, 'How can you close me? On what grounds?' Captain Renault says, 'I'm shocked! Shocked to discover that gambling is going on here.' At which point, a croupier comes over and says, 'Your winnings, Sir.' I can imagine that this is sort of what happened in the Australian Labor Party when the media exposed what we all knew that there's thuggery and bullying in the CFMEU. 'I'm shocked. Shocked to discover that there's bullying and thuggery in the CFMEU. We could never have known that was going on. We better do something about it!' To their credit they did put forward a bill—one that has been significantly improved by the coalition. When we tried to discuss this issue in question time, a perfectly reasonable question was asked of the housing minister about whether the CFMEU's behaviour—the bullying, the thuggery and all of the associated stuff—has pushed the costs of construction up, the minister said, 'Some experts believe CFMEU corruption and illegality has no impact on residential construction.' There was then this back and forth for the next couple of days asking, 'Which experts? Tell us the experts. Tell us who made the quote. We'll look up the research. We'll interrogate it!' But there was no furnishing of the experts. There was no furnishing of where this information comes from. If you get up, as a minister in this place, and you say, 'some experts' and make a claim, you should be able to come back in and answer a question backing it up. I think that's standard. The ALP, which was elected with the support of the CFMEU, has now, because they were so shocked, put forward a piece of legislation to put the CFMEU into administration. I do give them credit for that. The bill has been significantly improved by the coalition, and there are a number of amendments that Senator Cash has been able to get Senator Watt to agree to which improve the piece of legislation. But, if the government were really serious about ending this thuggery and bullying in the CFMEU, which are obviously pushing up the costs of construction—if you make it harder for business to do business, the costs go up; Blind Freddy sees that—it would support the Leader of the Opposition's bills that were put to the House. One would restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which the Albanese government scrapped in one of its first actions after the election, and a separate bill would enhance integrity measures and combat criminality on our nation's building sites. I think that's really important. As I said earlier, I give the government and the ALP a little bit of credit for at least being shocked and putting forward some legislation, which is now going to be improved. But, while Captain Renault and the ALP were fake shocked, I was genuinely shocked earlier today when I saw the Greens defending the indefensible. Mr Wallace 265967 You shouldn't be that shocked. Mr BIRRELL 288713 I am shocked. I'm a naive first-termer! I was shocked that the Greens would come in here and say: 'There's nothing to see here. The CFMEU are fine. There's no bullying. There's no thuggery.' And it looks like they're going to oppose the bill. We'll wait to see when the vote happens. But it just shows you where the Greens' priorities are. They're interested in talking about housing, but they're not interested in doing anything that would reduce the costs of construction, which flow on into the residential sector. Of course the CFMEU's actions have increased the costs of construction, and of course that has led to increased costs in residential housing. 15:57 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I know we live in a post-truth world, but, even by those standards, today's MPI is pretty extraordinary. Let's just review what's happened here. The shadow minister for housing has called on a matter of public importance, and that matter of public importance is the impact of the CFMEU on housing costs in Australia. He's come in here and he's delivered his speech on that impact. He said, 'The CFMEU is raising housing costs by 30 per cent.' That was the key fact that he used in his speech not once, not twice, but six times. He loved this fact so much that he said it over and over: 30 per cent is the amount by which the CFMEU is increasing housing construction costs in Australia. Well, I love a good fact. I've been known to be partial to facts. So my ears pricked up, and I thought: 'I wonder where this fact comes from. I wonder where the fact that the shadow housing minister has built his entire speech on, his speech about his portfolio, comes from. I wonder where he drew that fact from.' Thirty per cent is quite a big number. If you think about housing construction costs, you've got 10 to 20 per cent profit margins. Presumably the CFMEU isn't impacting the builder's profit margins. You've got materials costs of about 50 per cent. Again, presumably the CFMEU isn't determining that. You've got labour costs of about 30 per cent. Does he think they should be zero? Is that the margin? There's no room in these costs for a 30 per cent CFMEU premium. So I thought: 'Where would he be getting this number from? Where is this fact? Where's the report that backs it up? Where's the evidence?' This is a senior member of the opposition. This isn't somebody who is just going to come in here and spend his entire time talking about a fact that he has totally made up—surely not. So I decided to do a bit of work myself. Sitting here, using the parliamentary wi-fi, I had a bit of a google: where does this 30 per cent number come from? The only thing I could find was that it has been used by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition also loves this number. He's used it three or four times. 'The CFMEU increases costs by 30 per cent.' In fact, once he gave himself a little bump up and he said to 2GB that the CFMEU actually increased the costs of construction by 40 per cent. He didn't source that one either. So then I thought, 'Let's go to the ABS.' The ABS is always going to give us some quality facts on this type of thing. And the ABS does show that housing construction costs in Australia have been going up. They've been going up quite markedly but, unfortunately, not in the way that the shadow housing minister would want us to believe. According to the ABS, this is the trajectory of housing construction costs over the last three years. Over the last year, housing construction costs have gone up 4.3 per cent. That's a lot, but it's not as much as the previous year. It's less than the previous year, where housing construction costs went up 7.3 per cent. That was the first year of the Albanese Labor government. Then I did a bit of a scroll backwards to the previous year, the last year of the Liberal-National government. What does the ABS say that housing construction costs increased by under their watch? Just to preview: ours was 4.3 per cent this year and 7.3 per cent last year. What was the increase in housing construction costs in the year to June 2022 under the Liberals and Nationals? It was 19.8 per cent, five times higher than this year's increase. So if it's the CFMEU causing increases in housing construction costs, it's the combination of the CFMEU and the Liberal-National government. Now, the ABS is also helpful on this question. They outline a few different areas about where housing construction costs have gone up. They talk about timber increasing 37 per cent over a period of time and concrete and cement going up 16 per cent. Nowhere do they mention or source the fact laid out by the shadow minister. This is an important question. If you're a serious political party and you come into this House on a serious question like housing costs in Australia, you need do two things. You need to be serious about the causes of that problem and you need to propose real solutions. Those are the two tests for a serious political party. We saw the shadow minister for housing come into this House, give an MPI on his own topic, make up a fact to describe a problem which has very little relationship to the actual serious problem and proposed not a single thing to resolve it. This is not a serious political party, but it's a serious issue. (Time expired) 16:02 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I'm grateful to come after the member for Parramatta, who gave us a lecture on being serious. My good friend quoted Monsieur Renault from Casablanca, a great movie, but I'd like to quote John McEnroe, another famous person: 'You can't be serious. You cannot be serious.' To accept the premise as put by the member for Parramatta, Nick McKenzie wasted his time. There was nothing to report. The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald wasted their time putting all of those stories on the front page. In fact, this entire bill that we saw come back down to this House was a waste of time because there's nothing to see here. The entire reason for the CFMEU existing is a waste of time. The fact that you go to all of the large construction projects throughout this country, particularly in the state of Victoria, and they have tagged those projects like a teenager tags graffiti, they have put their flags there—not the Australian flag, their flag—and they have done so because they are rubbing it in everyone's faces. They are rubbing it in your face, but that side of politics is denying it. You cannot be serious. There is nothing more serious than the cost of housing, because, next to the day-to-day costs that people are paying to hold themselves together, the topic of housing is a serious, first-order issue for dining tables throughout this country. They are looking to this parliament to do better. So, when we put this matter of public importance together, we do it very seriously because it is a serious topic. When you address an issue, you can address it either based on a position of principle or from a position of power. The test is, if you change the characters or the labels, what would you do? So I ask the member for Parramatta this question: Suppose it were not the CFMEU but the IPA, the Institute of Public Affairs. Suppose it were not John Setka but John Roskam. Imagine a picture of John Roskam with a tattoo around his neck that says, 'God forgives; the IPA doesn't.' Imagine an institution that requires membership on big projects, that donates only to this side of politics, that demands extra staff with right of entry and that has a premium—and, yes, it is a 30 per cent premium, because, again, the CFMEU are not doing their job if they're not achieving that for their members. That's why they get elected. That's why they exist. Imagine if, in big construction projects, there were no ticket and no right of entry unless you were a member of the IPA. Imagine if the IPA had extra positions, the holders of which could walk into any worksite and demand to see the books. Imagine if, in return for legislation and removing a watchdog that had oversight of the IPA, this side of politics saw extra donations from them. Imagine—we've seen this movie play out many times before—if a new government came in and said, 'We must do something about the IPA's influence in big construction,' so it created a watchdog, and that watchdog saw 1,661 contraventions over 91 cases. Then, when the party that receives those donations comes back and removes that watchdog, we say, 'Well, it's politicised.' Mr Perrett HVP You didn't list the convictions. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 I'll take the interjection. There were no convictions, but there was a 90 per cent success rate. That's a much higher rate than most public prosecutors. So again we say: you can't be serious. We saw that at all levels of government, from a political party that is intertwined with an organisation whose whole reason for existing is to extract a premium and lift prices. That's their whole purpose. So the speech by the member for Parramatta was a speech saying: 'Well, bad luck, CFMEU. You failed. You achieved nothing in your entire period of existence—nothing.' Well, when you come to Victoria and see that the cost of the North East Link in my electorate has gone from $10 billion to $26 billion, you can see that they have succeeded, at the expense of taxpayers. When you see that the Suburban Rail Loop, which again comes into my electorate, is projected over 30 years to cost $216 billion, you can see that they are doing very well, not for the people of Victoria or the people of Australia but for themselves. This is about power, not principle. You can't be serious. 16:07 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Those opposite obviously can't stand on their own record on tackling housing supply, because there is no record worthy of speaking to, nor was there ever a real plan for the future. You'd be forgiven for thinking they weren't governing for nearly a decade. No wonder they can't formulate any policy that actually responds to issues, because they're always hiding behind an acronym, a bogeyman or false facts—as the member for Parramatta so eloquently revealed—rather than putting forward policy or a positive plan. We're building; they're blocking. If you want to know what that building looks like, the Albanese Labor government is bringing to the table real dollars, driving real change and building more homes for Australians like those in my electorate. Those homes in my electorate form part of an ambitious housing agenda which includes the delivery of 30,000 social and affordable homes through our Housing Australia Future Fund. That's shovels in the ground and roofs over more people's heads. Just one example of the Albanese Labor government's building of more homes is the creation of a blueprint for the long-term renewal of the Banksia Gardens neighbourhood in Broadmeadows—all part of the Albanese government's Social Housing Accelerator program. This is an investment of more than $80 million through the accelerator, delivering 120 new social homes for those who need them most. Built on vacant land facing Coleraine Street, the new homes will be modern, comfortable, energy efficient and located close to shops, transport, schools and services in the heart of Broadmeadows. The ground floor of the new housing development will include new facilities to support both future residents and those who already live on the Banksia Gardens estate. I know people in my community are experiencing challenges finding a safe and secure place to call home, so these 120 new homes will make a significant difference to their lives and to those of their families. Also importantly, the construction of these new homes will create more than 700 local jobs. We know that the concept of job creation is foreign to those opposite. The simple fact is that Australia has a housing shortage. We need to build more homes more quickly and in more parts of the country. That's why the federal government has landed a once-in-a-generation accord with the states and territories, with the ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. We know this is a challenge, and it would be the most homes we've built in Australia's history. But it's a challenge that this government knows we must meet—and will meet. That's why we're making record investment to build new homes—a record of $32 billion. Another important fact is that there was more money in this last budget alone than in all the budgets combined under the former government. This plan means we're unlocking all parts of the housing system to build more homes, including providing national leadership, funding and incentives, and, importantly, training more tradies, funding more apprentices and growing the workforce. We know one of the key challenges is working to address constraints in the construction sector to boost the supply of housing right across the country. That is why we are also working to address skill shortages, with record investment in additional fee-free TAFE places, with a further $90 million in this budget to support a further 20,000 apprenticeships in construction sector courses. The previous government's inaction did absolutely nothing to address this issue in a way that sees more roofs over people's heads. That's why people in my electorate know and understand the importance of a functioning government. They know it is critical for government to intervene and put forward policies that reverse negative trends. So, what do housing experts in the industry have to say about the Labor government's policies? Alex Waldren from Master Builders Australia said: Help to Buy is a sensible policy approach that looks at lifting housing affordability measures while not negatively impacting the investment market. And Brendan Coates of the Grattan Institute said: 'The government's Help to Buy Bill would establish a national shared equity scheme that would help level the playing field' when it comes to accessing home ownership. In contrast, reflecting on the Liberals' policy framework, independent economist Saul Eslake said that if it were enacted it 'would be one of the worst public policy decisions of the 21st century'. The contrast between that and the Albanese Labor government's housing policy couldn't be clearer. The Labor government is one that builds; the opposition is a rabble that seeks to tear down. 16:12 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I don't drink, but if I did drink I reckon I wouldn't mind having a beer with the member for Hunter. But let's just shoot the breeze here a little bit. I've been a carpenter. I finished my apprenticeship in 1990, I think it was. Let's just say I worked on a residential building site, and let's just say the member for Hunter was a carpenter on a CFMEU building site, and let's just say we were having a drink on a Friday afternoon and I asked, 'Old mate, what do you earn?' He says: 'Well, I earn over 200,000 bucks a year. In fact, even the lollypop lady out the front'—or the lollypop bloke—'is on 200,000 bucks a year.' Now, as a carpenter and joiner working on a residential building site, if I was getting paid by the hour, I might be earning 40 or 50 bucks an hour. I'm going to be thinking, Hang on a minute: that's not very fair; I'm going to go and see my boss on Monday morning and say, 'Listen old mate, old boss: I want some more money, because I know the member for Hunter, who's on a sideline, working on a CFMEU building site'—hypothetically; we're still in that pub environment—'is earning 200,000 bucks a year, and I want some of that action!' The member for Parramatta just said residential builders are earning a 10 to 20 per cent profit margin, which goes to show how absolutely little members opposite know about economics, particularly in relation to the building industry. Do you want to know what builders get as a profit margin? The member for Parramatta is about to get a whole lot of emails from all the builders in his electorate, because I can guarantee that there wouldn't be one builder in this country who is on a 10 to 20 per cent profit margin. Most builders are going backwards at a great rate of knots because they can't make any money in building. Why? Because, going back to my analogy, they are having to meet and pay wages to try and keep up with building sites. This is one of the things which are driving the costs of construction in this country. We all know—and it really concerns me—that all of those members opposite, in the government, have come in here and tried to defend the CFMEU in this MPI, as though the bill that we're about to go back and debate shortly weren't even being introduced. It's a bill that the government has introduced which is going to put the CFMEU into administration, yet those members opposite have been playing a protection racket for the CFMEU for decades. This is now the 66th time I have spoken about criminal activity in the building industry in eight years, and I can see those people opposite who have constantly shaken their heads and said, 'No, that doesn't happen.' Well, we now know what the actions of the CFMEU have been, and the member for Watson has had this 'come to Jesus' moment. He has seen the light, looked up and said: 'Look, I'm surprised. I didn't know it was this bad.' The Prime Minister has said the same thing. I would have thought that the member for Watson in his previous roles, when he was the shadow minister for industrial relations and when he was the minister for industrial relations, would have kept an eye on court judgements—the same sorts of court judgements that have repeatedly, time and time and time again, handed down some $20 million in fines over the last two decades. Those members opposite say, 'We had no idea.' If you're not involved in a particular portfolio, fair enough. But, for the member for Watson, who has been the minister for industrial relations or in that shadow for several years, not to have been aware of these Federal Court judgements, where judge after judge has said that this behaviour is intolerable and that the CFMEU are treating fines as the cost of doing business and just think that they are above the law—well, those members opposite have finally woken up. Finally we're starting to see some justice. 16:17 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I begin by thanking the member for Parramatta for exposing the absurdity of the coalition's claim that a 30 per cent increase in the cost of housing has been caused by the CFMEU. What exposing that claim highlights is the desperation of those opposite in trying to link the two together in a political attempt to somehow smear the Albanese Labor government. No government has invested more money in Australian housing than the Albanese Labor government. But the reality is that it will take more than money; it will also take time to fix the mess left after nine years of the coalition government in office. In 2007, when the last coalition government left office, under Howard, homeownership rates in this country were at 70 per cent. By the time the last coalition government left office, they were down to a percentage in the mid-60s. As mentioned earlier, it was the lowest number of homes owned in this country in history. That's from nine years under their watch. We then have all of the bills brought into this place by this government delayed as much as possible by those opposite in order to deliberately stop the production of new houses in this country. Then they come in here and try to blame the Albanese Labor government for the housing crisis of today. Housing prices and rental prices are directly linked to supply and demand, and this government has been trying to increase supply from the day it was elected. The reality is that the housing numbers not only fell markedly under their watch. If you want to improve the issue, then you have to go to the key issues that ensure that more homes are built—land availability, infrastructure, availability of building materials, skills and trades and access to finance. In the very brief time that I have left, let me talk about each one of those. Land availability means that you have to work with the states. This government is doing that with the $1.5 billion Housing Support Program, the $1 billion for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, and the National Housing Accord, all aimed at ensuring that there is land available, that there is the necessary infrastructure to that land and that, where possible, even Commonwealth land is made available for new homes. It's all about doing the preparation work that is absolutely needed. We then go to the availability of building materials. This one has to be one of the ones that is most laughable when it comes to claims from the other side. We currently have before this House the Future Made in Australia policy, which is all about rebuilding Australian manufacturing so that the very materials we need do not have to come in from overseas, and what are those opposite doing? They are trying to block that legislation every step of the way. Well, the fact is that it will ultimately get through, I believe, and it will ultimately make a difference to ensuring that we have the building materials that we need. If you look at skills, again, when the last coalition government left office, there were tens of thousands of apprentices fewer than what we had when they came to office. We had an apprenticeship shortage in this country because they failed to fund it. And, again, we are putting $88 million for 20,000 fee-free TAFE spots, including pre-apprenticeship programs for the building sector and so on. Again, we're investing in trying to rebuild those skills whilst those opposite continue to oppose. And then you come to the access to finance. We've got a build-to-rent scheme. We've got a help-to-buy scheme. We've increased rent assistance by 15 per cent the previous year and 10 per cent last year. We have the Home Guarantee Scheme. Each one of those proposals was opposed by those opposite. Every time the Albanese Labor government attempts to fix the very crisis that they come into the chamber and talk about, they stand in the way, either by obstructing it or at the very least delaying it. The truth of the matter is that the Albanese Labor government has invested $32 billion into housing. It's the biggest investment on any single project ever I can recall in my time in this parliament. We have an ambitious plan of 1.2 million new homes by the end of the decade, and we have a plan to build 30,000 social and affordable homes. What is the plan of those opposite? They don't have one, other than to raid the superannuation funds of members, leaving them with nothing when they retire. The SPEAKER 53517 The time for the discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 44 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 44 Report 44 16:22 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton () (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 6 of 2024, Department of Defence—Submarine Rotational Force-West, priority works, HMAS Stirling,Western Australia and other works. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—This report considers three proposals referred to the committee. The first is a proposal from the Department of Defence to upgrade infrastructure at HMAS Stirling to support the Submarine Rotational Force-West. The second is the proposed fit-out of new Commonwealth parliament offices in Adelaide. The third is for the Reserve Bank of Australia to construct a temporary storage and logistics facility while their head office in Martin Place is being refurbished. In total, these works have a combined value of a little over $800 million. The first proposal accounts for most of that total. Defence is seeking to spend $738 million in the upgraded facilities at HMAS Stirling, located 60 kilometres south of Perth in the City of Rockingham. From 2027, the facilities will be home to the Submarine Rotational Force-West, a rotational presence of American and British nuclear powered submarines as part of the AUKUS agreement. The public works project will deliver new and upgraded facilities and infrastructure for the required operational and maintenance functions. The committee has previously approved smaller works relating to living-in accommodation and training facilities. Another set of projects related to engineering and infrastructure works was exempted from committee scrutiny in May of this year on the grounds of urgency. During its inquiry, the committee heard concerns about the proposed works from community organisations, local government representatives and members of the local community, some of them much closer than others. Some of these concerns—for example, those relating to the AUKUS agreement and the utility of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia—fall outside the scope of the Public Works Committee's inquiry. Other concerns relate to nuclear safety and environmental impacts. Some of these should be addressed during separate approval processes by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The committee also heard about the impact the proposed works will have on local infrastructure, such as transport and housing, which is already stressed. The committee urges Defence to continue to provide extensive and genuine consultation opportunities on all issues of concern raised by the community. Defence should also continue this consultation during the construction phase and be prepared to adapt its approach to address community concerns. The second proposal is a fit-out of the new Commonwealth Parliament Offices at One Festival Tower in Adelaide. The $37 million project will deliver fit-for-purpose, safe and secure accommodation for ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, as well as for facilities and administrative support staff. The new offices will be larger and better equipped to handle surge capacity than the ageing facilities currently located on King William Street in Adelaide. Given the need to ensure the physical safety of Australia's parliamentarians, the committee was somewhat surprised that the Australian Federal Police were not involved in the design stage of the proposed works. The committee recommends, in this changed world that we live in, that the AFP be involved in the design process of this fit-out and at an early stage in any subsequent CPO fit-outs. The committee acknowledges that the selected option represents value for money and appreciates the 'futureproofed' design of the fit-out. The third proposal is a request from the Reserve Bank, which I know you've all come to hear about, to approve the construction of a temporary storage and logistics facility at a leased site. Refurbishments to the head offices in Martin Place were approved in 2020 but have been complicated by the significant amount of asbestos discovered embedded in the structure last year. This temporary facility, costed at $35 million, will enable the Reserve Bank to meet operational and strategic requirements to store goods offsite while the expanded scope of the refurbishment takes place. The committee notes that this additional cost adds to the considerable total created by the decision to proceed with refurbishment of the bank's iconic head office at Martin Place. The committee would like to extend its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of these inquiries. For each project, the committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works are carried out. Speaker, I commend the report to the House, and thank you for your interest. 16:27 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I seek leave to make a contribution as the deputy chair, and I certainly won't delay the House. Leave granted. Mr PITT 148150 I wasn't expecting the audience. I'll confine my remarks so we can hear from former minister O'Connor. I want to speak simply around the HMAS Stirling provisions for AUKUS. Obviously, this is bipartisan support, but I would put on the record some concerns about elements that were produced by witnesses at the public hearing in recent weeks, where claims were made about particular Senate committee comments about intermediate waste being stored at HMAS Stirling. Clearly, they were misinformed. We were fortunate enough to be able to track down the Hansard. The exact words, or close enough, of the witness's answer when they were questioned by a particular senator about intermediate waste being stored in the location were, 'That is exactly not what I said.' So there will be no intermediate waste, but we do need to ensure that this debate—and people are entitled to put forward their views—is based on facts, not things that are selected from particular committee hearings. Thanks to the deputy chair for reading so quickly. I look forward to Minister O'Connor's contribution. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 45 16:28 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—this is not my valedictory—I rise in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to make a statement on the appointment of the new Auditor-General. The JCPAA has a responsibility under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 to approve or reject a proposed recommendation for this appointment. The outcome of the significant statutory duty of the committee is also required to be reported to the parliament under the committee's act. As an independent officer of the parliament, the Auditor-General is responsible for ensuring accountability and transparency in the delivery of government programs and services and thus has one of the most important statutory roles in this country. I'm pleased to advise the House that the committee has unanimously endorsed the appointment of Dr Caralee McLiesh PSM to this position. She is extremely well-qualified. I won't go through all her qualifications—I'll leave those on the record. The committee's view is that Dr McLiesh's extensive qualifications and strong track record in senior leadership in government made her eminently qualified to lead the Australian National Audit Office for the next decade. I take this opportunity to thank the committee and also recognise the significant contribution of the previous Auditor-General, Mr Grant Hehir, who has served in the capacity with distinction since 2015. Mr Hehir showed unwavering commitment to his role and to holding public administration and the executive government to account. The committee also acknowledges the significant contribution of the Deputy Auditor-General, Ms Rona Mellor PSM, who has done an outstanding job as Acting Auditor-General. A strong working relationship with the Australian National Audit Office is critical to this committee performing its functions and fulfilling its statutory roles. We in the JCPAA look forward to developing this relationship with Dr McLeish in the coming months. I ask leave of the House to present a copy of my statement. Leave granted. Ms BURNEY 8GH I present a copy of my statement, and I'll drop it down there in a little while. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 45 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory 45 16:31 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Can I start by talking about my long understanding of the importance of parliamentary committee reports. Nothing's more important than this place, of course. It is true that I've been elected to this magnificent place on eight occasions since 2001, and I wish to place on record my heartfelt appreciation to the electors of Gorton for their constant and abiding support for so many years. Melbourne's west and north-west have witnessed the fastest population growth of any part of Australia over the last two decades, growing by three electorates—Gorton, Fraser and Hawke—in that time. So much has changed since I was elected in 2001. As I sought to gain sufficient local support to be preselected as the Labor candidate for that election, the historic, shocking and tragic assault on the World Trade Center in New York seared into our memory, and everything as we knew it changed. It precipitated two invasions. The first was of Afghanistan to displace the Taliban regime, which was supported by the UN. The second was of Iraq, which was not UN sanctioned, which was motivated by what later was determined to be a falsehood, namely to dispossess the country of weapons of mass destruction—which turned out not to exist. While no doubt we will continue to argue about the rights and wrongs of post-September 11 actions, there was no doubt that the world had changed utterly. The rise of non-state threats, of heightened security, of challenges to individual freedoms and of community anxiety were hallmarks of those years, and continue to this day. In those early years, I recall chairing a caucus committee—this was during my first year of parliament—and attempting to manage debates on the ASIO bills involving former senior Hawke and Keating cabinet ministers, which I have to say was a little daunting. These debates dominated my first term. While there were plenty of politics at play here, with a wily John Howard seeking to wedge the Labor opposition, the competing interests of personal freedom and national security were real, and efforts to find the right calibration difficult. These were my early memories of how the world had changed irretrievably—and the responsibility of government and of this place to keep Australians safe without unjustifiably encroaching on the rights of our citizens was paramount. Before entering parliament, national security was not my first concern, which was economic and employment security. I'd advocated on behalf of low-paid workers. So, upon election, I was keen to ensure progress was made on these matters so important to so many Australian working families. The Howard government, however, was intent on removing protections and weakening the capacity of workers to bargain and, after securing the majority in both houses in 2004, it set about radically altering the industrial relations landscape with the introduction of the Work Choices legislation. This threat to Australian workers was an opportunity for the Labor opposition, and I had the good fortune of chairing Labor's Work Choices taskforce, accompanied by Chris Hayes, who was then in this place, as we travelled across the country with other members and senators, listening to stories of victims of Work Choices and doing our very best to make sure that we sent that message out across the country. It was here that I appreciated the reach of radio and regional television to get a message out. Most of my efforts went into making sure that I got attacks on the government up on hourly bulletins on radio stations, large and small, for about 18 months. After my first years were dominated by national security, I considered this a more conventional contest between Labor and the coalition about the economic employment security of the Australian people. The election of the Rudd Labor government was, firstly, a remarkable effort and an absolutely significant moment in our history. It was due mostly to a disciplined opposition, a well-executed campaign by Kevin and an old, tired government out of ideas whose industrial relations laws had, for once, not been civilised by the crossbench Senate given the government's majority. The laws were so severe they saw a Prime Minister not only lose the election but lose his seat for only the second time since Federation. If my first six years as an MP taught me anything, it was that, if a party wanted to govern, it needed to focus on economic security and national security. That's why, later on, after holding security portfolios, I was very much involved in the debate with others to change the national platform and policies to make sure that we had strong, balanced and fair but strong border protection policies to ensure that the Labor Party maintained itself as an electable government party. I also began to fully appreciate at that time the extraordinary breadth of matters considered by federal members. What other job or formal role compels you to consider, debate, decide on, and in many cases, implement so many matters that are so diverse that are in the public interest? This was underlined for me, at least, as the minister in many portfolios where I introduced anti-dumping measures to stop the decimation of our steel industry, introduced the first working-with-children legislation for the Commonwealth jurisdiction, enacted the first criminal sanctions to protect children from online grooming and procuring online and ended a decade of obstruction by states and territories to finally create an adult gaming classification for gamers, which was just as well given today there are 17 million Australians that define themselves as gamers, and the average age of those is 34. I can recall being involved in decisions of the National Security Committee and being involved as home affairs minister in the deployment of Australian Federal Police to Afghanistan to train Afghan national police and to build civilian capability. I visited them in Tarinkot. I reformed employment services to help the most disadvantaged jobseekers, appointed the first federal small business commissioner and was associated with the introduction by the then Treasurer of the instant asset tax write-off which is so critical for small businesses. I opened many social and community housing projects giving people in need a home. It's been unbelievably diverse work that I've had the great fortune to be involved in, supported by dedicated ministerial staff and diligent public servants and security agency personnel. Most often, it was the continuation of the work of other ministers or shadow ministers working in these portfolios before me. That is why, ultimately, politics is a team game. You can have your individual moments of recognition. It can be the name of a reform or your name on a plaque on a building somewhere. But you're mostly adding to and, hopefully, improving something that came before you. Obviously the election of new governments brings about real changes. I agree with Keating when he said, 'When you change the government, you change the country.' But there are more often times when your work as a shadow minister benefits your successor no less than your policy success has benefited from the work of your predecessor. I'm proud of the policy work I undertook in opposition in industrial relations, industry and defence, as I'm thankful to be influenced by the work of others that came before me in my ministerial portfolios—well, Labor ones, that is! Politics is a team game. Our ministry and our caucus are replete with talent, which enriches our policy breadth and depth that no one MP or minor party could ever replicate. Politics is competitive even within one party, but, to be sure, it requires collegiality. You're marked down if you don't work together—and rightly so. More than that, of the things I'm most proud that are directly attributable to me, my prouder moments are being part of the signature policies of Labor governments. I see the decline in support for major parties, therefore, as concerning, as a talented, well-functioning government party is important not only for this parliament to work properly but for the country to be well led. Independents and minor political parties can play an important part in contributing to our democracy or holding governments to account, but it cannot be said that they can provide sufficient stability, particularly at a time of societal discord or civil unrest. This nation is best served with an elected government formed by a coherent and unified political party, and that is exactly what we have in the Albanese Labor government. I have to say that the divisions and community anxiety are as high as I've seen them in my 23 years. I don't believe that this is an Australian phenomena; rather, it is a global one. Since 2001, non-state threats have risen, and our region has become less stable and more contestable, democracies are under more challenge and autocracies are emboldened. To respond to the regional challenges, we are reconfiguring and relocating our defence assets under the Defence strategic review and strengthening our partnerships and our alliances. To mitigate other risks, we need to have a greater focus on domestic policies—not just the capability of our security agencies but also other policies that seek to include, not exclude, that seek to unite, not divide. As Minister for Home Affairs, I was constantly briefed by the AFP and other agencies on the approach needed to reduce radicalisation and homegrown threats, reaching out and building bridges with community leaders. This was what was put to me by those agencies. After all these years, I believe an even broader approach is required. Tolerance towards communities, whatever their race or faith, should be the responsibility of everyone in this place. It is not just tolerance but support and engagement. We are arguably the most successful multicultural country in the world, enriched by diversity—whether that is language, music, art or food. I could walk a kilometre from my home in Melbourne and choose to eat in a dozen restaurants with different cuisines. We are lucky to live in this country. As a migrant of Irish descent, I'm immensely proud of my ancestry—as you might have noticed! But I have an abiding affiliation with this country I love. We should embrace our diversity and all who call Australia home. Just as important as this, we all have a responsibility to pledge fealty to our Australian family. There is a reciprocal obligation. On a continent that has been home to the oldest continuous culture on earth for more than 60,000 years, everyone since—or their recent antecedents—has migrated here in a mere 250 years. That is part of my personal story that I share with millions of Australians. I was six when I came to Australia, when the population was 12 million. My parents were hardworking and looking for a better life for themselves but mostly for their children. Our first home was half a Nissen hut at Holmesglen migrant hostel, which it just so happens is now the location of Holmesglen TAFE, which was the first visit I had as Minister for Skills and Training with the Prime Minister two years ago. Back then, there were no ablutions in the place we lived. We had a common dining hall and shared bathrooms but were located within touching distance of opportunity. However well my journey from migrant to immigration minister reflects well on me, it says more about this country. Few countries are so generous to first-generation migrants. This country is at its best, as the PM might say, when it doesn't leave anyone behind and it doesn't hold anyone back. To be sure, this egalitarian trait is forever tested and challenged, and, if we are to truly live up to our promise, it needs to be cultivated and protected. Affording opportunity strengthens resilience and cohesion. While I once considered Labor policies such as fair industrial relations laws, universal health care, universal superannuation, and equitable access to education training as essential for individual economic security, I increasingly consider these matters as also part of our national security and our societal wellbeing—not just good policies that stand on their own but also an antidote to extremism and division. You see the rising power of neofascism in western Europe, whose win in France was only just averted. We need only turn our eyes to our friend and ally the United States to see the division and polarisation ever increasing. And at the heart of this political malaise is—not the only cause, but the predominant one in my view—growing inequality. The assault on well-paid and secure work, the hollowing out of middle class, and the shift of its wealth to the top one per cent over nearly 50 years has had a catastrophic consequence. I hope our American friends will find a way to heal and come together, which is so important. I'm also aware that we're not immune to these threats, and we must be vigilant to avoid going down that treacherous path. I have a lot of people to acknowledge and thank, and the list just keeps getting longer, the longer I've stayed here, I've got to tell you. I'll try to do this quickly. I thank all of the hardworking public servants I've worked with across portfolios, without which the work I did could not have happened. I thank the parliamentary staff, the cleaners, the security personnel, the parliamentary attendants, the tech staff, the library researchers and the comcar drivers for their support over the many years. I thank my current staff, starting with the incomparable Julie Ligeti, who is up there in the gallery. I can't believe you were crazy enough to come back and work for me after the first time! She is not only an excellent advisor but also a great supporter of not just my staff but many ministerial staff across government. Thanks to my remarkably dedicated, intelligent and decent crew: Nick Green, Justine Evesson, Erin Smith, Simon Kent, Matt Ryan, Kylie Jensen, Ann Clavin, Gus Viola, Brihony Speed, Ben Ansell, Madi Childs and Khalil El Samad. A special shoutout goes to Allison Theuma for working as my executive every day I've served as a minister since 2008, and for making my life easier. Logistics are everything in this job—thanks, Al. Thanks to my excellent former chiefs of staff, the remarkable Yvette Nash, our very much-missed friend the unforgettable and inspirational Peta Murphy, Julian Sidebottom and Glen Atwell, thank you. Thanks to others who contributed in such important ways—Campbel Giles, Tallis Richmond, Steve Wettenhall, Kathryn McMullan, Jayne Stinson, Melissa Arch, Christian Taubenschlag, Shane Bonetti, Isaac Trienen, Dylan Steed, Christine Tyrell and Elise Murphy. Thanks to my magnificent electorate staff, who have so often represented me in my absence, including Colin Robinson, Julie Wintle, Sean Payne, Dmitri Serghis, Robert Bozinovski, Stacey Nguyen, Adiam Tsegay, Jo McMillan, Carol McKenzie, Nicole Camilleri, Alice Ryan, Catherine Campbell, Phil Clarke, Nathan Guinan and Shistri Bali. I have been here for 23 years, so that's why there's a lot of staff! Then tend to stay with me, though. It has just been that long. To my parliamentary colleagues, over the many years— An honourable member: Name them! Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Name them! If I name one, I have to name them all! For this term, and for all eight terms, it has been a pleasure. Thanks to the electors of Gorton and to the Labor movement—I see Michelle O'Neill up there, representing the ACTU and others. To the great Australian Labor Party that allowed me to serve here, I can't thank you enough. I thank my entire O'Connor clan for their help over all of the years. I am also indebted to the Camilleri family for looking after Una as one of their own in the early years when I was away so often—thank you. In my first speech, I thanked a few but, and I thank them again, but I'll repeat my acknowledgement of the vital role that Jodi Dack played in my career and my life. We are volunteers, but family are conscripts, and Jodie was my partner in crime for many years, for which I'm so grateful. My life has been different, and sometimes challenging as a sole parent over the last six years, and I thank Stacy McGregor for her love and support in recent years. A city pollie and a country equine vet are not the most conventional match-up, but it absolutely works. You have brought personal happiness to my life again; I thank you and I look forward to us spending more time together. To my daughter, Una: you've been remarkably strong and resilient, and your mum would be immensely proud, as am I. I sometimes couldn't work out who was looking after who. I guess we were looking after each other. Without your acceptance of my role here, I would have left this place a long time ago. I definitely will see more school drop-offs and pick-ups ahead and fun times during the school holidays. If I may, I might finish on my reflections of this place and this government since the election. I'm aware I've painted a picture of changes that aren't particularly rosy, a picture of unrest and division, but there are some very clear positive changes that have happened. When I look across this chamber, the composition today more closely resembles Australian society compared with the composition when I first arrived. Firstly, and most noticeably, there are appreciably more women, which I think is mostly owing to the transformation of the Labor caucus, which now has a majority of women in it. This has been supplemented recently, I should also note, by the rise of crossbench Independent women, mainly replacing Liberal men. This significant change makes this a better place, and, equally, more First Nations MPs and the growing diversity of ethnicity and faith present more accurately the face of modern Australia, and that is also better and healthier. Finally—I hope you don't mind—I wanted to just briefly touch on the skills portfolio! I have had more complex and more controversial portfolios than that of skills and training—portfolios with higher profiles, let's say, and day-to-day challenges—but I have loved every minute of the skills portfolio. As I said publicly recently, the Prime Minister showed foresight in providing the tertiary sector, which pretty much supplies half the skills to the labour market, a standalone minister with resources and authority to elevate it nationally in a way that has not happened before, especially given the skills shortages that we inherited, and it was a very good call. In that time, we created Jobs and Skills Australia with 10 tripartite industry skills councils and struck a five-year $30 billion National Skills Agreement with states and territories for the first time in over a decade. And, of course, we have now half a million Australians who have enrolled in fee-free TAFE in less than two years. We've put TAFE back at the centre of the VET sector, empowered the regulator to clean out dodgy providers, opened access to literacy and numeracy education for all adults and provided more support for apprentices—and there is a response to the review of apprenticeship support that has to be undertaken by the government, which I'll be watching with great anticipation. The Commonwealth has, for too long, acted more like a funding body in the VET sector rather than a strategic co-leader. The reason why it's so important to change this is that the goal of this portfolio is very much the means by which we achieve other national goals. If we're to build 1.2 million homes, have a future made in Australia, transition to renewables and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, we need our education and training sectors—schools, TAFEs and unis—to lift. So I wish my successor well and all the very best in working in this very critical portfolio. While we have so much work to do, this government, functioning as a coherent, cohesive and considered team, appreciates the connections and collaboration required across government to build the capability and resilience needed in these challenging times. I have served in three governments and sat in opposition engaged with four more, and I consider this government the most experienced and united. It will continue, I have no doubt, to be fiscally responsible and to be focused on the things that matter to the Australian people, like tackling cost-of-living pressures, and it will do what Labor governments do best, which is build our capability by bringing people together; improve opportunities for all, not just some; and work to ensure that this nation lives up to its great promise of being a strong, richly diverse and harmonious Australia of which we can all be proud. I have just two final tips. First, this chamber is a place of contest and debate, and, of course, it gets wilful at times. That's fine. Parliament did replace the battlefield to resolve disputes, after all. But the more often humanity can transcend partisanship, while it might bore the media outlets, the more the public will mark us up. Finally, it is a great, great privilege to sit in this place, so take your role very seriously by not taking yourself too seriously. Thank you very much. 16:55 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—When our new ministry met for the first time on 29 July 2024, it was the first time since 2006 that any Labor ministry that didn't include Brendan O'Connor had sat. You couldn't ask for a better colleague than the member for Gorton, and you certainly wouldn't find a more decent human being. I met Brendan O'Connor a very long time ago, going back to, I think, probably the 1986 Australian Young Labor conference held in Sydney. We were at primary school at that time, obviously! So, for a lot of our lives, we have been on the journey together, and I have been privileged to share that journey with someone who has integrity and who has the respect of everyone across this parliament. Most importantly, for a political party that can often be quite fierce in our internal battles—and I think Brendan is right to point towards the extraordinary unity that characterises not just this government but this caucus—Brendan has retired without, I think, making any enemies, and that is pretty extraordinary for someone who has been in this place. As Minister for Skills and Training, he, of course, was instrumental in setting up Jobs and Skills Australia and doing, in a really modest way, the first skills agreement that has been done in Australia for more than a decade. He got it done without premiers or chief ministers ringing me and without there being argy-bargy. It didn't go through National Cabinet. He just got it done by dealing with people in the honest, frank and clear way that has characterised his performance in political life. His reforms to TAFE and training have changed the perception of TAFE. The truth is that, for some period of time, Commonwealth governments have said that TAFE is just about states and territories and there's no role for the Commonwealth. He has put it front and centre of the skills and training agenda of our national government, and the fact that over 500,000 Australians have participated in and benefited from fee-free TAFE—importantly, in areas of skills shortage—has not only helped them but helped our national economy and productivity as well. He's given these Australians new skills and self-confidence to find a new job and to embark on a new career. I've been with Brendan to so many TAFEs where we've met people who are either just starting off, having left school, or getting retrained in a new job as the economy has changed. That's just one example of the member for Gorton changing lives for the better. On a personal note, the many of us who count the member for Gorton as a friend know how difficult it was for him to continue his work in politics following the very sad passing of his beloved wife and Una's beautiful mum, Jodi, back in 2018. No-one would have thought less of him if he had chosen to walk away at that time. So, my thanks go not just to Brendan but also to Una and the broader family, for letting us have him for another six years—Brendan being an important part of the return of Labor to government in 2022. Our party and our nation are better because of the contribution of Brendan O'Connor as the member for Gorton and as a minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments as well as the government that I'm proud to lead. He deserves every happiness and success in the future. He will depart this place at some time between now and—at some stage; if we choose not to have a half Senate election, it will mean we can go until September next year! So, it will be at some stage. We will wish him every success in the future, because he certainly deserves that. Well done, mate. BILLS 50 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 50

