2024-09-10 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 10 September 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 move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) unless otherwise ordered, the House suspending at approximately 7.30 pm on Tuesday, 10 September 2024 for the purposes of undertaking a security exercise; (2) the House resuming at the conclusion of the exercise, without the ringing of the bells; (3) upon the Chair being resumed, the House immediately adjourning until 9 am on Wednesday, 11 September 2024; (4) in the Federation Chamber on Thursday, 12 September 2024 the motion, 'That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn' being moved by no later than 12.30 pm, and debate on the motion continuing for no longer than 60 minutes; and (5) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. This is a very unusual suspension. For different security reasons, there are exercises that have been run around this building for as long as the building's been here, where, at different points, alarm bells ring and things like that happen. People have to leave the building, or leave different parts of it. We've done that in every part of the building, and even the Senate has done one, but we've never had an exercise of that form in the House. Tonight, for those of you who have been preparing your speeches for the adjournment debate, you're no longer on it. At 7.30 the House will suspend for a lockdown exercise and then resume at the conclusion of the exercise and adjourn immediately. The exercise covers the whole House of Representatives wing of the building, which knocks out band practice as well. They didn't tell me this when I was moving it! It's part of the program of routine emergency exercises in Parliament House. It's the first time an exercise has been done while the House is sitting. The Senate, as I said, conducted a similar exercise last year. The timing of 7.30 was chosen to cause as little disruption as possible to the sitting day, but, for those who were scheduled for the adjournment debate tonight, this motion will also extend the adjournment debate on Thursday by 30 minutes to make up for it so that the speeches are still able to be delivered. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024, Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, Family Law Amendment Bill 2024, Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023, Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 1

National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Family Law Amendment Bill 2024

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:03 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills are referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: the National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill; the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023; and the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 at the adjournment of the House for this sitting. COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Employment, Education and Training Committee 2 Report 2 12:04 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I present the committee's report entitled Study buddy or influencer: inquiry into the use of generative artificial intelligence in the Australian education system, together with the minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms CHESTERS 249710 by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I am pleased to present our unanimous report Study buddy or influencer: inquiry into the use of generative artificial intelligence in the Australian education system. GenAI has started to impact the Australian education system as well as the future of work in our country. It is not something that 'might' be used; genAI is already being used in different degrees across our education system. It is the committee's view that the uptake of genAI in the education sector should be a national priority for various reasons. When genAI, as an education tool, is used appropriately, it can provide equitable access to students, educators and teachers alike. The committee has recommended that genAI be used as an education tool and integrated into Australia's national curriculum. Where these tools can act as a study buddy for all students and used in terms of appropriate content, it is critical for the integration of genAI technology in schools. These tools need to be fit for purpose, relative to the Australian context, sensitive to gender and cultural considerations and trained on data that is based upon our national curriculum. This is why the committee has recommended this. It needs to be based on our national curriculum. The committee's report identifies these exciting opportunities for the adoption of genAI in education. We identify that genAI can help drive better educational outcomes for some of Australia's most vulnerable students. Indeed, students from low socioeconomic areas, students from non-English-speaking backgrounds, students with disabilities or who have learning difficulties, students from regional and remote areas who may struggle to have access to subjects otherwise and First Nations students all stand to benefit most from the rollout of this technology, if done appropriately. Whilst I've highlighted the important opportunities presented by genAI, the committee is mindful of the risks with this new technology. The committee heard evidence on the risk presented by genAI and has considered how the education system can enact sufficient guardrails and safeguards to protect users, especially minors. I would also like to remark on the technology related reforms already implemented in the education sector by the government and say that they will help protect the safety and wellbeing of our Australian children, but we must go further. I'd like to draw particular attention to the reforms being undertaken by the eSafety Commissioner to protect children from deepfakes and cyberbullying, all of which can be exacerbated through the use of genAI. The committee also heard about additional risks in relation to the technology itself. Of particular importance is the need to protect users', especially children's, data to ensure that educational providers do not select genAI products or tools that store students' data offshore or sell that to third parties. This is an area that needs critical attention. The integration of genAI will affect not only schools but also tertiary education, the Australian education workforce and the future of work. GenAI has broad implications for the design and implementation of assessments and academic and research integrity. The higher education sector is struggling to address the misuse of AI in assessments—another area which is critical and where urgent attention is required. It is therefore imperative that students are adequately trained to use genAI technology appropriately and ethically, particularly when it comes to its integration into classrooms as well into assessments. The committee has made 25 recommendations in this report. These recommendations focus on how schools can maximise the opportunity of education-specific genAI tools, promote quality edtech products, support the implementation of the Department of Education's Australian Framework for Generative AI in Schools, integrate AI literacy into the next school curriculum review when it occurs and develop strong safeguards, standards and frameworks for the use of genAI in our education system. It's important to state that these recommendations are fit to regulate the application of AI in the education sector today. However, we acknowledge that as AI technology is developing and evolving, the committee may need to review these recommendations at a later date. During the inquiry the committee visited two schools that use genAI differently. I'd like to take a moment to thank Pymble Ladies College, an independent school, and the Grange P-12 College, a public school, for sharing their experiences with the committee. The committee also heard that the Grange College will likely be reliant upon guidance from the Department of Education and government grants for funding to roll out technology in its school, whilst the committee heard that Pymble Ladies College has already successfully integrated genAI into its curriculum and is well positioned to share its expertise with other schools. It demonstrates, again, the digital divide that we have within our schools. GenAI presents an opportunity for all governments to work together to address that divide. These findings and recommendations contained in the report were informed by over 100 submissions and 15 public hearings, including three interstate public hearings in Victoria and New South Wales. I'd like to thank my committee colleagues for their work on this inquiry, evident in the fact that this is a unanimous report. I'd also like to extend my thanks to our expert panel and the committee secretariat for the work that they've done on this report. I would like to thank the individuals and organisations that made submissions and participated in public hearings, especially the students who shared their experience. In conclusion, genAI presents an exciting opportunity yet high-stakes risks for the Australian education system. If managed correctly, genAI in the Australian education system can be a valuable study buddy and not an influencer. I commend the report to the House. 12:12 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman by leave—Firstly, can I thank all the members of the committee and the chair, the member for Bendigo, for their valuable contributions and probing questions. Can I also thank all of those who sent in submissions and gave evidence, either in person or electronically. Lastly, I'd also like to thank all the APH staff, including the technical media staff and the hardworking secretariat staff, led by Fran Denny, who worked tirelessly on what must be said was a complicated yet very enjoyable and intriguing subject: AI in the Australian education system or Study buddy or influencer, as the report has now been named. I tried to approach this inquiry from the perspective of not just the deputy chair of the committee or an elected member of parliament. I tried to see this from all the different perspectives: those of the student, the teacher, the business owner, an employee, a parent of a student as well as a concerned citizen that may not be any of the above. One of the great challenges we face as legislators is getting the balance right. This is where we all have different views, even within our own party. This, of course, is one of the major benefits of the committee process, that hopefully with six to 12 committee members with different cultural, educational, geographical and vocational backgrounds we can be challenged in our thinking to come up with a report that addresses the concerns of all of these different cohorts in our community. For me, as a former small-business owner and as a parent and grandparent, my greatest concerns were around getting the balance right: ensuring that future generations of Australians, from the business and employment point of view, won't be left behind the rest of the developed world in a highly competitive global market, balanced—when I put my parent and grandparent hat on—with ensuring that AI won't be used by governments, individuals, corporations or other organisations to coercively nudge our younger people in a particular direction. After 18 months of listening to evidence and submissions, I must say that these concerns have not abated. In fact, they have only increased in their intensity. I have now seen the potential power of this technology, and, of course, if used in the correct manner, it will improve productivity, which is so important in business, particularly in a country like ours where we have some of the highest—if not the highest—costs as far as employee costs, energy costs, red and green tape and the cost of tenancy, not to mention other costs associated with doing business, like insurance. But we must ask ourselves: at what cost will these improvements in productivity come? Will it risk critical thinking? If problems are just submitted to platforms like ChatGPT and the like and answers are just churned out according to the algorithms and parameters that the human developers of these platforms decide, where will students learn to simply figure things out for themselves? Not to mention that this is where the moral issue of coercive control comes in, because, if the same answer is being given to the same question, if there is one dominant platform, do we risk our individuality and basically become sheep? Or could it be worse? We have platforms where answers are always skewed to the left or right, depending on what platform is being used. I have observed firsthand the development of social media platforms and YouTube, where I personally only receive recommendations that are all the same. This, of course, pushes people almost unknowingly further left or right in their thinking, which I think is very unhealthy for us as a society, as neither far-right nor far-left ideologies are healthy for individuals or society as a whole. Balance is always the key. I also have concerns around the validity of the information. It must be remembered that AI only draws its conclusions from the most common consensus, from mainly the internet. In fact, ChatGPT was brutally honest about its own failure to present the correct information when I asked it, 'If ChatGPT had been around in 1500 AD and I asked it if the world was flat, what would the answer have been?' The very honest answer I was given was: 'As the general scientific and religious belief of that day was that the earth was flat, ChatGPT probably would have said the earth was flat,' which we all know is incorrect. Apologies to any flat-earthers out there! That brings me to my final comments. Whilst I have real concerns about generative AI, they are somewhat curtailed by what I can only describe as my delight in the current generation, who have in some ways been forced to have one of the best BS filters of all time. This generation have been bombarded almost since birth with information on devices handed to them, in many instances, way too early for young developing minds in my opinion. Ironically, as often happens, this negative practice has developed this positive outcome of a filter that I believe will hold them in good stead as they navigate this brave new world that will increasingly include more and more machine learning in our everyday lives. My final words to all are to constantly ask the question: what is the source of this information I'm receiving? And question, question, question the information given, and don't take it as gospel. I commend the report to the House. 12:17 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I move: That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 53517 The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 4 12:18 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Treaties Joint Committee 4 Report 4 12:18 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, Report 220:PNG security relations; ILO 187. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. Ms CHESTERS 249710 by leave—I am pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report, Report 220:PNG security relations; ILO 187. This report focuses on the JSCOT inquiries into the agreement between the Australian government and the government of Papua New Guinea on the framework for closer security relations and the International Labour Organisation Convention 187—the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention. This report also includes the committee's consideration of two minor treaty actions. The Australia-PNG closer security relations treaty aims to create a framework to deepen the security cooperation between Australia and Papua New Guinea, a close bilateral partner. The treaty creates obligations for the two countries to work more closely together on mutual security interests. The agreement reflects our longstanding cooperation, shared history, proximity and common strategic outlook. Australia and PNG already have a strong partnership, which includes a maritime border. The agreement addresses both traditional and non-traditional security threats. For example, traditional areas of security include defence policing the border and maritime security. But the agreement also seeks to expand the concept of security in non-traditional areas such as cybersecurity, climate change, violence against women and children, and critical infrastructure. Specific obligations in the agreement focus on areas such as mutual security cooperations, status of forces, security consultations and the protection of information, plus settlement disputes. Issues raised in the public hearings include Australia's bilateral relationship with PNG, security focus of the agreement, individuals covered by the agreement, the treaty's expansion of the concept of security and, finally, critical infrastructure including cybersecurity issues. The second treaty in this report is in relation to the International Labour Organization Convention No. 187, which improves work health and safety outcomes by ensuring that ILO members, like Australia, have national policies in place to promote safe and healthy work environments and advance the rights of workers. By ratifying this treaty, Australia shows it is committed to protecting workers from occupational harm. Australia's high workplace standards are demonstrated by the fact that we already have the policy systems and programs in place required by this treaty. Ratification, therefore, will not require any additional obligations, funding or future treaty action but will demonstrate Australia's resolve to ensuring workers' safety. Ratification of convention No. 187 places Australia in a small group of countries who have ratified all 10 fundamental ILO conventions. This positions Australia as a global leader of the promotion of international labour standards and will help improve workplace health and safety outcomes within Australia-Pacific, which is something that we should all be very proud of. Two minor treaty actions in the report are amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers and amendments to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972. These seafarers amendments will ensure Australia's training, certification and water keeping standards are consistent with international standards, and the dumping amendments will help remove sewage sludge from the marine environment. The committee resolves that binding treaty action be taken for both major and minor treaty actions. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House. Human Rights Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee 5 Membership 5 12:23 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Rennick has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and Senator Cadell has been appointed a member of the committee, and that Senator Rennick has been discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and Senator Kovacic has been appointed a member of the committee. BILLS 5 BILLS National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 5

National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024

Second Reading 5 12:23 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I want to commend the National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024. I also note that at 7.30 tonight, with the security issue happening and the evacuation of the building, I bet you there'll be more people on the streets of Adavale spinning plates than there will be in this place by the time they call that evacuation. The National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 clarifies the operation of the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021. The 2021 amendment provides improved pricing arrangements and more reliable supply for older and low-cost medicines that can be more susceptible to medicine shortages. This is related to the minimum stockholding requirements, which require companies to hold a minimum of either four or six months of stock for certain PBS medicines referred to as 'designated brands'. As part of this measure, the Australian government has supported the investment by the medicines industry in managing the supply-chain risk through the MSRs through one-off price increases, to improve the viability of low-cost medicines. In addition, designated brands are protected from price disclosure reductions through thresholds, which ensure that price reductions occur only when there is significant discounting in the market or where there is a sustained discounting over a period of time. The bill before us today clarifies the operation of the act, which relates to 'designated brands' subject to the price disclosure thresholds. The bill includes only technical amendments which are intended for the avoidance of doubt and do not alter the operation of existing provisions, which have been in effect since 1 July 2022. While the federal court dismissed the case, these amendments address the potential risk that the timing of a price disclosure reduction could be invalid. The coalition will support this bill because it clarifies the provisions of the 2021 amendment act, which was brought in under the former coalition government and formed part of the important strategic agreements we made with the pharmaceutical industry. Whilst we support this bill, we are disappointed by the Albanese government's lack of action on the health technology assessment review, which also formed part of our strategic agreement with Medicines Australia. This review is grounded in the belief that, whilst we need affordable medicines and treatments available here in Australia, we also need to ensure timely access as new developments become available. That balance between affordability and timely access is critical for those patients who do not have time to wait. The government was supposed to release the final report of the HTA review at the end of last year, but it has now been sitting on the minister's desk for over two months. The coalition understands that there is significant interest across the sector and from patients to see outcomes result from this important review. It is beyond time that this report was released publicly and followed by an adequate government response. Australia's HTA system must be evolved to keep pace with advancements in medical technologies seen across the globe. We know that patients' lives depend on it. It has also become clear that we are falling behind the rest of the world, where other countries are able to make approvals at greater speed than we currently do here. Australia's current HTA processes were not designed with the current technological advancements in mind. They need to be updated for the modern realities of health care. We need to evolve our systems to keep pace with the rapid evolution of technology so critical for the care of Australian patients. Addressing this issue would have wide-flowing benefits for patients, their families and the entire healthcare system. This is critical right now, as Australia's healthcare system faces significant pressures at every point. Our hospitals are overrun. Ambulance ramping is at record highs in states across the country. Primary care is at crisis point, with Australians facing record challenges in getting access to affordable GP appointments. It has literally never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. In many regional hospitals, there is not even a doctor. If the nurse breaks her arm, she has to go to another hospital because there's no doctor in the hospital. In other areas, such as Muswellbrook, there are no obstetrics—a major town, with no obstetrics—so people have to go to Tamworth or Maitland if ladies wish to have a baby. Also, workforce shortages are impacting almost every area of the system, whilst the government refuses to take action. There needs to be real action to ensure that all Australian patients have access to the care they need, when they need it, where they need it—including by addressing the challenges with affordable and timely access to new medicines and treatments. This should make the HTA review an urgent priority for the government. This bill also reflects the importance of stockholding requirements, as shown by the recent severe medicine shortages that have been occurring under the Albanese government's watch. The recent shortage of saline IV fluids in Australia has posed a serious risk to the operations of our healthcare system. Saline IV bags are absolutely critical to the emergency health care provided to patients in Australian hospitals, but doctors in every hospital around our nation were told to ration the amounts being used for their patients. This cannot go on. When asked about this issue in question time last month, Minister Gallagher admitted that the Albanese government had been aware of the impending shortage since May 2023. They appeared to do nothing about it. It was shocking to hear the minister confirm that the government had known about the impending shortage for more than a year and had failed to take action. The Albanese government refused to show leadership on this national shortage and instead lied, deflected and refused to take responsibility—something they've become quite apt at doing lately. Overseas drug regulators, including the FDA, the European Medicines Agency and the New Zealand Pharmac, have confirmed that they have minimal to no issues with their national supplies. The government had more than 12 months notice of an impending shortage, and no other country around the world has experienced supply issues on the same scale as Australia. This was clearly a crisis of the government's own making. It's emblematic of them creating their own disturbance, whether it's to the economy, to medicines or to health, and it demonstrates the importance of ensuring we have effective measures in Australia to safeguard Australians' access to essential medicines. Once again, the opposition will support this bill, which forms part of the important strategic agreement that the coalition achieved with Australia's medicines industry, for the benefit of patients across Australia. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 6

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 6 12:31 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024. This bill is yet more evidence, should any be required, that the Attorney-General is simply not very good on administrative detail. This is the Attorney-General's third attempt at putting in place adequate legislation to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with the Administrative Review Tribunal. His first attempt was almost a full year after he first announced he was going to do it. He introduced the first two bills in December 2023. That was the first attempt, but he was a bit sloppy, and he didn't quite get it right. Just two months later he had to have another go. In February this year he made his second attempt. He introduced another bill which made changes to the first one. He then made a deal with the Greens to try to limit scrutiny of the legislation and push it through with a degree of urgency. But, again, he'd been a bit careless—a little bit hazy on the details. The fact is that the Attorney-General is pretty hopeless without an instructing solicitor. Now we're on to attempt No. 3, the so-called miscellaneous measures bill. This is legislation that amends attempts Nos 1 and 2. There is a certain irony to this attempt, because the legislation he passed through his first and second attempts has not yet even commenced. The government has announced that the Administrative Review Tribunal will now commence on 14 October. Clearly, at some point in the winter break, after he'd rushed off to Government House for the royal assent and announced a commencement date, the Attorney-General must have had the horrible realisation that there were yet further problems in the legislation that he'd drafted. Suddenly, the Attorney-General was in a great rush to introduce legislation to make yet further changes. We know he wants this bill to pass before the Administrative Review Tribunal is up and running. Presumably, this is to prevent his mistakes from spawning even bigger problems. The net result is that the Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, is now racing to clean up his own mess before he hits his own deadline. Perhaps the Attorney-General should have paused to take a breath and to try to get things right the first time. Better still, perhaps he should have practised what he certainly loved to preach in opposition and tried some proper parliamentary scrutiny and openness. If we'd had a proper inquiry, instead of the sham process that the Attorney-General foisted on the parliament, perhaps the issues in this bill would have been identified and addressed properly at the time. We'll never know. It is worth spending a few minutes reflecting on what exactly this bill is trying to achieve. This bill is part of a package of legislation that is intended to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with the Administrative Review Tribunal. As the shadow Attorney-General said in the other place, debate on this package of legislation should be framed by asking two simple questions: what did Australians have before these Administrative Review Tribunal bills, and what will they get afterwards? Before the Administrative Review Tribunal bills Australians had an administrative tribunal that reviewed government decisions. After the Administrative Review Tribunal bills Australians will get an administrative tribunal that reviews government decisions—oh, at a cost of $1 billion. Before those bills Australians could apply for merits review of a government decision that affected them. Afterwards Australians can apply for merits review of a decision that affects them. Before the Administrative Review Tribunal legislation we had a body of tribunal members, roughly half of whom were appointed by a Labor government. Afterwards we will have a body appointed entirely by a Labor government. What we've learnt from the whole grandstanding palaver of the Attorney-General's approach to this issue is it would seem that the letter R is the most expensive letter of the alphabet, because the budget papers make it very clear that the change from the AAT to the ART is costing Australian taxpayers $1 billion. This may just be the most expensive recruiting and rebranding exercise in Commonwealth history. The coalition has repeatedly said that we are not opposed in principle to reforms to Australia's system of administrative review. We have said that we recognise there are areas where there's a legitimate need for reform and that improvements could be made. The question we now have for every Australian taxpayer, a question brought to the forefront of our collective minds—and it certainly should be—by this bill, is: do taxpayers think it is worth spending $1 billion of their money to establish a new body that does the same thing as the old body did? It's a question that every Australian mum or dad who's having to stretch to pay their insurance or power bills might want to turn their mind to. It's a question that every Australian who has a mortgage and who knows that the Albanese government's reckless spending is fuelling inflation and keeping interest rates higher for longer might want to turn their mind to. Indeed, there are other questions we could ask. What is it about changing a single letter on the letterhead and replacing half a cohort of tribunal members that is worth $1 billion of taxpayer money? For every member in this place—and I suggest that is every member—who cares about women's safety, why is it better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new tribunal rather than having that money going directly to women fleeing domestic violence? For members from Western Australia, particularly Labor members, an obvious question is: why would you support spending more money on a new tribunal than is being spent on the transition for the live sheep export industry? For every member of this place who values good process, an obvious question is: why is it acceptable that the sloppiness and repeated patch jobs from the Attorney-General are taking up so much of the precious time of this parliament? What are the pressing issues in this bill on which the Attorney-General wants us to legislate with urgency? Let me quote from the explanatory memorandum: … The Bill would make further amendments to 52 Commonwealth Acts (including the ART Act), to update references to— the Administrative Appeals Tribunal— in legislation that has passed or been introduced to Parliament since the introduction of the ART Act and to make technical amendments to support the efficient conduct of Tribunal review and ensure the legislation operates as intended. To be clear, we are amending the bill this parliament passed in May this year and which has not yet commenced. We are making changes, by way of the bill that is now before the parliament, to 52 acts. If we are to do our best to reflect positively on the Attorney-General's dismal performance, it must be acknowledged that at least he is doing better than he did at earlier stages of this farcical and convoluted procedure. After he introduced the primary Administrative Review Tribunal bill, the Attorney-General introduced two tranches of consequential amount legislation. His first consequential amendments bill changed 138 acts, his second consequential amendments bill changed 110 acts, and this time he's down to 52. It may be that when he next rushes in here, urgently demanding that we legislate to fix up some other mistakes that he discovers, we may be asked to deal with just 10 or 20 different acts of the Commonwealth parliament. We will simply have to wait and see what further the Attorney-General may be desperately seeking the assistance of this House to deal with. The coalition would probably have a little more sympathy for the Attorney-General if this were not a problem that he insisted on creating for himself. As we said, when the first three bills were rushed through the parliament after the Attorney-General did a grubby deal with the Greens, at that time what was before the parliament was 692 pages of new primary legislation and 760 pages of explanatory materials. Those bills were intended to directly affect the 67,000 or so cases which at that time were before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Senate inquiry into those bills was a perfunctory process. It was a Labor-dominated committee. It permitted just six hours and 55 minutes of committee hearings. This committee was prepared to spend less than a single day of work examining the legislation to establish the Administrative Review Tribunal. That equates to less than 40 seconds per page of legislation. It is hardly surprising, then, that the committee failed to pick up some obvious errors in the bill. As a piece of work, it was rushed, sloppy and unimpressive. It is worth mentioning some of the specific technical changes in this bill, because they do highlight the point about sloppiness. A central responsibility of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is dealing with migration and protection visas. One of the key issues corrected by the bill now before the House also relates to migration and protection visas. Of the 76,514 matters before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as at 31 July this year, 66,241 of them are in the migration and refugee division. In other words, it is 87 per cent of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's current caseload. You would think, therefore, that the Attorney-General would take the time to get this right before rushing ahead. It's worth pausing to examine these numbers in a bit more detail. The Attorney-General's amendments abolishing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and establishing the Administrative Review Tribunal passed the parliament on 28 May this year. Government statistics show that, just three days later on 31 May this year, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had 69,312 cases on hand, with a median time to finalise of 38 weeks. In the two short months since the Attorney-General passed his reforms—trumpeting efficiency amongst other things—as of 31 July 2024 the caseload was sitting at 76,514 cases on hand, with a median time to finalise of 53 weeks. Since the Attorney-General's reforms, the performance of our administrative review system has gone materially backwards. The Attorney-General, in just two months, has increased the backlog by more than 10 per cent and has increased the wait time by almost 40 per cent, adding an extra 15 weeks to the time required to hand down a decision. It will now take you more than a year to get an answer out of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Let me highlight the substantive issue here in dealing with the migration and refugee division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an issue which will shortly affect the equivalent jurisdictional area in the Administrative Review Tribunal, and that is whether or not the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a matter, whether a review application becomes another case that adds to the tribunal's burgeoning workload or not. The amendments in part 12 of the bill now before the House reveal a potential problem in the Administrative Review Tribunal legislation in relation to this particular critical issue. You might very well think that one of the first issues you'd want to be clear about in establishing a new review body is exactly which cases it has to deal with. That would particularly be so if you are talking about the area of jurisdiction which makes up 87 per cent of the tribunal's workload. Apparently, though, that did not happen. It is worth reading directly from the explanatory materials for the provision of the bill which amends subsection 348(2) of the Migration Act, which concerns the jurisdiction of the Administrative Review Tribunal to review migration and protection decisions. To be clear, we are not talking about the version of section 348 of the Migration Act that the coalition drafted and that is currently in force. We are instead talking about changes to the version drafted by the Attorney-General which were rammed through the parliament in May and which are due to become law on 14 October this year. The Attorney-General, during his winter break, as I referred to earlier, evidently realised there was a problem with his drafting, and so he is now moving to fix it in item 119 of the bill before us today. The explanatory materials state as follows: 226. This item repeals and replaces subsection 348(2) of the Migration Act to explicitly state that the Tribunal must not review an application made under sections 347 and 347A of the Migration Act that is not properly made. The effect of this amendment is that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to review an application made under Part 5 of the Migration Act if it is not properly made. This sits alongside existing subsection 348(1) which provides that the Tribunal must review an application which has been properly made. Together, these provisions put beyond doubt how the Tribunal is to deal with applications for reviewable migration decisions and reviewable protection decisions. What is the effect of these changes? It certainly sounds as if there were significant doubts about whether the tribunal was required to hear a case or not. It sounds as if the tribunal might have been required to review an application even if the application was not properly made. That is the risk that this provision in the bill seeks to close off. You do not have to be a genius to realise that, if a tribunal is forced to review applications that are improperly made, you are potentially creating a very big loophole. You may be creating a pathway for people to remain in Australia simply while their case is resolved, simply by lodging an incomplete or incorrect application. If you were in a position where you were told that simply by lodging paperwork even if it is incorrect you could stay in Australia for an extra 53 weeks, you might very well decide that it is a good idea to lodge that paperwork even if it was incorrect. Is this what we are dealing with here? We simply do not know, but it warrants careful examination. The government may wish to describe this bill as containing simply technical and machinery provisions, but time and time again the coalition have learnt, through experience, that we cannot trust this government and this Attorney-General to get the basics right. This bill requires scrutiny, and the opposition intends to examine this bill in detail to help the Attorney-General help himself. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 9

Family Law Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 9 12:50 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024. As the shadow Attorney-General has observed, there are few topics in the Attorney-General's portfolio which touch more directly on the lives of ordinary Australians than family law. Every year thousands of Australians will find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation and in a small proportion of those cases disputes will be decided by a judge in Australia's family law courts. As we have said before, we should aim for a system that resolves those disputes as quickly and cleanly as possible. Where children are involved, we should, at all times, prioritise their best interests. We in this place need to be cognisant that there are many couples across this country who will go through separation processes without going through the courts. In the debates on this topic last year, the shadow Attorney-General spoke about separating couples who are making decisions in the shadow of the law, and, on this side of the chamber, we take that shadow of the law very seriously. We know not every case is decided by a judge. We know that not every person going through one of the hardest times in their life will be able to afford a lawyer. We know well-intended changes can backfire, and we know that mounting costs and delays can entrench and inflame the hurt that comes with a bad separation. So our approach to this bill is sober and it is cautious. There are parts of this bill where we welcome the concession the government has made to orthodoxy and common sense and there are parts where we have questions. In many places, we agree about some of the problems this bill tries to address and the general intent of what the government is trying to do. But we need to the understand impacts on the ground and impacts on families. Do these changes work? Do they make things better for Australian families going through the pain and sadness of separation? Do they make things easier or do they add complexity and delay? We make no apologies for being cautious about these issues. We have seen how cynical the government has been in this area in the past. We saw how last year the government was preparing to ram through a surprise amendment, laying the pathway to demerging the family courts. They were seeking to undo one of the most successful measures in family law in the last 10 years, which has made a measurable difference in the family law system, reducing the pressure on tens of thousands of families. We saw just last year how Labor was prepared to disregard the expert advice of the Australian Law Reform Commission and rewrite critical provisions in the Family Law Act to erase the decades of bipartisanship and pragmatism that underpinned parenting orders in our country. We saw Labor was prepared to drastically undermine and rewrite what it means to make decisions in the best interest of the child. We saw how Labor sought to repeal a requirement that a court consider the benefits of a meaningful relationship with the child's parent and other significant people in the child's life where it would be safe to do so. Labor said the courts just needed to consider the 'benefits' of a relationship; they described the change as 'minor'. On this side of House we take a more cautious approach. We are not satisfied that removing the requirement that a relationship be meaningful is a minor change. Similarly, we think caution is the right approach to this bill. This bill has five schedules and deals with a range of issues in each schedule, but, in the interests of time, I will touch on just a few key points. The first schedule in the bill deals with how the courts approach property settlement for separating couples. The government's stated intention here is to codify existing common law principles that have been worked out through the case law but are not in the act. We know the family courts have broad powers to deal with property settlements. We know that family courts routinely deal with the financial impacts of domestic and family violence when making property settlement orders. For both married and de facto couples, they take into account: … any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account … There is a line of cases that establish a type of claim called a Kennon claim, which allows a court to adjust a property settlement where: one party has demonstrated violent conduct towards another; the conduct had a discernible impact on the other party; and the contributions of the affected party to the property pool were made substantially more difficult due to the violent conduct. So there is existing law allowing for the family courts to deal with the effects of family violence in property settlements, but it is not in the act. For those who are going through a separation without appearing in court, it will not be immediately apparent how the court would deal with those issues. There is widespread agreement that this is a matter needing to be addressed. Senator Henderson, when she was the member Corangamite, recommended that this be addressed. The extensive joint select committee inquiry that was chaired by Kevin Andrews, the former member for Menzies, with Senator Hanson as deputy chair, made clear recommendations that the Family Law Act should better reflect the impact of family violence on property settlements. So there is broad agreement on the issue. In fact, the coalition started consultation on this issue before we left office. The question is about the solution. The government has made it clear it intends to codify the existing law. So do the provisions of schedule 1 merely codify the existing law, or are the effects more far reaching? Are there unintended consequences? It is not just the coalition asking these questions. In relation to the exposure draft of the bill, the Australian Bar Association said it understood the intention was to incorporate the approach set out in the case law. However it also said: In so doing it is important to ensure that the codification process does not result in unintended changes to the those principles or provide scope for argument about whether and what changes were intended to be made. This is a point well made by the Australian Bar Association, and there are legitimate questions here that are appropriate for this chamber to explore. Schedule 1 of the bill also sets out express provisions which allow the courts to make orders about family pets as part of a property settlement. It may be surprising to some who are not familiar with the field, but it is a genuine issue that courts deal with in family law cases. On occasion parties will be involved in lengthy disputes about pets, and we know that on occasion these disputes can be difficult for all involved. As with other forms of property, courts have broad discretions to deal with pets and will be influenced by a range of factors. For instance, courts will consider the best interests of the child in relation to the arrangements for a pet in cases involving children. So, at first blush, including provisions that set out the principles courts will apply to deal with pets is not objectionable. But it was not part of the exposure draft process for this bill, so we will welcome a sensible exploration of whether the provisions work as intended. The second part of schedule 1 that is worth touching on briefly is about the principles that courts apply in property settlements. This is an area where Labor has, to its credit, made significant concessions and moved back towards a more sensible approach. I say 'back' towards a sensible approach because this was an issue first canvassed a year ago as part of the exposure draft process. In that exposure draft process, there were notable omissions. There was no mention of the best interests of the child, for instance, or of making orders that safeguard children, as opposed to parties, from the impacts of abuse, neglect or family violence. So we cautiously welcome the government's decision to take a different approach and instead apply the principles that govern child related proceedings—principles which have stood as good law since 2006—so that they will also apply to property settlements. The second schedule in this bill is about establishing a framework to regulate children's contact services. These services have existed as part of the family law system since the 1990s and provide a location where children can maintain contact with parents or family under supervised arrangements. However, these services do not currently have to meet consistent quality, safety and operating standards. Both the Australian Law Reform Commission and the joint select committee, chaired by Kevin Andrews, recommended establishing a regulatory regime that would allow these services to be accredited, and the coalition accepted that recommendation. We agreed that children's contact services should be subject to accreditation rules but reserved our position in relation to the criminal offences for services that operate unaccredited. Therefore, in principle, schedule 2 of the bill accords with the coalition's policy position, save in respect of criminal offences. Amongst other things, schedule 3 includes a range of provisions dealing with protected confidences. These are 'communications made in the course of professional confidential relationships'. In practical terms, we're talking about medical records, psychological and psychiatric counselling notes, and the like. On occasion, these types of materials can make their way into evidence, where there is limited or no probative value for the court. The coalition's longstanding position has been that there must be an appropriate balance between protecting sensitive medical and other records from going into evidence while also recognising the importance of parties being able to rely on relevant subpoena material and ensure that decision-makers have sufficient evidence before them to inform their decision. The shadow Attorney-General has said this publicly on more than one occasion. This is the government's second attempt at legislating a protected confidences regime. The first attempt was withdrawn at the exposure draft stage after strong feedback from the legal community that it was unworkable. It is appropriate that this version is also scrutinised to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Briefly, the fourth schedule includes general provisions that repeal and replace the existing costs regime in the Family Law Act, deal with rulemaking by state family-law courts and value superannuation benefits. The fifth schedule sets out a review mechanism. There are a number of complex questions raised by the headline issues in this bill. As I mentioned, there are other changes to the bill which I have not spoken to now but which will be equally worthy of an in-depth consideration through a committee inquiry because we know the potential impact of these sorts of provisions on Australian families. As I said at the outset, the coalition agrees about many of the problems and issues this bill seeks to address. We welcome those parts of the bill, in particular, where Labor has built on the work the coalition commenced in government or has adopted positions which align with the coalition's position. The appropriate way forward is to look at these measures carefully so that we understand their impact on families before committing them to law. We will continue to be sensible, cautious, sensitive and pragmatic in these areas. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 11