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024

Second Reading 50 17:03 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Before I go back to my comments on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, I would like to extend my best wishes to the member for Gorton: 26 years of service in this place—eight terms—is a tremendous opportunity and service to his country. I wish him well, and I look forward to working with him on the defence subcommittee for the life of this parliament. But to get back to the bill: I'm very pleased the member for Watson is still here—and I wish the Prime Minister and Senator Watt were still here, because they'd be able to listen to my remarks. Until the Labor Party won government in 2022, the member for Watson was the shadow minister for industrial relations for I think virtually the whole time I've been in this place. He then served as the minister for industrial relations. So, when he came out and expressed some form of incredulity—that he had no idea about the recidivism and the criminal conduct that had taken over the CFMEU: 'We had no idea it was this bad'—the member for Watson, as the shadow minister and as the minister for industrial relations, no doubt had read judgement after judgement after judgement of the Federal Court. If he didn't read them personally, I've got no doubt that he would have had many advisers who would have briefed him on those judgements. Over two decades, judges of the Federal Court have been talking about the illegal conduct that has infiltrated the CFMEU. So I ask this question: how could it be that senior members—any members—of the Labor Party could have had no idea about this problem? Of course they knew! They just chose to turn a blind eye. And why did they choose to turn a blind eye? Well, the fact that the Labor Party has received donations in the order of $6.2 million since the current Prime Minister has been the leader of the Labor Party might have something to do with it. Mr Gosling 245392 How dare you! Mr WALLACE 265967 I'll take that interjection from the member for Solomon. As I said earlier, in another speech, I've spoken about this very thing 65 times in eight years. I've watched the now Leader of the Opposition talk about the criminal element he was exposed to at the CFMEU and the lawlessness in the CFMEU when he was the home affairs minister. Yet those members opposite pretend it never happened. If you don't believe me and if you don't believe the Leader of the Opposition, let's just have a look at some of the cases that have been handed down in relation to the CFMEU. Now, I know the member for Watson was an ardent critic of the ABCC. The Labor Party, when they were last in government, got rid of the ABCC. And when they came back into government again in 2022 they got rid of it again, after we'd put it back in place. To sit here during the MPI and listen to the members of the government defend the actions of the CFMEU—it just beggars belief. I mean, if they want to defend the actions of the CFMEU, why are we having this administration bill? They've learnt nothing, because we know that, to their very core, Labor will always support the CFMEU. Getting back to the ABCC: I know the member for Watson has been very critical. And the member for Watson should know—full disclosure—that I went to school with the previous commissioner of the ABCC, Stephen McBurney. Stephen McBurney is quoted as saying that the CFMEU made up $15.8 million, or 90 per cent, of the total penalties that were handed down by the ABCC. The Fair Work Ombudsman said on Thursday that since December 2022 it had secured additional penalties of more than $3½ million in cases picked up from the ABCC, the large majority of which were against the CFMEU or its officials. We've heard and heard and heard and heard, over the eight years I've been in this place, the member for Watson and all those members opposite talking about how ineffectual the ABCC was and how it was picking up people for wearing stickers on their helmets or flying flags. That doesn't equate with the facts. The Federal Court has handed down $15.8 million in fines to the CFMEU and its officials. Are those members opposite kidding themselves, thinking that the Federal Court fined CFMEU officials and the CFMEU $15.8 million because they wore stickers on their helmets or because they flew flags? No. What we have seen, as a result of the expose of Nine, is just a sliver of the criminal conduct that is occurring on building sites in every state and territory of this country. When John Howard became Prime Minister, he abolished the concept of 'no ticket, no start'. He believed in the importance of freedom of association and enshrined that in legislation, yet that is a constant breach that CFMEU officials continue to make. And then, of course, there's the third line forcing. There's the practice of bullying—not just giving someone a bit of a hard time but getting in people's faces and abusing them with the worst vile language. Those members opposite talk about the importance of a respectful workplace. When we were in government, those members opposite drove a campaign against the Morrison government about having a problem with women and ensuring a safe workplace; all the while, men and women of this country are turning up onto building sites and are being abused—the worst kind of vile abuse in people's faces, with shocking language being used. People are being forced off sites. Mum and dad businesses are being locked out, not just of a particular site but of all sites that are controlled by the CFMEU. It's that sort of illegal conduct that has been identified in this recent expose. It's that sort of conduct that the courts have been talking about for two decades, and yet still those members opposite had no idea, apparently. It came as a shock. And the Greens come in here today and talk about their support for the CFMEU. So, whilst the Labor Party has finally been dragged to this position of bringing in this administration bill, the first iteration of which was fundamentally flawed—and kudos to Senator Cash for standing her ground and forcing not one, not five, not 10, not 15 but 20 sensible amendments to that bill—the Greens come in here today still supporting the CFMEU. After everything that we have talked about, all of the bullying and harassment and illegal conduct, they still come in here. We know that the Labor Party has received $6.2 million, since the Prime Minister became the Leader of the Labor Party, in donations from the CFMEU. How much have the Greens received? Mr Bandt M3C Zero—$175,000 to the Liberals. You received more than us. Mr WALLACE 265967 I have not received a cent from the CFMEU. I can tell you that much. (Time expired) 17:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I think we've now reached the peak of debate. I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the question be put.    

The House divided. [17:19]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 76 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 70 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:25 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 52 17:26 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I move the amendment on the sheet further revised on 20 August 2024, as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (after line 14), after subsection 323B(3), insert: (3A) If the Minister determines a scheme under subsection (1), the scheme must provide that a person is not eligible to be a candidate for an election, or to be elected or appointed (including re-elected or reappointed), to an office in an organisation unless the person is a fit and proper person to be an officer. (3B) Subsection (3A) does not limit subsection (1) or (3). The CFMEU has forfeited the right to clean itself up. As I've already said today, I'm convinced that the administrator is the appropriate short-term response to purge this union of unscrupulous actors and misconduct. Under the process, the administrator will be granted powers to declare offices within the union vacant. But, as we've seen time and time again, these actors find a way of getting back into this union. That is why I'm moving an amendment that provides an extra layer of security on any appointments made by the independent administrator. Under this amendment, appointments of offices well first require the demonstration of 'fit and proper purpose and status', as defined already within section 255 of the existing Fair Work Registered (Organisations) Act. I acknowledge that the government has listened to my concerns and has moved an amendment that is of some similar substance. The amendment agreed to in the Senate would prevent those already removed from office by the administrator would be ineligible for office indefinitely unless they can demonstrate fit and proper status. I agree with this, but I believe it goes only halfway. We know that we've had serious issues in relation to members appointed to this union, and I want to see assurances from the get-go that people ascending to offices within this union meet the public's expectation of integrity. I believe this is a sensible solution and urge all members of the parliament to support it. This administration a start: however—and I've said this before to the minister representing the minister—it is not enough in itself. It has to be the start of where we need to go on this. I believe this is still something that is useful to add to further assurances, particularly from a community that doesn't have a lot of confidence, I'll be honest, in the union or, necessarily, in the government's ability or true will to clean up this union. I believe that this will be a useful amendment for the government to accept. 17:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson To respond on behalf of the government, there's nothing in terms of the concept of the amendment that the government disagrees with. We're in the unusual situation that, normally, we have this debate before the Senate, in which case we would have been in a different situation, I suspect. But an amendment which has the same impact as what's being moved has been carried in the Senate. Therefore, the government won't be supporting the amendment, but acknowledges that the member for Wentworth is raising an issue that does improve the legislation. We believe that the effect of that has already been given by amendments that were carried in the other place. 17:29 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee In our history on this side of the House of strong leadership on this vital issue, the coalition re-established the ABCC in 2016 after a double dissolution election. Labor shut the ABCC down in February 2023, leaving our construction industry and its more than 400,000 small businesses at the CFMEU's mercy. In tandem with the Registered Organisation Commission, the coalition had established watchdogs to prevent, bullying, thuggery and intimidation from unions like the CFMEU on worksites, but Labor has abolished them both. The coalition gave teeth to the watchdogs, but Labor have proven once again that they are lapdogs to militant unions like the CFMEU. On Monday, we saw the coalition stepping up to the plate to restore law and order in the construction sector, with the Leader of the Opposition introducing two bills—the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 to restore the ABCC, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024. Since 2003 the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions, have been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and have been penalised by over $24 million by the courts. Yet it was that same union that, under radical industrial relations changes that were rammed through this place with the support of the Greens, Labor were willing to allow virtually unfettered rights of entry for the CFMEU into family owned small businesses and even farmhouses. The CFMEU has gained legitimacy within the Australian Labor Party. They influence votes within preselections, so there are members of the Labor Party in here who rely on CFMEU delegates at their conferences and preselections, and that's why they're remaining silent. Some Labor MPs know firsthand what is happening within the CFMEU. They fully understand and so does the minister. As the Nine Network's investigations have demonstrated, in my home state of Victoria the CFMEU has its claws deep into the Allan government. I note that a union official on major Victorian government construction sites and a senior Bandidos bikie gang enforcer has been charged with serious assault and is on trial for a home invasion where a woman was attacked. Yet the Fair Work Commission decided on 23 June that this person was a fit and proper person to have a right of entry on worksites. The Greens political party are sheepish, too, because they have been very significant beneficiaries of the largesse dished out by John Setka and his friends. Indeed, as the minister pointed out this morning, the Greens refused to support a bipartisan Senate motion on Monday to rule out taking donations from the CFMEU. Little wonder the Greens are squealing like stuck pigs and opposing this legislation. The old saying goes, 'Better late than never.' As Labor have been humiliated into acting against the CFMEU with this bill, the coalition has secured sensible amendments to ensure that we do not see a return of the same lawlessness when the public spotlight shifts away. The CFMEU will be put into administration for at least three years and as many as five years, due to the position we held from the outset that criminality, bullying, thuggery and intimidation within the CFMEU would take a long time to sort out. The administrator will report to parliament every six months, and I hope the press gallery will be paying attention every time. The administrator has also undertaken to ensure that the CFMEU will not engage in party politics during the administration, including making donations, having positions at party conferences or promoting candidates. We on the coalition side have also secured powers to ban the CFMEU officials for life—not five years, as Labor had proposed—better ensuring John Setka is held accountable for his actions. At this point in time, new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Murray Watt—fresh from his stint as agriculture minister, uniting the farming sector against Labor—says he's concerned about the APRA review, saying, 'We are not supportive of that debate being opened up.' This is a rabbit hole of monumental proportions. (Time expired.) 17:34 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise in this consideration in detail stage to, in particular, support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. It is an important one to recognise that any members appointed by the administrator need to be meet a fit-and-proper-character test. I think that it is incredibly important in the circumstances of why we are here with legislation. The allegations of criminality of the CFMEU in recent times have been deeply troubling and have been going on for quite some time. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or CFMEU, is one of the biggest and most influential unions in Australia, but, when this union is in the news, it is far too often for the wrong reasons. Allegations of intimidation tactics, shutting down work at multiple infrastructure projects, bullying, harassment, intimidation, even leading figures within the union being accused of domestic violence and now these current allegations in relation to organised crime links—these are all particularly troubling. There are now also allegations of outlaw motorcycle gang members acting as delegates and being involved in government funded projects, including the $100 billion Big Build Victorian infrastructure plan. These are all incredibly concerning. The alleged criminality is almost certainly ensuring costs escalate on projects. That is particularly concerning in this environment of high inflation. The consequences are very real: a less-productive economy, slower construction time and cost blowouts. Since 1982, no fewer than four royal commissions have investigated at least some part of the construction sector, so this bill is the start of a process to clean up a union that for far too long has operated effectively without accountability. It means the CFMEU will be forced to accept an administrator. The administration period can last up to five years and will need the recommendation of the administrator to end it. It is definitely the time to act, and I certainly welcome the action of the government. It's a good first step, but we do need to replace the ABCC. Whilst that body didn't work as intended, it is clear there must be some sort of monitoring body for the building and construction sector. There needs to be some version of an oversight committee, and industry reps are putting forward investigations. It will need to have clear parameters and investigative powers, including criminal prosecution. It remains to be seen how effective administration will be, so we must remain vigilant. It remains to be seen if the administration process will be enough to clean the house and clear out all those elements of the CFMEU after a pretty diabolical history. I note that I had discussions with the minister about an amendment to improve this legislation as the bill commenced in the other place. It was handed to Senator Pocock and successfully adopted, so I thank the government and Senator Pocock for considering that aspect, which was that the minister must follow the administrator's advice about whether to place the union into or out of administration. It does ensure some protection from the decisions being overly politicised; they will instead be on the advice of the administrator. I support this bill and I support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. I think this is very important. I thank the government for their positive engagement, but I do urge the government to do more, especially in considering what oversight body will need to be put in place to ensure the criminality that we've seen in this sector can never happen again. 17:38 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I thank the member for Warringah for her comment with reference to the Fair Work Commission Bill. It's worth pointing out that the leader of the Liberal Party this week moved in the House of Representatives one of two bills to bring before the House, and that was to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission and, in a separate bill, to enhance the integrity measures to combat criminality at our nation's building sites. Hopefully, we can rely on the support of the member for Warringah when those two bills come into the House. At the next election, I suggest that Australians will be making a decision on which government they can trust. When you see the behaviour of the CFMEU and the near-on indistinguishable relationship that exists between that body and the Australian Labor Party, it is palpable. We saw this week, or some weeks back, when this issue was raised, a conga line of Labor ministers going to the dispatch box and saying, 'We had no idea that this behaviour was happening in the CFMEU.' When it comes to the Australian public trusting the Australian Labor Party or trusting the coalition, there is only one side of this House that can clean up the mess that's before us. It's disappointing that the bill has been guillotined and that the list of speakers has been shortened. It's worth noting that no speakers from the government side got to their feet to speak to this, other than when the bill was introduced by the Manager of Government Business. Whilst we absolutely support the bill, I fear—looking back at the old BLF some 40 years ago—that whilst this bill is endeavouring to go somewhere, the rubber will hit the road when these other two bills return the Building and Construction Commission watchdog onto the block. It's worth noting that the former Federal Police Assistant Commissioner, Mark Neil, said on 60 Minutes, when asked who was policing the construction industry in Australia at the moment: 'There's no-one at the moment. It's in a vacant space, and there's a gap there.' For us to really fix the problems in front of us, we need to return that watchdog. I'm glad that the recommendations that have come forward are that the donations coming out of the CFMEU be revisited. One has to ask, of the $6.2 million that has gone previously, what was the return? What was the transaction? What was needed by the CFMEU in return for that investment? To take you back two years, the first order of business, when the government was appointed to come into this place, was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That was their first order of business. When a conga line of ministers is suggesting that they had no idea, but they took the $6.2 million, it is just difficult to comprehend. This bill before the House is nothing more than Labor setting a torch to the building and then wanting to have a hero's welcome because they called the fire brigade to come and put it out. This is window dressing. I'd suggest that you watch this space over the next couple of years, because I don't think we're going to see the systemic behaviour shift until the adults are back in charge and the behaviour of allocating contracts by Labor state premiers to CFMEU shops stops. That has to stop. The connection between the CFMEU and the Australian Labor Party is indistinguishable. You can't trust the CFMEU. At the next election you can't trust the Australian Labor Party. We commend this bill to the House. It could go further. I want to acknowledge Senator Cash for the work she did in putting in 21 amendments to give it some more strength, but I will watch with bated breath as to how this is reinforced. 17:43 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Let me start by saying that I regret not having the opportunity, as many members do, to have contributed to the second reading debate on this bill. It's always disappointing when so many of us that work hard to get elected to this chamber miss out on an opportunity to make a contribution at the second reading stage. It's certainly outside the principles of the way in which we debate in this parliament. No-one can forget the criticism in the last parliament, from those that are now employing these tactics, when similar things occurred. I've got just as much right as they did to make that point at the commencement of my remarks, when they mete out those sorts of tactics against the opposition. But I welcome the fact that the government is bringing a piece of legislation into this parliament that is attempting to address the latest serious examples of egregious conduct by the CFMEU. And these are not unbelievable revelations of the moment, as some in the government might seek to claim, but simply the manifestation of conduct that is being continued by the union movement in this industry before they even went by the name CFMEU. We all know the history of these unions, back to the BLF days in the 1980s and before, even way back to the Second World War and the sort of conduct that the union movement engaged in in obstructing the war effort. There was outrageous conduct on the water front, obstructing the supply of materials and other important elements of supporting our troops in Papua New Guinea, which is extremely well documented and well understood. So this sort of conduct is nothing new, but it's as egregious now as some of the worst examples throughout history. We certainly welcome the opportunity to support this legislation. It's better late than never. I join the lament of other colleagues that the ABCC was repealed by this government and make the same point that so many have—that when the CFMEU gave money to the Labor Party they weren't donations; they were investments. They were investments in policy outcomes and a policy agenda. At the top of that list was the repeal of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We've come to find oh-so-clearly how necessary that body was. I remember some of the comments made by the now government about the need for integrity in politics. Nothing was better focused on ensuring integrity in the construction industry than the ABCC that they repealed. We have an interesting circumstance. It is very rare for the Liberal Party and the Labor Party to be voting together on a matter of industrial relations. In this parliament today we happen to be on the same page. So it's an even starker reflection on the one political party in this country that doesn't support this bill—that being the Australian Greens. Boy, have they come a long way since they were an environmental movement focused on protecting the Franklin River in Tasmania and a number of other very worthy things to argue for. They have become, in effect, a camouflaged Communist Party in this country. Their agenda and the things that they stand for are nothing to do with a focus on environmentalism and the things that Bob Brown focused on and took inspiration from when he created that party. They have been infiltrated by the forces of political ideology on the hard, extreme left. We see it manifest in many positions that they take on public policy and, in particular, in this debate on industrial relations. To think that they could sit there, four of them, voting against the passage of this bill when even the Labor Party, which has been owned by the CFMEU for decades, is bringing this legislation into the House and, in fact, expediting its passage through the House through the guillotining of debate. The Greens should reflect on who they are now if their position is that they're on the hard left of the Labor Party on industrial relations. When we go to the people at the upcoming election, I look forward to talking to my constituents in my electorate of Sturt about just who the Greens are these days and what the Greens stand for these days. They are a wealth redistribution party. They are a hard-left party with a dangerous ideology on some of the most significant and important issues of our future. They want to get rid of the submarine program. They want to slash defence expenditure and get rid of funding for private schools and private health insurance. That's who they are. Their behaviour in this debate tells you everything that you need to know about the Greens. On that basis, we commend the passage of this bill through the House. 17:48 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I rise in support of the member for Wentworth's amendment to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. Criminality and corruption must be called out and rooted out wherever they occur. In the case of the construction division of the CFMEU, its links to organised crime and bikies have been there in plain sight for all to see for years. I am Victorian. I was a journalist. I know. It's an embarrassment to other decent unionists and to the Labor Party, which took its money nonetheless. Putting the union into administration is a first step that I support, but I would argue that it's only part of the solution. If we're serious about cleaning up the construction industry, ongoing oversight as well as a comprehensive state and federal government police taskforce empowered to deal with the construction sector is vital. The latest revelations discovered by Channel 9 and the Age point to the alleged actions of the union's Victorian construction division and links to organised crime and outlaw bikie gangs involved in government funded projects, including Victoria's $100 billion Big Build. This could come at specific cost to the constituents of Goldstein, in terms of both cost and amenity, given that several Big Build projects touch the electorate, including the Suburban Rail Loop. The state government is struggling with a crippling debt burden, and there are already serious doubts as to whether the project can be realised, let alone with potential inflated costs as a result of the CFMEU's behaviour. It's important to acknowledge the role of unions in building better working conditions and entitlements for many workers in this country as well as protecting their health and safety. Indeed, it's important to make the point that the majority of union workers in 2024 are women working in feminised industries like nursing, aged care and teaching, and many of those women live in my electorate. The way the CFMEU has operated and, particularly, been led is not in keeping with this feminised cohort. This legislation grants the minister the power to hire and fire the administrator and, in essence, oversee the operation of that process. It's an extraordinary step that requires strict scrutiny and accountability to ensure that the work of the administrator is free from political interference. It is not ideal, but I want to acknowledge that there is no perfect strategy available when it comes to dealing with the crisis the CFMEU construction division has created. Left to a conventional process of allowing the courts to appoint an administrator, that process would almost certainly be bogged down in endless legal action that could drag on for years. I want to be clear that I don't support the guillotining of debate on this matter. But, on balance, overall it is my belief that swift and decisive action is required in order to ensure that the reform of the CFMEU construction division is effective and achieves its aim. And while I expect to support the legislation, it is only just the start, not the end of the work required to clean up this sector. While putting the CFMEU into administration will finally shine a light into the dark corners of its activities and while it aspires to stop the rorting, the double-dealing and the graft that's been the hallmark of this particular division of the CFMEU, that is only part of the challenge. Long after the administrator has gone, the CFMEU construction division cannot simply be free to revert to its former self. We cannot let union officials line their own pockets at the expense of their members and our wider communities. That's why, again, I make the case for an upgraded state and federal government police taskforce to tackle criminal allegations within the construction industry as well as a permanent oversight mechanism. This could include unions like the CFMEU as well as the developers they have often partnered with. Workers in the construction industry do need a union that has their back when it comes to safety, working conditions and entitlements. But, for the good of the community as a whole, that union must play by the rules. This is critical for our communities and for our economy, including the Goldstein community that I represent. I commend the amendment from the member for Wentworth to the House. 17:53 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I would have liked to speak for 15 minutes, obviously, but the Labor government have guillotined debate on this. I remember, when we were in government, the now Leader of the House would go off his tree if ever a bill was guillotined. But on this issue they've got no government speakers and they don't want to let the opposition speak, which is wrong. We should be able to speak. There's no reason we can't sit late. But they're not letting us speak. In relation to the amendment from the Independent member opposite, the member for Wentworth, she makes some good points in the sense that the shadow Attorney-General managed to get some good amendments in place that the Albanese Labor government were not going to put in. They weren't going to go hard on the CFMEU until the shadow Attorney-General got them in place. And the amendment that the member has spoken about talks about the donations to the Labor Party from the CFMEU. We know it's huge and that, in the lead-up to the 2022 election, almost $2 million was donated to Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor Party by the CFMEU—far more than when the former Leader of the Opposition, whose seat I've forgotten— Mr Stevens 176304 Maribyrnong. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Maribyrnong. There was about $850,000. We know that right around the country the Labor Party, both federally and in every state, has received some $100 million since 2017. This relationship that the Labor Party has with the CFMEU is costing the people in my electorate. We're in the middle of a housing crisis and everything is costing more because of the deals that the CFMEU does. I was speaking to a tier 1 builder, and they told me that every day there was coercive control. The Labor Party talk about coercive control in relationships and how bad it is. If I was an employer using coercive control on my staff I would probably be in the slammer, but every day the CFMEU comes into workplaces around this country and coercive control takes place. They are like a militia. Tier 1 builders are controlled 100 per cent under CFMEU agreements, and the rest of the industry isn't. The CFMEU want only their members on the construction site. So if they are not CFMEU—even if they're a member of another union—they will just down tools. What happens if the builder says, 'We're allowing someone who's not a CFMEU member on,' or the builder says, 'We're not going to allow CFMEU members to go and hand out for the Labor Party'—which is what they did at the last election. They all left their sites; I know that it happened in Brisbane. The builder still paid them—that is, the taxpayer still paid them, because most of these are state government jobs. And what would happen? Those workers would be in the shed, and they'd sit there for hours with excuses like, 'The pie warmers aren't hot enough' or 'The site's too dusty' or 'We're getting wet from the rain when we're walking between the lunch room and going to the job site.' Or it's the heat, humidity or high wind. There are plenty of reasons to stop work: 'There's a bar of reo. The end's gone off of it. That's dangerous! Quick, into the shed.' This happens all the time. In the private sector, if they're building houses in my electorate at Newport or in North Lakes, guess what: the builder doesn't get paid. But these guys are still getting paid all the time, and the Labor Party knows about it. And what's happening? The money that the Labor Party has received—the first order of business was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I've been told that under the ABCC productivity was better. We know that, under this Prime Minister, it's fallen by almost six per cent. The watchdog at least was there; there was a policeman on the beat. There has been a definite change in behaviour from CFMEU officials since the Albanese Labor government were elected. They knew that they were protected by the Labor Party. They changed the legislation that they brought in. Now, the relationship between the CFMEU and Labor is hurting mums and dads and my children. The young people here who serve in this place and right around the country or who are at uni now are going to pay more for housing in the future—30 per cent more. So it's a double whammy. Wages are higher under the CFMEU's EBAs, which the Labor Party allows. Productivity is lower, and everyone pays more in the middle of a housing crisis. It's an absolute joke. It's not good enough. In places like Queensland, where we have the Olympics in eight years, will any of this infrastructure be ready? Meanwhile, Labor Party politicians in this federal government and right around the country turn a blind eye to this every day, and now they're guillotining debate on this. It's completely outrageous. 17:58 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey This has become a saga that is a shame on the Labor Party. They opposed us when we were in government and we first introduced the ABCC, which they removed when they came to government in 2007. Then they opposed the reintroduction of the ABCC when we brought it back in 2016, and then they removed it again after they came to government. Of course, they make the point that it wasn't as effective as it could have been. Well then, let's give it more teeth; let's give it some backbone. They've chosen not to go down that pathway; they've chosen to get rid of it instead. The CFMEU has cost Australia hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. The on-costs of its actions on construction around Australia, but more specifically in Victoria, are horrific. My understanding is that construction costs in Victoria are 30 per cent higher than they are over the border in New South Wales. I can tell you that a very bad piece of news for South Australia is the Victorian CFMEU. 18:00 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be put.    