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 11 13:03 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024. This omnibus bill makes a range of changes to our criminal law, investigation and enforcement apparatus. It is a bill that has received appropriate scrutiny through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which recommended some minor changes. It is a bill that the coalition is pleased to support subject to those recommendations. There are five schedules to this bill. The first schedule would amend the Crimes Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act to enhance the legal framework relating to the seizure of digital assets. The proposed amendments would expressly clarify that a warrant may authorise the seizure of digital assets and that an executing officer is able to access a person's digital wallet and transfer its contents as a means of seizing the digital asset. We know that criminals are increasingly sophisticated and use cryptocurrency as a way of storing and distributing the proceeds of illicit activities. Evidence before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has made very clear that this is an issue frequently encountered by the Australian Federal Police. Indeed the AFP made the point to members of the parliamentary joint committee that it had restrained more than $41 million in cryptocurrency across the 2022-23 financial year alone. In one large-scale disruption of a money-laundering operation in 2023, the AFP executed 13 warrants and charged 10 alleged offenders, with approximately $215 million in criminal assets restrained to date, including over $30 million in cryptocurrency. There is no real argument about the scale of the problem or the need to have adequate powers to issue search warrants for and seize digital assets such as cryptocurrencies. Currently, under the Crimes Act, police are permitted to seize certain items discovered in the course of executing a warrant. To lawfully do so, the officer must believe, on reasonable grounds, that the item is evidential material in relation to the relevant offence and that seizure is necessary to prevent concealment, loss, destruction or its use in committing an offence. Unfortunately, these thresholds are no longer adequate in the age of digital assets and cryptocurrency. To illustrate: where large sums of physical cash are found during the execution of a search warrant, it may be relatively easy for an executing officer to form the belief, on reasonable grounds, that the funds are tainted property—that's to say proceeds of crime—and that seizure is necessary. The same cannot be said of digital assets like cryptocurrency. The mere holding of large amounts of a digital asset is unlikely, on its own, to be suspicious. There would need to be a level of analysis to develop some understanding of the source of those funds and the reason for holding digital assets that presently have a large value. Amongst other reasons, this is because there are sometimes legitimate reasons to hold digital assets that have a large value. For instance, the value of the asset may have changed significantly since it was obtained, noting that cryptocurrencies are notoriously volatile and changes in value are common. On the other side of the ledger, if police cannot take immediate action, the risk is high. Unlike physical assets such as cash, criminals can remotely and near-instantaneously move a digital asset beyond the reach of law enforcement via an online transaction. To deal with these issues, schedule 1 of the bill proposes a lower threshold for lawfully seizing digital assets. To seize those assets, an officer must reasonably suspect that the digital asset is evidential material and that seizing the digital asset is necessary to prevent the digital asset's concealment, loss or destruction or its use in committing an offence. This threshold is appropriate, given the unique challenges created by the discovery of digital assets in the course of executing a search warrant. Schedule 2 of the bill relates to the Proceeds of Crime Act and its interaction with digital currency exchanges. The Proceeds of Crime Act gives law enforcement agencies broad powers to monitor, freeze, restrain and forfeit proceeds and instruments of crime. This includes investigative and freezing powers in relation to financial institutions. The proposed amendments to the act would extend those investigative and freezing powers in relation to certain digital currency exchanges. Importantly, this expansion of the Proceeds of Crime Act retains existing safeguards, including independent oversight by a magistrate, limitations on the time during which orders made under the act can operate and powers to vary a freezing order in appropriate cases. The net effect is to ensure that freezing and monitoring orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be applied in relation to Australia based cryptocurrency exchanges in the same way as to traditional financial institutions. The coalition considers that this is appropriate and will help to keep laws governing the investigation and seizure of proceeds of crime workable in the modern technological environment. Schedule 3 of the bill will amend section 4AA of the Crimes Act to increase the value of a Commonwealth penalty unit to $330, with a commencement date of 1 July 2024. We understand that the government intends to move amendments that will change this commencement date so that the new value comes into effect after the bill commences. Penalty units set the maximum financial penalty that can be awarded by a court for an offence. Ordinarily, the value of penalty units is indexed every three years in accordance with CPI. The value of a penalty unit at the time the coalition left office was $222. This is now the third time in less than two years that the Albanese government has increased the value of penalty units. In fact, there has been a 49 per cent increase in the value of Commonwealth penalty unit over 18 months. On 1 January 2023 it increased from $222 to $275, an increase of 23.9 per cent, on 1 July 2023 it increased from $275 to $313, an increase of 13.8 per cent, and on whatever date this measure comes into force the value of the penalty unit will lift by a further 5.4 per cent to $330. The government explains the rationale for this latest increase as follows: … The current penalty unit amount does not act as an effective deterrent for the most serious offending. Are we to infer that when this government took the decision to increase the value of the penalty unit just last year they ended up with a number that was 5.4 per cent short of the threshold required to effectively deter serious offending? The reality, of course—the transparent reality—is that this is a revenue measure for the Albanese government. The coalition does not object in principle to the increase in maximum penalties by courts for those convicted of a crime, but we do note there was a slew of regulatory offences, such as a failure to lodge a business activity statement on time, for which the Australian Taxation Office will impose a penalty equivalent to one penalty unit for each period of 28 days or part thereof that a return or statement is overdue. So it should not go without comment that the Albanese Labor government has slugged small businesses with a 49 per cent increase in penalties for late paperwork in less than two years. Schedule 4 to the bill would amend the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to clarify the functions of the Communications Access Coordinator in the Attorney-General's Department and create the position of Communications Security Coordinator in the Department of Home Affairs. This is essentially a legislative change that reflects the changes to administrative arrangements under the current government and the transfer of functions between the Department of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department. While there are no concerns about the specifics of the measures in this schedule, they are symptomatic of a broader concern. That concern relates to the concentration of national security operational functions in the Attorney-General's Department, the same department that exercises oversight of those functions. It is a model that gives rise to legitimate questions. Schedule 5 of the bill deals with information-sharing arrangements under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. It amends the arrangements applying to state-level bodies which oversee state based integrity agencies. To be clear, this is not the integrity agency themselves, such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption in South Australia; it is the oversight body for these state agencies—the inspectors who are there to ensure that the state integrity agencies exercise their powers appropriately. Evidence before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security concerning the state based oversight bodies made it clear that limitations in the legislation are causing difficulties for those bodies in discharging their functions. These limitations arise because, under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, the oversight bodies are only able to receive information for a 'permitted purpose' or an 'eligible purpose'. But the definitions of these terms do not capture all of the functions that the oversight bodies are meant to perform. The changes in schedule 5 were welcomed by the parliamentary joint committee, with one minor recommendation, which we understand the government intends to address in amendments to this bill. Subject to that recommendation being implemented, the coalition welcomes these changes. Finally, it is worth commenting on an additional matter. We understand that in addition to the matters considered by the parliamentary joint committee in relation to this bill, the government intends to move two additional amendments. The first is to push back sunsetting arrangements for secrecy provision in the Criminal Code by 18 months. They are currently due to sunset on 29 December this year, and the amendment will push this date back to 29 June 2026. We have no objection to this in principle. It is in no-one's interest for Commonwealth secrecy offences to lapse without a replacement being ready to go. It is apparent that the Attorney will not be in a position to pass his proposed changes to Commonwealth secrecy provisions before the 29 December deadline. The second area is a definition of the term 'hors de combat' in the dictionary of the Criminal Code. This is a term that roughly speaking describes when a person cannot legitimately be targeted in military operations. We understand the government is repealing and replacing the definition to address a longstanding drafting error dating back to the 2000s. We have been advised by the Attorney-General's office that the gist of the error is that the definition uses the word 'and' when it should use the word 'or'. We understand that rectifying this defect avoids a potential unintended consequence, but this is a technical change; it does not change the intended effect or operation of the definition. The coalition is prepared to rely on the advice and assurances provided to us by the Attorney-General's office about the intent and effect of the change, and we will support it on that basis. I thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its work in relation to this bill and commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 13

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 13 13:16 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning These bills, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, enable a critical part of AUKUS. AUKUS, as we know, is a multigenerational nation-building task that has bipartisan support in the House. It was a coalition government, under former prime minister Morrison, that founded AUKUS with the US president, Joe Biden, and the then UK prime minister, Boris Johnson. Since the change of government here and in the UK, AUKUS has progressed, and it's great to see that because speed is of the essence. By the early 2030s Australia needs to be sovereign ready. We need to be able to own, operate and maintain a nuclear reactor which will sit inside the Virginia class submarines that we're purchasing from the United States, and we also need to be able to operate our own submarines, SSN-AUKUS, which will be produced here in Australia. Speed is of the essence, so we support this bill and, in principle, support sensible amendments following the scrutiny by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which reported in May. Having these Virginia class submarines is vital to our long-term defence capability. They're the best in the world. They are the apex predators of the deep, and they will help keep Australia safe. Importantly for our regional partners, AUKUS will help to uphold our collective peace and prosperity. We enjoy good relationships with our neighbours, and it's really important that they understand that AUKUS is about our collective security, not just that of Australia, the US and the UK. It's in the best interests of our nation that we see AUKUS succeed, and we're going to need a lot of young Australians to get involved. We need the submariners of the future. We need the apprentices. We need people to start small businesses that will build out the supply chain. A lot of that work will happen in Perth and Adelaide. HMAS Stirling will be where our submarines operate from, but we'll also build our SSN-AUKUS in Osborne in South Australia. Across the country we need resilience. The way we achieve that is by having a dynamic supply chain, and, to quote Premier Malinauskas in South Australia, we have six states and two territories; this is one mission for all of us, and each state and territory has a role to play. I'm excited to see what this does for Australian businesses as we rebuild the Australian defence industry. We're headed towards the sovereign-ready milestone in the early 2030s. We've got the nearest gate, 2027, which will be the establishment of Submarine Rotational Force-West just to the north of my electorate of Canning. I'm very proud to represent not just a number of Royal Australian Navy members who are submariners themselves but also a growing number of people who are involved with AUKUS itself. One of the dads at a soccer match a couple of weeks ago was telling me how he's a fitter. He's 30 years old and a former Army engineer. He put his name online to consider becoming part of the AUKUS project and got a phone call within 24 hours with, basically, a job offer and the possibility of living in Hawaii for a certain period of time—which, I've got to say, is a pretty nice offer, and it's a well-paid job too. These are the sorts of jobs that we'll need for 30 years. For families who are feeling the pressure from FIFO work—I know a lot of families from my children's school classes where the dad, mainly, spends half the year away on mine sites—the opportunity to work in the defence industry in Perth itself is very enticing. So I encourage people to consider those pathways offered by AUKUS. This bill establishes a nuclear safety framework, the regulatory framework for establishing AUKUS. If we're to operate these nuclear submarines, if we're to operate facilities and if we're to handle material, then those activities need to be regulated. This bill establishes a regulator within defence itself, and it will be governed to the highest standards because we need to demonstrate to the United States and the UK that we can be trusted with their sensitive intellectual property, these reactors, and that we are building up the capability to make sure that the whole enterprise is safe and secure. That's what these bills do. It's a big step forward for Australia so that we can operate these nuclear submarines, and it's part of several tranches of legislation required to implement and support AUKUS. As I've discussed already in my remarks, this bill establishes a framework to ensure Australia promotes, regulates and maintains the highest level of nuclear safety in relation to our future submarines. Its focus is on regulating activities on Australia's own nuclear powered submarines and facilities. It does not apply to conduct on board the UK and US ones. The past few weeks have been great for Perth because we've had the USS Hawaii, a Virginia class submarine, and the USS Emory S Land, a submarine tender, at HMAS Stirling. It's the first time in Australia's history that we've had maintenance be done on a US submarine within our port, and that's what happened at HMAS Stirling. Embedded in both vessels were young Australians who have been training with the Americans. I met a young naval officer who had successfully completed their nuclear submariner course for officers, and he was entrusted with parking the vessel alongside the wharf at HMAS Stirling, which was a big honour, and he did it to a good standard, as the CO of the vessel told us. It was great to also see a lot of young sailors on the USS Emory S Land, the tender, which is basically like a floating factory. The logistical power these vessels have is amazing, and they're doing their bit to keep US submarines running. It was great to see all those things, and, of course, that's why these bills are being enacted. We need to have a framework so that, as these visits step up, leading to 2027—and when we start to have a more permanent presence of US and UK submarines from 2027 and when we get our own Virgina class submarines from 2030—we can do our things safely. In short, we support these bills. We want to move faster, and I think there is definitely room for improvement with the government. We want to see more investment into WA sooner. There are a lot of outstanding issues around HMAS Stirling, and I've met with the local governments in the area. There's obviously a housing shortage. We're going to have a lot more people moving to Australia from the US and the UK, but, also, we're going to see more naval personnel into the AUKUS catchment area, which is the City of Rockingham principally but also the surrounding local government areas as well. So we need more houses built, and that's a task for the local and state governments, but it definitely needs federal leadership, so we're calling on the government to do more about the housing shortage. There's also a general infrastructure deficit in Western Australia. Our hospitals' ramping hours are through the roof—much higher that when the Labor state government came to power, in 2017. So we want to see more investment in our hospitals, particularly in the Rockingham hospital and the Peel Health Campus. Both are within the AUKUS catchment and will service the families who move to WA to work at HMAS Stirling or in the AUKUS supply chain. So we need more investment in our hospitals. Of course, there's congestion. We've had 1.4 million people come to Australia since Q1 of 2022, and we're feeling it. A normal journey up to Perth probably used to take about 70 minutes on any given morning, and it's now taking 90 minutes, which is just too long. There is a productivity cost. People are not at their desks or their factories or their place of work doing the jobs they are paid to do and there is also cost a family life. No-one wants to spend any longer sitting traffic away from their families, so investment in roads is critical, particularly around HMAS Stirling. A lot of locals are worried not only about the number of people who are going to be driving through but also the big trucks while building. We want to see more houses, more investment in hospitals and more investment in roads and other supporting infrastructure. There is a lot to be done but we will support this bill because we believe it is in the best interests of Australia, of the US, the UK and our region. This is not only about the collective security but also about securing the future as much as the present of the young kids up there behind me in the gallery Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023 15

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023