The House divided. [18:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

75 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. (Proxy) Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 67 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:08 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 59 18:09 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I move: That this bill now be read a third time. Bill read a third time. Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024 59

Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024

Second Reading 59 18:10 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024. The opposition will be reserving its position on this bill, noting that the minister has offered to provide further information and briefings to the shadow minister, and that debate on this bill has commenced prior to that occurring due to the government's belief this legislation is urgent. The opposition supports the intent of the bill, which is to provide clarity to the Australian Public Service Commission and to the commissioner of their powers in relation to inquiries into alleged breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. The APS Code of Conduct is an important tool in maintaining the community's expectation of high standards from those who work in the Public Service. The code is articulated in the Public Service Act 1999 and has been the foundation for the Australian Public Service Commissioner and the commission in assisting all levels of the service to maintain that high standard since it was introduced. Under the act, the commissioner may be asked to inquire into and determine whether a current or former APS employee has breached the code of conduct. For agency heads such as secretaries of departments or CEOs of Commonwealth agencies, the act also expressly allows the commissioner to inquire into whether an agency head has breached the code of conduct. The act further provides powers for the commissioner to review any matter relating to the Australian Public Service referred by the Minister for the Public Service. However, doubt has been raised about the APS Commissioner's ability to consider matters referred relating to former agency heads. As it has been presented to the opposition by the government, notwithstanding the fact that the APS Commissioner believes he has an implied power to do this, it is a point that requires clarification. These amendments will now make clear the commissioner can conduct inquiries and make determinations with respect to alleged breaches of the code of conduct by current and former agency heads. This raises some questions with regard to current processes that were commenced before this clarification of the law. As a result, the government is also seeking to provide clarity and grandfather these processes that are already underway. Following the conclusion of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, inquiries and reviews into the conduct of current and former public servants, including former agency heads, were commenced. As the inquiries progressed it became apparent the Public Service Act was not clear about conducting inquiries and making determinations with respect to alleged breaches of the code of conduct by former agency heads. This bill is intended to ensure full accountability and put beyond doubt the authority to inquire into and make determinations with respect to alleged code of conduct breaches by former agency heads under the Public Service Act. The fact that the doubt has been raised and is only now been dealt with is of concern. The minister told the opposition of the urgency of this legislation and its importance to matters currently underway. To this point, the opposition has sought further information in relation to how this matter was brought to the attention of government and the necessity for the urgency of the passage of this legislation to fix it. We question whether there was any consideration given to the legal risk that the act posed to the processes that were undertaken by the APS Commissioner and the commission. What advice did they seek or not seek that gave them comfort that they were on solid legal ground to pursue these matters? And when were they first alerted to the need for the clarity that the bill seeks to provide? We trust that this risk has only recently presented itself. However, if this clarity was in question some time ago, it is not acceptable that the Public Service seeks to truncate proper parliamentary scrutiny by leaving the introduction of this legislation to the last possible moment. The measures contained in the bill may be necessary and may be proportionate to tasks that the APSC is currently undertaking, but they will have significant and potentially wide-ranging implications beyond the current circumstances. That is something that we'll not have the benefit of looking at through a longer debate or the process of a committee inquiry. We trust that the APS Commissioner and the commission consider this for the future. As I have noted, the opposition will continue to work constructively with the government on these matters but will reserve a position until discussions have concluded. But we'll allow for the passage of the legislation to the Senate. As I always do on legislation and matters regarding the Public Service, I'd also like to take the opportunity to make it clear how much we value the work of a frank and fearless public service and the service that they provide to governments of all persuasions. We're very lucky to have high-quality people working in the bureaucracy, serving not only the parliament but also, in particular, the executive by ensuring that the decisions that we make are as well informed as possible. The most important thing we always need to ensure, defend and scrutinise is the independence of the public sector from government and from the executive, ensuring that our public sector maintain a confidence that they can be fierce and frank. That's a very important principle in our Westminster system. If members of the executive, particularly when they come in and are accountable to us in this chamber about matters of the running of our country, are not properly informed and not told everything they need to know and instead are just told what bureaucrats might think they need to know, then that does not lead to good government. This is a very important principle that we, in the coalition, always seek to reconfirm and reinforce because, if we don't have a frank and fearless public service, then we won't get the best-quality advice. The Public Service Commission play a very important role in this as well because they are a whole-of-government agency. They are the biggest HR department in the country, managing more than 200,000 people who serve in the public sector. It's a very important role that they perform. In this bill, we're talking about issues around codes of conduct and the way in which they enforce standards, and that is one of the many important things that the Public Service Commission undertake. It's vitally important to us in the opposition that there is confidence that the APSC have all of the tools that they require at their disposal, so that's why, as I've commented, we very instinctively support the principles that the government have indicated underpin this bill. I'm not sure whether the member for Indi intends to come in and reconfirm any of the points that I've been making on this bill. She strikes me as someone who may or may not have wanted to make a contribution as well. But, having made those very clear points, all I would say is that I reconfirm the principled support from those of us in the opposition towards what the government are indicating that they hope to achieve through this legislation. Equally we await the proper and comprehensive briefing that's been offered to us. We will not stand in the way of the passage of this bill through this chamber, but we, of course, reserve our rights in the Senate if the principles that have been outlined to us around what this legislation will achieve are not met and the questions that we've got are not satisfactorily answered. With that, I commend the bill to the House. 18:19 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It is nice to rise on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024. I must say it is quite ironic that I rise to speak on a bill about conducting inquiries into potential breaches of the APS Code of Conduct and integrity at the same time as I should have been speaking about the CFMEU and integrity within the CFMEU. But those opposite chose to gag debate on that bill, so we're now talking about this important bill. We're looking to understand the importance of integrity. We do need to make sure that this goes through and that the Public Service is held to a high standard. That is something that is very important. As the member for Sturt opposite said, we weren't able to get a full briefing on this bill, so it is important that we get this briefing to understand the details of what happens, because the act does not currently clarify whether such inquiries can be conducted on individuals who are no longer agency heads. This causes uncertainty within the act. It articulates the power to conduct inquiries into breaches by APS employees or former APS employees and breaches by an agency head, but it is silent on former agency heads. It is so crucial that we bring this through because, even if you are no longer an agency head, you should still be held to account, much like, if you were no longer the head of the CFMEU, like John Setka, you should be held to account. That's what we need to do in this House. We need to ensure integrity across services. We need to ensure integrity within the Public Service and also within the unions. As we said, the coalition was able to ensure that 20 amendments were made to the bill that was gagged and rushed through the House. They improved that bill and made sure that there was some level of integrity for the CFMEU. While we're talking about integrity in this bill, I will watch interest as a Victorian to see whether this extends to the TWU you and HSU. We've seen in Victoria that senior officials need to step down because of questions about their conduct within those roles. So we've just had the CFMEU that we've dealt with. We're now talking about integrity within the Public Service. We are talking about integrity in the Public Service, and the government are on a roll: two bills in a row talking about integrity within the Public Service and within the union movement. It's important that we talk about the wider union movement because we do know, Member for Fremantle, that the union movement works closely with the Public Service. They're very linked. You need integrity within our Public Service and integrity within our union movement. You looked a bit bemused, Member for Fremantle, and I understand that, as a Western Australian, you might not be across the issues of the Victorian union movement, but I suggest you look at the actions of the TWU, the HSU and some of those leaders that have had to step down—three unions in one state. It is so important that we look at retrospectivity, as I said. This is an important bill that will hold the Public Service to account. There are things that we need to understand and, as I said, it's hard to talk in detail about this because the coalition hasn't received a briefing on the legislation. This will potentially identify more issues than those that have been talked about. Obviously, while retrospectivity is important, it also does create some challenges, so we need to understand what other referrals could be looked at and what agency heads are included under this bill, because the bill looks at retrospectivity back to 7 July 2023. That's a date that this government have chosen. It goes back to the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, which seems to make sense, but it does raise a question: 7 July 2023 is the date that those opposite have chosen, but what happens through this process if misconduct is found on 6 July 2023? What happens if misconduct is found on 5 July 2023 or 2022? Why is 7 July the magic date? Surely if we're going to look back, we should choose to make sure that all things are covered and all the behaviour of public servants is called for, because, as I said, it's important that we do have strong integrity measures at all times. 18:25 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank all members for their constructive debate on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024. I just want to clarify the member for Casey's imaginative ramble. This law is not retrospective; it's clarifying what we believe to be the existing law. I'm sorry that he wasn't invited to the briefing, which Senator Jane Hume and the member for Bradfield attended yesterday, with the Public Service Commissioner. There has been a briefing for the opposition. I am sorry if the leadership of the opposition don't inform the troops about what they're doing. That's just not really good communication. The other thing is that the previous member—Mr Pyne's replacement, whatever—said, 'When were we notified about'— Mr Joyce e5d The member for Sturt. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Sturt—that's it. Thank you. It's not retrospective; we're clarifying it. There has been a briefing for the opposition. The Australian Public Service Commissioner, Gordon de Brouwer, attended that yesterday. I'm instructed that we were notified in July of the need for this, so we haven't been hatching this for two years. The APS Code of Conduct is a cornerstone of an efficient, effective and apolitical Australian Public Service which upholds APS values and acts with integrity in the national interest. Culture is set from the top down. Agency heads should not be able to escape accountability for breaching the code of conduct simply by leaving their role. Claims have been made in the context of current inquiries, including in relation to robodebt, that the absence of an express power means the commissioner cannot investigate agency heads. The government is not prepared to compromise the outcome of these important inquiries, and that's why the date of 7 July 2023 was picked, and we are acting swiftly to remove any ambiguity. This bill will clarify the commissioner's power to investigate and make findings against former agency heads. This will allow the commissioner to conclude current inquiries quickly and undertake further inquiries on a clear, level footing. This bill delivers on what the Australian community deserve and expect—clear powers to ensure that the most senior leaders of our Public Service are accountable for their conduct as agency heads. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 62 18:28 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 62 COMMITTEES Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee 62 Membership 62 18:28 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Brown has been appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. BILLS 62 BILLS Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 62

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

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

Second Reading 62 18:32 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise today in support of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the government's Future Made in Australia policy agenda. The world is at a tipping point. We either face up to the challenge created by climate change, and fast, or we submit to a future of heatwaves, extinctions, rising sea levels, higher rates of mortality, food, water and fuel insecurity and vast swathes of the world's population becoming climate refugees in search of habitable living conditions. We understand the crisis and we understand its causes. We also understand how to fix it. Quite simply, the time has come to end our addiction to fossil fuels as the primary source of energy for our country and the foundation of our economy. An addiction is something that does us harm, and fossil fuels are harming us all, most of all the future of our children. Whether we like it or not, the world is transitioning away from fossil fuels. Australia, too, must transition to a decarbonised energy source. It is the clever thing to do for two simple reasons: for the safety and security of our planet and to create a strong and vibrant Australian economy based on technology of the future, not technology of the past which is outdated. Building green manufacturing and value-adding capacity is the way we as a nation will create the high-income, highly skilled jobs of the future. It is the way we will be able to maintain our high standard of living. If we do not transition, if we do not evolve and adapt to the new future by investing in and building our green manufacturing capacity, then, quite simply, we will be left behind other nations that do. We will be left behind to become a 'dig it and ship it' country that has to buy back products made with our raw materials at high prices. A domestic net zero economy here in Australia will reduce global emissions by just over one per cent. But if Australia successfully seizes the economic opportunity to export zero-emissions minerals, metals and other goods, not only would this create a sustained economic boom, improving our national prosperity and living standards, but it also has the potential to reduce global emissions by an additional six to nine per cent. I will repeat that: Australia has the potential reduce the world's emissions by up to 10 per cent. But it means acting and investing in this future right now. Right now, with the policies we make in this House we are choosing the type of future we want and Australia's role in creating that future. When I speak to the people of Mackellar, one message that is clear and resounding is that the people have had enough of short-termism. They want visionary leadership. They want us to envisage a bright future and then make long-term policies and take steps that help us achieve that vision. So we must grab this opportunity and entered the new era boldly—an era that will be known as the green industrial revolution. We have a win-win opportunity to play an outsized role in the conservation of our planet, and at the same time as building a future-focused, resilient, vibrant economy here in Australia. That's what the Future Made in Australia is setting Australia up to do. It's sets up the legislative framework and institutional infrastructure necessary to support the transition to a clean, future-focused economy. As stated by the Superpower Institute, the Future Made in Australia framework is 'a critical step to unlocking green export opportunities that will form the basis of future economic prosperity and underpin a key part of global decarbonisation efforts'. But, like most startups, new technologies and industries typically require early financing and support because of large upfront capital costs. Upfront costs of innovation and infrastructure in this area are too large and risky for individual early movers. That's why upfront investment from government is necessary to help build the industries and diversify our economy in a way that will sustain us into the future. As a result of the government's $22.7 billion Australian manufacturing scheme, giant superannuation funds have declared they are eager to start spending on local projects. This is exactly what we want to happen. We want government investment to attract private capital. Institutional investors with hundreds of billions of dollars under management have come out in support of the scheme, stating that public financing can unlock the private capital needed to grow green industries to slash emissions, boost jobs and hit the nation's climate targets. The head of external relations for global infrastructure investment fund IFM Investors, with more than $200 billion under management, is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying: Unlocking investment at-scale into Australia's energy transition can only happen if industry and government work together to achieve the right policy settings. Jeff Brunton, the head of portfolio management at Hesta, a fund with around $85 billion under management, said: Initiatives like Future Made in Australia help Australia compete for its fair share of global capital increasingly looking to invest in the transition. The experts are aligned on what should be the fulcrum of the Future Made in Australia program, and that is comparative advantage. We all know where Australia's comparative advantage lies—in our abundant natural resources: specifically, wind, solar, critical minerals and our wide, open spaces. These comparative advantages mean that it is possible for our future renewable energy supply to far exceed our demand, opening up the opportunity for an enormous renewable energy and green product export market. The way to achieve this, according to the Superpower Institute, is to embed renewable energy in energy-intensive value-added products such as green metals, fertilisers and fuels. In other words, Australia can make products with clean energy and then export them to the rest of the world to use so that countries without renewable energy capacity don't have to use polluting energy sources to create these products for themselves. Just last week, WWF released a report about green iron showing that, through its production, Australia can decarbonise Asia's steel production. Steel is responsible for nine per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. As a leading world supplier of iron ore, steel's essential ingredient, Australia can and, quite simply, must play a significant role in decarbonising the global steel industry. Major Asian steel producers are looking to Australia as a supplier of green iron, but we have competition from other countries who are rapidly building their own green iron industries. Investment and policy support are vital to give Asian customers the confidence to choose Australia as a reliable supplier of green iron. The Future Made in Australia program provides the framework to deliver those clear and certain policy investment conditions. The need for Australia to engage in the green industrial revolution is absolutely clear, as is our ability to reap enormous benefits from it. I am not, however, without concerns about aspects of the Future Made in Australia legislation currently before the House. I will now outline some of these concerns. Firstly, I agree with the Environmental Defenders Office submission to the inquiry into this legislation that Australia's emission reductions targets and our obligations under the Paris Agreement must be incorporated into the legislative objects. Even more explicitly, the legislation needs amending to make clear that no Commonwealth funds or investments can be used to support fossil fuel projects or infrastructure or any related industry, and this would include carbon capture and storage. This should be clear and uncontroversial. Secondly, I'm concerned about whether the investments envisaged under the Future Made in Australia will be sufficiently targeted to achieve its goal, which is a more diversified and productive economy powered by clean energy. As currently drafted, the bill is too vague as to which sectors might be eligible for Future Made in Australia support. To fix this, the objects should be amended to incorporate the urgent need to decarbonise Australia's energy and industrial systems. Thirdly, there is a need to mandate the assessment process. Surely projects should only be eligible for these Commonwealth Future Made in Australia funds if they are part of a sector that has been subject to an assessment which has concluded that it is an appropriate sector for support. This is a necessary guardrail to ensure that taxpayer money is being used only for sunrise industries where it is necessary to bridge the green premium, not for sunsetting industries where government investment will only extend projects' life spans and harmful effects. A reasonable assessment process has been formulated, but, in the current form of the legislation, it is entirely at the discretion of the government as to whether it is applied or not. Surely it would be most appropriate for it to be used every time. So I will be supporting the amendment from my crossbench colleague the member for Curtin, which prohibits Future Made in Australia support unless a sector assessment recommends the relevant sector for that support. Observers should be able to assess how the government has come to a conclusion about our comparative advantages and about which industries we are subsidising and why. Fourthly, given that the world is rapidly changing, it will be necessary to reassess which sectors are included in the legislation every five years. Investments that make sense now may not make sense when we know more about which technologies are likely to dominate and what other countries are doing. Having a formal requirement to reassess every five years will at least provide a backstop and ensure Australia remains on the right track. Fifthly, while decision-makers under the Future Made in Australia legislation will be required to consider community interest when making decisions, more could be included. First Nations communities deserve more than 'collaborative engagement', which is the requirement as currently drafted. The community benefit principles should allow First Nations people to participate in and benefit from Future Made in Australia projects. Nature positive outcomes and greenhouse gas reductions should also be incorporated into the community benefit principles. Finally, I urge the government, as I so often have in this place, to ensure that all Australians reap the benefits of what are, after all, their investments in these Future Made in Australia projects. If taxpayer money is being invested into the establishment of new industries, especially when those industries are based on the exploitation of our natural resources, then we must share in the rewards. Let's not make the same mistake successive governments have made in our resource sector by allowing foreign companies to be the big winners from what is dug out of our ground by giving away our resources, often for free. Let's ensure we are the best ancestors we can be by not only fixing the climate crisis but by establishing a sovereign wealth fund to ensure our future generations are provided with services like high quality health care and education and high quality disability and aged care. Australia could not be in a better position to prosper from the green industrial revolution. If it's done properly we can not only flourish domestically from the transition but we can also lead the world. We can help our neighbours and trading partners to decarbonise and we can make the future brighter—environmentally and economically—for generations of Australians to come. The role Australia can play in the global transition is real and it is urgent. It is also achievable. We choose our future. 18:47 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I'm proud to rise and speak today in support of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. Australia is a very fortunate country. We have incredible natural resources, a robust economy, a thriving business sector, a highly skilled workforce, strong international trading relations and a stable government. With this bill, the Albanese Labor government will be able to promote jobs, security and prosperity for all Australians in this increasingly changing world. Of course, there are several factors contributing to this change. There's the transformation of industries in this digital age, complex economies and, indeed, our own lifestyles as we make our way towards net zero. However, whilst we navigate this era of fast paced change, there are opportunities afforded to us. The Future Made in Australia legislation can make sure we meet these opportunities head-on rather than taking a backward step. The Future Made in Australia plan is a big step forward for our country. It is visionary and progressive. It recognises our future growth prospects lie at the intersection of our industrial resources, skills and energy bases and our attractiveness as an investment destination. It demands rigour in government decision-making, which will give investors confidence and clarity. While the plan is comprehensive, it also has the simple aim of making the most of our resources, which belong to all of us, and to encourage more manufacturing of things here. At the end of the day, this bill is an action plan for a more economically prosperous, secure and independent future for every one of us and for future generations. Who could say no to that? For too long, our manufacturing industries in Australia have been in steep decline. The previous government failed dismally to address this decline. In fact, they actually made things worse. Remember former treasurer Joe Hockey in this very place challenging Ford and Holden—the last two Australian car manufacturers—to leave our shores. And guess what. That's exactly what they did. They up and left. Great work; well done, guys. The former government left a policy vortex in this space. They did a fat lot of nothing for this country in terms of industry development—zero, zilch, nada, nothin'. Just like their so-called great economic plan for our future, it was based on an idea—a thought bubble, if you will—which never, ever materialised. Sorry; that was apart from the 'back in black' coffee mugs. By the way, where are those mugs? I'd love to get my hands on one of those since we are actually back in the black now—for real this time. But I digress. The bill we are currently debating in parliament has three key components. The first component is to embed the government's new National Interest Framework, announced at budget time. This will help identify sectors where Australia has a genuine comparative advantage in the net zero economy or an economic security imperative and better align economic incentives with the natural interest. Legislating this framework will provide the investment sector with clarity and confidence. The second key component will be establishing a robust sector assessment process. This component will be transparent, made at the request of the Treasurer and implemented by Treasury. These assessments will be made public so that Australians can gauge whether an area of the economy is aligned with the National Interest Framework. The assessment process will also inform government as to any barriers to investment. An important part of the National Interest Framework is establishing a set of community benefit principles, which brings me to the third key component. The community benefit principles make sure that investments work for local communities, for local businesses and for local workers. A future made in Australia requires investments that promote and provide safe, secure and well-paid jobs which have good conditions, and this means developing a highly skilled and inclusive workforce and broadening opportunities for workforce participation, particularly for some underrepresented groups such as women, First Nations groups and remote communities, as well as those communities directly affected by the transition to net zero. In addition to this, domestic industrial capabilities will be strengthened through more robust local supply chains. The bill also enables the identification of Future Made in Australia supports, which are the government investments to which the community benefit principles apply. The bill identifies two initial supports: the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund and certain investments referred to government for funding consideration under Export Finance Australia's expanded National Interest Account. Other Future Made in Australia supports can be added by the minister under the rules. The Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 outlines specific changes to enable the measures mentioned. Firstly, the government is amending the Export Finance Australia legislation to encourage and facilitate private sector investment. This includes ensuring the availability of support for existing funds and programs that cannot fully support a project. The bill also enables Export Finance Australia to focus on domestic investments that boost the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. Export Finance Australia will carry out these operations while continuing to bolster other national interest programs such as the Critical Minerals Facility, the Southeast Asia Investment Financing Facility, the Defence Export Facility and the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the PACIFIC—all important projects. The second schedule of this omnibus bill makes amendments to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011. These amendments will ensure that the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, also known as ARENA, can support the Future Made in Australia strategy. ARENA first received statutory funding back in 2011. I should mentioned now that it was back in 2011 that ARENA had bipartisan support. Despite the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-led governments and their continued attacks on ARENA, in particular from the Abbott government, it managed to survive and give those three governments their only claims to have responded in some tiny way to climate change, though history shows that both the Turnbull and Morrison governments merely chronically neglected ARENA rather than outright attack it like the Abbott government achieved. Resulting from these omnibus changes, ARENA will have a limited special appropriation within the legislation. The agency's parameters will be extended to include a fourth objective, which is to contribute to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement. ARENA will also promote electrification and energy efficiency, given their crucial part in enabling a net zero transition, as well as enable greater integration of renewable energy into the grid. Obviously we all know, especially on this side of the chamber, that more renewable energy equals lower power bills. The equation is very simple. With global greenhouse gas emissions in mind, ARENA will also support the development and manufacture of Australian renewable energy products for our trading partners. This will assist our trading partners with their own decarbonisation targets and have a positive effect on reductions globally. After all, there is only one planet, as everyone knows. Our neighbour's problem can be our problem to help them solve. These positive changes to ARENA will provide the agency with the foundation it needs to support the transition to net zero and make Australia a renewable energy superpower. Statutory funding means ARENA delivers its Future Made in Australia components, such as the Solar Sunshot program and the Battery Breakthrough Initiative. A snapshot of the Sunshot program shows how it supports a future made in Australia. It aims to support innovative manufacturing facilities right across the solar supply chain, and the Battery Breakthrough Initiative promotes the development of domestic battery manufacturing capabilities. We won't just be shipping off raw materials and buying back and shipping in manufactured value-added batteries. Instead, we'll build them here in the first place. What a novel idea. We know that's happening, particularly in rural Australia. In my own home state of Victoria, old or soon to be decommissioned coal-fired power stations are being reutilised by these batteries and other solar initiatives because of their connection to the grid. This bill directs statutory funding of over $6 billion of ARENA's existing funding to a limited special appropriation. It gives private investors the security required to support the extensive projects crucial to the transformation to net zero. It also showcases Australia's unwavering commitment to climate targets. Internationally we were fast becoming a pariah when it came to our response to very dangerous climate change. The final raft of reforms to ARENA concern its governance and ensure that the agency has the ability to succeed with its expanded remit. The board will be strengthened, and the agency will be able to employ its own staff. It also changes certain ministerial arrangements, including enabling the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to delegate powers to other ministers and establishing the Minister for Finance as a joint minister for ARENA, reflecting the reality that responding to dangerous climate change must be an economy-wide endeavour. All ministers have a role to play. As the Treasurer has said: We have a unique combination of geological, meteorological, geographical and geopolitical comparative advantages. It would be an egregious breach of our generational responsibilities as a government if we didn't play this winning hand. Well said, Treasurer. That's why this year's budget is backed by $22.7 billion in investment that aims to unlock the full potential of our resources and transform Australia into a manufacturing superpower. This bold agenda is designed to drive innovation and industry growth, establishing Australia as a global hub for advanced technologies. 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 year alone. In only two years we've approved enough renewable energy projects to power three million Australian homes. Our Future Made in Australia plan is about giving a huge boost to projects like these and ensuring they have what they need to compete in the future, and there's no time to waste. We are the sunniest and windiest continent on earth, and this is our moment. More than anywhere on earth, Australia is poised to gain new jobs, new industries and new skills, creating opportunity in our regions, our suburbs, our factories, our labs, our TAFES and our unis. Our government is one that is prepared to step up and do its part to fund the apprenticeships, to attract the investments, to build the infrastructure, to boost the industries and to back the brightest ideas. That's what a future made in Australia is all about—a stronger economy made right here. I commend this bill to the House. 19:00 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon A future made in Australia: can I tell you that, if this government keeps going, there will be nothing made in Australia, because the future under this government looks extraordinarily bleak. They're great with their little marketing spin: 'We'll put a bill in which gives the Treasurer'—the Treasurer who has overseen a cost-of-living and cost-of-business crisis—'control of the economy. We'll start running a command economy, and that's how we will ensure the future of manufacturing in this country.' Well, manufacturers are shaking in their boots under this government. They're saying to themselves: 'What's next? What are the government going to do to make our lives even harder?' That is why we are going to oppose this bill—because it does nothing to address the issues which are confronting manufacturing in this country. As a matter of fact, everything it does is going to make things worse. To start with, will this bill help with affordable and reliable energy? Mr McCormack 219646 No. Mr TEHAN 210911 No, it won't. The member for Riverina goes straight to the top of the class because, if you ask a question, he has got the answer—straight ahead—which I must say is a little bit different to the Prime Minister today in question time. Five times there was a very simple question, and he was evasive and slippery and wouldn't answer anything like what the question had asked of him. But the member for Riverina knows—straight question, straight answer. Affordable and reliable energy: no, this bill does not help in that. This is the biggest issue that manufacturing is facing right across this country at the moment, and I say to those opposite: please, for the sake of the future of our nation, fix the energy mess that you are creating. If it keeps going like it is, then, sadly, we are going to see manufacturing businesses disappear out of this country at a rate we've never seen. You have to fix this. That's why you should just take this bill out of here and say: 'We've got it all wrong. It doesn't incentivise in the right places. It doesn't fix the issues that need fixing. Instead, it has got all its priorities wrong.' Start again and go back to the drawing board. What else does the manufacturing sector in this country need at the moment? It needs flexible workplaces, yet what is this government delivering? It's delivering more and more of the same: regulation upon regulation, which makes it harder for manufacturing businesses right across this nation to employ people. It makes it harder for them to adapt. It makes it harder for them to compete. Once again, we see from those opposite, those on the government benches, that they have no idea about what it requires to run a business. I'll tell you what can happen now and what can happen quite readily which couldn't happen before. If you're running a manufacturing business, guess who can walk in the front door now? Mr McCormack 219646 I reckon the unions. Mr TEHAN 210911 The member for Riverina goes straight to the top of the class again: the unions. The changes that are happening now mean that you can be a manufacturing business going about your business and running successfully. Your employees are happy. And who can trot in the door now? The trade unions. Once again, this government is looking after their union mates at the expense of manufacturing businesses. We all know that unions have a role to play. The trouble is that the government thinks that role should be all-encompassing when it comes to running a manufacturing business, and that is not what this nation needs at the moment. We need flexible workplaces. We do not need workplaces which are regulated beyond an inch of their life, where on any day a union official can walk in the door and change the very nature of that business overnight. What do you think a Future Made in Australia Bill, if it was not just a marketing headline but had real substance, would do? It would look at reducing regulation for manufacturing businesses across this nation. It would look to reduce red tape. This is something that the member for Riverina knows and understands well, because he's a former minister for small business. He knows and understands the importance of getting rid of regulation. He's a business owner as well. Why is regulation strangling manufacturing businesses right across this nation? Because it means that the people who run these businesses are spending their whole time petrified about the regulatory burden that they face and about complying with that regulation, rather than getting on with running their manufacturing business. Can I say to those opposite: please, once again, look at what you're doing to these businesses. See what you can do to take the regulatory tax burden away from them and what you can do to take away the regulatory burden when it comes to work health and safety. Look at what you can do to take the regulatory burden away when it comes to ensuring that they aren't facing, once again, burden after burden when it comes to compliance in every single form. If you can do that then manufacturing businesses in this country will have a chance. Do you know what else you need to do? You need to make sure you have a tax system which incentivises these businesses to make a profit, to reinvest that profit back into their businesses and to grow their businesses, so that we can, once again in this country, see small businesses becoming medium-sized businesses and medium-sized businesses becoming large businesses. All you are doing at the moment through your tax system is taking away any incentive for these businesses to grow. Why is it important that we have affordable and reliable energy, flexible workplaces, less regulation and an incentive-based tax system? It's important because it means that manufacturing businesses can flourish. Why is it important that manufacturing businesses can flourish? Because if they don't, we're not making things here in Australia. And, as we saw during the pandemic, if we're not making things here we are leaving ourselves vulnerable. We have to be able to make things here. The way you make things here is twofold. First of all, you have to be able to make things here so that you can sell them in the domestic market. Then, usually as you grow, you want to be able to sell not only in your domestic market but also in your international market. If manufacturing businesses here in Australia aren't competitive, they aren't able to do that. You have to be competitive. If you're not, what happens is that those who manufacture overseas are able to get their products into Australia at a more competitive rate and that puts pressure on our manufacturing businesses here. Our manufacturers who have grown things and who are exporting all of a sudden can't compete because others can compete and provide the products and goods at a better price than they can. So you have to be competitive. The ultimate question that needs to be asked about this bill is: does it make our manufacturing businesses here in Australia more competitive? The sad reality is that the answer is no. That is why the government needs to take it back to the drawing board and start again. I have some very, very good, competitive manufacturing businesses in my wonderful electorate of Wannon. There are some wonderful ones, whether it comes to manufacturing parts to go in Kenworth trucks and to go in Bushmaster vehicles, whether it comes to food manufacturing in the red meat industry and the dairy industry or whether it comes to manufacturing for wind towers which are used in wind farms for renewable energy. I have a wide variety of manufacturing in my wonderful electorate of Wannon. These wonderful manufacturing businesses tell me time and time again that they want the cost of doing business reduced. As a matter of fact, they are saying that there is a cost-of-doing-business crisis. Those are the large manufacturing businesses. I also have a lot of small manufacturing businesses in my electorate, and they are right across the economy as well. They might be in metal fabrication. They might be in the building industry making trusses for small homes et cetera. Right across the board, they are manufacturing some of the most diverse things that you would see right across our economy. What are those smaller manufacturing businesses saying to me as well? They are saying, 'Please reduce our costs.' Why is it so important that the cost of doing business is reduced in this country? It's because, if we don't reduce the cost of doing business, business has no alternative but to pass those costs on. What happens when they pass those costs on? The consumer has to pay more, and that adds to the consumer's cost-of-living crisis. I say to the government, 'You have to address inflation and you have to address it now.' We've got ourselves in this vicious circle where the cost of doing business is going up and that is passed on to the consumer. So the cost of living is going up, and we end up with a cost-of-living crisis and a cost-of-doing-business crisis. What we're seeing from the government is a hopelessness and a haplessness in addressing this, the like of which we have never seen. You're starting to make Gough Whitlam look good. You have to be able to deal with inflation. I don't think that I've heard from a single business that hasn't found the current operating environment worse than the GFC, worse than the Asian financial crisis and worse than any other time that they have faced in the last two, three or four decades. They are saying times are as tough as they have ever, ever been. I will conclude with this: Does this bill make our manufacturing businesses more competitive? Does it help them address the cost-of-doing-business crisis? Does it mean that the cost-of-living crisis will be addressed because the cost of doing business will be addressed? No, it doesn't. Those opposite are always smug and smart and they got together and they thought: 'We've got a bill and all it will do is make things ultimately tougher for business and tougher for the consumer. What will we call it? We'll call it the "Future Made in Australia Bill".' Well, I think all of us can agree on one thing in this House—that that title basically means that there won't be a future made in Australia. As a matter of fact, if this government continues in office, there will be no future for manufacturing in this country in the short to medium period. That will be a travesty because it will mean that our country is less prepared to face the challenges that it will need to face into the future. 19:15 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong As the world transitions towards net zero emissions, Australia faces both an immense challenge and an unprecedented opportunity. The government is committed to ensuring that we do not just to keep pace with these global changes but that we lead the way, building a stronger, more diversified economy that is powered by renewable energy and underpinned by secure, well-paid jobs. That is what this Future Made in Australia Bill is all about. It's about ensuring that we respond to the immediate pressures of a changing world but also about ensuring that Australia is best placed to take advantage of the opportunities of the future. This bill seeks to lay the groundwork for an economy that is resilient in the face of global uncertainties and dynamic in its capacity to seize new opportunities. The Future Made in Australia Bill is a vital part of a plan to build an economy that is not only stronger and more resilient but also sustainable and fair. As we look around the world today, we see the effects of the global transition to net zero playing out in real time. Supply chains are fragmenting under the pressure of geopolitical tensions and competition for clean energy resources and technologies is intensifying. For Australia, a nation rich in natural resources and renewable energy potential, this shift presents a significant opportunity but only if we are ready to take it. Economic resilience in 2024 is about building the capacity to thrive in a rapidly evolving world, and this bill is designed to do just that. By focusing on our competitive advantages, which are our abundant renewable resources, our critical minerals and our world-class research and manufacturing capabilities, we can ensure not only that Australia is resilient to face the global challenges but that we emerge stronger and more competitive on the world stage. We are uniquely positioned to lead in the global transition to net zero. We have some of the world's best wind and solar resources, a wealth of critical minerals essential for clean energy technologies and the expertise in our workforce to harness these resources efficiently. Our resources are in high demand globally as nations accelerate their efforts to reduce carbon emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources. The International Energy Agency has forecast that global demand for critical minerals could increase by as much as six times by 2040, driven largely by the energy transition. This presents us with a golden opportunity to secure our place as a key supplier in the global market. The global competition for these resources is fierce and, if Australia is to maintain its competitive edge, we must invest strategically and ensure that our industries are equipped to meet the demands of the future. This is where this bill comes into play. By providing a clear and stable framework for investment, this bill will help unlock the private sector capital needed to develop our critical minerals resources and ensure that Australia remains a leader in this vital sector. The potential for us to become a renewable energy superpower is immense. Our vast landscapes are bathed in sunlight and swept by winds, providing us with an almost unparalleled opportunity to generate clean and cheap renewable energy. We are home to some of the largest and most promising deposits of critical minerals, such as lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements. These are essential components of batteries, electric vehicles, and other clean technologies. However, becoming a global leader in renewable energy requires more than just abundant resources; it demands innovation, infrastructure and international cooperation. We must invest in the technologies that will allow us to harness our renewable energy potential fully. This includes advancing our capabilities in energy storage, grid management and the development of green hydrogen, a field in which Australia has the potential to excel. Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, has the potential to become a major export for Australia, providing clean fuel for industries worldwide and cementing our position as a pioneer in the global energy landscape. Furthermore, our transition to net zero will require significant upgrades to our infrastructure. We must modernise our energy grids, expand transmission networks and build necessary facilities for large-scale renewable energy production and export. This will not only support domestic energy needs but also position Australia as a key supplier of clean energy to the world, particularly to our regional partners in Asia. This bill is crucial to realising this potential. It lays the groundwork for Australia to lead the world in energy production, innovation and exports. By providing a stable, predictable framework for investment, this bill will attract the capital needed to develop large-scale renewable energy projects, advanced manufacturing and, importantly, the processing of critical minerals here onshore. Already we're seeing the private sector responding to these opportunities. Investments in solar energy farms, wind projects and battery storage systems are on the rise, and they will only continue to rise under the programs and policies of this Labor government. This bill is vital for ensuring that the benefits of the revolution—the renewable energy revolution, not just the standard revolution—are shared widely across— Mr Hill 86256 Bring on the revolution! Mr McCormack 219646 What are you planning? Mr LAXALE 299174 Whoops! I let the plan out! I said the quiet part out loud! This bill is vital for ensuring that the benefits of our renewable energy revolution are shared widely across Australia, particularly in regional and remote areas. By fostering local ownership and participation in renewable energy projects, this bill will help build stronger, more resilient communities and create new economic opportunities in areas that have traditionally relied on industries like coalmining and agriculture. As global and local demand for clean energy grows, so too will the demand for technologies and materials to make that possible. By positioning Australia at the forefront of this shift, we are ensuring that our economy remains vibrant and competitive for decades to come. To be a true global leader in renewable energy, Australia must also invest in innovation. This means supporting research and development in emerging technologies like hydrogen production, energy storage and grid integration. We have the potential to be the world leader in these areas, and this bill provides the necessary support to ensure that our researchers and innovators have the resources they need to develop the next generation of technologies. Central to this bill is the National Interest Framework, which is designed to align economic incentives with our national climate goals. This framework identifies sectors where Australia has a genuine competitive advantage in the net-zero economy or where economic security imperatives demand domestic capability. By legislating this important National Interest Framework, we are providing the certainty and stability that investors need to commit to large-scale projects that will drive our transition to net zero. Legislating this framework will provide increased stability. The National Interest Framework will ensure that our investments are directed towards sectors that will provide the greatest economic and, importantly, the greatest environmental returns. By identifying and prioritising these sectors, the framework will help to streamline government decision-making and reduce the risks of investment in these critical areas. This is particularly important in the context of the global energy transition, where time is of the essence and competition for capital is intense. Another key component of this bill is the community benefits principles. These principles ensure that the investments made under the Future Made in Australia plan will deliver tangible benefits to local communities. This includes promoting and providing secure and well-paid jobs, fostering inclusive workforce development and strengthening our domestic industrial capabilities. We are committed to ensuring that the benefits of this transition are shared broadly, especially in communities that have been historically dependent on traditional, fossil-fuel heavy industries. The renewable energy sector, in particular, stands to benefit from these principles. We can expect significant job creation in regions such as the Hunter Valley in New South Wales and regions in Central Queensland, where the transition to clean energy will bring new opportunities for workers. This bill's focus on training and skills development will ensure that these workers are prepared to take on these new roles, helping to build a more skilled and inclusive workforce. The emphasis on inclusivity is also critical, ensuring that all Australians, regardless of their background, have access to the opportunities created by the transition to a net zero economy. This Future Made in Australia plan is a critical tool in our fight to take action on climate change. It's part of our government's broader strategy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, as outlined in our commitments under the Paris Agreement, which are testament to our recognition of the urgent need to address climate change. By focusing on renewable energy and clean technologies, this bill will help Australia meet its emission reduction targets whilst also driving economic growth. The science is clear. To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must drastically reduce our carbon emissions. By investing in renewable energy, electrification and energy efficiency, this bill will help decarbonise key sectors of our economy such as electricity generation, transport and industry. This bill supports the development of sectors that are crucial to this transition, such as electrification, energy efficiency and renewable energy integration. The amendments to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act will enable the agency to better support the government's renewable energy objectives, including initiatives like the Solar Sunshot program and the Battery Breakthrough Initiative. These programs are essential for reducing Australia's reliance on fossil fuels and for transitioning to a clean energy future. The statutory funding provided and proposed under this bill will secure the natural resources needed to support these programs over the coming years. This funding will give industry and investors the certainty they need to develop projects of the scale and duration necessary to meet our climate targets. This will send a strong signal to the world that Australia is serious about leading our transition to net zero. It's important to recognise that the transition is not just about reducing emissions; it's about creating a more sustainable and resilient economy. By investing in clean energy technologies and renewable energy, we're not only addressing the climate crisis but we're building a more robust economy that is better equipped to withstand future shocks. This is the essence of what this bill is all about. It's a vision for a strong, sustainable and resilient Australia. It's a bill that will enhance Australia's economic resilience, secure our place as a global renewable energy superpower and drive our transition to a net zero economy. We can't continue to be a country that just digs up critical minerals from the ground without processing them onshore. We should be building batteries here, we should be building solar panels here, we should have green hydrogen investment so we can export it to the world. This is what this bill will help unlock, which will help us to engage with our region so that we can drive our own electricity generation emissions down and we can drive our industry emissions down. We can then take that know-how across the world to our key trading partners and encourage them to reduce their emissions as well. We should be able to lead the way here and be part of the global energy transition. That's what this Future Made in Australia Bill is all about. This isn't just about investing in our economic future. We are taking decisive action on a sustainable environment and sustainable manufacturing for generations to come. We hear those opposite talk down manufacturing in this country and give this government lectures about what can be made here and what can be built here, yet they spent the best part of a decade driving manufacturing out of this country including driving out our car manufacturers. They'd turn up with their press releases in their high-vis taking photos with manufacturers but not actually back bills to support them like this one or like the National Reconstruction Fund. We will not sit here idle for another 10 years and miss the opportunities that the global transition to renewable energy will give us. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 71 ADJOURNMENT Forestry Industry 71 19:30 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Today is National Forestry Day, and the Australian timber industry is a critical and essential industry that's worth $24 billion annually to our economy. It is sustainable, and the original renewable industry. It's also the original carbon capture and storage facility. Australian forestry and the associated industries employ 180,000 people indirectly and directly. It is nature's natural carbon store, alongside the unrecognised major carbon store—namely, organic soil carbon. It is the feedstock for paper, flooring, building products, structural timber for mining, railways, wharfs, jetties, bridges, fencing and farming. Structural beams and critical support beams in manufactured, structurally proven timbers have been developed in Taree as well as in other academic centres around Australia. It is the feedstock for eucalyptus oil, biofuels and furniture. In a housing affordability crisis, more timber is required because, sadly, through activists' activity and misguided policy development, too much of our native forestry has been closed down. You can see that is what has happened in Victoria. It is sustainable and environmentally responsible. It continues to exist in Tasmania and New South Wales. I'll go through some of the sustainability criteria that make the New South Wales forestry world renowned in its standards. Only 12 per cent of the two million acres that are set aside for forestry is actually able to be harvested, and only one per cent of it is harvested in any one year. In that two million hectares are 35,000 hectares of hardwood plantations and 225,000 hectares of softwood pine plantations, of which only 12 per cent is available for harvest in any one year. Forestry Corporation has a 100-year strategy that means only 10 trees out of 14,000 are harvested in the one per cent of the 12 per cent of two million acres available. A young, growing, managed forest that is serially harvested, and grows and regrows, captures 23 per cent more carbon than a static, mature forest. Native hardwood in plantation and native forest has many peer-reviewed scientific studies, particularly one by Mr Ximenes which documented that extra percentage when you are actively managing a forest. For every tree harvested in New South Wales, there is more than one regenerated by the seed load in the soil as well as active plantation. Before harvesting occurs, it's preceded in New South Wales native forests by a 10-year overall plan and a three-year field study validating the ecology. Then, when it is harvested, it is on a 30-to-50-year cycle. New South Wales north coast hardwood is a $2.9 billion annual production as well as an immediate $1.1 billion value-add, but when you see what it goes into, the multiplying effect through the economy in all those other industries, you can see how it's critical. And we still rely on $5 billion of timber imports from Asia, Europe and the Americas—imports which we cannot guarantee the standards of as we can with our own timber. Flora and fauna pre-harvesting published studies by Kavanagh and by Brad Law have identified that high intensity burns in unmanaged forests and suburban encroachment are risks to koalas, but under the National Koala Monitoring Program and one published study they are flourishing. (Time expired.) Cost of Living 72 19:34 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Cost-of-living relief has been this government's No. 1 priority. If there's anything we can all agree on, it is that this is a real issue in our communities. We see it in our electoral offices, we see it on the television and, of course, we hear about it very often. We know people that are doing it in a very difficult way. Every day, I see how our plan is taking the pressure off families in the seat of Barton. On Monday 1 July, the government delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. By Thursday morning, those tax cuts were in pay slips. In the weeks following, I have been speaking to people in Barton. One young professional in Kingsgrove said it wasn't just a nice surprise. He also said it was an immediate relief to cost-of-living pressures. Karen, a midwife at St George Hospital, said tax cuts will go a long way for her and her co-workers. She said, 'It's good that the government is listening and taking action.' We have been listening to the next generation of nurses and midwives too. They have told us practical placements can be a stressful time. Many students juggle their prac studies with part-time jobs. On Thursday 15 August, the Minister for Education introduced the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024, which will legislate prac payments for eligible students in sectors like nursing, education and social work. These payments will take pressure off students and let them focus on their education. This government wants Australians to keep more of what they earn, but we also want Australians, like hardworking early educators, to earn more too. During Early Learning Matters Week, I visited Gowrie early learning at Clemton Park. A very confident young man, aged five, showed me all the wonderful things they were learning, particularly about whales. The children at Gowrie are a credit to their highly skilled educators, and I met them as well. They have long hours, they work hard and their work is so valued. They are also committed to the welfare and the life chances of the children in their care. The week of my visit to Gowrie, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Youth announced a historic 15 per cent pay rise for those educators. The first 10 per cent increase is to come in December. For the typical educator on the award rate, it means an extra $103 per week. That is a lot of money. To make sure families benefit too, services won't be able to increase their fees by more than 4.4 per cent over the next 12 months. It will build respect for the sector and build a sustainable workforce for the future. This is what the government is delivering. Our responsibility as lawmakers is to the people that trust us, the people that vote for us and the people that respect us to do our job, and these are the sorts of things that they expect. They expect a government to make their lives easier. They expect a government to deliver programs, to deliver wage increases and to deliver ways in which people's lives will be much better than they are. That is why we, as the Labor government, are putting so much effort into cost-of-living relief and making sure that we're building a stronger future. Ambulance Victoria 72 19:40 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I recently had the privilege of meeting many of our dedicated local paramedics at the Lilydale Ambulance Victoria branch alongside my state colleague, Bridget Vallence MP. It was incredible to hear firsthand their stories. It's a role of many highs and satisfaction in getting to help others, but, on the other hand, our paramedics also face many challenges and sacrifices. I would like to thank those paramedics who shared their stories to highlight some of the challenges they are facing as they intersect with the Victorian health system. I left our meeting in no doubt that the health system in Victoria needs urgent improvement, and I would like to share some of their experiences with the House. This is from one of the paramedics: After the Covid-19 emergency was over, my workplace conditions and the standard of healthcare for the community had been profoundly negatively affected. Ramping at hospital emergency departments has become totally entrenched. The ED's simply told us there were no beds and we waited. I have spent an entire shift ramped at Maroondah Hospital, leaving Lilydale without ANY ambulance coverage overnight. I often had the Yarra Junction and Healesville ambulances for company, ramped on night at Maroondah ED leaving all of the Casey electorate with no coverage. Another said: This patient was in Warburton. He could not get out of bed and was dizzy. He was the nicest man. We could not move him with just the two of us. He could not walk due to his condition. My partner and I made friends with him while we waited for backup. It was 55km away and he began to deteriorate in our care. I realised he was bleeding internally, silently, smiling as he did so. He died 20 minutes after we arrived at Maroondah Emergency Department. I did my paperwork while his widow screamed and cried in the background. I will not forget that job. Another paramedic explained ambulance ramping at our hospitals. She has been told that nurses are overwhelmed and forced to ramp, so she has to look after the patient. She said: Somewhere along the line the Ambulance Service stopped being about providing emergency health care to the community and is instead now required to prop up the entire health system. This is taking a toll on our paramedics and we are seeing increased burnout in our junior workforce. These are heartbreaking stories that show dysfunction within Ambulance Victoria and the Victorian health system. Our paramedics must be supported to continue providing emergency care across our communities. Their lives shouldn't be impacted by a poorly run state hospital system. Our local first responders that I met have asked me to continue our community campaign to establish an urgent care clinic in the Yarra Ranges to take pressure off our hospitals and free up our paramedics to respond where they are truly needed. Again I stand in this House, calling on the Albanese Labor Government to invest in our communities' health and establish one of their new 29 urgent care clinics in Casey. The coalition's plan to increase GPs in rural and regional areas will also take some of the pressure off the health system, with incentive payments to attract students to the field of general practice. I will continue fighting for the health care that our community deserves and to improve the wellbeing of our region while taking pressure off our paramedics and the failing state government emergency departments. This also includes mental health reform. I'll continue to campaign and call on the government to reinstate the 20 mental health Medicare funded services that were increased during COVID and were cut to 10 by this government despite the report indicating they should remain at 20. It's time for better local health care in Casey, whether it's visiting a GP, an urgent care clinic or mental health support. Macquarie Electorate: Early Childhood Education 73 19:45 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It will be no surprise to families in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury that much of our region is considered a childcare desert. It's not true to say that it's the entire region. Areas like Windsor, Richmond, Pitt Town, McGraths Hill, Emu Plains, Katoomba and Leura show a higher availability of places, according to the latest work of Victoria University, but when we say 'higher availability' we're still only talking about 0.4 per cent of a place per child. Feedback to me from people across the electorate indicates that the market is not meeting the need. Whether it's community based, not-for-profit, small, privately run centres or the larger corporate childcare groups, there are simply not sufficient places for early learning to take place, particularly in long day care environments. As a mum, I used a variety of childcare options, from family day care to preschool, long day care, OOSH and after-school babysitters, as well as relying on friends and family. Getting the combination right was essential in order to run my business and, along with my husband's full-time job, pay the mortgage. What is often overlooked is that, particularly for people living west of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, there is typically a long commute, so we need the flexibility of early starts and later pick-ups, even for two parents to manage. But women tell me that, when they can't access care, they have to delay returning to careers, close their businesses or look for work closer to home, often on lower pay. When I talk to existing providers about their waiting lists, few have the capacity to grow in size. They're bursting at the seams of their small buildings, and, if they do have potential to grow, some are unwilling to sacrifice outdoor space. Some are in leased buildings or ageing buildings or simply don't have the capital to do it or the staff. While I know governments don't control where providers open, there are some things that we can do. One of those things is paying early educators properly so that they stay in or even join the sector. That's why we've announced a 15 per cent pay rise for early educators—10 per cent from December this year, about $100 a week, and another five per cent a year later—at a cost of around $3.6 billion. It will come as a grant to providers, while the Fair Work Commission works out their assessment of the award system that's under review. We're coming to the providers and saying, 'We'll pay your biggest cost, which is labour, and therefore we don't expect to see fees grow at anything above a normal growth rate.' I have no doubt that there will be things to work through. In between playing with confident and engaging four- and five-year-olds at Greenhills Child Care Centre in South Windsor last week, it was great to discuss this initiative with the very hardworking director, Emma. Government can also assist communities where, because of population or disadvantage, centres are not as viable. Connect's Possum's Patch Mount Victoria is receiving more than $300,000 from the Albanese government to help them stay open under a program supporting 430 early childhood education and care services across the country. I'm pleased to see that several childcare providers in my electorate are receiving support under our energy grant programs to reduce their costs by being more energy efficient, and I look forward to speaking about them in more detail shortly. As a government, we can also help grow the workforce by making training accessible, and that's what fee-free TAFE is about. Until March this year, there had been about 32,000 enrolments in the early childhood education and care sector under fee-free TAFE. I know that, when I visited Connect's Possum Early Childhood Centre in Hazelbrook, I talked with educators who are benefiting from that scheme. To help parents reduce the cost of care, we've brought in our cheaper childcare policy, and on average it's resulted in an 11 per cent reduction for around 6,000 families in Macquarie. Because all my daughter's friends are having babies, I'm hearing much relief at the extension of paid parental leave to up to six months by 2026. And, by this time next year, the addition of superannuation payments will ensure that women are more financially secure. But is the job done? Of course it's not. As the Victoria University report says, and as the experiences of women in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury attest, the inability to access quality childcare has an enormous impact on families. I agree with them that it does not have to be like this. Universal access to childcare does not have to be an unattainable dream, and the Albanese government will continue to work towards it. Coalmining Industry 74 19:50 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Unlike those opposite, I do not shudder when I say the word coal. I do not cringe and I definitely don't bite my tongue. Coal is not a dirty word. However, for several years, it has been portrayed by Labor, the Greens and the teals as one. Why, you may ask. That is a great question, because all I think of when I think of coal is jobs, communities, industry, mum-and-dad businesses, royalties and the backbone of this country's wealth. There is absolutely nothing dirty about that, is there? Last week, I grasped the opportunity to attend the 2024 Australian coal industry event, and I was joined by several National Party colleagues and Liberal National state colleagues. I did not see any Labor colleagues, however, which certainly was not surprising, but it was disappointing to say the least. All I read about lately is state and federal Labor governments throwing money around like it's confetti. I also see them using the royalties from the coal industry as their spending money. Do you see them supporting the industry? Of course not, but they'll happily take their money. I'm proud to be the federal member of an electorate that services this billion-dollar industry, which supports thousands of families, schools, community organisations and my constituents, who just want to get ahead in life. Australia's prosperity is directly linked to the success of our coal industry, which has 42,500 direct employees and provides 300,000 indirect jobs. It injected $99.3 billion into our economy last year. Coal is Australia's second-largest export after iron ore. It provides 47 per cent of Australia's electricity. That's right: 47 per cent of our electricity is produced using coal. It provides Australia with reliable and affordable baseload electricity, which is available 24/7, not just when the sun shines or the wind blows. Coal is critical in making steel, meaning that it is essential for building homes and infrastructure. However, the coal industry is being taxed to death, approval timelines have blown out, royalties are at a world-record high, there are massive offset requirements up to 10 times the land area and there is excessive green and red tape, making it simply not competitive to do business in Australia. We cannot rely on those opposite to bring about commonsense policies. The coalition understands the importance of coal regionally, for this country and for the whole world. We will slash approval timeframes without compromising on standards. We will cap assessment timeframes and consult with industry. We will accredit the states and territories to provide approvals that meet Commonwealth requirements. We will defund the Environmental Defenders Office, because it's clear that they don't care about the environmental standards; they just want to kill mining projects. We'll stop the delays facing the resources sector. We will stop Australian jobs leaving this country. We want families to be able to afford to put little Sarah into dancing or little Jimmy into soccer. We want them to be able to travel and not to have to worry about where their next meal will come from. Within the next year, Queenslanders and Australians will be presented with a choice. It will be a choice of ideology or a choice of sensible, practical policy. It's a decision that is yours and your neighbours'. You need to be very clear that the choice is yours. I will make special mention of Nick Jorss from Coal Australia, who, with his team, is working on improving the public understanding of the uses of coal. They will work with producers, suppliers, customers and employees to support the next generation of skilled workers by providing professional development and training opportunities. We have shown that emission reductions are possible while maintaining our critically important coal sector. We will not take our coal industry for granted. We will make sure our royalties are going back into the regions that they're derived from. 'Coal' is not a dirty word. Without coal the lights go out. Without coalmining, Australia stops. Banking and Financial Services 75 19:55 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Over the weekend I spoke to James. Like 75 per cent of all Australians, he prefers card over cash to pay for things. Like many, he made the transition away from cash during the pandemic. At our local pub he bought a burger and a few beers, and in a few hours he'd spent 85c on surcharges. James reckons he spends over $200 a year on these fees. That's money he's earnt, money he's saved and money he forgoes just so he can pay for things. With 75 per cent of all Australians using digital payments at the check-out, James is not alone. Canstar analysis from early 2024 shows that, collectively, Australians are paying up to $4 billion to access their own money. I think that Australians have had enough of this rort. Being charged to access your own money simply must change. Card providers, merchant and technology providers and the banks are having a laugh, scraping $4 billion from our bank accounts to provide an essential service that costs less to operate and maintain than its fee-free non-digital alternatives. I just want to make it very clear that, as a former small-business owner, I do not begrudge any small business for passing on these exorbitant fees. The business I used to own and run paid over $1,000 a month to accept digital payments. With small-business owners grappling with rent, electricity and other overheads, absorbing thousands of dollars in fees is just not feasible. More and more are passing this charge on, and that's fair enough. But I think that Australians have now begun to ask themselves: why are we even being charged these fees at all? Paying for things used to be free, and, for those of us who still use cash, it still is. Cash should always be an option for those who use it, and it should always be free to use. But we're in 2024 and we have this upside-down system where we are being slugged $4 billion a year to use the easiest, safest and most efficient way to pay. During the pandemic we were all asked to stop using cash, and many of us, me included, made that habit stick. I don't carry cash on me now and nearly exclusively use my digital wallet. It's safe and it costs banks and businesses a fraction of what cash would cost to administer, yet, perversely, consumers are being charged to use the cheapest form of payment and, quite frankly, that does my head in. As I have delved deeper into this, I've found that other countries have fee-free digital payments, but here in Australia it's not someone that is offered through our merchant or software providers. The most scandalous thing about this all is that fee-free payment technology exists in Australia today. The New Payments Platform owned by banks and big retailers and the RBA currently provides fee-free bank-to-bank fund transfers in an instant. Be it through Osko, PayID, scanning a QR code or new rules to open up Apple or Google wallets, unlocking the potential of the New Payments Platform is the answer to this $4 billion nightmare. But you have to ask yourself: why isn't it that small businesses aren't being offered this solution right now? You see, for every card issued by banks, the card providers pay them a commission. Then, every time that that card is used, the card providers and the banks get a cut of the fees we pay along the way. I'd put it to parliament that these kickbacks are a part of the reason why consumers are not getting fee-free digital payments through the New Payments Platform today. Under my questioning last week the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Michele Bullock, admitted that these kickbacks were a concern and will be looked at as part of a series of reviews into the surcharging and payment system. That is a good start. I remember when sending a text message used to cost 25c per message. Sending a text message is now free. That same fee-free revolution needs to happen at the check-out. With our big banks posting record profits off the back of a cost-of-living crisis, the fact that card providers and the banks charge us $4 billion a year is a rort and something that needs to end. Next week at public hearings I'll be pushing the banks to explain why they're holding fee-free digital payments back. I'll also be working with the RBA and government to get essential payments reform implemented. Together, we need to show the parliament, the RBA and the big banks that we've had enough. House adjourned at 20:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 15:59.