Second Reading 15 13:26 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume The coalition will not be supporting this Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023. The coalition engaged in this process seeking to reach a bipartisanship position for over 18 months. However, unfortunately, after the Treasurer and Labor surrogates used the past week to wage war on the Reserve Bank, we cannot support these changes. We believe in a stable, credible, capable, independent Reserve Bank of Australia. I consistently and clearly raised the issue of the transition of the existing board members to the new interest-rate-setting board. The government amendments leave open the option, unfortunately, for a stitch-up of the Reserve Bank board and it seems increasingly clear that that was actually the motive behind the government's approach to these reforms all along. Recent public comment not only from the Treasurer but from other senior Labor figures is attempting to blame the RBA for their own economic failures. Indeed, what they have had to say is deeply unsettling. Considering those recent events, the coalition has serious questions about the government's commitment to the continued independence of the Reserve Bank. We have deep concerns about the motives of the government when it comes to appointments and we saw that with the first two appointments. On the very day the review was issued, which laid out a very clear process for appointments to the board, the Treasurer completely ignored the process. There is a convention that there should be consultation with the opposition on these appointments. His consultation was to let me know about his decision. Well, that is not consultation. It was very clear from the beginning the Treasurer simply saw this as a way of implementing his sack-and-stack strategy and it was a stitch-up from the start. The government has been at war with the Reserve Bank for the last week. It began with the Treasurer blaming the RBA for 'smashing' the economy. That is because he smashed the economy. I suppose you go and look for whoever to blame if you smash the economy, and that is exactly what the Treasurer has done. He ignores the fact the government has many levers to beat inflation, to bring down interest rates, to deliver that low inflation and strong economy we all want to see. He has many levers. He can focus on managing his spending habit, he can focus on getting immigration in line with our housing supply, he can focus on getting rid of red tape, on approving major projects in this country and he can focus on energy policy that will bring down the prices. I see our shadow energy minister here, who knows how badly the government has failed on that policy. All these are policy areas he can focus on, all of which can help deliver that low-inflation, low-interest-rate, strong economy we all want to see. But, sadly, this Treasurer has ignored all those levers and focused on blaming the Reserve Bank. He has been backed in by the Prime Minister, by members of the government frontbench and by Labor-aligned commentators like Stephen Conroy and Stephen Koukoulis—all backing him in. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 And Wayne Swan of course. Mr TAYLOR 231027 Well, we'll get to Wayne Swan! And then he was backed in on Friday by the ALP President, Wayne Swan. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 This debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. It will be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Flinders Electorate: Energy 15 13:30 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to give a shout-out to the member for Fairfax, who came and spent an excellent day in Flinders with me last week, starting at SPX, formerly known as Sealite, a brilliant Australian company which makes 70 per cent of the world's maritime and aviation navigation equipment, kitting out the world's defence forces with airfield-in-a-box innovation, among other things—all run from a few huge garages in Somerville. Their giant marine buoys and aviation markers are moulded at high temperatures, powered by gas—gas the state Labor government wants to cut. Then we visited the magnificent Red Gum BBQ. Our only B Corp certified restaurant wants to put solar panels on the roof, but its landlord, United Energy, won't let it, requiring it to have diesel generators on site for when the power stops. Diesel generators then became the theme of the day, as we visited a number of sites from which 11 diesel generators power the Mornington Peninsula over the summer months—including one hosted by the beautiful Gazzola family, who are in the gallery today. And, when we finally got to Searoad Ferries, to hear about their plans to electrify the nation's busiest ferry fleet, the power was out. So we pushed on, getting briefed in the dim light of the early evening. It would have been quite hilarious, if it wasn't so indicative of this government's hypocrisy when it comes to energy and climate change. Despite their policies the peninsula is powering on, but without any help from them. Jacomb, Ms Jennifer 16 13:31 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Jennifer Jacomb served in the Royal Australian Navy from 1983 to 1985. She suffered severe abuse and received the maximum payout under the provisions of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce. She survived on a DVA gold card for the abuse that she suffered. She lived in Melbourne and was the secretary of the Victims of Abuse in the Australian Defence Force Association. That's how Jennifer described herself. Yesterday, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide delivered its final report to the Governor-General, concluding the three-year inquiry. Sadly, yesterday, I also learnt that Jennifer had passed away after a battle with cancer. She wrote to me in July saying: 'The doctors informed me that cancer will be finished by September. But I think it's like politics: you'll believe it when you see it. I can't say thank you enough to all the people who support me at this difficult time.' Jennifer was a fierce advocate and someone who wholly supported others when times were tough. The amount of times that she came to my office, working hard to support all those victims of abuse and trying to find a way through to actually get a positive result—no-one I know had the strength of Jennifer for what she did. The motto of the association was: 'The voice for the voiceless'. Jennifer, you were the voice, and you know many of us in this place heard you and heard you loudly. Vale, comrade. May you rest in peace without pain. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 16 13:33 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay As a nation, we are rightly proud of how our Defence Force personnel and veterans have served our nation, keeping us safe and securing our freedom. Honouring current and former members of our Defence Force is part of Australia's identity, but, tragically, Australia hasn't supported our veterans in their time of need nearly as much as we've commemorated their sacrifice. The former coalition government, with Peter Dutton as Defence Force minister, recognised that service personnel and veterans were being failed by the country they'd risked their lives for, and we responded by initiating the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The royal commission found that the number of defence and veteran suicides between 1997 and 2021 was upwards of 3,000 men and women. It's clear that the system that is supposed to support our diggers in their time of need has failed abysmally. The words 'thank you for your service' are absolutely meaningless unless we have a properly resourced veterans' affairs system that gives veterans the support they need when they need it. I thank everyone who contributed to the royal commission and urge the government to work with Defence and veterans and their families to implement the findings with the crucial urgency that the issue demands. North Macedonia Independence Day 16 13:34 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt On Sunday, over 100,000 Australians of Macedonian descent celebrated the independence of North Macedonia after the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991. This independence day honours the resilience of Macedonian people and culture, which flourished despite centuries of foreign rule. From the Ottoman-era streets of Bitola to the ancient beauty of Lake Ohrid, your country continues to inspire admiration across the world. As the chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group with the Republic of North Macedonia, I have worked closely with Ambassador Biljana Stefanovska-Sekovska to promote Macedonian culture in Australia. This includes supporting Macedonian language schools, which play a vital role in keeping Australian-born Macedonian children connected to their heritage. I have had the privilege of visiting your country twice since being elected to parliament, seeing its beauty firsthand. Each destination I visited revealed a unique aspect of Macedonia's beauty, blending history, nature and culture into an unforgettable experience. To all Macedonians in Australia and around the world: happy independence day! Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 17 13:36 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I watched and listened to testimonies from the royal commission into veteran suicide in utter disbelief. The figures laid out before us are not just troubling; they are utterly heartbreaking. It is tragic that we are losing an average of three veterans to suicide every two weeks. Since 1985, conservative estimates put the total number at 2,000 veterans who have taken their own lives. The weight of this crisis is felt across generations. Each veteran lost to suicide leaves behind not only a grieving family but also a community deeply impacted. Some of those were present yesterday in parliament. After more than 50 formal inquiries over 30 years, we are still facing these devastating issues. Our service men and women, those who have sacrificed so much to protect us, have been systematically let down by the very institutions designed to protect and support them. I want to take this opportunity to thank those veterans and families and friends of veterans who contributed to the heartbreaking testimony to the royal commission. To the veterans and veterans' families in my community, I say: we hear you; I hear you. I have spoken to community groups and veterans in the past 24 hours. The government has committed to considering and responding to the royal commission, and my community urges a thorough, substantial and speedy response. In particular, the final recommendation, to establish 'a new statutory entity to oversee system reform across the whole Defence ecosystem', is critical to making sure that we make a lasting difference to veteran and defence suicide. We owe veterans more than our gratitude. We owe them our action. Makin Electorate: Social Housing 17 13:37 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Last Sunday, along with Olivia Savvas, the state member for the seat of Newland, and Tea Tree Gully mayor Marijka Ryan, I attended a dedication service at the Tea Tree Gully St John's Lutheran Church for three newly constructed social houses in Ridgehaven. The service was led by Pastor Rolly Stahl, who delivered an excellent and very appropriate sermon for the occasion. The housing project was initiated by members of the Tea Tree Gully St John's Lutheran Church a decade ago, but a series of obstacles and then COVID delayed the commencement of construction until 2023. The three well-designed and constructed houses will become home to six people with a disability. I understand that four of those people—Nathan, James, Andrew and Bradley—have already moved into their new home. The project was made possible because of the determination and collective efforts of several people and organisations and in particular the support from the Lutheran Disability Services. My congratulations and compliments to the Tea Tree Gully St John's church community for its social conscience in delivering this project which responds to both the needs of people with a disability and the social housing shortage that currently exists. The housing project is a terrific example of what can be achieved when good people come together and show initiative in meeting a desperate social need. Invasive Species Management 17 13:39 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin The polyphagous shot-hole borer was first detected in Australia three years ago near my electorate of Curtin. Given the threat to Australia's biosecurity, it has been part of a national eradication plan since 2022. This plan relied on chopping down host trees to try to stop the spread. Since then, about 3,500 trees across Perth have been removed, with Curtin being the hardest hit. We've removed about 18 football fields of canopy cover across Perth, and we already have one of the smallest canopy covers of any Australian city. This sacrifice would've been worth it if it actually worked, but, due to a combination of a slow and incomplete eradication response and a lack of understanding about the pest, the plan has failed. The borer has now spread across Perth in 170 different host species, including native species. We don't know enough about this biosecurity threat. We do know not all host trees are dying. We know the beetle can travel further than first known, and we know that the economic cost of this pest in California is estimated at nearly $16 billion. We need a better plan and urgent action. The National Management Group must transition to a management phase. It must allocate funding so we can research how it's spreading and how to stop or slow it. This is a pest of national significance, and we must learn how to manage it effectively and stop chopping trees down in a vain attempt to eradicate it. O'Kane, Mr John Edward Joseph 17 13:40 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean In this House, we rightly talk about the importance of teachers and strategies to encourage more students into the teaching profession. It's a path I nearly took. That's why it's particularly sad to suddenly lose a teacher and community builder like John O'Kane. I first met John when he was a high-school student in the nineties and I was a callow relief teacher. Over the years, I had many chats with John when my sons were students at Marist College Canberra. He was friendly, empathetic and always interested in the development of the students, what made them tick and how he could bring out the best in them. In a career spanning a couple of decades, John was the leader of the Marist College English department. He was a gifted teacher with a sharp intellect, passionate about the Pogues and Joyce. He was a kind and generous man who cared for all who shared his path. John was a former student at Marist College and was the Mark House dean for a decade. He was involved in many and varied activities across the life of the college. He shaped the lives of hundreds of students for the better and was beloved by all the teaching and support staff. My condolences to Sarah, Burton, Caledonia and Amber-Rose; to James and Mary; to Carl, Deb, Gabby, Peggy, Nik and Phil; and to all across the O'Kane clan and the Canberra Irish diaspora. He will be greatly missed. Fairfax Electorate: Housing 18 13:42 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax For anybody who believes that those on the Sunshine Coast, as a lifestyle capital, are immune to the housing crisis afflicting this nation, be very aware that we are hurting. Over the last 12 months alone, rental prices have increased by 27 per cent. Is it any wonder that we have some residents of the Sunshine Coast on full-time incomes sleeping in their cars? We have couples, both of whom are earning full-time incomes and are presenting themselves to charities and low-cost food outlets because they simply cannot afford to put food on the table. According to IFYS, 1,000 residents of the Sunshine Coast are now homeless. Every single night, they are sleeping homeless. For two years, this government has overseen a housing crisis that has worsened, and it has a human impact. There's no new money, no new homes and no initiatives for renters. Show some leadership. Western Sydney Airport 18 13:44 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie In coming weeks, people across the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury and Nepean will learn the final plan for Western Sydney airport flight paths. Along with many people in my community, I'm not looking forward to it. It will have a finality about it. When Tony Abbott chose Badgerys Creek, in 2014, as the site for a 24/7 second Sydney airport and the direction of runway was decided, in 2016, there was a looming deadline for an end to the silence that descends on our community at night. After a decade of fighting off some of the worst of the proposals, such as the merge point that would have seen 100 per cent of incoming flights over Warrimoo, Blaxland, Mount Riverview and Glenbrook, I think we will still be disappointed in the outcome. While designers have listened to our feedback, the response is that aircraft noise is shared more widely, which impacts even more people. But the aircraft noise, especially at night, still won't be fairly shared across all of Sydney, east and west. I want to thank everyone in my community who has engaged in the lengthy consultation process. Your voices were heard. I want to warn you though that our fight is not over and may take many, many more years. I'll continue this fight for greater protections for our sensitive World Heritage environment and for everyone who lives within that region, because we deserve the best possible outcome from these flight paths. Agriculture Industry 18 13:45 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker If there's one definable difference between the two sides of this chamber, it's this. On this side of the chamber, we get regional communities and we understand agriculture. In contrast, it's becoming blindingly obvious that Labor doesn't value the economic or social contribution that regional communities make to our nation. Full disclosure—I was born in a regional community. I grew up on the family farm, and I've drenched my fair share of sheep. So I know what blood, sweat and tears go into the work they do. I find it utterly insulting that those opposite can't treat our farmers and our regional communities with the respect they need. Banning a sustainable, profitable and ethical live sheep export industry for me is crossing the line. I for one won't stand for it. What's next? I dread to think. It's quite evident that the Albanese Labor government is more about playing the politics of inner-city votes than the long-term sustainability of growing our regions. It's little wonder that confidence in the federal government has collapsed amongst the ag sector, with now just one in 10 farmers saying Canberra is listening to them and has a positive plan for their future. So today I joined in calls from others to ask those opposite to start listening. It would have been a good start to send the Prime Minister out the front of the building today. An incident having occurred in the gallery— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Members of the gallery, you don't get to participate in our discussions here. Australian Brain Cancer Foundation 18 13:47 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra On Friday, I had the honour to attend the launch of the Australian Brain Cancer Foundation at the ANU. Led by founder and CEO Milena Skepev, the ABCF is a Canberra based charity for brain cancer, which has been established with the generous support of its founding partners and will change many lives. It will support researchers and clinicians to raise awareness and provide access to information and take a multidisciplinary approach to better understanding brain cancer. Brain cancer is an incredibly cruel disease and takes the lives of more people under 40 than any other cancer. ANU head brain cancer researcher Professor Leonie Quinn's research focuses on the underlying factors of brain cancer through the generation of genetic models. She has brought together a fantastic team of the best and brightest in research and medicine in this area, who will work as part of this foundation. Professor Quinn has also inspired Zara, Milena's daughter, and her best friend, Mila, two young Canberrans, who now want to be scientists and doctors when they grow up. They have been making earrings and selling them and have raised over $30,000 to support this, which is already being put to use to support women researchers at the ANU to go to conferences and the like and pursue their incredibly important work. I know that the ABCF will achieve many great breakthroughs and changes for the lives of people suffering with brain cancer. (Time expired) Tasmania: Agriculture Industry 19 13:48 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon In Queenstown, on Tasmania's rugged West Coast, they're so tough they play footy on gravel, not grass. The football ground is actually gravel. It has a reputation of being the most feared ground in Australia—the home of the mighty Queenstown Crows. This year, the Crows raised the trophy at the Darwin Football Association 2024 premiers. Unless you live in the bush, unless you live in that region, you can't comprehend how important our sporting clubs are to our valuable communities, and you wouldn't know that often these communities rely on just one or two industries to keep them going. If they lose one, it's simply devastating. That's what's happening on the West Coast, because the Albanese government refuses to support the two key industries in their region—mining and agriculture. Since day one, Labor has refused to make a decision on MMG's tailing facility at South Marionoak. They've done everything they can to shut down Macquarie Harbour and the agricultural industry. I promise the West Coast that a Liberal government will do whatever it takes to ensure the ongoing viabilities of these two valuable industries because, unlike Labor, we get what communities need. We understand how important they are. Welcome to those from Keep the Sheep up there in the gallery. Out of my Burnie Port, 843,000 fat lambs are sent live to Victoria each year. Well done on your efforts today—it's good to see you. South Sea Islander Australians 19 13:50 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I present the voice of a young Territorian to parliament: Hello, my name is Sienna and I'm 16 years old from Darwin. As a South Sea Islander Australian, not many people know about us, and when my dad organised the first event in Darwin for the 30th anniversary of our recognition, I was proud and happy to celebrate my heritage. But I also realised that the history of our people and what happened to them is something I know very little about. All I know is that our ancestors were taken from Vanuatu during the Blackbirding. I find it hard to connect to something that isn't talked about, including my ancestry. I believe all Australians need to learn about our history and what we've contributed. If they did, it would help me and the other South Sea Islander people connect to our roots and be proud of who we are. I hope one day I'll be able to go to Vanuatu and connect with my family there, to learn more about where we come from and our history. I'm asking parliament to raise awareness about Australian South Sea Islander heritage. Thanks very much, Sienna. I'm glad that I could give a voice for you to our federal parliament today. Well done to your father, Patrick, who organised a fantastic event to commemorate 30 since Paul Keating as prime minister said that South Sea Islanders are a separate cultural group. (Time expired) Visitor Visas 19 13:51 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Since the October 7 attacks, the government has granted at least 3,000 visas to Palestinians—mostly visitor visas. On average, these approvals have been completed within a single day—in some instances within an hour. While this government is issuing tourist visas to Gazans as quickly as they can be emailed, my office is being inundated with requests for support from Australians who cannot have their family members visit them owing to overzealous rejections. A respected Lebanese-Australian business owner in my electorate employs 40 staff. While the partner visa of his new wife has been assessed over the next two to three years, the government has rejected her tourist visa applications. A beloved local couple of South African origin have been left heartbroken after their son's tourist visa has been rejected despite multiple prior visits to Australia without incident. When the nuns of the Carmelite Monastery in Ormiston sought to bring a couple of their Thai sisters to visit as part of a longstanding cultural exchange program, these applications were twice rejected. We have a situation where the sisters of the Carmelite order are deemed to carry too much risk by this government, yet for those coming from a terrorist-controlled war zone we are seeing thousands of tourist visas approved—in some cases within an hour. What an absolute joke! This unfair and inconsistent approach is putting Australia's security at risk. More importantly, or just as importantly, it is insulting the hardworking Australians who happen to have family members or other connections overseas. Early Childhood Education 20 13:53 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Recently I visited Cressy Road Early Learning in Bennelong. It was a joy to spend time with the children and their teachers, who are full of energy and creativity. The highly of my visit was receiving this wonderful tie that they painted and gave me. I promised them I'd wear it in parliament today to show how thankful I am. The children and educators gave me this gift because they wanted to say thank you to the government for the work we've done in early childhood education in only two-and-a-bit years in office. In our first budget, we made early childhood education cheaper, delivering cheaper fees for families across Bennelong and the country, and most recently we've delivered a 15 per cent pay rise to our early childhood educators. On this side of the House we believe that these educators are some of the most important workers in our country. They deserve more than thanks; they deserve a pay rise. Our reforms will mean that the average educator will be paid an extra $103 a week, increasing to $155 per week at the end of 2025. It will mean that people won't need to leave the sector for better pay, it will mean that early educators will be able to afford to buy or rent a bigger place to live, and it will mean that the sector will be able to find more workers to teach our children. Pay rises change lives. Early education changes lives. We are a government that was elected to get wages moving again, and we're doing just that. Housing 20 13:54 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Labor's housing crisis is just getting worse. In Australia, we have seen, under Labor's watch, fewer homes being built, fewer homes being approved and fewer first home buyers. But what has been the response from those opposite? 