Tuesday, 20 August 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 15:59.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 76 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Housing 76 15:59 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Last Saturday my monthly community catch-up was at St Brigid Bar in Doubleview. Many of the issues raised by constituents at this session related to intergenerational equity and housing. I heard perspectives on the effectiveness and fairness of monetary policy as a tool for managing inflation; reforming our tax system so as not to penalise effort; the pros and cons of shifting more of the tax burden to GST; and a lot about housing. The event was attended by homeowners, mortgage holders, renters, and new Curtin residents and people who have been there forever. I heard from a young man who had just bought his first house and an older couple who bought theirs when interest rates were at 17 per cent. The thing that struck me was that the issues raised were long-term, deep reform issues. People were not asking about short-term handouts. They want to live in a country where everyone has somewhere to live and everyone can aspire to homeownership. Various housing ideas were floated on Saturday: taxing vacant property; limiting foreign purchase of residential properties while we're in a housing crisis; limiting short-stay accommodation; and rethinking negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. People in all circumstances can see it's not sustainable for a home to cost eight times the median income, as it does now, when 20 years ago it was half that. Homeowners have not complained, as the policy settings from both sides of politics have seen their house value increase over the last 20 years. But there's now a gradual realisation that there are significant economic and social consequences of housing being out of reach for the next generation. In my earlier Curtin housing forums, our community identified our major housing issues and then had a discussion with some experts about a range of solutions proposed by community members. We agreed we need to think of housing as being about homes, not investments. We need to do density well. We need different branches of government to cooperate so that policies are pulling in the same direction. We decided the federal government needs to incentivise build to rent, tax vacant dwellings, incentivise downsizing, redesign negative gearing and prioritise key trades in immigration. State governments need to review stamp duty, streamline approvals, strengthen renters' rights, limit short-stay accommodation and increase supply of social and affordable housing directly or via developer requirements. None of these solutions will single-handedly fix the problem, but committees like mine are ready for a clear-eyed discussion about what housing means in Australia, across party lines and across generations, to work out what is fair. This will take some political courage. The major parties must look beyond the next election to the intergenerational problem we've collectively created. I see in my community that Australians are ready for this conversation. Hotham Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme 76 16:02 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham The NDIS is making an incredible difference to the lives of people right across my electorate of Hotham. There are lots of reasons why I'm proud to be a Labor Party member, and the NDIS is absolutely one of them. It took a Labor government to build this amazing scheme which beforehand saw people with disability in our country getting terrible treatment and poor life opportunities, and, importantly, participating in a geographic lottery where your life outcomes as a person with disability depended almost entirely on where you lived in Australia. The NDIS is answering the call of these problems, and our government is committed to making it stronger than ever. We were very lucky recently when the Hon. Bill Shorten MP came to my electorate to speak to people directly affected by this scheme. Minister Shorten gave us a large amount of his time. He was incredibly sensitive to the needs of my constituents and, while he was there, was able to solve a whole lot of problems for people who raised them with him. The forum had some of the highest engagement I've seen in the entire time I've been the member for Hotham. I will talk about two stories of people with disability in my electorate who are affected by this scheme. The first involves an important outcome that was achieved. My office has been working with two wonderful Hotham constituents—Laura and her daughter, Jess. At the forum Jess stood up and talked very bravely about the life-changing impact the NDIS has had on her life as someone living with a disability that's complex and uncommon. What's incredible is that her mum, Laura, has exactly the same condition but was facing hurdles in getting access to the NDIS. Laura came to the forum to be heard. She was then able to get connected with NDIA staff who could help her. She messaged my office last week, saying: I've received amazing news. My application's been approved. We're all in total disbelief and cannot stop crying. Happy tears of course! That is a beautiful story. I'm thrilled my team was able to play a small part in this life-changing support for Laura and her family. I will tell a quick story about the impact the NDIS can have on someone's life. A local, Denise, shared the story of her brother. She says in her own words: Before the NDIS, people like my brother had no access to speech pathology after school. Now he has access to speech pathology through the NDIS and an electronic communication device. This is life-changing for a sociable guy who's only ever communicated with or through family. Last Friday night, he ordered fried rice independently in a restaurant. What an amazing story. I really want to thank my incredible community for welcoming Minister Shorten, and I want to say to all the people in Hotham who are affected by disability, and their families: we are fighting for you. Labor built this scheme. We are going to get it on track and make sure that it delivers good outcomes for Australians. That's exactly what they deserve. Riverina Electorate: Telecommunications 77 16:05 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Mobile phone connectivity is imperative for regional communities to continue to thrive. In recent days, my office has been receiving much correspondence from residents in and around Ardlethan and Kamarah expressing their concerns about what they say is a degradation of mobile phone reception over recent years, in particular. They are rightly concerned about this and the shutdown of the 3G network, which has been delayed until 28 October to ensure as many people as possible can make their systems compliant. The communities in the Ardlethan area need to know that I am hearing their concerns, and I'll do absolutely everything in my power to ensure mobile connectivity in the region is improved. There has been a further degradation of service availability. I have been in contact with Telstra, and they say they are working to upgrade the service to improve connectivity. I have been on the phone with Chris Taylor, the Telstra regional manager for ACT and southern New South Wales, and with Coolamon Shire Council general manager Tony Donoghue discussing this issue. It's impacting locals. I will certainly take this up directly with the Minister for Communications. Telstra said that it intends to upgrade the tower in the community to fix some of the issues associated with poor reception being experienced. It's not good enough that people have to get on top of silos to try to make a call, particularly if that call is to 000. With the harvest coming up, this is simply not good enough. The Mobile Black Spot Program, which started as a coalition government initiative, invests in telecommunications infrastructure to improve mobile coverage and competition across Australia. It is an important program. Under the Mobile Black Spot Program rounds 1 to 7, the government's commitment has generated a total investment of more than $1 billion. It has delivered up to 1,400 new mobile base stations across Australia. When the coalition was in government, Riverina benefited from the program, with rounds 1 to 5 seeing 22 towers installed. They were at Bedgerabong, Billimari, Bumbaldry, Cultowa, Darbys Falls, Dirnaseer, Gooloogong, Jemalong, Koorawatha, Ladysmith, Monteagle, Mount McDonald, Murringo, Naradhan, Noonbinna, Old Wagga South Road, Temora West, Trungley Hall, Wantabadgery, Warroo, Weethalle and Woodstock. I appreciate there are problems in Yerong Creek and in the Ardlethan and Kamarah area. I will fight hard to make sure that we improve the services there and that they have the same services that are available to people in capital cities. But I was concerned, of course, with the Improving Mobile Coverage Round, round 6, where the only seats that received mobile coverage towers were Labor seats. It's all well and good if you're in those Labor seats, but this has to be fair, equitable and across the board. It simply wasn't good enough that they had a colour-coded spreadsheet and it was all red, all Labor. With mobile phone connectivity, regional people deserve better than that. Carter, Ms Sarah 77 16:08 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I was shocked and deeply saddened to hear the news of my dear friend Sarah Carter's sudden passing earlier this month. I came to know Sarah shortly after being elected to this place, as I prepared to embark on a parliamentarians' Save the Children learning tour to Kenya in December 2022. Very few people could have coordinated this work, and Sarah did it with her whole being, her vibrancy, her sense of humour and her passion. She carried our motley delegation and united us for a common cause. With the extraordinary relationships she had developed, Sarah enabled us to see the critical and often life-saving work being undertaken by the Huruma health facility, the World Food Program, the UNHCR's Kakuma Refugee Camp, Fred Hollows, Save the Children's Accelerated Learning Program at Kalemchuch, the Red Cross and the OPAHA facility for people affected by HIV. Throughout the visit in Kenya, Sarah was an essential guiding presence. I reflect on that visit, on Sarah's work and on the $15 million increase in funding commitments we achieved: Do they know? No backs to their chairs They proudly answer questions Where is Sarah from? Mothers line the hall Free health checks for their babies Hope from poverty. Stigma unattached Runway-modelling drag queens AIDS free, safe and loved. Slums on rubbish tips Proudly home to enterprise A future backed in. Refugees respected Food grown, water harvested Partnering models peace. Arduous, dusty roads Villagers grapple with climate change Subsistence living. Fear, drought, isolation Sarah focuses the spotlight No-one turns away. The politics of it The cold-hearted truth of it Complacency exposed. But with gentleness, Kindness, no judgement at all We enter Sarah's world. The pathway to change Equality, prosperity, happiness The want to see change. No courage needed Just open to a perspective That with much we give. Sarah built the bridge Created trust without exploitation Strangers welcomed in. Will they know the news? Will they know the results created Hearts forever shifted. Sarah's legacy grows In sorrow we look for glimpses In all the souls touched she lives. For all those suffering Hoping Sarah would come their way It is now on us. We will heed your call Optimism, fairness, truth Through our friend Sarah. Sarah's leadership Love, laughter, determination Achieved our mission. Sarah was taken from us far too young, yet at the same time no-one can say that she hadn't already lived a life of great service to her own community in Melbourne, where she served as mayor, and to a global community, where she saw the need. I and, I know, many others here miss her. Energy 79 16:11 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Yesterday's Daily Telegraph highlighted the wind drought plaguing our energy system. Industry experts are deeply worried that, without a mix of energy sources, power in people's homes and in small businesses and manufacturing will just go out. The Albanese Labor government's all-eggs-in-one-basket renewables-only approach is taking Australia for a ride, and it is surely taking its toll, particularly on manufacturers in Western Sydney. It isn't hard to realise that, when you rely solely on the wind blowing all the time and the right amount of sunlight every day to power the energy grid, it will just become an increasingly huge problem. We need 24/7 base-load power. We need gas, we need renewables and we need nuclear. We need to see renewables flourish alongside keeping our gas industry going and developing nuclear power stations across the country for energy stability and security. So many of our domestic manufacturers, particularly in Western Sydney, rely on gas to power their businesses and to make their Aussie made products. We're seeing record numbers of manufacturers closing on this Labor government's watch. In fact, manufacturing insolvencies have tripled since the last election. It is a disgrace. These small-, medium- and large-scale manufacturers need cheaper power prices to survive in the current economic climate. In my Western Sydney community, a steel manufacturer in Emu Plains, right in my electorate, recently told me their gas bill had gone up almost 40 per cent since Labor took office in 2022. A defence contractor and manufacturer in Jamisontown said their bills were up 100 per cent. They looked into the government's solar-for-business scheme, but it was not feasible for their business. They said, 'It doesn't matter how many solar panels we put on the roof; we can't power our industry with solar panels, and in fact the structure of our roof just won't hold these solar panels. We need gas.' I also have a gym in Penrith which has had their energy bills double. Small business needs a leg up, not a small, $325 handout which goes nowhere near paying the real cost of the energy they need to create products and to operate. We saw recent closure statistics for businesses, and they were dire for Western Sydney. Last week we had CreditorWatch's most recent update of its business risk index, which noted that 90 per cent of Australia will see an increase in the number of business failures in the year to come. From this data, Western Sydney is one of the two hardest hit regions across Australia. If the Albanese government do not think this has to do with energy prices, they surely have their heads in the sand. We need gas, we need renewables and we need nuclear to secure our energy future, and we need to be backing industry across Western Sydney. Reid Electorate: Soccer 80 16:14 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Earlier this year I received a handwritten letter from 10-year-old Marcus Zhang, and here is part of that letter: I am writing to you for your help to build a soccer home ground for the Newington Community. Our school soccer team won the PSSA Championship in 2023. However, we are facing a significant problem that is hindering our growth and enjoyment of this wonderful sport—the lack of a dedicated soccer field. Currently, we have to play, practise and complete at other suburbs' home ground. This is a huge disappointment for all of us. It is a stress and pain for parents to drive to other suburbs for soccer training. The traffic is also terrible. Having a soccer field is not only a want but a dire need. I met with Marcus, along with his mum, Michelle, and his younger brother Flynn in my office, and I got to hear firsthand how much he loved playing soccer and how much he loved his club, the Newington Gunners. They invited me down to meet his team when the soccer season started, and I was very happy to take up that invitation. Along with the state member for Parramatta, Donna Davis, I went down to watch Marcus's team play on a Saturday in May. We met with the president of the Newington Gunners, Ruben Gurie. He and other member of the club had been advocating for a new home ground since they lost their home ground almost five years ago. There were plans to upgrade Newington Reserve, but those plans had stalled. With Donna Davis and Councillor Patricia Prociv, I pushed the council to prioritise an upgrade to Newington Reserve. We are happy to announce that the council has approved the $17.5 million upgrade for Newington Reserve. This funding was provided by the City of Parramatta Council and the New South Wales state government. The upgrade will include a full-sized and mini soccer field, a sports pavilion building and spectator seating, barbecues and outdoor exercise equipment. Work on the reserve is expected to begin in March next year. So it may not be completed in time for the soccer season in 2026, but I'm hoping the Newington Gunners will be playing at their home ground for the 2027 season. I want to thank Ruben Gurie and members of the Newington Gunners who have been advocating for a local home ground, but I want to particularly thank Marcus Zhang for writing to me to make me aware of this issue and for advocating for it. You've also shown other young people that they can achieve great results for the community if they speak up. Marcus, you are a remarkable young man and a soccer superstar. Social Media: Youth 80 16:17 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I don't often stay up late to watch Q&A on the ABC, but last night I made an exception to catch an important national and, indeed, local debate about social media and its impact on our society and, particularly, on young people. It featured two women I have worked closely with in the last two years: Frances Haugen, the US based Facebook whistleblower who recently came to my electorate and met with young people in a secondary school to talk about their social media use, and Alice Dawkins of Reset. Tech, with whom I've done some work on rabbit holes, the radicalisation effects of algorithms and autorecommender systems. Last night's show followed an article published in News Corp papers earlier in the day which told us just how embedded social media is in our children's lives. It revealed that nearly half of all 10- to 15-year-olds spend two hours a day just on TikTok. Almost half of seven- to nine-year-olds use the platform X, formerly known as Twitter. Seven-year-olds on Twitter—a platform we know is riddled with misinformation, hate and easy access to pornography. The article also told us that kids in their early teens spend, on average, 93 minutes a day on Snapchat. Where do they find time for school? Dr Jean Twenge is a professor of psychology at San Diego State University. In 2017 she produced the first full body of academic work on the impact of social media on the generation growing up with smartphones in their hands—the generation she termed 'iGen'. In her book of the same name, Twenge showed that heavy social media use is linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression and loneliness. It creates fewer opportunities for face-to-face interaction, resulting in feelings of isolation and disengagement from high-interaction activities like parties or sport. Children are reading less because slow books which require imagination and reflection are far less dominating of the attention than bright, funny, 15-second bites of video. Children are taking much longer to grow up. They live less independent lives and delay taking on elements of adulthood like getting a job, getting their drivers licence, going on dates and moving out of home. Her subsequent book, Generations, released last year, further sought to explain generational and societal change by examining the impact of technology on our lives over the last 100 years. There she found evidence of even greater mental health decline among those with heavy social media use, a higher incidence of polarised views and echo chambers, and a greater resistance to discordant views and values. Twenge will be speaking at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas at UNSW in Sydney this weekend, and I look forward to hearing her and meeting her at this event. The Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, on which I serve, gives us the opportunity to ask the right questions about social media's impact on children, including on their brain development, and on adults, our social cohesion, our national security and our until-now vibrant and robust democracy. South Australia: Roads 81 16:20 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston The Albanese Labor government is delivering not only now but into the future. One of the ways it's doing that is through investing in South Australian roads and infrastructure. The investment in roads is really nation building. It actually builds on the investment that the previous Labor government made in my electorate and in South Australia. Back in 2008, the federal Labor government extended the rail line from Noarlunga to Seaford, and now the Labor government, both state and federal, are doing it again, with $15.4 billion for the Torrens to Darlington project, the biggest infrastructure project that South Australia has ever seen. This is the final stage of the long-awaited North-South Corridor, which connects the southern suburbs to the rest of greater Adelaide, both the city and, of course, the northern suburbs. It connects to the Southern Expressway, which was built under the Liberal Party and went one way. Yes, you heard that right. It was a road that changed direction in the middle of the night. It took a Labor government to rebuild that road and make sure it went two ways. Now, when the project is done, the Southern Expressway will connect southern suburbs residents to the city and, as I said, the northern suburbs. When completed, the corridor will connect the southern suburbs to the city via a non-stop route, bypassing 30 sets of traffic lights from the start of the Southern Expressway to the end of the Torrens to Darlington tunnel, providing a much safer and faster commute than ever before. The southern suburbs of Hallett Cove, Trott Park and Sheidow Park won't be left out, as they had been under the Liberal Party, with the Labor government, both state and federal, committing to the on-off ramp at Majors Road, a really significant investment that will ensure that people in those suburbs will get access to this non-stop corridor. This will create approximately 5,500 jobs a year, with 90 per cent of the labour to be undertaken in South Australia. Already 30 local businesses have registered their interest as subcontractors, and over 600 jobs for apprenticeships and trainees have been committed to. It's not only these very large projects that we are investing in. There are 22 local road projects that have been invested in through the Road to Recovery Program and the Special Local Roads Program as well. Whether it is small infrastructure or big infrastructure, the Albanese Labor government is delivering. Housing 81 16:23 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I've stood in this chamber on many an occasion and proudly boasted about the Sunshine Coast as a lifestyle capital, as the most entrepreneurial region in Australia and as by far the greatest place to bring up a family—all of which is true. As a result of such characteristics, we've seen a burst in population, and it's bursting at the seams. I've frequently been in this place, debating issues of infrastructure, saying that we need to keep infrastructure ahead of the population curve. We need to keep building it. But I stand today to talk about another issue which has become more and more pressing. It is the issue of housing. The fact is that people simply cannot find a home, and those who do have a home are struggling more and more in the midst of this cost-of-living crisis. A report was released only this week by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Regional Australia Institute. The report looked at the movement of people between metro areas and regions. It showed that the Sunshine Coast is by far the most popular destination, representing 14.1 per cent of that net movement. On one hand, I'm proud of the fact that more and more people want to come to the sunny coast—I don't blame them; it's what attracted me to the area—but the impact we are seeing on the ground, due to poor public policy around a lack of housing, is having a very real human impact. This was borne out by a cost-of-living forum that I hosted only a couple of weeks ago with Senator Jane Hume. We heard from organisations that are on the frontline, dealing with those who are struggling the most, many of whom simply cannot afford the rent. They cannot afford to have a roof over their heads. Many are simply not eating for fear that they can't pay for their rent. Rentals on the Sunshine Coast have increased by around 27 per cent over the last 12 months. People are doing it tough. As Senator Hume and I walked the beat around the Sunshine Coast, we heard that the government has no solutions to this problem. In the last year, the government has only got rid of a minister who wasn't performing in the hope that a new minister would start doing the job. We will continue to press the case for the sunny coast. We will not stop. Greenway Electorate: Housing 82 16:26 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Over the recess, I had the opportunity to be out and about in the community. Specifically, I was in Glenwood and Stanhope Gardens only recently. It's rare that you get constituents coming up to you with a single local issue that is of such concern to them that they literally line up to tell you their views and to agree with the person beforehand. That is exactly what has been happening in Glenwood and Stanhope Gardens when it comes to the New South Wales planning department's rezoning proposal. Constituents are clearly very sincerely impacted and concerned about the issue. I obviously know Glenwood very well. The streets around Glenwood and the entry and egress for the suburb mean that residents are stuck in traffic jams even as they leave their own driveways. This is an issue that is occupying forums such as the Glenwood Community Group. It's one that has been raised consistently with my office and, I know, with the office of Warren Kirby, my state counterpart and the member for Riverstone. I think it's important that we be very clear. Addressing the critical housing shortage is a responsibility of all levels of government. As someone who came from local government, I can tell this chamber that north-west Sydney has been doing and continues to do the heavy lifting when it comes to housing supply in Sydney. In New South Wales, we know that there is a desire to increase housing supply in areas that already have schools, roads and hospitals in place. That is an important priority of the New South Wales state Labor government. But through its proposed rezoning policy, known as the TOD—the Transport Oriented Development Program under the state environmental planning policies—the New South Wales Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure wants to rezone Stanhope Gardens and Glenwood for high-rise and midrise apartments. The reality is that the north-west Sydney growth corridor cannot cope with unsupported urban sprawl. For over a decade, the former Liberal state government presided over an explosion of housing in my electorate without the urban planning and the critical infrastructure needed for growth. This will have a negative impact on the lives of existing and future residents. I have had residents writing to me concerned about the lack of school places and saying that the rezoning will be a disaster if no appropriate road infrastructure is put in place. The department has now agreed to an extension of the consultation period. I've launched a petition calling for Stanhope Gardens and Glenwood to be removed from the proposal. I encourage all constituents to sign this and to know that I'll continue advocating on their behalf on this important issue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 82 BILLS Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 82

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

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

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

Second Reading 82 16:32 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I'm pleased to rise today to speak in support of this bill, the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024. I would note from the outset that is one of a package of three bills which together enact a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for multinational enterprises operating in Australia with an annual global revenue of 750 million euros or greater, which is approximately A$1.2 billion. There are other bills as part of this package which relate to capital thinning and greater transparency across jurisdictions. I think it's important to set the context here, which is that multinationals have, in the post-World War II period, risen in importance in the global economy. On balance, I think that is a positive. It reflects increasingly sophisticated supply chains and increasingly integrated global economies. I think the rise of multinationals has reflected a broader trend towards greater sophistication, integration and specialisation in the global economy. This in turn has enhanced productivity growth. But, in terms of each economy's capacity to protect its tax base, it has led to domestic economies and national governments having to face up against companies increasingly able to shift profits and underlying profit-generating activities in ways that often aren't particularly transparent. This occurs through a range of mechanisms. For example, very large multinational organisations can shift interest payments between different entities and different jurisdictions in a way that materially reduces their taxation burden. They can undertake transfer pricing in ways that arguably, in many instances, don't reflect the underlying economic activities being undertaken in different jurisdictions. We see this quite often when large multinational organisations pay very little tax in one jurisdiction—a jurisdiction with a high notional tax rate—and attribute substantially more economic activity to other jurisdictions, often jurisdictions which have a very low population base and very low overall economic activity but which have a more favourable tax treatment. This practice is often undertaken in ways which are incredibly complicated and non-transparent, raising questions across the whole of the OECD—and, I would say, the global economy—about the ways in which we might try to counteract some of these measures, particularly the ones which are artificial and only exist to try to reduce the tax burden. It's becoming particularly difficult, though, in an era of digitalisation and an era where high-productivity companies—companies operating in the social media world, in the world of the internet—are increasingly able to make judgements and rulings, driven by taxation considerations, about which jurisdictions their economic activity is occurring in and attribute it accordingly. There's often no particularly obviously way to attribute where the economic activity of these highly digital companies occurs. We see this, for example, with social media platforms and search engines. It might be that the activities are wholly or largely attributed to a particular jurisdiction because that's where the algorithm is deemed to operate, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a particularly sensible or satisfactory outcome in terms of that company paying taxation where its customers connect with it. I believe this comes down to a set of very tricky questions about how to value intellectual property and how to decide where a company's activities occur. It might be that there's a range of different people connecting with it but they're doing so through an entity that exists in a different jurisdiction altogether. We are facing, I believe, an increasingly challenging environment in looking at taxation when it comes to highly productive multinational entities for which it's not at all obvious how to attribute activities or interactions between a company and a consumer to a particular jurisdiction. The base erosion and profit shifting program out of the OECD is one response to that problem. It's a program which has a whole series of initiatives falling under it, including minimum tax arrangements in a whole range of economies, and greater transparency. There are a whole range of measures aimed at an international tax regime where taxes are fairer and more transparent and fall more naturally in jurisdictions where the economic activity is occurring, and where there is less incentive for some jurisdictions to go out on a limb with extremely low tax rates to attract companies. Profit shifting hurts Australia. It hurts many advanced economies. A lot of economic studies have shown profit shifting hurts developing countries the most. There have been a number of studies by the World Bank and a number of studies by the OECD showing profit shifting is bad for many national governments. Many developing countries struggle to lift their already vulnerable and fragile tax bases in the face of these kinds of activities. But Australia is not immune, and Australia is one of the OECD countries that, I would argue, can benefit from a more sensible and more sound international set of arrangements. The BEPS actions have many components—minimum taxation arrangements and moving taxation arrangements across major OECD economies in a joint manner so that we are all moving together, but also taking into account the fact there are certain sectors where this is particularly a challenge. I mentioned digital companies. Intellectual property is very much an issue, with the difficulty of measuring the value of that but also the difficulty of attributing different actions to different jurisdictions. These bills will provide for a global minimum tax that will enable Australia to apply a top-up tax on a residential multinational parent or subsidiary company where the group's income is taxed below 15 per cent overseas. It will also provide for a domestic minimum tax which will enable Australia to apply a top-up tax for any low-taxed domestic income before a foreign country would otherwise take that tax under the new rules. The floor on tax competition offers Australia important benefits. First, it reduces the incentive for multinationals to shift profits away from Australia to low-tax jurisdictions. That is occurring at the moment in many instances, in situations where there is no reason for that profit shifting other than what can be described as an artificial mechanism to reduce tax. In many instances it has nothing to do with any kind of sound, rational or policy based attribution of the company's activities between jurisdictions. This will also improve the competitiveness of smaller domestic businesses in Australia, due to the reduced tax advantages of multinationals. In addition to it being important in terms of supporting the government's tax base, it also reduces an unfair competitive disadvantage for smaller and medium local companies—many of whom might be trying to move up the productivity ladder, many of whom might be trying to become globally competitive themselves. That is extremely important in terms of both the government's tax take and the level playing field within our own economy. Implementing a global and a domestic minimum tax will reduce the corporate tax rate differential between Australia and low-tax jurisdictions, making Australia a more attractive place in which to invest. This will give effect to the global anti-base erosion rules that have been set out by the OECD and agreed and finalised by the OECD inclusive framework, which is now a network of 145 member jurisdictions. I believe one of the key elements of this is that jurisdictions move together as much as possible on the key elements of this. Only by doing that, only by joint action, can we take away the incentive for countries to continue to undercut each other. The government intends to finalise subordinate legislation in relation to these bills in the form of ministerial rules, which will be necessary for these bills to operate effectively. These rules will build upon the framework established by the bill, setting out various computational and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to the global and domestic minimum taxes. Enacting this bill is estimated to increase receipts by some $370 million over the five years from the 2022-23 financial year. It's a material amount of revenue. But as I said, in addition to protecting the government's revenue, there is an important levelling of the playing field with respect to how some multinationals are taxed, versus how domestically based companies are taxed. Many of those domestic companies themselves are trying to build more of a multinational profile. This is both about economic efficiency and about fairness. The company tax rate, is really, in a sense, a fairly modern part of the modern economy. In Australia, our company tax rate was introduced in 1915, and it was introduced at a low rate back then. I think that the initial company tax rate in the United States might have been around one per cent. It increased in Australia in successive steps, and I think it's fair to say that it's been at around the 30 to 40 per cent level, or in the 40s, for most of the postwar period. But, of course, compliance with that nominal tax rate has changed at various points in time. There are estimates that an increasing proportion of multinational profits has been shifted throughout that period, and, really, it's that compliance with the nominal rate that is critical. It's really in response to the fact that in Australia, but also in the US and in other major OECD countries, as important as the nominal rate is, in many sectors of the economy, compliance with that nominal rate has been falling off over time. That's why it's critical that we put in place minimum tax rates but that we also do that in conjunction with other OECD countries. This is an important step forward. It's one of a number of bills this government has put in place to ensure greater transparency, and to move forward our multinational tax treatment in alignment with our major trading partners. 16:47 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook I commend the member for Fraser, whom I hold in high esteem, and I agree with all of the content of his speech. I think this is an area of bipartisanship. We need a global approach to tax, and we need multinationals to be taxed where their activity occurs. We need to stop profit shifting; it hurts Australia and it hurts developing countries. We do not want companies to purely focus on minimising tax or avoiding tax in our country. In the coalition, we welcome the continuation of the OECD's two-pillar solution to multinational tax avoidance. This was started by the coalition, very proudly, and has been continued by the government. We also welcome the government following our lead on tax avoidance. The coalition took extensive action on this nine years ago. As the host of the G20 in 2014, Australia played the leading role in the original Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. It was initiated in 2013 and delivered in 2015 under a coalition government. Under the coalition, Australia was an early and vigilant adopter of the OECD BEPS recommendations. These recommendations established the multilateral approach to prevent tax avoidance and increase tax transparency to tax administrators like our ATO. The coalition government's measures included introducing the diverted profits tax, which limits companies' ability to shift profits outside of Australia. We introduced the multinational anti-avoidance law, which ensured companies do not avoid a taxable presence in Australia. We strengthened the thin capitalisation rules, strengthened transfer pricing rules and doubled the penalties for tax avoidance. We also established the ATO Tax Avoidance Taskforce. This taskforce, which was created in 2016 under a coalition government, still enforces the existing laws and supports the current government's new tax avoidance measures, targeting these multinational enterprises, large public and private groups and wealthy individuals. From July 2016 to November 2021, the ATO raised $24.2 billion in tax liabilities against large public groups, multinational corporations and privately owned and wealthy groups. This generated collections of $17.3 billion for the Australian taxpayer, to be spent on the Australian taxpayer. A total of $15.3 billion of the liabilities was raised against large public groups and multinationals. This $15.3 billion from multinationals was spent on Australians. A total of $13.6 billion of the liabilities and $9.5 billion of the collections are attributable to this taskforce, started by the coalition. Our system of tax is undermined when people or organisations avoid or attempt to avoid their tax obligations. In my electorate of Cook, where there are many small and medium businesses, the fact that these multinationals avoid tax is a constant source of irritation for these hardworking everyday Australian small and medium business owners who can't park profits in tax havens. And it's uncompetitive; it's not a level playing field. Already these small and medium businesses are fighting these multinationals with one hand tied behind their backs. We don't need to give them a tax leg-up on top of that. In my first speech I talked about the fact that small businesses hire in our economy while large businesses fire. Small and medium businesses employ 70 per cent of Australians. Small and medium enterprises were responsible for all the net job growth in this economy. That means, as a whole, large businesses fire more people than they hire, while small and medium businesses hire more people than they fire. But, unfortunately, under this Labor government up to 16,000 businesses have now become insolvent. Small business is doing it tough, and we need the government to do a better job of listening. Yes, we're thankful for the targeting of multinationals avoiding tax, but small and medium enterprises need more support than they are currently getting from this government. This legislation, while good, highlights an important point: Labor have broken their tax promises. Jim Chalmers said at the election: We've made it very clear … that we don't have any proposals for tax increases beyond working with other countries to make the multinational tax regime fairer. If only this were true. This promise before the last election to only increase tax on multinationals has been broken. It has been broken by Labor raising tax on superannuation. In time, this will capture one in every 10 Australians and young Australians earning average wages today. That is according to Treasury's own modelling. Labor are now going to tax unrealised capital gains. This is a wealth tax, which is unprecedented in Australia and unprecedented around the world. It's an assault on family owned businesses, it's an assault on people who own real estate or farms in their self-managed super and it's an assault on middle-class Australians. Labor are increasing taxes on franking credits, banking half a billion in taxes from Australian companies, Australian retirees, Australian super funds and Australian charities. Again, this is a tax on middle Australia. Labor have ended the small business tax concessions. They are getting rid of the instant asset write-off relied on by Australia's small businesses Yes, it's great that we're taxing multinationals and reducing the amount of tax they avoid, but we need to provide more help for small businesses and more help for everyday Australians. These higher taxes will not help a cost-of-living crisis. These higher taxes will not solve our anaemic economic growth. These higher taxes will not solve the fact that we've been in a household recession for over a year. These higher taxes will not solve the collapsing productivity we've had under this Labor government. These taxes will not solve the fact that the Treasurer is not running this economy; inflation is running our economy. We're in a household recession, and our economy is shuddering to a halt. This is what everyday Australians are experiencing. Everyday Australians are experiencing their personal income rise by 20 per cent. Everyday Australians are experiencing prices rise by 10 per cent. Everyday Australians are experiencing real wages collapsing by eight per cent as they get poorer year on year. Everyday Australians are experiencing living standards collapsing by eight per cent. They're experiencing their household savings fall by 10 percentage points. A family with a typical mortgage of $750,000—and it's much higher for many in my electorate of Cook—are now $35,000 worse off under this Labor government. Our inflation is now much higher than in most of the developed world. Australia is at the back of the pack compared to our peer nations. We have higher spending, higher interest rates for longer and higher taxes, with an extra $315 billion across three budgets. We have broken promises on taxes on super, franking credits and small businesses, and we have sneakily increased income tax. There are increases through bracket creep. These should be indexed to inflation. Changes to multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not make up for these taxes on aspirational, everyday Australians, for Labor's inaction on inflation or for the 12 rate rises in a row that have happened under Labor's watch. And changes to multinational tax arrangements do not make up for this economic warfare on everyday Australians. Australians deserve a government focused on the challenges they face today. Yes; we agree with the government on this legislation. But we do not apologise for holding the government to account for their broken promises on tax, for the cratering productivity numbers and for their failure to fight inflation. In my community of Cook, people are concerned. They're concerned about a government spending more for longer and taxing more. They're concerned about inflation staying higher for longer, and they're working out how they will make ends meet. While the Treasurer spins that real wages actually are going up, we know that's not the case. Everyday Australians feel it, and they're paying the price. Community groups are stepping in. In Cook, I caught up with St Vincent de Paul. They're helping people facing homelessness. They're helping people who can't afford food by providing food hampers and helping people pay their electricity bills. There are people in my electorate doing it tough. I'm listening, and we're going to hold the government to account to make sure they listen. The spending that this government is doing is resulting in people facing higher housing insecurity, because interest rates are higher for longer. The spending has resulted in members of my community looking to move interstate. I was just speaking with a school teacher last week. He's looking at moving himself, his wife and their family to WA because they can't make ends meet, and they can't afford a house in Cook. They'll be away from their parents and grandparents. We are ripping away the Australian dream of growing up with your family, paying off your house and spending your Christmases, Easters and school holidays with your family, because people can't afford it. Labor's approach is to spend first and then ask questions about the inflationary impact. Expert after expert has called this out. Michelle Bullock commented: … we've revised up our forecasts for demand growth and that's due to stronger forecast public spending … Independent economist Chris Richardson said that the RBA's statement was 'as clear as they can be'. He went on to say there is extra spending in the system. The savings of hardworking Australians in my electorate are being eroded by inflation. The household savings ratio in December was revised down from 3.2 per cent to 1.6 per cent. What does this do to the retirement prospects for members in my electorate? It takes them away. It erodes their retirement savings. We can see that Australia is failing to control inflation by looking at our inflation compared to other countries. It's higher than in Sweden, the UK, Norway, Canada and the USA. 'Why?' must be the question. The answer is uncontrolled government spending. While the private sector is cutting back—cutting back on spending, cutting back on investment—the government has its foot to the floor on the accelerator with increased government spending. Australia is the only G10 nation with inflation going up. The question must be 'Why?' How has this spending helped Australian households? It's $30,000 of increased spending for every Australian household. When I speak to the community members of Cook, do they feel $30,000 better off per household? They don't. They feel poorer than they did three years ago. So I ask the Labor government to stop the uncontrolled spending and give back the money through tax cuts to everyday Australians. My constituents can't afford more of the same. They can't afford another $315 billion over another three years. They can't afford more interest rate rises fuelled by inflation. They can't afford the Labor Party's ideological energy policy that risks driving up energy even more than it's been driven up already. We know the former government consistently delivered lower taxes for families and small business and implemented more than a dozen measures to combat multinational tax avoidance. I welcome this legislation. I welcome the Labor government's multinational tax avoidance measures, building on what we did over nine years. But the current government voted eight times against delivering a bigger tax cut to small business in last year's instant asset write-off. Small businesses need more help. Yes, it's fine to punish large businesses, but we need to start helping small businesses more. The current government's last multinational tax bill was so badly designed that it taxed Australian companies. Yes, this legislation is better, but it's taken a while to get it right. Since that election, Australians are now paying 20 per cent more in income tax because of sneaky bracket creep. The government has banked over $60 billion from everyday Australians in bracket creep. It's about time bracket creep was indexed to inflation. Despite the promise to only raise taxes on multinationals, the government has broken promises, raising tax on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, on personal income tax and on an end to the small-business tax incentives. Yes, this is good legislation, but Middle Australia and small-business Australia need more. I know the small businesses in Cook expect more action. I know we must ensure that small businesses keep more of the money they make. So, yes, let's tax multinationals, but let's give small business a leg-up too. 17:02 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Integrity is at the heart of everything that this Labor government seeks to achieve, and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, has been a champion for integrity throughout our tax system since he was appointed. Now we're taking on the next challenge: multinational companies not paying their fair share of tax. We are acting on a commitment that Labor took to the 2022 election. This included supporting the OECD G20 two-pillar solution, a multilateral solution representing the most significant reform to the international corporate tax system in a century. Reforming the international tax system is no easy feat, but we join with our global community to ensure that global firms are paying their fair share of tax and not exploiting unintentional loopholes across jurisdictions. Australia has long been a champion of the global 15 per cent minimum tax, and we are now in the first group of nations to implement the global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax of 15 per cent. From this year, this tax will apply to multinational enterprises with an annual global revenue of at least 750 million euros, which is approximately A$1.2 billion or greater. The global minimum tax will ensure large multinational enterprises pay a minimum level of tax on income arising in each jurisdiction where they operate. This will support global momentum towards a fairer international tax system by putting a floor on tax competition and levelling the playing field between large multinational enterprises and Australian businesses. The global minimum tax is a crucial step in the ongoing efforts to ensure integrity and fairness across the system. The global minimum tax will reduce the tax rate differential between Australia and low-tax countries. It will help protect Australia's corporate tax base by reducing the incentive to shift profits abroad. It will make Australia a more attractive place to invest. And it will boost economic growth. Putting in place the global minimum corporate tax will allow us to apply a top-up tax on large multinational groups operating in Australia where their overseas income is taxed below 15 per cent. Under the domestic minimum tax, it will give us additional taxing rights on the low-taxed Australian income of large multinational groups. Implementing a domestic minimum tax complements the global minimum tax and ensures that Australia collects revenue from locals under taxation. Australia's legislation will be peer reviewed by the OECD to ensure it produces outcomes consistent with the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules and is recognised by the jurisdictions. By making multinationals pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15 per cent, the OECD estimates annual global revenue gains of over $300 billion. In many cases, this revenue is being channelled away from the tax systems of developing nations, consolidating a global divide between sophisticated financial centres and resource-rich, less-developed parts of the world. Australia joins the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, South Korea, the European Union and other jurisdictions in implementing the global minimum tax from 2024. Our government will help ensure large multinationals pay their fair share of tax. This is the most recent in a suite of multinational tax measures delivered by the Albanese Labor government. Our government has already delivered four significant multinational tax reforms. First, our new subsidiary disclosure law will require public companies listed and unlisted to disclose information on the number of their subsidiaries in the country of tax residency. This will make the way companies structure their subsidiaries, including for tax purposes, transparent to both the government and the public. Second, companies with tenders and government procurement processes valued above $200,000 are now required to disclose their country of tax residency as part of the Buy Australia Plan under the Fair Go Procurement Framework. This requirement to disclose their country of tax residency complements broader changes implemented by our government in taking decisive action on tax adviser misconduct, including by increasing tax promoter penalties and increasing the powers of tax regulators. Third, in our first budget in October 2022, we boosted funding for the Australian Taxation Office's tax avoidance taskforce by $200 million a year. In this year's budget we have extended the operation of this taskforce to 2028, allowing the ATO to crack down on tax-dodging by multinational enterprises, large public and private groups and Australia's wealthiest individuals. Finally, we've also tightened Australia's thin capitalisation rules to stop a common approach taken by multinationals to minimise their tax. Our new approach reduces the ability of taxpayers to create artificial interest-bearing debt in Australia as a way of maximising interest-related deductions and in turn reducing their overall tax bill. Our government is also delivering five further multinational tax reforms. First, the government's bill to create a public country-by-country reporting register has been introduced to parliament, and, once it is passed, reporting requirements will apply from 1 July this year. Creating a public country-by-country reporting register will deliver a key part of the government's multinational tax integrity election commitment. It will see Australia put in place a world-leading set of disclosure laws. Second, the government is progressing its election commitment to implement a public register of beneficial ownership, which will show who ultimately owns, controls or receives profits from a company or legal vehicle operating in Australia. Third, we've also added to our election agenda by strengthening the way our foreign investment system reduces the risk of multinational investors avoiding tax. On 1 May this year, the Treasurer announced changes to deliver a stronger, more streamlined and more transparent approach to foreign investment. Foreign investment has a key role to play in our economy, but only when it's in the national interest. We are making sure that foreign investors pay their fair share of tax in Australia. This includes releasing updated guidance about the kinds of tax arrangements that will attract greater scrutiny, such as those that are overly complex. Fourth, to further protect our tax system from foreign investments where investors currently have incentives to circumvent intended outcomes in our tax settings, we're strengthening the foreign resident capital gains tax regime. As part of this year's budget, the government announced it will strengthen the regime in line with the OECD standards to ensure foreign residents pay their fair share of tax in Australia. Fifth, in this year's budget, we also announced a new royalty penalty. From 1 July 2026, the penalty will apply to significant global entities with annual revenue of over $1 billion where they avoid Australian royalty withholding tax by understating the value of royalty payments or disguising them as some other kind of transaction. These nine measures—four that we have already delivered and five that are in progress—demonstrate the government's strong commitment to multinational tax integrity. It's important to see this in its historical and international context. The last leap forward on transparency was introduced by the Gillard government in 2012. The then Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, put in place the legislation that has ensured public transparency of tax payable by large corporate entities. The landmark changes allowed for the publication of the tax liabilities of large corporate entities, including multinational corporations. Then we had almost a decade of inertia on transparency and an on-again-off-again approach to multinational tax integrity. The coalition have a chance to show, in spite of their slow-motion charge towards a fairer global tax system, that they can change pace and keep step with these plans and that they won't let passing time deliver further proxy bonuses to multinational tax cheats. No government in Australian history has done more than the Albanese Labor government to address multinational tax dodging. No other country is doing more to improve multinational tax fairness. We've already made a significant move in increasing the transparency of tax arrangements for multinational enterprises, and we are taking it further. Our multinational tax integrity policies will address tax loopholes exploited by multinationals and improve global tax transparency. Our plan is good for taxpayers, good for competition and good for Australia. By tightening our debt deduction laws and committing to be part of the global 15 per cent minimum corporate tax rate, we are keeping faith with the OECD's best practice on global tax integrity. Over 131 nations have signed up to this OECD plan. We promised that we'd involve industry in constructive consultations to ensure our policies didn't have an unwarranted impact on legitimate commercial arrangements, and that's what we've done. As you'd expect with these complex changes to tax laws, there has also been extensive consultation with experts and civil society. Tax transparency is a critical part of the social contract multinationals have with the communities in which they operate. The government's focus is to encourage a behavioural change by multinationals and large corporates about how they view their tax obligations, including their decision-making around tax planning strategies. Enhanced public scrutiny on tax information will help provide the community with a better understanding of how much tax multinationals pay relative to their activities. Just as the Gillard government passed laws requiring the tax office to annually report the tax payable by our largest of firms, the Albanese government is moving to improve tax transparency. Public companies, listed and unlisted, will now be required to disclose information on the number of their subsidiaries and their country of tax domicile. That means public companies will be required to be upfront with the public about how they're structured, including for tax purposes. This will increase transparency on their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque tax arrangements. Creating a public country-by-country reporting register will deliver a key part of the government's multinational tax integrity election commitment. It will see Australia put in place a world-leading set of disclosure laws. Our government is progressing its election commitment to implement a public register of beneficial ownership, which will show who ultimately owns, controls or receives profits from a company or legal vehicle operating in Australia. Multinational tax reform has several benefits for our economy. Economists Thomas Torslov, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman estimate that close to 40 per cent of multinational profits, around US$600 billion, are shifted to low-tax countries each year. This global profit-shifting industry causes significant damage to the revenue base of countries such as Australia. Wier and Zucman calculate that, in 2019, around 10 per cent of corporate tax income was lost as a result of global profit-shifting. They estimate that, back in 1975, this figure was less than 0.1 per cent. A race to the bottom between nation-states has seen average corporate tax rates fall from 49 per cent in 1985 to 24 per cent in 2019. Australia relies more heavily on company tax relative to other OECD countries, even though Australia's aggregate tax burden across all levels of government is lower than the OECD average. Since company taxes comprise 19 per cent of Australia's revenue base, the accounting tricks and dodgy behaviour of multinational firms have a massive impact on Australia. A division having been called in the House of Representatives — Sitting suspended from 17:15 to 17:28 17:28 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Seventy per cent of my electorate are first- or second-generation migrants. I wasn't born here. In fact, I was born in the Republic of Ireland. Like many migrants, my heart is here and my complete loyalties are to Australia, but you still have a bit of your heart that longs for home. One of the things I note about my original birthplace is its corporate tax rate of 12½ per cent. An honourable member interjecting— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 To be clear, I arrived in Australia when I was 10, and it's fair to say I did well at school but not so well that I knew that the corporate tax rate was that. And I'm pretty sure the corporate tax rate wasn't that when I left. It was done later and for a particular reason that has direct impacts on our country and what we do. Why does that matter? It matters not just now but into the coming decades for the sort of country we pass on to future generations. We receive many documents and reports, but there is one that should stand out amongst all others—the Intergenerational report. The Intergenerational report has some very sobering numbers and graphs. On page 177, from memory, there is a graph that really jumps out; it is the graph on projected government spending at a Commonwealth level through to 2063—so the report looks 40 years into the future. That graph is adjusted for inflation—so it's on 2022-23 dollars. It tells you there was a spike in Commonwealth government spending during COVID-19; we all know that happened. But when you revert back to the Commonwealth spending per person in Australia it's at about $24,000 per person—not per taxpayer. Without any improvements in productivity, on 2022-23 dollars that will be at $40,000 per person. 