'We're spending $32 billion on housing.' We now find out that, of the so-called $32 billion of money allocated to housing, only one-tenth has been directed to anything that would increase housing stock, and, of that, we're not sure if even a dollar has gone into building a new home. The government can't even confirm if a new home has been built. No wonder we have seen the housing crisis in Australia getting worse. Rentals and those renting have seen their rents increase by 22 per cent since this government came into power. And what is the grand strategy of this government? Increase migration to a million people over the first two years, whilst we're building fewer homes. Australians know that the reason why they are facing higher rents, fewer Australians are able to get into their first home and affordability is worse for Australians is the woeful performance of this government, which has absolutely no answers, no new ideas and no money. That's why the housing crisis will just get worse until we throw this government out. Medicare Urgent Care Clinics 20 13:56 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I had the opportunity to host the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Mark Butler, in Aston last week, announcing seven additional Medicare urgent care clinics across Victoria. After nine long years of cuts and neglect under the Liberals and Nationals, the Albanese Labor government is working to deliver a stronger healthcare system for all Australians. That is why I'm very excited that we now have a bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinic in Bayswater. This clinic is open seven days a week, with extended hours, for all those times you need care from a nurse or doctor for issues that are urgent but not life-threatening, without the need to visit an emergency department. In the 2024-25 budget, the Albanese government provided $227 million to expand the Medicare urgent care clinic program. The seven existing state funded priority primary care centres will transition to the Albanese government's Medicare urgent care clinic network, following a request from the Victorian government. The urgent care clinic in Bayswater will reduce the number of attendances to local EDs. This is great news for Maroondah Hospital, where a third of presentations to the emergency room are for non-urgent and semiurgent issues. Located at Mountain High Shopping Centre, 7-13 High Street, Bayswater, the Maroondah Medicare urgent care clinic is open from 8 am to 10 pm every day for people in my community. National Farmers Federation: Protests 20 13:57 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom It was an absolute privilege to go out the front, on the lawns of Parliament House, and listen to the concerns of farmers who had gathered there—some of whom are here with us in the gallery today. These were concerns about the policies that this government has enacted that have made their lives worse. It's been 40 years since farmers have had to come down and rally around this place, but we're back in that same place again. I was very proud to stand with the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, as he stood up and confirmed that we'll continue listening to farmers and as he gave our commitment to continue to support them. It was great to stand next to the Leader of the Nationals, who stood by his record as agriculture minister, and we will continue to do that on a number of issues. On live sheep exports, on biosecurity taxes and on water buybacks, we are there for regional Australia and for the agricultural community. Do you know who was not there, out the front of Parliament House? Our prime minister was not there listening to the concerns of the agricultural industry. Not a single member of the Labor Party— Government members interjecting— Mr HAMILTON 291387 They can get a bit agitated now, but they couldn't get agitated enough to go out and listen to Australians. He loves to go to Beef Week, put on the Yellowstone cosplay with the hat and the RMs and pretend for the photoshoot that he understands regional Australia, but, when it comes to listening to your concerns, he is not there. He and the Greens are giving you a preview of what the next government will look like—a minority government led by Greens principles and a Labor Party that refuses to listen to the agricultural sector. We will— (Time expired) Economy 21 13:59 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the things that matter: boosting wages, cutting taxes and bringing inflation under control. Working Australians have always been able to count on a Labor government to champion their rights, secure better conditions and fight for fairer pay. We're funding a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education workers and care workers. To ensure that this benefits both workers and families, services receiving this increase will cap their fees, lifting wages while lowering costs for parents. We're also strengthening protections for workers by closing loopholes that allow for underpayment and unfair practices. We've introduced world-leading minimum workplace standards for gig workers on digital platforms—such as rideshare drivers and food delivery riders—because everyone has a right to stability, no matter where they work. Our focus has always been on real wage growth for those that need it most—unlike the opposition, who never once argued for a real wage increase while they were in charge of Australia. We're delivering wage rises; we're delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer. Labor will always fight for working Australians. We want Australians 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. MINISTRY 21 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 21 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cybersafety 21 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. The coalition announced in June our plan to stop young children from gaining access to harmful social media content. The Prime Minister's been incapable of taking action on this important issue for months. Yesterday, Premier Malinauskas said he'd had enough of waiting for the Prime Minister to make a decision. Now, today, in a rushed and ham fisted way, the government's made a partial announcement of a policy without detail— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. I cannot hear the question. The Leader of the Opposition will be given the courtesy of beginning his question again. Mr DUTTON 00AKI My question is to the Prime Minister. The coalition announced in June our plan to stop young children from gaining access to harmful social media content. The Prime Minister has been incapable of taking action on this important issue for months. Yesterday, Premier Malinauskas said he'd had enough of waiting for the Prime Minister to make a decision. Now, today, in a rushed and ham fisted way, the government has made a partial announcement of a policy without detail. Why is the Albanese government hopeless at everything? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Members on my right—the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the member for Hunter, the Treasurer. 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler In the question the Leader of the Opposition just asked, he lied about Peter Malinauskas. He did not say that. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to get the Prime Minister to withdraw that part of his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 The alleged quote from Peter Malinauskas— Opposition members: Withdraw! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to get the Prime Minister to withdraw. Mr ALBANESE R36 I withdraw. The alleged quote—brought through in the question—from the Premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas, was just not true. I've been working with the premiers and chief ministers— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Mr Dutton 00AKI How close are you working with him? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. We're not starting the day with that level of interjections, from the Leader of the Opposition down. We are going to handle this matter with respect. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence for the remainder of the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 On the Leader of the Opposition's angry rant, rather than a question, about a new minimum age for access to social media, my government has announced that we will introduce legislation by the end of the year. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Member for Groom, member for Lindsay. Mr ALBANESE R36 We have, in our May budget, funded the trial of age verification technology to make sure that we actually get this right. You need to trial the technology. This is something that has been a scourge of young people, in particular, throughout the Western world. It is something that governments are grappling with throughout the Western world. We know that too often social media isn't social at all. This is about giving children a childhood and giving parents peace of mind. I want young Australians to grow up playing outside with their friends—off their phones and onto the footy fields and the netball courts. That's what I want, and that's what parents want as well. I find it extraordinary that those opposite come in here on an issue like this and seek to yell and rant angrily, but that characterises everything they're about. When it comes to detail from an opposition that wants nuclear reactors around Australia, with no costings and no plan for how they would occur, just saying that they will be— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Leader of the Nationals. Everyone, cool it. The Prime Minister, in continuation. Mr ALBANESE R36 Setting a new national minimum age for social media will support parents and teachers. We all know that technology moves fast, and some will try to find their ways around these laws, which is why we need to get it right. None of that is an excuse for inaction. That's why my government will introduce legislation into this parliament this year. (Time expired) Cybersafety 22 14:06 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Communications. Parents in my community are telling me they are worried about the harms children are experiencing online. How will the Albanese Labor government's proposed minimum age for social media help protect young people and support parents? 14:07 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I particularly acknowledge the member for Macarthur as someone who has been involved in children's health his whole life. The safety and mental health of our children is paramount. We know that interacting online can be a great way for children to connect, to learn about their world and to develop skills for the future. But we also know from the research that social media and unfettered content that exists across many of these platforms can cause harm. They can affect mental health and healthy body image. There can be unsolicited contact from strangers—some of the most extreme and concerning for all of us. Parents are looking for real solutions to what is a legitimate national concern about harmful online environments and addictive behaviour on social media for children. So the Commonwealth is providing national leadership to ensure children are better protected from online harms and parents are supported. Our government will introduce legislation this year to enforce a minimum age for access to social media and other relevant digital platforms. As the Prime Minister said, we know that technology moves fast, but we have to do all that we can to protect children in this area. Legislation on this issue will be informed by engagement with National Cabinet and the eSafety Commissioner and will draw on recent work by former chief justice Robert French. This builds on the Albanese government's age assurance trial, testing technologies and implementation approaches that will inform our policy design. It's an important step towards ensuring that all Australian children can use the internet in an age-appropriate way that supports them, their learning and their positive development. In my home state of New South Wales, mobile phones have been banned in schools, and the feedback from teachers has been very positive. Children are playing more, and you can hear more noise and chatter in the playground because they're not spending that time absorbed on their phones. The government has been prepared to do our share, and we have, in our first term, done more to act on the social and economic harms to democracy than any other government in the last 10 years. We've taken decisive action on a number of fronts to minimise online harms and concerns around social media, including bringing forward the review of the Online Safety Act by 12 months and amending the basic online safety expectations so that platforms must place the best interests of the child at the centre of their products and services. We funded joint digital literacy programs in every school, in partnership with the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, and we quadrupled ongoing base funding for the eSafety Commissioner to do their important work. Fundamentally, as we develop the legislative approach, we will focus on ensuring government is not telling parents how to raise children. But we expect platforms and online services to do their fair share, because this burden or responsibility doesn't just rest with parents. Cybersafety 23 14:10 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister announced in May that the government would fund a trial of age verification for children accessing social media. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the trial has not started and that the tender document for the technical trial was issued today? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fisher—no interjections before an answer even begins. 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler There are three stages in the preparation of this. The first two stages are done, and this is stage 3: issuing the contract to make sure that's right— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Attorney-General! Members on my right, it works two ways. There's far too much interjecting. Yelling is not going to help me hear the answer. Everyone take a lesson: if it continues on, there will be a general warning and people aren't going to remain here for question time today. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 The government funded this trial in our May budget. The minister and the department have been working through the first two stages and the third stage to make sure—you need to know what you're putting a tender out for—the technology is got right. We've also been cooperating of course with the eSafety Commissioner, a body for which we quadrupled funding. Social media has a social responsibility to have its social licence. We want to make sure, arising out of this age verification, that we're able to move forward in a way which no country in the world has been able to solve this problem. We are seeking to be the best in the world. That is why you have to actually get it right, not fund a car park where there's no train station—make sure you actually get it right. I'm surprised that those opposite seek to make this a partisan issue because I think this is an issue which is of concern for all parents. Social media is causing social— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, listen carefully. There will be no more interjections from you for the remainder of this answer, because I want to hear the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 Social media is causing social harm. It can be used as a weapon for bullies, a vehicle for scammers or, worst of all, a tool for online predators. That is why we are ensuring that we will get the legislation right. I've said, as part of the announcement, that we will consult across the parliament. I don't think this should be an issue in which we are yelling at each other. I think this is an issue in which we should be yelling at social media companies to do the right thing. That is what I seek, and I hope that the parliament has the maturity to do that. Mr Dutton 00AKI From May to September! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! This is a serious issue and we need to do better, so I am asking everyone in the House to show some restraint, ask questions respectfully and listen to the question respectfully as well. Mr ALBANESE R36 The government may not be able to stop every threat on social media but we do have a responsibility to do everything we can, to help as many young Australians as we can. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a change that will change our country for the better. It follows our quadrupling of funding for the eSafety Commisioner and the other work we have done in this area. That is why we need a national response. (Time expired) Cybersafety 24 14:15 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Youth. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to keep children and young people safe online, including through its proposed minimum age for social media? The SPEAKER 53517 The member Lindsay will leave the chamber under 94(a). Continually interjecting like that before the minister has begun is highly disorderly. The Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth has the call. 14:16 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Dunkley for her question. The safety and security of Australians is a priority for this government, as it should be, and that includes the safety and security of young people and children online. We know that social media can be used for good; there is no question about that. As the Minister for Youth, I have heard from young people through our youth consultations and through our youth engagement program. In our survey of 4,600 young people, mental health featured second as their greatest concern. Young people tell me that, while they value social media for the connectivity it affords them, they are also highly attuned to the negative impacts it has on their mental health, on their social and physical wellbeing. Social media is associated with poor mental health, with eating disorders, with depression, with anxiety, with self-harm, with cyberbullying, with poor sleep quality among a plethora of other things. That social media is harmful to children and young people is not contentious; I think we can all agree on that. Young people know it, parents know it, teachers know it, youth workers know it, researchers know it and we know it. That is why we are doing something about it. This is a topic that is discussed at barbecues, it is discussed in the schoolyard and it is discussed among young people themselves. The Albanese Labor government is going to introduce a minimum age for access to social media and gaming platforms, and we know we need to get this right. We need to bring children, we need to bring young people and parents along with us on this journey. But there is work already underway. In May, we announced funding for an age-assurance trial exploring age verification technologies to protect children from being exposed to harmful online content. I have been working with the Minister for Communications, Minister Rowland, to that ensure that young people are engaged in the development of that trial. We are also making sure that young people and families have the tools to use social media safely through initiatives like the digital literacy programs in schools through a partnership with the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. We have quadrupled funding to the eSafety Commisioner, making sure that commission has what it needs to keep Australians safe online. Children deserve a childhood. They deserve a childhood free from the harms that unfortunately social media brings with it. They deserve a childhood where they can play freely, where they can grow up with a strong identity and a strong sense of belonging, a childhood free from bullying, free from anxiety and free from depression. We want to ensure that children in Australia get that childhood. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Kemp, Mr Michael Peter, MP, Davies, Hon. Mia Jane, MLA 25 14:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Mr Michael Kemp MP, New South Wales member of Oxley, as a guest of the member for Cowper; and also Mia Davies MLA, the member for Central Wheatbelt in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. Welcome to you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mining Industry 25 14:19 Mr GEE 261393 Calare To the Prime Minister, the decision by the Minister for the Environment and Water to make a section 10 declaration over the McPhillamys mine project near Blayney has been met with widespread shock, anger and concern in our local area. These concerns include the lack of transparency, lost jobs, the timing of the decision with state and federal environmental approvals already given, the contrary opinion of Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and the impossibility of moving the dam within existing mine boundaries. Will you meet with me to discuss this, and will you now consider reversing this decision? 14:20 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My door is open to every member of the House of Representatives, as the member for Calare knows, as other members here know as well, including members on both sides of the chamber. The question as to the detail, though, under the way that the EPBC Act operates, the minister has responsibility, and I'll ask her to respond to the question. 14:20 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Calare for his question. I have a lot of respect for the member for Calare, and he has been to my office to discuss this project with me, and he brought with him Scott Ferguson, the Mayor of Blayney, and I was pleased to meet with the Mayor of Blayney as well. I understand that the company in question want the cheapest, most cost-effective option for the building of their tailings dam. That's them doing their job for shareholders. Me doing my job for the parliament and people of Australia is applying the law on the basis of the evidence before me. There were people who wanted to stop this whole project. There were people who wanted it to go ahead completely unchanged. I have not taken either of those courses. What I've said is that the tailings dam cannot be built on the headwaters and springs of the Belubula River and that, if the company want to come back with an alternative design—they've told me they've looked at four sites; they've told me that they've looked at 30 different design options—they can do that. It is a 2½ thousand hectare site, and my section 10 declaration applies to 400 hectares of that 2½ thousand hectares. That's about 16 per cent of the existing site. So I haven't blocked the mine. My decision protects the headwaters and springs of the Belubula River. Just incidentally, I would say to the House I've actually ticked off more than 40 mining projects. This is not about a mining project; it's about making sure that when we tick off on mining projects they have all the necessary approvals, based on the evidence in front of me as the decision-maker. What I wouldn't do is do what those opposites seem to be doing, which is saying: 'We don't need to look at the evidence. We don't need to read the reports. We don't need to hear from the experts. We're just going to tick it off because we like the look of it.' That is not the way to make decisions, and it's exactly that attitude that led to the problems those opposite had with robodebt, carpark rorts, sports rorts, secret ministries, au pair visa scandals, Origin 360, Leppington triangle, Jam Land, the visa privatisation sandal. The list goes on and on. What people want is consistency— (Time expired) Cybersafety 25 14:23 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the Albanese Labor government's proposal for a national minimum age for social media protect children, help parents and teachers and change our country for the better? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. Indeed, this is about giving children a childhood and giving parents peace of mind. It is an important reform. As time has come, what we have done here is to engage with the eSafety Commissioner, engage with our department to make sure that we can make a difference for the legislation we want to introduce into parliament this year so that it can become the law of the land. Many parents and others can already, of course, make decisions about their families, to restrict their access to social media or, indeed, restrict their access to devices, but by making it a national law it will assist them. We know that peer group pressure is really important for young people at that age. We know that a decision of a national minimum age will support parents and will support teachers, because the banning of mobile phones in schools, when it has been implemented by state governments, has received extraordinary support. The state governments are, of course, out there campaigning as well. We had a discussion about this at National Cabinet on Friday. I welcome the fact that Premier Malinauskas had the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice French, do a 276-page report. We discussed making sure that there is a national approach so that we don't end up with different approaches across different states, and that has been welcomed by Premier Malinauskas. Indeed, I table his media release of today: 'Premier welcomes national support for social media ban for children'. This is an issue that does cross state borders. Social media does have a social responsibility, and it needs a social licence in order to operate as well. Some people have said that it will be difficult because people can change, with VPN numbers having escalated in places like the United States, where this has been tried, which is why we need to make sure that we absolutely get it right. That's why you do a trial—which is funded in the May budget—to make sure that you get it right. You do the research, you do the work, and then you can have the legislation and create the law to protect our children. Live Animal Exports: Sheep 26 14:26 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Prime Minister. In the gallery today are farmers whose livelihoods depend on the live sheep export industry. If the government continues with its ban on live sheep exports, Sudan is one country that will take up Australia's share of this market. Prime Minister, who has higher animal welfare standards—Sudan or Australia? 14:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. I met with the leadership of the National Farmers Federation once again earlier this morning to discuss this issue, just as I have had constructive discussions with sheep farmers here in Canberra and with their families in Kalgoorlie. One of the things that I pointed out was that, when the Leader of the National Party came into government in the first year, in 2014-15, 2.1 million sheep were exported by sea at a value of $224 million. In the last year in which they held office, there were 475,000 sheep exported by sea at a value of $80 million. Over the decade that the Liberals and Nationals were in government, live sheep exports by sea decreased by over 1.5 million head. That is just a fact of what occurred. At the same time, exports of sheepmeat have escalated to some $4 billion of value. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for Hume. I'll take a point of order from the Leader of the Nationals. Mr Littleproud 265585 On relevance, it was a very tight question about who had higher animal welfare standards—Sudan or Australia. We're a minute and a half in. I would ask, Mr Speaker, for your ruling: is the Prime Minister being relevant? The SPEAKER 53517 I understand your point of order, and I appreciate that that's the question that you're seeking an answer for, but you did also— The SPEAKER 53517 No. If you're talking about live sheep exports and you're talking about the government's position on what they've done about that issue—you didn't simply ask the question about Sudan; you had a preamble there. So, whilst the Prime Minister is able to talk— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. But he is being directly relevant. We just need to make sure—the Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, just with rulings you've given previously, with respect to when you're actually making a ruling: I respect completely that members will come to the dispatch box and raise a point of order, but the constant arguing back from the Leader of the Nationals on something as simple as the relevance rule, where everybody in the room knows this ruling has been given before, is just absurd. The SPEAKER 53517 What I try and do is: when people are on their feet and raising a point of order, I show them respect by listening carefully to what they say. I simply ask that the same be shown to me. The Prime Minister in continuation. Mr ALBANESE R36 Australia's lamb and mutton exports were worth $4.5 billion in 2022-23, they're escalating in places like the UK, and hopefully we'll have an announcement soon about an agreement with the UAE, whereas live sheep exports by sea were less than $77 million in that first year—less than 0.1 per cent of Australia's estimated agricultural production in that year. We're giving certainty to sheep producers and the supply chain by legislating the phase-out and investing— Mr Littleproud 265585 Look them in the eye! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to ask everyone to remain silent for the remainder of this answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 We're giving certainty to sheep producers in the supply chain by legislating the phase-out. We're investing $107 million to support an orderly and well-planned transition away from what is an already declining trade. That is how you provide support for people. Those opposite know that this trade will not resume. They know that it's been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they are playing politics rather than delivering. Mr Littleproud 265585 Look them in the eye! The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals has submitted the MPI today. He may have forgotten about it, but I haven't. I assume he wants to debate the topic that he raised which he's making noise about, so he can do that after question time. He'll have that right, but that's only going to be extended if he ceases interjecting for the remainder of question time. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 27 14:32 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel. As we mark World Suicide Prevention Day, why is swift action on the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide report important? 14:33 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the member for Spence for his very important question, and I recognise his advocacy for the veterans in his community and acknowledge his service in our Australian Defence Force. This morning, I joined Lifeline and my colleagues the member for Cooper and Senator Stewart at the Out of the Shadows Walk to remember those lost to suicide and reflect on the work ahead. Veteran suicide is a national tragedy. That's why we supported the establishment of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has confirmed some 1,677 known cases of suicide amongst serving and ex-serving personnel between 1997 and 2021. Some three years and thousands of submissions later, the royal commission has handed down their final report. It's the culmination of the most significant inquiry conducted into suicide and suicidality in our defence and veteran communities. The royal commission and all of us have heard the harrowing stories of serving members, former serving members and the family members of those who have taken their own lives. The report is comprehensive. It is some seven volumes long, containing over 3,100 pages and 122 recommendations. We're already putting in the work to properly understand and consider the recommendations and the detail behind them. It's incumbent on all of us—government, Defence, the ADF, the Department of Veterans' Affairs—to take the action necessary to identify and combat the drivers of suicide and suicidality in our defence and veteran community. We moved swiftly when we received the royal commission's interim report, taking action on all 13 of its recommendations. We recognise the urgency of the recommendations in this final report and we'll move swiftly to develop the government's response. I want to thank everyone who helped campaign for and who contributed to the royal commission for their bravery in sharing their often harrowing stories about their own experience in service and those who have given a voice to loved ones no longer able to share their own story. I also thank the commissioners for their important and sensitive work. One death is one too many. We must do what we can as quickly as we can to prevent suicide across our defence and veteran community. For those who require support, please reach out to Open Arms on 1800011046. 14:36 Mr JOYCE e5d New England on indulgence—I'd like to concur with the remarks of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and note the coalition's willingness to expedite the process as quickly as we can. I don't think there's any person in this House who wants to see one other person harm themselves, and it is incumbent upon all of us to do something. We all wear the responsibility of where this has come to, and we all wear the responsibility of finding, as best we can, some solution. But not for one second am I holding up a panacea and saying that what we will do will fix everything, but we will do our utmost. In conclusion, it's an incredible thing that some people sign on the dotted line knowing full well that they may get the order that brings an end to their life, and a culture that asks that is a culture that is sometimes a hard thing to rewind from. We understand that, and we acknowledge that the esprit de corps that is part of the Defence Force also relates to the huge loss that so many families have when they ask us for so much. We know that, deep in their hearts, what they really want is their mother, their father, their brother, their sister, their son or their daughter back, and that is one thing our chamber tragically is not able to provide to them. Western Australia: Economy 28 14:37 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Prime Minister. Today thousands of farmers from around Australia have travelled to Canberra, rallying against Labor's decision to ban live sheep exports and other antifarming policies. After two years of bad regulation, ideological rhetoric and job-killing policies, it has been reported that the mining industry, representing 10 per cent of GDP, took the Prime Minister's Minerals Week speech as a declaration of war. Can the Prime Minister explain why he is fixated on policies that hurt Western Australia, risk jobs and make life harder for families and businesses in my state? 14:38 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler That's a very broad question from the member for O'Connor, whose electorate I was in just last week—there in Collie, the place where there is going to be a nuclear reactor sometime in the 2040s or 2050s if those opposite are to be believed. We are yet to have any costings. We're yet to have a process, but that is what they say. Of course, Collie used to be, for a long time, a place where coalmining and the coal-fired power station were major generators of jobs and economic activity. But that is a region that is in transition. What is happening is that government is working with the private sector, including the resources sector, on that transition. There you can see, on the site right next to the power station, 500 people at work building a big battery that will store enough energy for 860,000 homes. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. Member for O'Connor, it's going to be very tough for you to take a point of order on relevance, so I'm giving you some— The SPEAKER 53517 No, let me finish. You'll get the call if you choose to take it, but, if you ask a broad question with all the topics in that question and the Prime Minister is talking about energy, mining and directly about Western Australia, which you asked about, it'll have to be a different point of order than relevance. You'll get the call. Member for O'Connor. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 It is a point of order on relevance. The question was about live sheep exports and the mining industry, not about energy. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'll ensure the Prime Minister remains directly relevant, which he is doing at the moment. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 That is an area that is in transition, successfully, just as some farming practices will change, successfully. I have faith in our farmers, and I have faith in our resources sector. When it comes to farmers, what we have done is, firstly, restore trade relationships on cotton, timber, oaten hay, barley and wine. It's pretty close between the resources sector and the farming sector—$20 billion of additional trade in exports that were gone prior to us being in government. We've delivered $1.1 billion for a connectivity plan for regional and rural Australia. Australia's red meat exporters are hitting record highs, with emerging markets accounting for unprecedented demand for locally processed beef and lamb. Mr Pasin 240756 What he's saying is you're all wrong. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is now warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 And might I say that this includes the live cattle industry, which has been very successful and which those opposite wanted to shut down. Those opposite called for the border to Indonesia to be shut down. That is what they called for. We've rescued biosecurity by pumping in $1 billion to protect industry from pests and disease while improving traceability. We are working to support our agriculture sector and our resources sector. Economy 28 14:42 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government reforming and strengthening Australia's economic institutions, and are there any obstacles? 14:42 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Bennelong for the considered way that he engages with the big issues in our economy. The Reserve Bank legislation before the House is all about modernising our central bank, strengthening its decision-making and making it more independent, not less independent. It seeks to implement the considered recommendations of the review, which reported about a year and a half ago and which has been in the public domain for a long time now. It's been the subject of a lot of welcome discussion and debate. The Reserve Bank governor herself is 100 per cent behind the changes and has said she wants to see them legislated. I want to thank her for her efforts working with the government to bed down the changes that have already been implemented. Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 As those opposite interject, I want to read to them a quote from a big supporter of the changes to the Reserve Bank: The recommendations of the review will clarify the Reserve Bank's monetary policy role, strengthen its governance arrangements, improve the transparency of its decision making, and deepen its economic expertise. …   …   … It is essential the implementation of the review be as bipartisan as possible … That's what the shadow Treasurer said about the recommendations of the review, and now he says he's going to vote against it. I have tried to work with the shadow Treasurer to implement the changes in a bipartisan way. Mr Taylor 231027 You're stacking the board! The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The member for Hume has been yelling non-stop all throughout question time. Mr Taylor 231027 I'm helping. The SPEAKER 53517 You're not helping. You're showing disrespect, so you'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Hume then left the chamber. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I've tried to work with the shadow Treasurer in a bipartisan way. I have accommodated every single one of the six issues that he raised with me. I have accommodated every single one of the concerns that he raised with me by making sensible changes to what had originally been proposed. I met with him, I arranged briefings for him, I engaged with him genuinely and respectfully, publicly and privately, on this really important matter. That's because my preference was and continues to be a bipartisan agreement between the major parties. I say, respectfully, I'd rather not deal with the crossbench in the Senate, because I want these changes to endure any future changes in government. That's why I tried to take the shadow Treasurer seriously, even if his colleagues don't. Unfortunately, all along in this process, we have been hostage to the shadow Treasurer's ability to carry an argument internally in his show. He has been unable to do that. If the House listens closely, they will hear the familiar sound of the shadow Treasurer getting rolled once again. The decision that they've announced today is irresponsible. It creates uncertainty, it's disappointing, but it's not surprising, because this is what happens when the opposition leader's destructive negativity collides with the shadow Treasurer's weakness. This is why they have no credibility on the economy; they're always looking for unnecessary conflict to distract from the fact that they have no credible or costed economic policies, and they won't tell us where $315 billion in cuts are going to come from. Economy 29 14:46 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Treasurer. Last week's national accounts data reveals the economy has shuddered to a halt, productivity is going backwards, real disposable income has collapsed, and Australians are paying more tax and more for their mortgages. RMIT economics professor Sinclair Davidson has said 'all the economic indicators are going the wrong way'. What is the government doing fighting with the RBA? Having created a disaster for Australian families, why is the Albanese Labor government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families go backwards? 14:47 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the honourable member for asking the question the shadow Treasurer was supposed to be asking before he got turfed out a few moments ago. The question goes to the pressures that people are feeling in our economy right now. We acknowledge them, but more than acknowledging them, we are doing something about it. It beggars belief in the context of an economy which is slowing considerably, an economy where people are under considerable cost-of-living pressure, that those opposite oppose our cost-of-living relief for people who are doing it tough. They've said they want to roll back the tax cuts, they've said they don't support helping people with their energy bills, they've said they don't support cheaper medicines or cheaper early childhood education. They've said that they said they don't support rent assistance. They obviously don't support getting wages moving again, because they deliberately presided over a decade of wage stagnation and wage suppression. So we won't be taking lectures from those opposite on responsible economic management. When we came to office, inflation was much higher and rising. It had a six in front of it'; it now has a three in front of it. When we came to office, those opposite had presided over the worst decade for productivity growth in the last 60 years. When we came to office, there were huge deficits, and we turned two of those deficits into substantial labour surpluses. When we came to office, real wages were falling 3.4 per cent, and they're growing again. When we came to office, nominal wages were stagnant; they're now growing, on average, almost twice as fast as they were under those opposite. That's a deliberate design feature of our economic policy to get wages moving again so that people can earn more and keep more of what they earn. The thing that really goes to the difference between the big parties in the parliament when it comes to the economy and the pressures people are feeling right around our country is that when we had an opportunity to give a tax cut to every single Australian taxpayer, we grabbed that opportunity, because we know people are doing it tough right up and down the income scale. If those opposite had their way, only some people would be getting a tax cut—people who are doing better than others. If those opposite had their way, there would be lower wages. If those opposite had their way, there would be no cost-of-living help for people doing it tough. If those opposite had their way, Australia would be in recession right now. We know that because they gave us a lot of free advice about cutting harder and harsher in the budget. We didn't take that advice, and that's because we're going for a soft landing in our economy, and those opposite want a crash landing in our economy because they think it suits their political purposes. Their time would be much better spent coming clean on the $315 billion in cuts—secret cuts—and telling the Australian people what those hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts will mean for Medicare— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Groom is warned. Dr CHALMERS 37998 and pensions and an economy which is already soft. Housing 30 14:50 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians with the housing pressures they face, and is there anything standing in the way of further support? 14:50 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Adelaide for his question, and this is a problem that I know he cares about very deeply, as I do and as my colleagues behind me do. Australia is in a housing crisis which has been a generation in the making, and this is a problem that is, today, affecting the lives of millions of people around our country. Why do we have a housing crisis? Because, over a period of decades, Australia has not been building enough homes. This is partly a failure of markets, but it's partly, too, a failure of governments. What we've seen, really since the postwar period, is the Commonwealth government work further and further back from this problem. If I can give you an example: in the preceding decade before Labor came to office, we saw the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments—for the majority of that period of coalition government, there was no Commonwealth housing minister. There was no person in the Australian government responsible for this problem. Unsurprisingly, this has changed under our government. Today, our country is led by a prime minister whose entire life trajectory was changed by his access to affordable housing in his childhood, and we have a $32 billion plan which is targeted at helping Australians manage these issues. Part of that plan is to build, build, build. We want to build 1.2 million homes, working with states, over a five-year period. We've got to do more to help renters in our country, and that's why you've seen our government make two very large increases to Commonwealth rent assistance and work with the states to improve renters' rights, and that's why we are making such an effort to help more Australians get into homeownership. I'm asked about whether there are any challenges to progress, and, unsurprisingly, there are really serious challenges to progress. We don't just have a broken housing market in this country; we have broken housing politics. What we have seen in the time that our government has been in power, in our successive attempts to make legislative change to address this crisis, is that the Greens on the crossbench and the Liberals that sit opposite me have teamed up in this incredibly dysfunctional alliance to try to stop us addressing this important issue for Australians. We have two bills that are sitting in the Senate at the moment, blocked by these two political parties, which will help us resolve this crisis for Australians. One of them will help us build more rentals. Why would anyone in this country be opposed to the building of more rentals? One of the pieces of the bill will help us encourage more low- and middle-income Australians into homeownership. This is a bill being opposed by political parties in this parliament. I'd say to those who are gathered in the chamber here: all of our constituents are affected by this problem. We need to come into this parliament and do our jobs, and that means coming into the parliament and working with our government to help Australians address this significant problem in their lives. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 30 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Schools Plus Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards 30 14:53 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Clark, I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are recipients of the Schools Plus 2024 Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards, awarded in recognition of great teaching and leadership in schools across Australia. On behalf of all members, I congratulate you and wish you a warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Gender and Sexual Orientation 31 14:54 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Prime Minister. In defending the census debacle, the Deputy PM said: We've seen how divisive debates have played out across our country, and the last thing we want to do is inflict that debate on a sector of our community right now. So, Prime Minister, if your government is so concerned about divisive debates, will you enact comprehensive vilification protections and appoint an LGBTQIA+ human rights commissioner and an equality minister? 14:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Clark for his question and for his longstanding advocacy for members of the LGBTQIA+ community. We value every Australian, and every Australian should be valued regardless of their sexual orientation or their identity. That is really important. In the development of the 2026 census, the ABS came to the government with potential changes it planned to trial, including changes it had not itself recommended for the census. We paused the process to make sure that we get it right so that there aren't the sorts of implications that were contained in the question by the member for Clark. The truth is that, for many people—if they're marginalised in parts of Australian society, we don't want to add to that and to the pressure which is there. We engaged with the community and had additional discussions with the ABS to make sure that we got the direction right, and I believe that we have and that we can move forward in a way that doesn't have precisely the unintended consequences that the Deputy Prime Minister was talking about. I would say it's the responsibility of everyone in this parliament to engage in debate respectfully and not to inflame community tensions. Sadly there are examples of that test being failed. The government will be introducing legislation this week to create new criminal offences and strengthen protections against hate crimes. These offences will protect the community, including the LGBTQIA+ community and other targeted groups, from the threat of force or violence and from those who would urge violence against them, which we know is only too real. Our government supports the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission. We already have in place a commission which works to ensure that the human rights of all Australians, including those from the LGBTQIA+ community, are protected. That is really important, and my government will continue to be committed to that and continue to work with the community towards that objective. Energy 31 14:57 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government lowering energy bills by delivering cost-of-living relief as well as delivering renewable energy backed up by batteries? What energy policies has the government rejected? 