'Without productivity improvements' is important because if we don't have improvements on productivity then our average and median wages will be the same or worse. What are they? They are $95,000 for the average wage and $65,000 for the median wage. How does that work for future generations if one level of government, not accounting for state and local expenditure plus all the other costs, is going to take $40,000 per person when the average wage is $95,000 and the median wage is $65,000? It is unworkable. There are two main streams we as a nation and legislators have to turn our minds to. One is the spending side and the other is tax side. Briefly, on the spending side—that's not the subject of these bills but that matters too—the Intergenerational report says there are five line items that will have the bulk of growth. Three of them are in the care economy—part of that is a product of an ageing population—and the others are defence and interest on debt. Those five line items are growing more than any other. There is work for us to do, and we should do that in a constructive and bipartisan way where we can, particularly when it comes to the care economy, because we can all agree they are essential items of government expenditure but they can be done more efficiently. Where we can do that without politicising it, we should do it because it's in the national interest. The other side of the Intergenerational report that matters is the tax side. There is a disparity in how we tax in this country, particularly on the corporate level. There is a disparity of power. If you are a small, a medium or even a larger domestic company that doesn't have a presence globally, or the resources of huge law firms and the big four accounting firms to help you produce a company structure so complex that it looks like a drawing from Mr Squiggle—and, full disclosure, I helped write some of those when I was a junior mergers and acquisitions lawyer. Surprise, surprise—and I'm not breaching any client confidentiality—the company at the top wasn't here; it was somewhere else. They are often in an exotic location, like the Cayman Islands or somewhere else like that—or my homeland of Ireland, if you were to look at a company like Meta. What are the consequences of that? The consequences of that are that we are treating companies that have a disproportionate level of power differently. The consequence is that that lost tax revenue—because the tax isn't being collected here; it's being collected at a reduced rate offshore by a sleight of hand, a trick—means we then have to turn to Australian taxpayers and Australian companies to raise more. For those who, through bracket creep, are pushing more towards the top rates, when you add other taxes, particularly on goods and services, we're paying more than half of our income as Australians on tax. That is unfair when companies are extracting those profits from here but paying 12½ per cent in Ireland or even lower in other countries. The intent behind these bills is something that has bipartisan support and is something that we support. Wherever we can, whether it's through power or prosperity, we should acknowledge the human instinct and inevitability of seeing power and prosperity concentrated. The antidote to that is that we should turn our minds to principles and policies that see the democratisation of power and the democratisation of prosperity—not the socialist dividing up and allocating of it but the democratisation of it, which means that, through your own endeavours and your own choices, we make it a fair game and that those who work hard and compete hard will be rewarded. Again, we live in a global world but, if you were to use the metaphor that many international relations scholars use of a billiards table, each of us as nation-states are spheres on that table. We are sovereign, and we have rules that are enforced. But there is a state of anarchy in between those billiard balls, and the incentive for larger multinational corporations to shift around the billiards table to those that have the lowest tax rate is one that we as a sovereign nation are entitled to address. It's important that when we do that—and we have supported this—we acknowledge, at the same time, that it's not the only solution to reducing the burden that we put on domestic companies and domestic individuals. This government has broken its promises on domestic reform—domestic tax reform, in particular. The promise was made before the election—and promises matter; they should matter—that there would only be increased taxes on multinationals. That's what we're doing here, and we agree with that. But let's turn to the record of the government and what they actually did. They raised taxes on superannuation, they are taxing unrealised capital gains, they are increasing taxes on franking credits and they have ended the small-business tax concessions. On any measure, that is a broken promise. The social media tile that says they're only taxing multimillionaires is a nonsense, because it's not indexed. Through bracket creep, all Australians have been pushed forward into these higher tax brackets. We know that those higher domestic taxes are going to do nothing to help with the cost-of-living crisis. They are going to do nothing to lift productivity growth as is required for us to fund the care economy and still do all of the other things that make our nation great and prosperous. They're not going to do anything to solve the delicate balance that we are leaving all of the work of achieving to the RBA, which is to bring inflation down and not collapse the economy. That's the highwire that the RBA are trying to walk. But it's very hard to do that when the government's pulling you in one other direction. You have to lean on the other like a seesaw that's out of balance. These are important bills. They have our support, but that support should not be given by the coalition in a way that doesn't acknowledge the promises that have been broken and the serious work that has to be done on out-of-control spending by this government which is impacting the task of bringing inflation down now and doing nothing to fix that horror story that we see in the Intergenerational report of 40 years from now. We must all, as a matter of urgency, turn our mind to that. 17:38 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck When multinational corporations pay less or no tax, ordinary Australian workers end up paying more. I rise to speak on the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 and the associated bills. I do so knowing that there will be legislators in many countries speaking to congruent legislation at this time. These bills address tax challenges that have existed for many decades and which are exacerbated by the continuing digitisation and globalisation of the economy. The global minimum tax will allow a top-up tax to be imposed on a resident multinational parent or subsidiary company where the group's revenue is taxed below 15 per cent overseas. The domestic minimum tax will likewise apply on any low-taxed domestic income. The purpose of these bills is to reduce the incentive that has for many years encouraged multinational companies to shift profits and revenue between jurisdictions by various artifices in order to exploit differences in taxation regimes and, by doing so, minimise the tax that they pay. In his second reading speech, the assistant minister noted that we would be joining hands with countries like Canada, the EU, the UK and Japan, among 60 states that have already taken legislative action to address tax evasion. In June 2021 the G7 stated their support for this initiative, and shortly thereafter, in July 2021, 130 countries at the OECD meeting in Paris endorsed a global minimum tax rate of 15 per cent. In 2021 US President Biden stated that the agreement was 'an important step in moving the global economy forward'. There is some tension today in the US, with some not wanting to miss out on the changes and some not wanting the US to be an early adopter. The current administration's attitude is to do whatever it takes to get it done. We will need to wait and see how long it takes the US to join the party, but the momentum is there. Brazil is on board, Vietnam is introducing it and Kenya is considering the change. We have a progressive tax system in place in Australia whereby we require those who have greater income to contribute more to the social good. The fact that for many years very large companies have made significant revenue in Australia and yet paid nowhere near the tax that they should have is a disgrace. The problem now accelerates as the economy digitises. This bill, in concert with the actions being taken by countries around the world, will reduce the incentive to shift operations to low-tax jurisdictions. The reduction of the tax advantages currently exploited by very large companies will in turn create a more level playing field and encourage and support the small and medium-sized businesses—many of them Australian—that currently find it difficult to compete. As Minister Leigh stated, suburban firms shouldn't have to compete with tax-dodging multinationals, and I quite agree. For years that unfair competition has been going on, and it is still going on, as I speak, be it in the Hay Street Mall in Perth, in Middling Gate or at the Ellenbrook shopping centre, in my seat of Hasluck. This legislation will make Australia a more attractive place for international investment. It will be good for competition, not just here but around the world. It will take effect immediately, capturing income from the start of this year, with the first returns due in mid-2026. Since 2021, and before, companies have been on notice that this was coming. It will capture companies with a combined global revenue of 750 million euros, which is just over A$1.24 billion. Some of the companies that will be captured are Amazon, Exxon, Apple, Shell, Volkswagen, Alphabet, or Google, Toyota, Glencore and bp. It is salient to consider that many of these companies have annual incomes that eclipse many of the GDPs of independent nations. Walmart—the largest, perhaps—has an annual revenue larger than the GDPs of Thailand, Austria or Norway. Let's unpack the example that Minister Leigh gave: Google's $19 billion of revenue in Bermuda in 2016. Leaving aside the fact $19 million of economic activity on an island of less than 54 square kilometres would undoubtedly destroy said island, we should never allow legal fictions to stand, because they always cause poor outcomes. Australians account for perhaps up to one per cent of the internet users of the world. On that basis, one per cent of that $19 billion of revenue was in reality created in Australia. That's $190 million that we just didn't see, or tax. If there was an Australian company trying to be competitive in search at that time, or since, how could they compete with Google? Getting this law in place at this time, here and internationally, is crucial. Our economies are not going to be less digitised in the years to come. Without ensuring a level playing field, competition and initiative will be quashed, the revenue base will be eroded and economic equality and fairness will be further reduced. Some estimates put the annual loss of tax revenue due to the ongoing global shell game at 10 per cent. We need to bring this home to what it means for our local communities. When some of the very largest companies are making money in Australia but are not paying their way, it has a real effect on what should be the revenue collected by government each year, and so it has a real effect on the services that government are able to provide. Evasion of taxation means less money for education in Hasluck. It means public schools will not have the facilities that they should have. Evasion of taxation means less money for health in Hasluck. It means that our local cancer treatment centre might not be able to meet the demand that presents to it and that local residents already facing hardship have to travel further and wait longer for treatment, making them sicker. Evasion of taxation means that competition is reduced everywhere in Hasluck, which means that a new venture that might have meant local jobs can't get a start because it just can't compete. The local cafe can't afford to stay open in the afternoon. Fewer tourists stop in the valley. In short, the economy is better and life is better when we don't have major global corporations freeloading on us. Small, medium and large companies in Australia who do the right thing and pay their tax feel rightly annoyed when they see the large, very wealthy global companies getting away with what amounts to a deception played against the Australian people. In countries that are not as wealthy as ours, this practice of avoidance means a smaller pool of national income for projects designed to assist development across health and education and for other development goals. Our participation in this global effort, in partnership with other nations, will reap benefits far beyond our shores. As Australians we don't like freeloaders. This government is taking action to ensure that anyone who wishes to hide from the tax obligations that we all share will find hiding more and more difficult and uneconomical as time goes on. We shouldn't have to wait for a leak of documents, like the Panama papers in 2016 or the Luxembourg leaks in 2014, before wealthy companies and individuals are made to meet their just tax obligations in the countries that they actually live, operate and earn income in. After the Panama papers, the ATO launched investigations that found over $140 million of unpaid tax liabilities. The Panama papers included historic references to BHP Billiton, Westfield, Alcan Corporation, ANZ bank and the National Australia Bank. Many of the tax havens used by wealthy corporations and individuals are small islands like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. The fact that these are Commonwealth territories is embarrassing. The EU is fully behind the changes, yet Luxembourg, a founding member of the EU, has been a low-tax environment for many years and is utilised by many companies within Europe for that reason. Money talks. The major reason change has been so slow to come in this field is that there are many economically powerful corporations and wealthy individuals who have concomitant political clout and are well motivated to sustain the status quo for as long as possible. Apparently the Cayman Islands are lovely. There's scuba diving on shipwrecks and crystal clear waters. Above sea level, things are not so crystal clear, though, with more companies registered there—a hundred thousand—than there are residents. I trust that there are currently no Australian politicians who have interests invested in the Cayman Islands or like havens. The member for Hume, in his speech on the bill, did manage for about three vainglorious minutes to speak in favour of it, and so I expect the bill will have support across the House. He spent the remainder of his time speaking on irrelevant matters related to his own political interests. It seems to me that on a matter of such importance we should try to confine our remarks and our amendments to the causes and scope of the legislation, and I hope other members opposite will do better. The member for Hume likewise moved an amendment. This is serious legislation, yet the amendment proposed by the member for Hume is an incoherent ramble that does not in fact address any part of these bills. I can only hope that no unlucky legislator in another country, casting about to see what others are saying about this landmark global legislative change, accidentally comes across the member for Hume's amendment and tries to understand how on earth that has any relevance to the bills. The member for Hume should be careful not to waste the time of innocent legislators and their staff overseas, and he certainly shouldn't be wasting the time of this parliament either. I will be voting against the feckless amendment from the member for Hume. The former coalition treasurer Josh Frydenberg appeared to support these global rules. It is unclear how much support he received from former prime minister Morrison. In any event, the adoption of this legislation has been Labor policy since before 2022, and the coalition simply didn't get it done. As in so many other areas of policy, such as the NACC and environmental law, they now have a chance to support legislation that they had every chance to enact but dragged their feet on or ignored. The coalition years were a litany of lost opportunity. Transparency and the availability of good data are essential to planning and to good policy, and this is true in any area or field. Tax transparency is part of the social contract that businesses have with the communities in which they operate and make money. This is true whether the business is a sole practitioner working from home in Midland, a distillery in the Swan Valley that employs 20 people or Google, with annual revenue of US$305 billion. At the end of the day, delivering value for shareholders can never be done at the expense of the communities within which that value is created. This is good legislation, and it evidences Australia's commitment to a better, fairer and more equal economic global order. Ernst & Young described the introduction of this regime as a significant shift in global taxation. Australia has been a firm champion of the global 15 per cent minimum tax rate on multinationals. By enacting this legislation now, we will be among a strong group of first movers, the actions of which will bring other nations more quickly to agreement and cooperation. I support the bill and look forward to seeing the intent of this legislation supported across this parliament and across the world. 17:51 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The Greens will support this bill, the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, through the House, but we will reserve our position in the Senate. Since the pandemic, big corporations in Australia have been making eye-watering profits. In 2022, corporate profits reached their highest level ever, and they haven't stopped there. At the moment, over 30 per cent of the entire economy goes to the profits of big corporations. Australia's 500 biggest companies made $98 billion in so-called crisis profits post the pandemic. Corporations like Woolworths, Hancock Prospecting, National Australia Bank, AGL Energy and Harvey Norman reaped billions of dollars in profits off the back of forcing people to pay higher prices. These corporate profits are driving the cost-of-living crisis. They are making more because you are paying more. Wages are not keeping up. According to the latest OECD data, real wages are now at 4.8 per cent below prepandemic levels. The share of profits which goes to working people through wages is at record lows. We've lost nearly 14 years of progress on wages growth and, according to the RBA, it's going to take another 15 years for us to make up the lost ground. This is an economy that has been rigged by Labor and the Liberals in the interests of big corporations. The RBA governor, Michele Bullock, admitted at the beginning of the year what we all knew: big corporations were using the cost-of-living crisis as cover to push up prices. Alan Fels held an inquiry into price gouging and found that people are paying too much too often for the basics they need in life. He cited submissions like those from Danielle, a nurse whose bills rose by over $8,700 during 2023 while her wages increased by only $102. What makes it worse, though, is that people like Danielle pay more tax than many multinational corporations. In fact, one in three big corporations in this country pays no tax at all. And when it comes to the coal and gas sector, that number of corporations that pay no tax at all is more like two in three. There are 91 coal and gas corporations and corporate entities operating in Australia but, upon going through the tax database, we found that 54 of those 91 corporations paid no tax—not a cent. Just to spell it out, three out of every five coal and gas corporations operating in this country paid no tax. Those 54 corporations boasted $100 billion of income last year and paid not a cent of tax. What an absolute scam! It's a truly rigged economy. Seventy per cent of gas corporations in Australia don't pay any tax. Thirty-three gas corporations earned over $68 billion in revenue and didn't pay any tax. Petronas Australia—$1.14 billion in total income, no tax paid. TotalEnergies—$2.6 billion in revenue, no tax paid. Chevron Australia Downstream Holdings—$5 billion in total income, no tax paid. ExxonMobil—$15.5 billion in total income, no tax paid. ExxonMobil Australia has never once paid tax in the eight years of corporate tax reports. Coal companies aren't much better. Half of them avoided paying any tax, and the half who didn't made a tidy $28 billion in total income. To top it all off, some of these coal and gas corporations are getting handouts from the government, subsidised by you—the taxpayer. That's billions that we could use to build more housing and use for mental health care, disability support and students struggling with completely unaffordable degrees. We're all victims of a grand extortion, a swindle, a fraud—and Labor and the coalition are all in on it. In the 2023 financial year the major parties received $2 million in donations from fossil fuel corporations—companies like Adani, Woodside, Santos and Chevron, and they're just the ones that we know about due to our broken donation system. What do we get in return? We get a nurse that pays more tax than a multinational and a Labor government that's giving 14 times more to corporations to turbocharge the climate and cost-of-living crises than it will to the national disaster relief fund. It's a joke, and people are sick of it. There's not a gas shortage in Australia; there's an integrity shortage. There's a shortage of politicians who actually represent their constituents, not the interests of the coal and gas corporations paying them off. One nurse shouldn't pay more tax than 33 gas corporations. One teacher shouldn't pay more tax than 21 coal corporations. In the 10 years between 2014 and 2024, all the teachers in this country paid twice as much tax as the entire oil and gas sector. There's more in HECS and student related loans going to the government of the country than there is revenue in the PRRT, the big gas tax which is designed to raise revenue from the oil and gas industry. It's no wonder that the Australian Taxation Office described the gas industry as a systemic nonpayer of tax. The Labor government has failed to mention the role of big corporate profits in driving up the cost of living. How can you tackle a crisis when you can't even say who's causing it and when you can't even identify those big corporations that are price gouging? Rather than cracking down on the big supermarkets, the Prime Minister is more likely to dress up in a Coles high-vis top and pose for photos with them, and, rather than making big corporations pay their fair share, the Prime Minister is more likely to have dressed up in a Rio Tinto shirt. That's because the Prime Minister is more concerned with managing the economy for the profits of big corporations and billionaires than he is with the concerns of everyday people. While people are struggling to keep a roof over their head, being smashed at the supermarket and paying too much on their power bills, Labor is backing the big corporations. In the past year, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, CEOs have given themselves double-digit pay rises, while many of the same corporations call for restraint when it comes to the pay of their workers. In this wealthy country of ours, we now have over 3.3 million people living in poverty. The number of people who can't find an affordable place to live is growing, as is the number of people who are homeless. People are skipping meals so their kids don't miss out. This country's economy is rigged. Labor and the Liberals both take huge donations from the big corporations, Labor and the Liberals have both refused to make the big corporations pay their fair share and Labor and the Liberals have both refused to do anything about price gouging from the big corporations. People are fed up with the Coles and Woollies of politics ripping them off at every turn. This is why, every day, more people are telling us it is getting harder and harder to tell Labor and the Liberals apart. It doesn't have to be this way. We can make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax. We can make groceries cheaper by making price gouging illegal. We can freeze rent increases and drive down the cost of housing to the point where people can afford it. If we make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax, we can actually get to the heart of what's driving the cost-of-living crisis and start to invest in people. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 18:13 18:14 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that big multinational corporations that make a profit in Australia pay tax in Australia. This was an election commitment, and I'm happy to speak in support of this necessary reform, the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024. It builds on the substantial reforms already implemented by Labor regarding the taxation of large multinational corporations. Our foundational belief is that tax transparency is a vital part of the social contract that multinationals have with the communities in which they operate and that they profit from. This means insight into decision-making around tax strategies and management of tax obligations, this means shining a light into the dark places of the tax dealings of large multinationals and this means giving the Australian public more information and understanding about how much tax these companies pay in comparison to their profits. Labor is committed to achieving this transparency through a raft of reforms. We moved to require that both listed and unlisted companies disclose information on their subsidiaries and their country of tax domicile. Again, this will provide a new and welcome level of transparency on how multinationals are structuring their businesses for tax purposes. It will also indicate whether they are operating with opaque tax arrangements. This information will be required in annual financial reports commencing on or after 1 July 2023. Further transparency is guaranteed with the Buy Australian Plan, under the Fair Go Procurement Framework. Companies tendering in government procurement processes for contracts worth over $200,000 will have to list the jurisdictions where they pay tax. In other words, to win a government contract, these companies need to make it clear that they're paying their fair share of tax. They must be good global citizens. In the October 2023 budget, we directed $200 million a year, for four years, to boost the ATO's Tax Avoidance Taskforce, which is cracking down on tax dodging by multinational corporations as well as domestic entities. The thin capitalisation rules have curbed the practice of abuse of debt deduction rules. If left unchecked, this can eat away at our tax base and leave Australian individuals and small businesses paying more. The former government did not see this as a problem during their wasted decade in office, but Labor does. One of our election promises was to implement an interest limitation measure. The Labor government has toughened the rules around debt deductions to ensure tax fairness, limiting the ability for taxpayers to create artificial interest-bearing debt in Australia in order to maximise interest related deductions that reduce their tax bill. This bill focuses on the reality that the taxation of multinational corporations, and the lack of transparency around it, has long been recognised as a global problem. The international corporate tax system is in dire need of reform, a fact recognised by the OECD and G20 nations. Many of the international conventions for corporate income taxation are now outdated. They do not account for digitalisation and globalisation. As the Treasury said: By using digital technologies, large multinationals increasingly have the ability to operate at 'scale without mass' in countries where they earn significant revenues without needing a traditional physical presence. These countries are then constrained from collecting corporate tax because traditionally such tax is collected in the country where the employees and assets are based. Additionally, multinationals have been able to move profits around from higher taxing countries to low- or even no-tax jurisdictions. This new business environment has led to threats to the stability of the international tax system. Some countries have introduced a digital service tax, prompting the United States to threaten retaliatory trade action. Other countries have decreased their corporate income tax rates to ensure that multinational companies keep investing in them. This negatively affects other countries and their ability to tax multinationals, and it also affects domestic businesses. To deal with this, in 2021, 136 nations—90 per cent of global GDP—agreed on what is called the Two-Pillar Solution. This focuses on the allocation of taxing rights to market jurisdictions and the imposition of the global minimum tax rate of 15 per cent. This was subsequently endorsed by G20 leaders. Pillar One focuses on the 'scale without mass' problem and seeks to avoid a situation of escalating trade tariffs due to digital service taxes. Pillar Two is the subject of this bill, a global minimum tax on large multinational corporations. It's not easy to reform the international taxation system, but it's critical that Australia does so. We're doing so with this bill. Labor is taking a leadership role in instigating this multilateral change to ensure that big corporations pay their fair share. This reform means that these companies will have to pay a minimum level of tax in every jurisdiction where they operate—a big pat on the back for Australia for taking the lead on this. The global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax of 15 per cent will apply to multinational corporations with an annual global revenue of approximately A$1.2 billion. There are substantial benefits to these reforms—firstly, the tax rate differential between Australia and low-tax countries will be reduced. This will decrease the incentive for corporations to shift profits overseas. Ultimately it will make Australia an investment target and boost our economic growth. Australian businesses will benefit as well, because the reforms will level the playing field when it comes to competing with large multinational corporations. They will adhere to the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules that were agreed by the OECD Inclusive Framework. This framework encompasses 145 jurisdictions. A minimum corporate tax rate enables Australia to apply a top-up tax on large multinationals operating in Australia where their income is taxed overseas at a lower rate, and the domestic minimum tax rate enables additional taxing right on the low-taxed Australian income of these companies. The domestic minimum tax is vital to ensure that Australia collects the revenue from these countries rather than other jurisdictions. There are over 50 jurisdictions in the process of implementing the two-pillar solution, so it's crucial that the domestic minimum tax protects Australian interests. In keeping with the global nature of these reforms, this legislation will be reviewed by the OECD to ensure that it is working as intended and to indicate to other jurisdictions that it is recognised. Other jurisdictions working to implement these reforms are the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, South Korea and the European Union. These countries all recognise that it is time to address the global divide between sophisticated financial centres and less-developed but resource-rich countries. There is more to come with this government when it comes to holding multinational corporations accountable. We have introduced a bill to implement a public country-by-country reporting register—a world-leading set of disclosure requirements. We have set the application date of country-by-country reporting to 1 July this year to align it with the European Union's implementation of a similar register. Importantly, it strengthens the global momentum towards transparency and fairer tax arrangements. This is complemented by our progress towards our election commitment to develop a public register of beneficial ownership. This will provide information on who owns, controls or receives profits from a company operating in Australia. This register will assist regulators and law enforcement agencies with their work on tax evasion, money-laundering and complex financial crime. It is complicated, arduous work, but it will result in fairness for Australia. This bill, which is receiving broad support, is not the end of the Albanese Labor government's action to make multinational corporations accountable. In May the Treasurer announced moves to ensure a stronger, more streamlined and more transparent approach to foreign investment. Another aspect is strengthening the foreign resident capital gains tax regime to make sure foreign residents pay their fair share of tax too. The May budget also announced a new royalty penalty. This will mean that companies with an annual revenue of $1 billion will attract a penalty if they avoid Australian royalty withholding tax. All these measures will have a positive effect on the bottom line and they will increase public confidence that the large multinational corporations that operate in Australia are paying what they should be—their fair share. I'm a bit disappointed that the Leader of the Greens spent his entire speech, after saying he would support the legislation, talking about the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. He didn't actually do the hard work of going into the legislation and seeing what it would do. He just had a litany of whingeing rather than looking at this hard, complicated international legislation and how it will have impacts on Australia's businesses and multinational businesses. It was very disappointing that the jeremiad of whingeing from the Greens continues, mainly targeted at Labor people and Labor seats. I obviously call on the opposition to support these reforms and be in step with the global push towards fairer corporate taxation regulation. Much of the work was actually started under the former government—I will acknowledge that. I commend this bill to the House. 18:24 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I supported the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill in 2023 as I believe in the principles of fairness. This is a belief that is shared and resonates across Australia. Working Australians see their hard-earned dollars whittled away by taxes while multinational companies that are earning millions, and in some cases billions, pay little or no tax, and they have every right to be frustrated and angry. The 'making multinationals pay their fair share' bill was just one positive step in a process of urgently required taxation reform. This bill supports a coordinated, global effort to set a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for all multinational enterprise groups with an annual revenue of at least $1.2 billion. While the changes are only expected to increase domestic taxation revenue by $210 million over the forward estimates, it is the indirect impact that is of greater importance. Assuming cost-shifting and other tax mitigation measures secured in this place are effective, multinationals must now carefully consider other factors, such as sovereign risk, industrial relations, environmental laws, intellectual property risks and security against local taxation conditions. A multinational may accept a high degree of risk in undertaking a business in one country if the tax is sufficiently low. However, this equation quickly changes when the tax rates are equalised. Under the proposed arrangements, supported internationally by 135 countries, a minimum 15 per cent tax is applied. When the threshold is not met, it triggers either a top-up tax in the originating jurisdiction or a top-up application in the headquartered country, depending on the effective tax rate. The effect of this is twofold. A multinational entity may decide that a higher business risk in a particular country is no longer worth it without the benefit of the lower tax rate. Consequently, countries such as Australia with a higher corporate tax rate but lower sovereign risk become more attractive. Companies domiciled in Australia also benefit from multinationals that choose to remain in lower-tax countries. They'll see their taxes increase, and this tax gap reduction between Australia and other countries bridges some of the cost disadvantages of operating in Australia. Equalising or at least bringing business costs closer, irrespective of where the business is domiciled, can't come at a more important time. Across Australia, corporate insolvencies are surging, as inflation, cost of living and energy prices are taking effect. In the last 12 months, insolvencies exceeded 10,000 for the first time since 2013. The trend is alarming. For the first nine months of the financial year, insolvencies rose by 36.2 per cent on the previous corresponding period. Monthly filings reached 1,137 insolvencies in March 2024. That was a record until May, when 1,249 new cases were initiated. While most of these companies are local, the benefit of a globally [inaudible] tax system will result in more companies investing or relocating their operations to Australia, with flow-on effects to the local economy. It is also reasonable to conclude that some of the $976 billion—nearly a trillion—in outbound foreign direct investment emanating from Australian businesses in 2022 would be redirected into Australia, creating local jobs and local opportunities. This bill provides improved fairness across the global economy. It is an appropriate reform and one that I certainly support. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T It being virtually 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 96 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Integrity 96 18:28 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi When I'm visiting the small and big towns of Indi—the farms, businesses and footy clubs—people tell me that the parliament and government must be stronger on integrity. Integrity in government and parliament is absolutely core to public confidence in our democracy. Integrity might sometimes feel like a vibe—something a government or member of parliament either has or doesn't have. But there are clear markers against which I think we can grade the current Albanese government. There are clear criteria we can check and say, 'You're on the right path,' or, 'You have a lot work to do.' So would we give this government a pass or a fail on integrity? Yes, this government was the government to finally establish a national anticorruption commission—without a doubt a significant achievement towards restoring public trust in government and parliament. But the NACC is only one pillar on which to build integrity in government. What of whistleblower protections, ending jobs for mates, getting big money and corporate influence out of politics, truth in political advertising, ending pork-barrelling, and accountability for bad behaviour by elected representatives? In some of these areas we have made no progress and in others we're lost in delays of good intentions. This government has a long way to go before it'll be known as the government of integrity. It can only ride on the coattails of the NACC for so long. Let me outline issue by issue how this government has failed to achieve key integrity reforms and has let Australians down by not keeping its election promises on integrity. First up, whistleblower protections. In 2019 the then opposition leader, Mr Albanese, said: Journalism is not a crime. It's essential to preserving our democracy. We don't need a culture of secrecy. We need a culture of disclosure. … … … Protect whistleblowers—expand their protections and the public interest test. So where are we in 2024, with Mr Albanese now Prime Minister? We had some amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act so that the National Anti-Corruption Commission could commence, but experts have called these changes minor and technical. There have been some big wins; the government's successful advocacy for Julian Assange and dropping of the case against Bernard Collaery were significant. At the same time, known whistleblowers, including war crimes whistleblower David McBride and tax whistleblower Richard Boyle, are either in prison or facing jail time because our whistleblower laws are completely inadequate. Instead, we have had a consultation paper on the reforms needed to protect such whistleblowers hidden in a departmental drawer for over eight months now. We have absolutely no changes in the Public Interest Disclosure Act that are even remotely in line with the Prime Minister's past words—'promoting a culture of disclosure' indeed! If this inaction by the Labor government continues, cultures of secrecy will continue. People will continue to stay silent, and injustices will inevitably flow. The second integrity subject I will prosecute is electoral reform. This government talked a big game on electoral reform when in opposition, but we are staring down the barrel of the next election and we know we will not have better transparency around donations, fundraising and spending before we head to the polls. A 2023 Australia Institute poll found that nine in 10 Australians want truth-in-political-advertising laws in place before the next federal election. In this same poll, seven in 10 Australians agreed they were concerned about the lies and misinformation that circulated on social media during the referendum campaign. But even after a referendum full of misleading and deceptive information, it is now obvious we will not have protections against misinformation and lies in political advertising or against the dangers of artificial intelligence in our next election campaign. The third integrity issue I grade the government on is ending pork-barrelling. After nine years of coalition government, we had more than enough evidence of government pork-barrelling. The Australian National Audit Office found that former government ministers made funding decisions across multiple grant programs where 'there were indications of shortcomings in the assessment of the merit criterion' and 'where the program was ineffective and fell short of ethical requirements'. These grant programs are known as 'sports rorts', 'car park rorts' and 'hospital rorts'—great big barrels of pork. Members of this government like to frequently cite the coalition's track record in pork-barrelling. They like to set themselves apart. When I've raised this issue in this place previously, the Minister for Financial Services has stated: … the government is committed to increasing transparency and accountability for government decision-making. I acknowledge that last month the government strengthened the Commonwealth grants framework. I note this includes quarterly reporting to parliament of when a minister has awarded grants in their own electorate and of any grants they have approved which officials recommended be rejected. That's a good start. But I am yet to see movement on other necessary reforms to put an end to pork-barrelling set out in legislation, like requiring all grant programs to have merit based selection criteria and clear program guidelines—hardly radical! While this government may be quick to say they've enhanced accountability and transparency in grants administration, I continue to have real concerns about the current Labor government's administration of so-called election commitments—not to mention their $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia plans. The fourth integrity issue that has been seriously delayed under this government is an independent parliamentary standards commission. The Australian people desperately want to see better behaviour in this place and consequences for those whose conduct fails to measure up, especially after a 2021 independent inquiry called out parliament's revolting and humiliating workplace culture in the Set the standard report. The author of that report, Kate Jenkins, recommended the establishment of an independent commission to investigate complaints against MPs, staff and other parliamentary workers and to determine punishments for serious breaches of workplace safety. But while work has happened behind the scenes, we are still waiting for legislation to be tabled. If we are truly to improve the culture in this place, to set the culture at a high standard that the public rightly expect of the workplace that is at the heart of Australia's democracy, a robust, independent parliamentary standards commission must be implemented. Finally, we need to grade the Labor government on a somewhat novel subject, a subject that I, personally, didn't realise was an integrity issue until the 47th Parliament. I am talking about the government's requirement for stakeholders to sign non-disclosure agreements to provide feedback on exposure draft legislation or draft policies. According to the Parliamentary Library, the Albanese government has used non-disclosure agreements on at least nine occasions in this parliament, on important laws dealing with the NDIS, the environment, gambling and religious discrimination. This means we don't know which lobbyists or powerful cooperations are getting the inside word. It also means stakeholders are gagged when they have concerns on legislation, and this undoubtedly obstructs robust public debate. It means the laws that are introduced and passed in this place are not as good as they otherwise could be. They are incomplete at best and harmful at worst. Not only is this government dragging its feet on key integrity reforms, it's also creating a whole new area for voters to be worried about when it comes to integrity in government. Frankly, I don't want to be any more worried. I may know better than most in this place that change is slow. The fight to establish the Anti-Corruption Commission took years of challenging, persistent conversations from many many people and much negotiation. It took courage to bring together an unlikely coalition of groups bold enough to demand better of government. But how much longer can voters be expected to wait to see major party promises realised, key promises like those I've listed tonight that have been made again and again with little to show for it. I haven't even touched on other integrity issues like ending jobs for mates, much-needed lobbying reform and ensuring a robust freedom-of-information request system. With an election less than 10 months away, I don't want to see the government recycle their election promises because they haven't delivered in their three years in power. It's simply not good enough. I'm sure voters agree with me, so I urge this government: in the time you have remaining of the 47th Parliament, make good on your promises and get moving. Health Care, Aged Care 97 18:38 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Endometriosis is a really common disease. It affects one in nine women, and diagnosis takes seven years on average; that is far too long. It doesn't take seven years to diagnose cancer. Patients also typically wait between one and four years to see a public specialist like a gynaecologist. That's way too long and is like adding insult to injury. I recently had the privilege of visiting one of the 22 endometriosis clinics that this Labor government has funded, something spearheaded by Assistant Minister Ged Kearney. At the EACH endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic in Ringwood East, the wait time is not four years but 14 days. The EACH clinic is a patient centred clinic delivering essential services to women and girls who suffer from chronic pain. Patients walk in, often with wads—files—of notes. Many of them have had years of surgeries and they come in desperation, having wandered from pillar to post in search of answers. There is no cure for endometriosis but there is care—care to help women navigate their lives and find options that may enable them to remain productive and fulfilled, and not be defined by pain. Using a multidisciplinary approach, patients are met with empathy and expertise. Such is the reputation of this clinic that patients from regional areas like Gippsland are coming through word of mouth. Medical and nursing consultations, counselling support, pelvic pain management, physiotherapy, dietetics, onsite ultrasound—very unusual—and hormonal treatments, including Mirena insertion and removal: these are the services this clinic provides and these are the services our Australian women need not just in Ringwood East but all throughout this country, something we are pushing. The only ask of me from this clinic was for more space. What a good problem to have. They are so overwhelmed with business that they just need some money to expand the clinic. I would like to thank the clinic for its professional staff and for providing high-quality care to our women and girls. Keep going. Bowel cancer is reaching down to younger and younger Australians. It is the reason we have expanded access to free bowel cancer screening to include people aged between 45 and 50. There are 1,716 Australians under the age of 50, each with a name, each with a story, each with loved ones, who are diagnosed with bowel cancer. That's 11 per cent of all bowel cancers, and the numbers are accelerating. They are going up for a multiplicity of reasons. We are not clear why this is happening. Three hundred and fifteen people under 50 die from bowel cancer each year. Imagine that—people at the peak of their lives. That's nearly six per cent of all bowel cancer deaths. Over 86 per cent of people diagnosed with early-onset bowel cancer experience symptoms. The majority of these patients actually have symptoms, and they often go and see their doctor with them, sometimes with bleeding, a change in bowel habit or pain. Yet what do they hear? They hear, 'You're too young to have bowel cancer.' The signs and symptoms are attributed to haemorrhoids or to maybe food intolerance. 'It's a normal part of your recovery from having a baby,' or it's the result of having a hectic lifestyle. How many times have these narratives been going round and round? It's led to deaths and poor outcomes. And it's a tragedy, because, if a polyp is found early, it's removed. It's snared through a colonoscopy and it's removed. Gone—bowel cancer stopped dead in its tracks. I would like to thank Never2Young, a bowel cancer patient advocacy group, for campaigning for the change to the bowel cancer screening program and spearheading this push for greater recognition. This Labor government, thanks to Mark Butler, the health minister, has listened. Aged care was a shambles when we came to office, defined by a royal commission report titled Neglect. Thanks to the reforms championed by Minister Anika Wells, we have seen time spent on direct care for residents actually increase, and a whole range of other measures to increase the quality of aged care and restore confidence in the sector so that, when the time comes for Australians to enter aged care, they know that they are going to be looked after—that there is oversight and that there are now benchmarks that must be met so that they get the care they rightfully expect. Right now, residents are getting 204 total minutes of care, up by more than 20 minutes per day from 2020-21. We promised to ensure a registered nurse was on duty at all aged-care homes 24/7. As of July this year, this has been achieved, on average, 99 per cent of the time. That is remarkable. We were told it would never happen because of skill shortages. But you legislate and you create the benchmark, and this is the change. We said we'd establish a food, nutrition and dining hotline where older people in aged-care homes, their families and their carers can ask questions, get advice and make complaints about the food. This is available on 1800844044, Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm. We're funding 24,000 more home-care packages, to give older Australians more choice. It's pretty clear from the two years of consultation we have done with the community that Australians know what they want. They want to have autonomy, they want to have a say in what happens when they age and, ideally, they want to age at home with independence and a little bit of extra support. They do not want to end up in residential aged care if they can help it, so we're giving them some options. We've also changed deeming rates. Deeming rates are percentages set by the Australian government and used by Centrelink to predict how much you will earn over the next 12 months from things like super and investments. They provide an estimate of your income for the next year so you can work out if you are still eligible for the age pension. We will continue to freeze social security deeming rates for a further 12 months, to June 2025, to provide continued relief for around 876,000 income support recipients across Australia. The first $103,800 of your combined financial assets has a deeming rate of 0.25 per cent applied. Anything over that amount is deemed to earn 2.25 per cent. In Higgins, this will support 2,815 income support recipients. One of my favourite topics is career pathways and options for young Australians. The world is their oyster and there are so many options. In fact, they are going to be spoilt for choice. Every student needs good career guidance to make informed decisions about their future; however, we all know, having been through school and having visiting schools, that the quality of that career advice is often quite patchy in schools right across Australia. It doesn't matter whether you go to an independent school, a private school, a public school or a faith-based school, career advice remains patchy, so let me give you some tips from an insider: if you're not thinking about energy, you're not thinking. Energy, energy and energy—one, two and three. Then, of course, there are the defence industries—submarines, autonomous robots, hypersonics, counterhypersonics, nuclear science and electronic welfare. Advanced manufacturing is coming. The world's most efficient solar panels are going to be made right here in Australia, backed by $1 billion from the Albanese Labor government. There will be green hydrogen projects and solar thermal. Solar thermal is where you have a column of salt surrounded by mirrors, and the salt is melted and becomes a source of heat. These projects are not science fiction but projects that are already funded by us and underway. There's quantum computing. Then, of course, there's cyber. We need to raise an army of cyber defenders who can decode the noise and turn the hunted into the hunters. There is AI. There is anything related to the net zero transformation—transport, road, aviation, agriculture, the built environment, the circular economy. Waste is sexy because waste is now an industry, and we want to learn to manage it and turn it into a resource. There are future fuels. Then, of course, there's the care sector. We need people to care for each other, whether that be in teaching, nursing, social work, disability or mental health. Then, of course, there is construction. Without the human capital, we are not going to get to build 1.2 million homes, which is our ambition. Over the next five years we are going to need a lot of people in construction—blue collar and white collar. Young Australians have heeded the call, with 500,000 having already taken up fee-free TAFE courses. With that, we've got 20,000 places in construction and interest-free loans of up to $25,000. If you complete your course, we will shave 20 per cent off those loans, and there are incentives for apprentices as well as for employers. Moore Electorate: Infrastructure 99 18:48 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore In contributing to this grievance debate, I remind members that my electorate of Moore is in Perth's northern coastal suburbs, a region experiencing rapid population growth. More than 10,000 new residents are projected to move into the outer metropolitan suburbs of Perth to the north of my electorate each and every year for the next 20 years. This places great strain on our community and sporting facilities, our health care, our aged care and our road network, as these new residents will utilise Joondalup as their closest regional city. Moore was once regarded as a safe blue-ribbon seat for the Liberal Party; however, recent political events have prompted the Prime Minister to declare Moore as a target seat at the next election. For the electors of Moore, this is wonderful news, as their votes will now matter even more and they will not be taken for granted. Increased federal funding for infrastructure is critical to fully realising the economic and community development potential of the Moore electorate. With a population of more than 165,000 residents, the City of Joondalup is the regional centre for health and medical services, higher education, digital innovation, cybersecurity, retail and professional services, with approximately 13,000 businesses generating more than $7 billion in annual economic activity. The site of tower cranes in the Joondalup skyline is a sign of a vibrant economy. Throughout the city, construction activity will remain strong over the next few years, with a major mixed-use residential and commercial project commencing in Sorrento and Hillarys and particularly at Ocean Reef Marina. To progress the growth and transformation of Joondalup, it is necessary to implement strategies to attract more public funding and private sector investment to build our city. The electors of Moore are looking forward to the future. Our regional city has the potential to grow into a vibrant metropolis, and access to a wider range of professional services, amenities and advanced technology will support highly skilled jobs for our suburban population. My priorities for our community include facilitating the development of an innovation precinct and expanding the existing education and health precincts to create skilled employment for residents. It is the role of the federal government to develop policy to promote innovative development and necessary funding support to deliver on this vision. My vision for an innovation precinct in Joondalup encompasses new and emerging technology industries, including robotics, automation, artificial intelligence, data science, space, health and medical technology, defence, cybersecurity and critical infrastructure. Developing an innovation precinct in Joondalup will pave the way for the construction of more office buildings in central Joondalup, creating activity and vibrancy in the city centre. Currently there are several development-ready sites, such as the planned multistorey office building on the corner of Grand Boulevard and Collier Pass, seeking an anchor tenant. To unlock the development potential of our city, increased federal infrastructure funding is required to upgrade our road network. I call upon the Albanese government to fund important local road infrastructure projects to better connect our suburbs to economic activity centres. One such project is the grade separation of the Reid Highway and Erindale Road for the traffic bridge. The grade separation will facilitate free-flowing east-west traffic by eliminating yet another set of traffic signals, improving access to the Balcatta and Malaga industrial areas, Northlink, Perth Airport and beyond for the many residents commuting to work each day, including some 11,000 FIFO workers. Another project is the realignment of Gnangara Road and connection with Whitfords Avenue. This key road upgrade will unlock the local economic development potential of the Wangara industrial area. With more than 60,000 vehicles using the intersection each day, the upgrade will make the commute for more than 8,000 Moore residents safer and more direct. Other projects include traffic management at five dangerous intersections along Marmion Avenue, at Flinders Avenue, Seacrest Drive, Freeman Way, Beach Road and Karrinyup Road; the widening of Shenton Avenue near the entrance to the Joondalup Business Park and Lake Joondalup Baptist College; and a roundabout at Joondalup Drive and Lakeside Drive to improve the northern access to the Joondalup city centre and the medical precinct. As I mentioned earlier, rapid population growth in our region means that there are unmet needs in health care. I'm proud to be part of a team which delivered $158 million in federal funding when we were in government, towards the $256 million expansion currently under construction, yet inadequate provision has been made in the budget for future health facilities to meet anticipated population growth. This is shortsighted when we know that the population of the region is growing at a rate of 10,000 residents per year. It will only mean greater pressure on an already overstretched Joondalup hospital, with longer waiting times for patients. Federal funding needs to be committed to a new major health campus in Yanchep to alleviate demand on Joondalup hospital from the rapidly growing outer-metropolitan communities. There is also a compelling need to attract more specialist medical services to Joondalup hospital. In terms of environmental infrastructure, Moore is home to the popular northern beaches of Perth. The 20-kilometre stretch from the City of Stirling to the City of Joondalup is utilised daily by thousands of local residents. Coastal erosion is a major problem at popular Mettams Pool and Watermans Bay, where infrastructure including access stairs and ramps have been washed away and the beaches have become rocky. The dunes, footpath, public toilets, utilities and major infrastructure along West Coast Drive are at risk of erosion. In response, local government expends $600,000 annually in coastal erosion treatments, including sand renourishment, dune restoration and sandbagging, at considerable expense to ratepayers. In the longer term we'll need to implement extremely costly, capital-intensive engineered measures such as artificial reefs, groynes and seawalls. I call upon the government to urgently provide federal infrastructure funding to local government to protect coastal areas from the effects of climate change. Local government ratepayers should not be left to bear the full burden of implementing engineered coastal protection measures. To promote the national economic recovery we must support continued investment in industry, with more than 11,000 Moore residents employed in the mining and energy sectors. I have consistently advocated for federal approvals for mining and resource projects and the use of gas as a transition fuel to cleaner energy, particularly in the maritime sector. With the cost of living dominating the national agenda, Australia's energy security must be at the forefront of the agenda—in particular, modern modular nuclear technology. More research needs to be done in relation to navigating the process of mapping out what would be required for commercial nuclear power plants and associated fuel facilities to be operating in Australia from the mid-2030s. Detailed analysis must be undertaken to appraise the costs of commercial modular nuclear power for Australia. The community needs to be consulted on the role that the latest nuclear technologies could safely play in our energy mix. In summary, my grievance is that there is a significant gap in federal funding that our community requires to develop into a vibrant regional city. Many of my constituents have told me that they are financially worse off today than they were a year ago due to the rising cost of living, higher grocery prices, spiralling interest rates, and skyrocketing electricity and gas costs. The focus of government needs to return to managing and growing the Australian economy. Increased federal infrastructure funding is critical to fully realise the economic and community development potential of the Moore electorate. I call upon the Albanese government to invest federal funding to keep growing our community. Robertson Electorate: Roads 101 18:58 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The federal Labor government is committed to investing in infrastructure that supports our community on the Central Coast. Our government understands how vitally important it is that we are building the infrastructure, like roads, that helps grow our region and create thousands of jobs. I'm particularly excited about the federal and state Labor governments' $130 million partnership to upgrade Avoca Drive through Kincumber. This project includes widening Avoca Drive to two lanes in either direction, with improvements proposed to key intersections along this route. I made a commitment to the people of Robertson and the Central Coast that I would secure funding to address this traffic bottleneck. For too long the community has had to endure lengthy delays during morning and afternoon peak periods. This has meant longer travel times for motorists, less time with family and friends, and major inconveniences for industry and small business that require efficient transport networks. The $130 million of funding is now being utilised by Transport for NSW, and the project is progressing successfully. Recently Transport for NSW announced that the community consultation had opened for the $130 million project. The community are now invited to review the concept designs and provide feedback and submissions on their preferred options. I was able to attend an information drop-in session on Tuesday 6 August at Kincumber Library, and here the community had the opportunity to meet with staff from Transport for NSW and review physical concept designs for the upgrade. I can report that the two drop-in sessions were an incredible success, with a large cross-section of the community participating in those drop-in sessions. For those not able to make the drop-in sessions, community feedback on the Avoca Drive upgrade project can still be submitted via the Transport for NSW website. Alternatively, interested residents can also email their feedback via the following email address, avocadr@transport.nsw.gov.au, or by mail to the Avoca Drive upgrade project team at PO Box 2030, Newcastle, New South Wales, 2030. The Central Coast community has up to Sunday 25 August to provide feedback and a submission, and I strongly encourage the community to review the concept designs and select which option they would prefer. The more of our community that has a say in this project, the better the outcomes of the upgrade will be. Every submission and piece of feedback that is received by Transport for NSW is carefully considered and helps staff factor in local knowledge, which again will improve the upgrade. I would also like to take this opportunity to update the parliament on the federal Labor government's $40 million Central Coast Local Roads Package. This funding was secured through my advocacy, in partnership with the federal member for Dobell, the Hon. Assistant Minister Emma McBride, and this $40 million is now with the Central Coast Council and being utilised to upgrade 46 individual road projects over the next four years, right across our great region. Already, we have seen much-needed local road renewals take place at Rickard Road in Empire Bay as well as along the Scenic Road at MacMasters Beach, with several more local roads to be renewed in this financial year alone, including the Esplanade at Ettalong Beach, Beach Street in Umina Beach and Hillcrest Street in Terrigal. Securing this $40 million Central Coast Local Roads Package was a significant win for the Central Coast, as previous federal members had neglected to invest in our region's local road infrastructure, consequently leaving behind deteriorated roads and traffic bottlenecks, leaving the Central Coast 10 years behind the rest of the state, if not the country. The federal Labor government will never leave behind the Central Coast region like the previous federal member did. Just the other month, I welcomed Minister Kristy McBain to the Central Coast. The minister and I highlighted the fact that our government will provide the Central Coast Council with $24.3 million through the Roads to Recovery Program, which is an additional $10.5 million over the next five years than what was provided by the previous federal Liberal government. Projects already delivered through the Roads to Recovery Program in Robertson include pothole and surface repairs along Russell Street in East Gosford, with the overall investment being $950,556 funded by the Australian government, and improvements to Vicary Road in Terrigal, an overall investment of $150,000 in federal funding. Further, more than $4.3 million is flowing to Central Coast Council under phase 4 of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which builds on over $19.2 million committed under phases 1 to 3. Future works include the patching and resurfacing of Wards Hill Road at Killcare Heights, from the Scenic Road to Maitland Bay Drive. This investment, totalling over $749,000, and improvements to Davistown Road at Saratoga, an investment of over $203,000, are both funded by the federal Labor government. When it comes to road infrastructure on the Central Coast, I will always represent and advocate on behalf of my community. I encourage residents to contact my office should they wish to raise an issue or matters that affect their local roads. I frequently meet with residents to discuss the condition of local roads, and a recent example of that was when I met with residents at Nioka Avenue in Point Clare. Residents of Nioka Avenue contacted my office to raise their concerns about the increasing volume of traffic passing through their street. Nioka Avenue is narrow and services a local primary school, shops and a growing suburb. The driving conditions along the street are becoming unsafe according to the residents, with many calling on the Central Coast Council to honour its 2019 plans to upgrade the street with kerbing and guttering and footpaths. I have written to the Central Coast Council to request this action on behalf of the street's community. Similarly, I have also met with residents of Hedlam Parade, in Springfield, who are also experiencing challenges with their local road. Residents living along Hedlam Parade are calling on the Central Coast Council to address the drainage issues affecting the street. Due to the topography of the area, following weather events like persistent rain or major storms the run-off from the nearby mountain floods properties and causes significant damage. This is primarily because the street lacks kerbing and guttering and drainage. In this instance I have again represented the residents of Hedlam Parade and written to the Central Coast Council requesting action to address these issues. This federal Labor government will always invest in the infrastructure that grows our communities, improves safety and increases efficiency. As the federal member for Robertson, I will always advocate for and represent my community on any local road matter or issue. I will touch on a few further points on what is occurring in the electorate of Robertson where the Albanese Labor government has made a significant difference to people's lives. The urgent care centre was a significant signature policy piece we took to the 2022 federal election. I know that I, on many occasions, spoke about the urgent care centre at press conferences, when doorknocking and when phone banking. It's a new model of care in Australia. If you're too sick for the GP but not sick enough for the emergency department, now you have somewhere to go. It is an outstanding model of care, particularly on the Central Coast; we now have one clinic in the south, in the electorate of Robertson, and one in the north, in the electorate of Dobell, with a state urgent care clinic smack bang in the middle, in Long Jetty. These are not only assisting to ease pressure on our emergency departments locally but also making sure people can access the care they need when they need it. I've had countless residents email my office, call in to the office and even schedule a meeting to talk about their experiences of how they have utilised the urgent care clinic. Whether it be for minor infections, broken bones that don't require surgery, the application of plaster following some radiographic imaging or making sure people have the medications they need for an acute exacerbation of an acute illness not requiring an emergency department, our urgent care clinics are making a difference on the Central Coast and right across the country. I know there are urgent care clinics further north and further south making a difference, and that's alongside some of our other signature health policies; I'm talking about the freezing of the PBS co-payment to make sure medications are more affordable and cheaper for more Australians, making sure people can get access to medications when they need them for an affordable price and making sure people can access longer scripts for those stable conditions when they need them. Australians know—and I know everyone in this chamber knows it but I'm going to say it again—that you can only trust the Australian Labor Party to protect Medicare both now and into the future. We know bulk-billing and ensuring access to a doctor is the beating heart of Medicare. As the federal member for Robertson, I, along with everyone on this side of the chamber in the Australian Labor Party, know we will continue to defend Medicare. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 102 19:08 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom This evening I'm going to speak on the very topical issue of the CFMEU. I had hoped to add my contribution to the debate this evening, but, sadly, the government saw fit to gag that particular debate. I'm not saying I have some particularly great view, but I think there's something I can add to this. I will tell a story. This is my introduction to unionism; it is a family story. My great-grandfather ran a sheep run down near Delungra, in northern New South Wales. He was in his 40s when one of the last sheep shearer strikes occurred on his property. There is a limited period in which you can do that; I'm sure the member for O'Connor is very aware of the restrictions that come with this. When a strike takes place on your run, it's quite a thing. My great-grandfather, Claude Henry Everard Hamilton, decided that shearing work needed to be done, so he went and did it. While he was doing it, the striking members of that particular union set upon him and beat him up. When he got up from that, he went back to shearing. He used to pass on a very clear message to us: 'There may well be strength in the union, but there is a hell of a lot more strength in the individuals who stand up to them.' I say that loudly and proudly to anyone who has experienced the thuggery, intimidation, misogyny and outright violence that has been described by the CFMEU. To be completely fair, I want to talk about the full breadth of my experiences with unions as well. I've had the good pleasure of running mining and construction sites in Australia and around the world. I've been there in situations where people working for me have been injured. I've been in that first responder situation with the guy working for me, and sitting side-by-side with me was the union representative. A genuine level of care was being demonstrated. They were reaching out and making sure the family were okay and were contacted. I've been in reviews of fatalities on sites. I'm thinking particularly of one terrible one at the Ranger Uranium Mine, where a practice may well have been unsafe and needed review. We went through and sat side-by-side with union representatives, and, with their combined expertise of the workplace, they made a valuable contribution to that investigation. I think it's important to say this. I experienced growing up on those sites. I was first on a construction site at the age of eight. I've been standing and working side-by-side with union members for a hell of a long time. If you're genuinely looking after vulnerable workers, that's God's work. I think there's a history in Australia that we can look back to and reflect on with some pride. I make that contribution because it's fair to look at the full scope of unionism in Australia and its history. I think it's very important to point out the behaviour of the CFMEU and say just how entirely unacceptable it has been to the Australian people and people working on construction and mining sites—whatever it may be around the country. What we've seen is completely against the Australian way of life. I'll go through a brief history of this. What we saw and the incidents of intimidation and violence I talk about have not been one-offs. Sadly, if we look at a timeline of CFMEU activity, this has been a prolonged experience that many people, like my great-grandfather, who chose to stand up to them, have suffered. These aren't just accusations. This has been played out and reported in the media, here and in our courts. Prosecutions have been made. Fines have been paid. We know this has happened. This is clear. The evidence is there; it has happened. But what was happening also through that period was that the CFMEU was making continuous donations to the Labor Party. They were intricately involved in determinations not just on policy but on who Labor's elected representatives would be. They were playing a leading role in determining the shape and future of the Labor Party all through this period. The Labor Party took their donations and were shaped. All that time, members from the Liberal and National coalition have been calling this behaviour out. On one hand, we have this unacceptable, thuggish, violent behaviour taking place, and on the other hand we have a Labor Party turning a blind eye whilst receiving donations. That has been going on for decades as this has gone through this place here. People have stood up and called this out. They've done it in state parliaments and in courthouses right throughout Australia. No-one can deny this. But then, suddenly, something happens in July. It's something so unacceptable to the Australian populace that, finally, members of the Labor Party feel free to speak out. There were accusations of high-level bikies and organised crime having gotten their hands all over CFMEU leadership. This became unacceptable. At that point, we were supposed to believe Labor's claim that they had no idea. Everything that had happened was news to them. Suddenly, the scales have fallen from their eyes, and they see that this cancerous body now is a problem, and they're going to stand up to it. To claim ignorance over that period defies logic and belief. But they came to parliament with a bill and told us that they were taking a tough stance. They demanded that we must absolutely support this bill no matter what. We were told that every day we now delayed this bill, we would somehow be the cause of further suffering, harm, violence and threats on workplaces throughout Australia. That was somehow supposed to be on us. After decades of Labor ignoring the issues and taking their millions of dollars of donations, somehow these days are now upon us. Labor took such a tough stance on this that not a single Labor member rose to speak on the bill—not a single one! That's how tough their stance was. Not a single Labor member rose to speak on it, and you've got to ask why. I would be a cynic if I said that it was because they didn't want to incriminate themselves and expose their links and knowledge of what had been going on previously. But maybe the reason they didn't want to speak was the words on John Setka's tattoo: 'God forgives. The CFMEU doesn't.' Maybe they didn't want to incur the future wrath of the CFMEU. Maybe they didn't want to say things that would one day get them disendorsed or cause donation dollars to be pulled. They didn't want to see it somehow play out against them—maybe that's the reason they chose not to speak. There was a line-up of LNP speakers who wanted to speak and raise the concerns that have been brought to us by constituents in each of our electorates. I've got a thriving construction sector in my electorate, and every single business in that sector has raised these issues with me over and over again. Turn on the TV and you'll see what's happening in Queensland at the moment. The CFMEU's behaviour has been caught on camera multiple times. They're at war with AWU. What's playing out in Brisbane at the moment is absolutely unforgiveable. Look at what's playing out in the construction sector. I would ask anyone involved in this sector: are you better off since Labor came to government? Of course we're not. This lawlessness and rampant violence has made the sector worse. The point is that we are not here by accident. The situation we find ourselves and Australia's construction industry in is not one that has happened by accident; it has happened by design. The policies the Labor government have deliberately enacted—specifically, the immediate abolition of the ABCC upon coming to government—are now playing out. It was the one body that was the watchdog of the construction industry. The body that was there to keep an eye on these unions and their behaviour was abolished. And what happened? Unions ran away with their power, and we find ourselves in the situation we are now. Things have got worse. Where we are is no accident. We had a bill put on the table that required 20 amendments to get bipartisan support. What a damning indictment of this government's failure to address the CFMEU's unlawfulness. Hunter Electorate: Business Awards 104 19:18 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Today I want to take a moment to recognise some of the outstanding local businesses in the Hunter region that do the region so proud. At the 29th Hunter Region Business Excellence Awards, several of our local businesses and entrepreneurs were celebrated for their exceptional service, innovative products and remarkable customer experiences. Branxton's own Balanced Beans shone brightly, winning the award for customer service—whole business. They further cemented their success by receiving a highly commended award for professional services as well. Clara Riddle from Supreme Sandstone in Quorrobolong deservedly won the highly commended award for the businesswoman of the year category, showcasing her leadership and dedication. Hunter Valley Tours, based in Bellbird, made us proud by taking home the award for access and inclusion—a testament to their commitment to accessibility. Outback Jess from Woodrising was highly commended in the home based business category, reflecting the strength and innovation of homegrown enterprises. Finally, McCaffrey's Estate from Pokolbin was honoured with the award in the hospitality and tourism category, underscoring their excellence in showcasing the beauty of our region, the Hunter Valley. These awards are a testament to the hard work and dedication of all of our local businesses. Let's continue to support them as they thrive and contribute to the vibrancy of our community. Business Singleton also recently held their 2024 Singleton Business Awards gala presentation. I want to extend my congratulations to the winners from that night as well. Loop Organics was recognised for excellence in sustainability. Loop Organics had a great night, also taking out the top award of Business of the Year. Congratulations, guys. Keep up the great work. Loop Organics is an amazing local business that provides specialist organic waste and biosolids processing, beneficial use and consulting services. Loop recognises the inherent value of organic materials and sustainably returns these to the earth. Congratulations on the award. The Excellence in Innovation award went to Morgan Engineering. Star Club Equestrian Program Inc. was recognised in the category Excellence in Diversity and Inclusion. Buck Yeah Equine received an award for excellence in retail, and I must say the business also deserves an award for the best name of the night! Singleton Striders won the category Excellence in Health, Wellbeing and Lifestyle. The Rotary Club of Singleton was awarded Outstanding Community Organisation, which is great to see. I'm in and out of Singleton quite regularly, and I always see the Rotary Club doing what they can for the community. Thank you for all that you do. Rotary's recognition at the business awards night is truly well deserved. In the category Excellence in Professional Services, the winner was Silverado Promotional Products. It's always great to see new businesses popping up around town, and it's even better when the community gets around them and supports them. Well done to Holzy's Window Tinting, who won Outstanding New Business for this year. I understand how hard it can be to start a new business, so I'm sure this win will feel especially gratifying, knowing all your hard work is actually paying off. As everyone already knows, the Hunter is an amazing place to visit. It has everything you could ever dream of when you're looking for a holiday destination. There are so many small businesses and large businesses around our electorate and in the Singleton local government area that help to make this part of the world so special, so I imagine the competition for the Outstanding Visitor Experience category was fierce. Hollydene Estate must have stood out, because they were announced the winner of this category. In the Hunter we are grateful for our farmers and we are lucky to have so many of them. They provide us with everything we need—meat, milk, fruit and veg and all kinds of materials, like wool. All of our farmers do a great job, but unfortunately there could only be one winner, and the winner of the category Excellence in Agriculture was Starline Alpaca Farmstay. I've been lucky enough to attend that with my daughters, and it's a great place to go. Congratulations on the achievement there. Hunter Valley Elite Window Tinting were recognised in the category Excellence in Micro Business. The night just kept getting better for Hollydene Estate Wines and Vines Restaurant, who took out their second award of the night in the category Excellence in Small Business. It was also a great night for Morgan Engineering, who took out their second and third awards of the night by being recognised in the category Excellence in Large Business and receiving the President's Award. It sounds like they may need a trailer to get their trophies home! The people's choice for Best Customer Service went to HSV Heaven, and the Excellence in Supporting the Veteran Community award went to Singleton Defence Families and Community Inc. Congratulations to Dean Mainey, who received the Employee of the Year award, and to Jess Stewart, who was announced Young Business Leader of the Year. Kudos also to Rachel Baigent, who took home Business Leader of the Year for businesses with 20 employees and over, and to Skye Vickers, who won Business Leader of the Year for businesses with 20 employees and under. There was also special recognition for businesses celebrating important milestones. Cox's Bakery celebrated 100 years. Singleton Neighbourhood Centre celebrated 50 years. Daracon celebrated 40 years. Singleton Pump & Water Systems also celebrated 40 years, and Worn Out Wares celebrated 20 years. Local businesses play such an important role in our community in the Hunter. You all deserve the recognition that you are now receiving. The Hunter has everything. The wide range of categories in which our local businesses were recognised at these business excellence awards really goes to show how lucky we are. Whether you're big or small, whether you're a new business or one that's already been established in the community, congratulations to all who won awards and all who were highly commended in their categories. We are lucky to have you. I can't wait to visit more of you soon. I recently had the privilege of attending the Lake Macquarie Business Excellence Awards 2024 as well. I'd like to extend my congratulations to Dynamic Business Technologies, which took home the award for employer of choice with 20 or fewer employees. Lake Group Strata was awarded employer of choice for a business with 21 or more employees. Flying Colours Education was recognised for excellence in diversity and inclusion. Definiti won an award for excellence in innovation. The award for excellence in large business went to 8 at Trinity. The award for excellence in microbusiness went to Andersen Pest Services, and the award for excellence in small business was given to Design Anthology. Aware… The Social Design Project took home the award for excellence in sustainability. Nathan Franks from the Dynamic Business Technologies team received the award for outstanding business leader for a business with 20 or fewer employees. Melanie Bird from Lake Group Strata won the award for outstanding business leader for a business with 21 or more employees. Car 2 Home Project was recognised in the category of outstanding community organisation. Alexander McCallum from Lakes Custom Computers received the award for outstanding employee. Telethrive won the award for outstanding new business. Congratulations! CoastXP was recognised for outstanding visitor experience. Jye Rimmington from Rimmington Legal was announced as the outstanding young business leader. The prestigious award of business of year went to Dynamic Business Technologies. This topped off a great night for Dynamic Business Technologies and demonstrated that a good employer helps business to succeed. 8 at Trinity also capped off a great night with the people's choice award. Well done, Keith and your team. I look forward to getting out there and seeing you again soon. It was a great night to celebrate these amazing businesses. My congratulations go out to all the finalists and winners. Cessnock Business Chamber recently held its 2024 Customer Service Awards at Cessnock Leagues Club. Congratulations to Luke Bozic from Home In Place, who was the winner of the community service award, and to Casey Winter from the Community Kids Cessnock, who was runner-up. Georgia Dembeck from Balloon Aloft was the winner of the cellar door, restaurant and tourism award. Ken Hutchinson from Hanging Tree Wines was named runner-up. Shaun McDonald from SHM Built was named the winner of the trade award, and Zac Baldwin from Baldwin Crisis Services was named runner-up. In the pubs, clubs and cafes category, Cass Ponchard from the Abermain Hotel was named the winner and Leah Chevis from Blue Leaf Cafe was named runner-up. The retail award went to Kat Wilson from Bakers Delight, and Maddie Collins from Woolworths was the runner-up. In my favourite category, health and beauty, Chris Underhill from Novaes Aesthetics was named the winner, and Eboni Lee Earl from Ink & Tint Brow Artistry was named the runner-up. Kelly Redfern from Next Level Property and Consulting was named the winner in the professional category. As well, Chelsea-Maree Mordue from First Step Conveyancing was the runner-up. In the under-18s category, Bailey Allport from Blanchies on Leisure was the winner, and Lilly from Lillys Local Services was the runner-up. The overall winner on the night was Chris Underhill from Novaes Aesthetics. Congratulations to all the winners. The Hunter is a wonderful place to be. Thank you for all that you do as business owners in employing people in the Hunter and making sure that we can be the place we are. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:29