14:57 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend the fantastic member for Swan for her question. As the member knows, this government is providing energy bill relief in a couple of ways. There's direct relief, which was in the last budget, which is already flowing to Australian households—anybody who has an energy bill. Of course that comes at a cost of around $5 billion, which was included in the $315 billion of spending that the shadow finance minister said yesterday she was against. That gives us a pretty good idea about what the opposition thinks about direct relief for Australian households. In addition we have a plan to see the cheapest form of energy, renewables, backed up by transmission, backed up by gas peaking for reliability and backed up by batteries. Last week when I was in Gippsland, I was able to announce a big step forward for batteries in Australia when I announced the support, through the Capacity Investment Scheme, for six big batteries across South Australia and Victoria, including in Gippsland, which will support four hours of storage for a million houses across Victoria and South Australia. Of course we were also in Perth, where we announced that the Western Australian Capacity Investment Scheme has been massively oversubscribed, which shows a strong pipeline of batteries in Western Australia, which builds on what's already happening. The Prime Minister and I saw this firsthand when we spent Father's Day together down in Collie seeing the progress that's already been made: two big batteries under construction, one of which is enough for 20 per cent of the energy needs of south-west Western Australia—just one battery. This is what's happening today. These batteries, the ones that are supported under the Capacity Investment Scheme, will be open by 2027 and the two Collie batteries will be open by 2025—not 2035, not 2050 but 2025. There are alternative plans for Collie, which the Prime Minister and I also heard about—the first Prime Minister to visit Collie in 40 years, and the only candidate for Prime Minister in the upcoming election to visit Collie this term. We heard about the opposition's alternative plan as well. We don't know when it will happen. The member for Fairfax said, 'That'll be one of the early ones,' and Western Australian Senator Cash said, 'It'll be one of the late ones, around 2050.' So there are no details from the opposition. We also know that the opposition has said that they won't use any more water than the existing coal-fired power stations already use. The SPEAKER 53517 The Assistant Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS This means they'll only get about 1.5 gigawatts from anything in Collie, which shows that even their plans to get just four per cent of energy needs from nuclear will be underdone. This is what you get when you've got a scheme, thought up on the run, with no details. This compares with the detailed plans of the Albanese government—backed by the experts—for renewables, supported by batteries, supported by gas and supported by transmission— Mr BOWEN DZS The member for Fairfax should be more mindful and more demure. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 When the House comes to order I'll hear from the member for Menzies. Economy 32 15:01 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies My question is to the Treasurer. Last week's national accounts data shows that under Labor real disposable income has fallen by 8.7 per cent on a per capita basis. Independent economist Warren Hogan said, 'We are going backwards in terms of our living standards.' Having created a disaster for Australian families, why is the Albanese Labor government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families go backwards? 15:01 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Well, Mr Speaker, they've got a lot of nerve asking about incomes, having opposed all of our efforts to get incomes moving again in this country, after they presided over a decade of deliberate wage stagnation and wage suppression. We know this because former minister Mathias Cormann said the quiet bit out loud. He said that stagnant wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic policy architecture. We take a different view when it comes to incomes. Our view is that we needed to get wages moving again in our economy, and we are pleased to see that that's happening, because this side of the House is all about Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That's what we're on about. That side of the House is all about screwing people down. It's all about blaming working people and the most vulnerable for our inflation challenge in our economy. It's all about screwing people down and denying them the tax cuts that they need and deserve to get by at a difficult time. Their approach is all about denying people a bit of help with their electricity bills. Their approach is about denying people a bit of help with early childhood education fees. It's about denying people cheaper medicines and it's about denying people the wages growth that has been missing for too long in our economy. If they want to ask about the national accounts they should be upfront and say that if we had taken their advice Australia's economy would be in recession right now and people would be doing it even tougher. I invite those opposite and I invite the public beyond to think about the consequences of their $315 billion in secret cuts and what they would mean for incomes, what they would mean for living standards and what they would mean for an economy which is already barely growing. Their time would be better spent explaining to the Australian people what those $315 billion in cuts are, what they mean for Medicare, what they mean for pensions and payments and what they mean for an economy that we know has growth which is soft and subdued. What we have done in the little over two years that we've been in office—having inherited much higher and rising inflation, having inherited deficits as far as the eye can see, having inherited real wages falling substantially—is work diligently and collectively to try and turn things around, because we know, and as the Prime Minister said, what really matters in the economy is how people are faring. They would be doing it much tougher if those opposite had had their way when it comes to wages and when it comes to cost-of-living relief. So those opposite do have a lot of nerve asking about living standards when they spend most of their time trying to deny people the decent wages and the cost-of-living relief that they need and deserve at a time when they're under pressure and when growth in the economy is soft and subdued. National Disability Insurance Scheme 32 15:04 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What changes has the Albanese Labor government made to deliver better outcomes for participants and improve integrity in the NDIS? 15:05 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Bean. As people may be aware, he represents Norfolk Island as well as an area of Canberra. Before there was an NDIS, there were no disability services on Norfolk Island, and now nearly 50 people there receive NDIS support. They're part of the more than 661,000 people who are receiving support from this vital scheme. I'm pleased to tell Australians listening to question time that there's been a marked increase in participation rates in community and social activities for those on the scheme, and there's been a 10 per cent increase from those who have been on the scheme more than six years. I'm also pleased to report that, for young participants between 15 and 24, there are more of them now in paid employment, and it's also great that over half of all families and carers, 52 per cent, are reporting an increase in paid employment. Also, where it once took up to 100 days in many parts of Australia for a person with a disability, who was on the NDIS and was fit for discharge, to actually be able to leave hospital, we've got it down, in the first six months of the year, to an average waiting time of 17 days. These are all genuinely good outcomes that we've accomplished the last 2½ years. I'm also pleased to advise that the process to register most service providers—long overdue—is now well underway. I'm pleased to advise that we've now strengthened the safeguards commission, from 367 staff to nearly 1,000, as they're dealing with a lot more complaints and issues. Half of the NDIS board are now people with lived experience, and we've got the first Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander director of the scheme. We're also doing a lot more co-design than has ever happened before, with a range of activities including engagements, workshops, surveys, discussions and research in partnership with disability organisations. Importantly, also, we're cracking down on fraud. The tip-off volumes—because we now properly resource the agency—have increased have increased by 250 per cent. When we came to office there were fewer than 1,000 tip-offs a month, and now they're up to about 2½ thousand on average per month, with $779 million of NDIS funding being investigated. Over 11,000 NDIS participants who have been potentially impacted by fraud and non-compliance cases are now getting the justice they deserve. I'm able to say that at the end of June this year there were 100 active operations across the agency, the commission and Services Australia, and 531 investigations underway. A lot is being done and a lot has been done to straighten up the scheme. I'm also pleased that we secured parliamentary support for the legislation. I want to finish on a little note from Mr Robert Chataway in the electorate of Wright. He says: 'I commend the government on what you're doing to reduce rorting and poorly targeted spending to make the scheme more sustainable. My wife and I care for an intellectually disabled young man. He receives support from the NDIS, which is very helpful, but we've seen the misuse of funds and the potential for serious fraud.' And he concludes on this, 'I'm a former long-term supporter and member of the Australian Greens, and I'm incredibly disappointed in their opportunistic conduct with NDIS reform.' Housing 33 15:08 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the next decade, property investors like the Prime Minister will benefit from $176 billion in tax handouts in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. Published polling shows a large majority of the country support the Greens push to scrap negative gearing. Will Labor scrap these grossly unfair tax handouts to property investors that turbocharge house prices and hurt millions of ordinary people? The SPEAKER 53517 Before the Prime Minister answers the question, the first part of the question was inappropriate. It is not appropriate to mention someone's personal circumstances. 15:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I bet he doesn't mention it in their party room. I bet he doesn't do that! Or maybe to just the person next to him—he doesn't have to go to the party room. I bet, also, he doesn't talk about the housing problem when he's addressing a rally in Brisbane to defend corrupt conduct in the CFMEU. I bet he doesn't do that. Mr Bandt M3C On a point of order, if the first part of the member's question was ruled inappropriate, then surely that comment ought to be ruled inappropriate. Secondly, it is not relevant to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House, on the point of order. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, you didn't ask for the imputation of motives to be withdrawn in that question. And, given that it wasn't withdrawn, it should be completely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point out the conflicts of interest, the poor motives for somebody who has stood up and railed against action the government has taken against organised crime. And, if he's willing to stand up and make those sorts of statements and then wants to throw motives around here—you can't play with a glass jaw! If you throw that around, if comes back at you. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left are going to cease interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 including the member for Gippsland. The member for Griffith, on the point of order. Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 Surely that's a reflection on a member, and they should be forced to withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery is warned. I'm going to ask all members to be careful with their language and to show restraint. I didn't ask the member for Griffith to withdraw. I'm not going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 It is a fact the member for Griffith attended a rally in which they were—if you want to talk about offence—referring to members of this parliament as Nazis. And the member for Griffith stood in front of those signs. There is precedent for that sort of thing, and the member for Warringah was rightly condemned then, at the time, for standing outside this chamber, inside, with those sorts of signs and that sort of behaviour. And you are rightly condemned too. I will say this to the member for Griffith, Renee Coffey won't be found anywhere near one of those demos, because she is concerned about it. And I'll say this as well: Renee Coffey would vote for more houses, in this House and in the Senate. She would vote for the build to rent scheme that the member for Griffith has voted against. She wouldn't have held up the Housing Australia Future Fund; Renee Coffey would have voted for it straight away, not held it up. As well, Renee Coffey would support and vote for the same policy that we have, that those opposite, from time to time, have said that they have and that's in the Greens Party platform—that is, a shared equity scheme. Renee Coffey won't be shy about that when she occupies this chamber after the next election. The member for Griffith says he cares about housing but never takes an opportunity to actually vote for it. If you want more social homes, vote for them. If you want more rental properties, vote for them. If you want more private homeownership, vote for it. It's pretty simple. Renee Coffey understands that, and I was very honoured to launch her campaign in Griffith. Renee Coffey wants more homes because those will be more doors that she can knock on! Aviation Industry 34 15:14 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What steps is the Albanese Labor government taking to ensure that the Australian aviation sector delivers better outcomes for Australian travellers? Are there any risks to these better outcomes being delivered, Minister? 15:14 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Paterson for her question and for her tireless advocacy for our investment in the Newcastle Airport. Our government is, of course, in the midst of an ambitious series of aviation reforms. The Aviation white paper we've released includes 56 policies that will boost consumer rights, increase transparency and scrutiny of our airlines and our airports, and deliver better outcomes for travellers with a disability. Our reforms to Sydney airport, the most significant undertaking since the 1990s, which are already being implemented will boost access to new entrants, crack down on anticompetitive behaviour and grow competition in our most important airport. We're also building a new airport at Western Sydney that will massively grow access to the Sydney Basin and will significantly change the aviation landscape, particularly when it comes to freight. We're working closely with the voluntary administrators at Rex to maintain regional connectivity, including through our regional flights guarantee. We are taking a considered and consistent approach designed to put downward pressure on airfares, which, despite some hyper-inflated rhetoric, are already back down below pre-COVID levels. We're delivering a more responsive and more competitive aviation sector for all Australians, and it couldn't be a bigger contrast to what those opposite are doing. We are introducing slot reforms, which they did not do; increasing transparency, which they did not do. The only consistency they've had when it comes to their bumbling around in aviation policy is, frankly, their inconsistency. Yesterday morning, Senator McKenzie threatened the coalition would force divestiture of Jetstar. An hour later, the Leader of the Nationals said it wasn't coalition policy because 'we haven't got the evidence'. Then just before lunchtime, according to coalition sources, the Leader of the Opposition sent Senator McKenzie out to clean up the growing mess. Yesterday afternoon, we thought that was the end of it—a bit of fun in question time, draw a line under it—but there she was again, out there. A free thought bubble from the rogue National Party senator was killed off by lunchtime by the Liberals, but, by the evening, Senator McKenzie was at it again, contradicting her own midday press conference, doubling down. Yesterday, we had Senator McKenzie agreeing with herself in the morning, disagreeing with herself by the afternoon and then agreeing with herself again by the evening as well. Well, frankly, what is going on over there? You know, who is running this show? Senator McKenzie gives plenty of us plenty of advice to everybody else, everybody else, including to those opposite. Here's some in return: when you're in a big hole, stop digging. Mr Albanese R36 On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 35 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Asean-Australia Special Summit 35 15:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I've had discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and it's agreed that, on Wednesday 9 October, which is the next sitting week—in order to give people notice of meetings—question time will be held at 10 am on the Wednesday until 11:10. The ASEAN conference is on that week. We hosted the ASEAN leaders here in Melbourne earlier this year. It's obviously a very important relationship, of which I'll be representing Australia. The media will be travelling up with us as well, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support for that. The Leader of the House will, of course, put the requisite motion on the Notice Paper. But I wanted to make sure that people kept that part of their diary free given that people make arrangements in advance. I'm advising the House at the earliest opportunity. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 35 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Members of Parliament: Guests 35 15:18 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a concern about guests signed in by members of parliament to the gallery, in particular during question time. The Leader of the Nationals asked a question to the Prime Minister and indicated that guests supporting, or objecting, to the live sheep lobby were in the gallery and pointed to the gallery here. When they decided to leave, a gentleman in jeans, black T-shirt, overweight and bald flipped the bird— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking for that comment to be withdrawn, but— The SPEAKER 53517 Well, I'm just reading your mind. Resume your seat. I'm going to allow the member for Warringah, perhaps in not so many details, to continue on with the question to me—to get to the question to me. Ms STEGGALL 175696 For the benefit of the Speaker, the description is so that that person may be identified from video content. Upon leaving the gallery, they flipped the bird—the finger—to the chamber and in doing so looked to the Leader of the Nationals for support. Honourable members interjecting— Ms STEGGALL 175696 Now, that is, again— Mr Littleproud 265585 Be very careful. I'm saying: you be careful. Ms STEGGALL 175696 Are you threatening me? Leader of the Nationals, are you threatening me? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Ms STEGGALL 175696 Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Nationals thinks it's appropriate to threaten me. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Leader of the Nationals, resume your seat. The deputy leader, it's difficult to take a point of order in the middle of a question to me, just as you can't during a question. Think of it like question time. Can you just allow the member to finish her question, and then I'll give you the call. Ms STEGGALL 175696 I've identified the gentleman because, clearly, he has been signed in by a member of parliament to attend the gallery. That conduct is not becoming of a visitor to the chamber. It is a reflection on the Speaker and all of us here, and I do take offence at that behaviour. If we are here to improve standards, it has to come from all, including visitors. So, I ask the Speaker: is that appropriate conduct for a signed-in guest in the public gallery? I also point out that I do take offence to the threat that was made to me by the Leader of the Nationals—that I should 'be careful'. That is not appropriate conduct in this chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 You've asked the question. The deputy leader is now— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right. Any member is entitled to ask me a question after question time regarding conduct to the House and the operations of the House. So, everyone just show respect. Now, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been waiting patiently for a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN I did stand up earlier because I thought that that body-shaming remark by the member for Warringah was disgraceful. The pejorative description of a member of our public gallery should be withdrawn immediately. The SPEAKER 53517 On the point of order, does the member for Warringah wish to withdraw that descriptor? Ms STEGGALL 175696 No, because I would like the video footage to be identified. 15:22 The SPEAKER 53517 The identification is the issue there. I'm going to deal with this issue because what the member has raised is a serious issue. I want to remind all visitors and people who are guests of members: there are established forms of behaviour. Members in the gallery are not here to participate; they are here to observe. I'm asking all members, when they sign in guests or offer guests tickets to— Mr Rick Wilson 198084 It's a public gallery! The SPEAKER 53517 Member for O'Connor, I'm answering a question. This is a message to all members of the gallery not to interject, converse or signal. I further remind all members: if you do invite guests to the gallery, I consider their conduct to be a reflection on you. I want to be clear that, if this behaviour continues, the privilege may be revoked, just as it has been done in this term. Visitors of the public are welcome here to observe. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Presentation 36 15:23 Mr BURKE DYW Watson This document is 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. Document made a parliamentary paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Albanese Government 36 15:24 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Nationals proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This government's anti-farming and anti-resources agenda I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than t he number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:24 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Today, we saw out the front of the Australian parliament farmers forced to travel from Western Australia, from right across this country, to protest against the government, something they have not done for 40 years. Such is the siege that they have been under since the Albanese government was elected 2½ years ago. They feel as though their livelihoods and their future have been torn up because of the ideology of some that want to save the world but forget about their important place in producing the food and fibre of this country—those Western Australian farmers that have come across the Nullarbor, that have had their livelihoods taken away, the live sheep export industry, without an explanation. If this government has the courage of its conviction and says that it wants to shut this down because it's an inhumane industry, then go to Katanning and face these people. Look them in the eye and explain the science. Let me explain the science for them. I was the agriculture minister when there was a mistake. The Awassi boat and the horrific incident there was fixed, and we fixed it with reform. We are the only country in the world that measures our boats in success from animal welfare standards and not through mortality. We actually measure, to the millimetre, the length of wool on each sheep before we put them on a boat and, to the kilogram, the weight of those sheep. We independently score each boat for the air flow that goes through that boat to be able to give them the carrying capacity that they can have. We've also put independent observers that actually count the pants per minute of a sheep on those boats. Once they hit a certain number, then there are measures taken to ensure that that heat stress is taken away. That is science. That is leading the world. Instead, what the Albanese government has done is cut and run. And what that will do is see the perverse and horrific death of millions of sheep from other parts of the world, from those parts of the world that will take this market up—from Sudan, Ethiopia and South Africa. Let me tell you: they don't work on animal welfare. They don't work even on mortality numbers, in measuring any success of a shipment. They simply put as many sheep as they possibly can on a boat, and they get paid for what's left over. Those that want to shut Australia out of this industry are morally bankrupt. Those that sit there and say Australia cannot do this and Western Australians can't do this are morally bankrupt. We will see horrific animal welfare outcomes. We will see 3,000 livelihoods in Western Australia torn up all because of ideology, all because animal activists did a deal with the Albanese government to get their preferences in the last federal election. Where is the courage of their conviction to stand up and face these people and explain that science? They won't, because they can't. For the Prime Minister to quote numbers in here that the industry is in decline—it is actually in incline. For those years that the Prime Minister talked about, where there was a steep decline, what he might want to understand is that there was this little thing called the drought. On the eastern seaboard, we de-stocked. We had nothing left because we didn't have the water and we didn't have the feed. If it weren't for Western Australian sheep producers, we wouldn't have got the two million sheep that were brought across when it started raining. They got east coast farmers up off their knees and gave them a livelihood. That's why they weren't put on a boat—because they were sent across the Nullarbor to save us. Western Australia saved the east coast straight after the drought. But to sit there and arbitrarily say, 'Bad luck, it's all over,' without even the courage to turn up to Katanning, to have meetings at the back of Parliament House here—he didn't even have the courage to walk out here and explain the science. If you want to lead this country and you're going to take away someone's livelihood and you're going to change their lives, then have the courage to stand up there, look them in the eye and explain the science. But that's before you even get to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a plan that these people put in place. The Labor Party put this plan in place in 2012. That plan they have now walked away from. And what they are saying to every Australian is that they are going to take an extra 450 gigalitres off farmers and they're going to shove it down a river where they can't even physically get it down—taking away livelihoods, taking away your food security and driving up your food prices. This is the insanity of a plan that they implemented. The member for Riverina, who's sitting here next to me, proudly stood against that and voted against that, and I acknowledge him for that. But we, when we were in government, made sure that we implemented a plan that didn't go towards buybacks. They are a brutal instrument on the communities that are left behind, because the farmer takes the money and runs to the coast. It's the machinery dealer. It's the irrigation shop. It's the local CRT. It's the local hairdresser. They're the ones that are left behind with nothing. They're the ones who are left to pick up the pieces, without the jobs and without the income. They're the ones that are being destroyed by a change in the government's very own plan to take another 450 gigalitres in buybacks. Buybacks will destroy regional Australia, but they're also going to destroy Australia's food security and push up your food prices. We stand committed to making sure that the plan that is put through here is common sense. We'll return water to the environment through infrastructure—with the smarts—backing a country with technology and science. We'll use infrastructure to give it back to the environment, not take it out of communities. That's common sense and that's what we intend to do. We're going to bring back the ag visa that was ripped away by those opposite, the ag visa that the Vietnam government had signed up to. Subsequently, we learnt in Senate estimates that Senator Wong, the foreign minister— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Solomon— Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 I think he's gone. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 He'll be called back in to withdraw that. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 That was highly disorderly. You have the call, Leader of the Nationals. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Senator Wong subsequently had requests from other ASEAN countries to take up the ag visa, and this government has turned its back on them. I actually went to their job summit, to be constructive and to say what regional Australia's issues were. I told them we needed workers out there. The NFF and COSBOA said we needed another 172,000 workers to get food from the paddock to Australians' plates—and all we got was the Pacific scheme, at best 42,000 people. All they did was change the Pacific scheme. That was unworkable. When you take away the ag visa farmers have nothing. What they do is make investment decisions. You don't plan a crop or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to plan a crop if you can't pick it. That's economics. So what we have seen is farmers lose their confidence in investing, which is driving up food prices because they don't have the tools. Now this government wants to take away the 88-day rule for backpackers. What happens when you come to Australia as a backpacker is if you go and work in the bush for 88 days you get another 12 months to stay in Australia. The unions want this taken out. They've got a paper out there at the moment, wanting to rip this away from country towns—not only farmers, but country pubs. You won't have pubs if you take it away. That's what we'll get back to—it's common sense and it will give certainty back to Australian farmers. It's also about the bill that was passed yesterday, the financial market infrastructure bill, which not too many people have heard about. What it means is that the government is going to force the reporting of scope 3 emissions. Now, some might say, 'What does it mean?' What it means is that if you've got a turnover of over $500 million—that is, a bank—and you've got customers, what you've got to be able to do is report the scope 3 emissions of all of your customers. That means a little old cocky in western Queensland in my electorate who runs 5,000 sheep and probably 5,000 acres of grain has to be able to give his emissions profile to his bank. Even from the Treasury's own numbers, that is going to cost the Australian taxpayer $2.3 billion in administrative costs, which has to be passed on to you. We saw in Blayney last week that they're shutting down a gold mine, and the environment minister is saying, 'They can still do it.' She might want to go out there and have a look at it. If you stand on that mine site and see where you can actually place a dam, there's this thing called topography. Water runs a certain way. You can't just whack a dam in any part of that, particularly a tailing dam. For a company that spent $300 million and five years of investment in 800 jobs in Blayney—it has been cut out. The local Indigenous representative group that is recognised by law said that while it didn't support the mine they didn't oppose it. The New South Wales environment department, the New South Wales EPA, approved it. Even Minister Plibersek's environment department approved it. But for some reason she has listened to some other Indigenous group, and she will not release the statement of reasons. I would have thought that that's owed to Regis. It's owed to the people of the Central West of New South Wales so that they have certainty and an understanding of why the minister has declined an 800-job mine and a billion dollars of investment. That is what regional Australians are cranky about and that is what has brought them to Canberra. When the Prime Minister was elected he made this grand statement: 'No-one held back. No-one left behind.' Well, that's unless you live in regional Australia. That's what they're feeling and that's why they were out there today. 15:34 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin What an interesting contribution that was from the Leader of the Nationals—I mean, seriously! I'm actually pleased to be given the opportunity to stand up here and talk about our record investments that will support our critical industries of agriculture and resources, which is what this MPI is actually supposed to be about, because we do have record investments supporting both the resources sector and the agriculture sector. We have invested over $3 billion in new investments in agriculture since we came to office, including fixing up the messes that they left behind. You talk about a world renowned biosecurity system keeping out pests and diseases in this country; we've invested over a billion dollars in extra funding to be able to secure that. Those opposite left it in deficit and left it in a mess, and we had been cleaning it up. What about the APVMA? We all remember what a mess that was—an absolute mess. We had chemicals in this country that had not been checked for more than a decade. We also have these two critical industries, resources and agriculture, which we know are going to pay a critical part on our road to net zero, and we have legislation that's being debated in the parliament—we just had some votes on it yesterday, and it's on its way to the Senate—called the Future Made in Australia Bill. What does the Future Made in Australia do? It supports the critical minerals industry, in Western Australia particularly. It also provides opportunities for our agriculture industry when it comes to low carbon biofuels. It will provide a lot of support to both of those industries to be able to actually make more here in this country, and, for some reason, those opposite are opposed to it. It will create more regional jobs, and those opposite are opposed to it—a future made in Australia. I cannot believe that even the Nationals—I can see a grin over there. This is a serious bill about making sure that we make more of the opportunities and our great raw products here in Australia. Both the agriculture and the resources sectors provide great raw products in this country, and we want to do everything we can do to support them. When it comes to agriculture, this financial year, the agriculture sector will contribute $84 billion to Australia, the majority of which, over $70 billion, is in exports. So what have we been doing as a government? We've been trying to open up trade markets and repair our international relations which those opposite decimated when they were in government. We all know that has actually been one of the things that our government has been recognised and praised for around the world—restoring those trade relations, particularly when it comes to places like China. Indeed, we had $17.2 billion in agriculture, fisheries and forest products going into China in the last financial year. But we know that, when those opposite were in government, there were some serious issues. The Prime Minister, today, talked about our red meat going into China. He talked about our bottled wine going back into China. He talked about our barley going back into China. He talked about our oat and hay going back into China. We have worked diligently not just with China but to diversify our trade markets, so we've also maintained access to canola for the EU. We've got new access for live eastern rock lobsters for Vietnam. We've improved access for wine in Thailand. We've got new access for hass avocados to Thailand. Just yesterday, the trade minister and I announced access of plums to Vietnam. We've maintained access for queen bees exported to Canada. We've improved dairy access for products to Chile. We've got new market access for Australian honey and edible aquaculture products to be exported to Vietnam. If you want to add it all up, we've actually got, just in the last financial year, 88 technical market access achievements, of which 10 are new markets, 44 are improvements to existing markets and 29 are actions to maintain and restore existing markets. These are worth $4.6 billion, just when you talk about restoring the existing markets we had and maintaining them. This is very significant support for our agriculture sector, because we know how important it is. It's important to the country. We know what happened during COVID: our producers produced and kept this country going to make sure that we could keep our supply chains going and Australians were fed. We know how critical it is. What we need to do is continue to support them. Our National Reconstruction Fund will have specific money set aside for agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and, indeed, they're eligible to apply for that now. That, together with the Future Made in Australia, will provide enormous opportunities for the sector in this country to be able to continue to grow. We're working on the agriculture and land sector plan with the industry so that they can get the benefits from our Road to Net Zero. There are huge opportunities here for diversifying income on-farm. There are huge opportunities for increase in productivity, as we're going to need to invest in lots of research and development when it comes to reducing emissions on-farm. We heard from the member opposite about scope 3 emissions. What we have said very clearly is that these need to be collected only where there's not a huge cost and they are available. That is the truth of the matter. The member over there, the Leader of the Nationals, has been running a bit of a scare campaign on this. We've also heard all sorts of rumours about how we're going to change the diesel fuel rate—again, untrue. He was up here talking about the 88-day working visa—they are the ones that removed that requirement when they did the trade deal with the UK. It was actually their government that removed it. Seriously! He talked about the ag visa; nobody came to Australia for nine years under their ag visa. It didn't actually do anything. We're serious about the workforce. We have changed PALM. Importantly, with our fee-free TAFE, we have also got more than 14,000 people doing agriculture studies that wouldn't have otherwise been doing it. We have actually been working when it comes to workforce. We've been working when it comes to improving our biosecurity system. We've improved the AMA. We've opened up trade markets. We are working incredibly hard to make sure that our agriculture sector continues to thrive. I know my colleague Madeleine King has also been working hard when it comes to our resources sector. Indeed, modelling shows that by processing more onshore our critical minerals industry could generate close to an extra $70 billion in GDP. That would increase jobs in regional Australia. We've invested $3.4 billion for the Resourcing Australia's Prosperity program, for Geoscience Australia to identify the likely locations of the critical mineral deposits to make sure that we can access them and get the benefits. We know that other countries are trying to get onto the critical minerals because we all know that they're going to be vital for the road to net zero, but we want our country to take those opportunities. We do not want to be left behind as a country, which is why we're making these investments. The value of our resources projects is more than $13 billion in investments that we are making to support the resources sector in Australia. The Prime Minister and the cabinet have been over to Western Australia several times—I've been over to Western Australia, and I'll be travelling to Western Australia again in coming weeks—to work with the state government on the transition in terms of the phase-out of live sheep exports. We are very serious about engaging with the Western Australian community, working with the Western Australian government and making sure that we get the best for Western Australians. Mr McCormack 219646 You should be out on the lawns. Ms COLLINS HWM I have been out to Launceston on a sheep farm, actually, talking to them. Ms COLLINS HWM I thought you said 'Launceston'. I have been talking to farmers right across the country, from Cairns all the way down to the south of my electorate, for just over a month, since I've had the agriculture portfolio. I am very keen to engage with the sector. I want to make sure that our farmers get the very best representation, as they did under former Minister Murray Watt, and I want to continue that important and vital work. The other thing that I want to ensure is that farmers' voices are heard in this place, and that those opposite don't get away with telling furphies about what's going on for our region and for our farmers. We heard a lot of stuff from the Leader of the Nationals over here that simply isn't true. Interestingly, at the rally today, I was really surprised to see the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party standing up behind their leader, Peter Dutton, particularly given she was in here moving private members' bills to do the exact same thing that she is now saying she doesn't support. I mean, seriously! We had the Leader of the Nationals out there also. Surprisingly, he came in here and talked about the Murray-Darling Basin—I understand that he actually had farmers attack him and ridicule him for what they did in government when it comes to water and the Murray-Darling Basin. They're not very happy with him, so perhaps he should be honest with farmers about what's going on. Our government is providing record investments when it comes to resources and when it comes to agriculture. We want to make sure that both of these industries get the support they need in terms of the Road to Net Zero. It's important that we support them, because we know that their critical support and the things that they will be required to do as we go down the Road to Net Zero will mean that they are continuing to receive a high yield for our great products around the world. If we don't do that, they're not going to continue to get the market access that they deserve. We'll continue supporting them and Western Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the member for Solomon seeking the call? Mr Gosling 245392 Yes. I'm here to withdraw an interjection. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. I remind all members in the chamber and anyone listening that interjections, even from your own seat, are disorderly behaviour. But, as you leave the chamber, interjecting is highly disorderly. So let's conduct this debate without offending the standing orders. 15:44 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page There is, unfortunately, in this country right now a huge divide between inner-city, elite MPs and the country and its farmers. That's not me saying that— A government member interjecting—Rubbish! Mr HOGAN 218019 I hear interjections from opposite, but that's not me saying that. You know who's saying that? Mr HOGAN 218019 It's the thousands of farmers who are out there today and who I'm sure the member for Lyons wouldn't have gone anywhere near. It's not me saying that; it's the thousands of farmers who were out there today saying there is a big divide between inner-city, elite MPs—you can feel the sanctimony dripping in this place at times. The sanctimony is no heavier than it is over there with the teals and the Greens inner-city MPs, but certainly there's a fair share of inner-city Labor MPs from whom sanctimony drips heavy. That's not me saying that. That was from the farmers out the front of this building today, who were saying inner-city, elite MPs do not understand what they do, do not come and talk to them about what they do and have, again, hypocrisy over what they do. Deputy Speaker, you'll remember just a couple of weeks ago that we were talking about another divide between inner-city, elite MPs and the country, and that was over the transmission system for solar panels and wind turbines. We saw that inner-city MPs—the teals, the Greens and the Labor ones—didn't want any solar panels or wind turbines on North Head, but, gee, let it rip out in the country. And here again today it's the same thing. There were about four or five themes out there today, but the driving one was the inner-city MPs' ideological hatred of live export—that's what drove today's rally. I'd be interested—and I'm happy to stand corrected—if any of these entitled, inner-city, elite MPs want to come in and tell me they have been to Katanning. I have. I've been over there to speak to the sheep producers there. I've been onto a live export ship to see, as the Leader of the Nationals just articulated, that a lot of work has happened. No industry is perfect, and mistakes have been made. But, gee, a lot of good work has happened in the live export industry over the last five or six years. We lead in animal welfare around the world. But, again, there's this ideological obsession of the entitled elite, inner-city MPs who think they know best and say: 'We'll tell you what you can do. We'll tell you what you can't do. We know best, from our inner-city, leafy suburbs, about what you should be doing out on the farms that you have.' That was one of the really heavy themes out there. But I also want to make the point to those opposite that when you say to countries like Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who want to import live sheep, 'The industry of exporting live sheep is not okay,' you're saying to those countries, 'What you want and the fact that you want it are not okay.' That's what you're saying. That's damaging to trade relationships. That, again, is the entitled attitude that these inner-city MPs have. They think they know best. They're saying to Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, 'The fact that you want to import live exported sheep is bad; you shouldn't do that.' That's what they are saying. Again, you shouldn't be surprised. I'm not surprised that our inner-city, elite MPs think like that, but it is disappointing for the industries and the people who are trying to make money out of that industry. As we said to the farmers out there today, on the election of a Dutton-Littleproud government we will reverse that decision and let the live export of sheep continue. There were a number of other themes. The other one, certainly, was water. The other thing that the entitled inner-city MPs don't want—the minister for the environment, being an inner-city MP herself, doesn't want farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin to have all the water they have now. She's taken water away from them. What does that mean? That means our farmers don't have the water that they otherwise would have to grow food and fibre in this country. I was going to go into the Minerals Council resources dinner last night. They're not happy with the government. The Prime Minister said, 'No-one held back, no-one left behind'. Well, you're doing a lot of that, Prime Minister. 15:50 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise today to make a contribution towards this debate, and I do feel like I need to give the National Party and the members of the National Party a bit of a 101 on how to organise a rally. I've organised a few in my time, not just here as the federal member—I do confess I've helped organise a few—but also in my life before. Rule No. 1 in organising a rally is: do not overinflate the number of people who come, because you will get called out. There weren't thousands of people out on the lawns. You'd be lucky to have had a hundred farmers, and then all the staffers stacked it out to probably about 400 people. So rule No. 1 in rally organising 101 is: do not overinflate the number of people at a rally, because you will get called out and usually by your own. Rule No. 2 relates to the rallies that happened in my electorate over the break. We had the bush summit in my electorate—mine is, you know, a bush electorate. We had the Rural Press Club hold an event, and the National Party in Victoria bussed in some farmers to protest against the Premier of Victoria. To show you how ridiculous this MPI is, because it tries to link farming and resources: some of the signs that the farmers had at the rally in Bendigo included, 'Save our farms, no mines,' and 'Farming, not mining.' These are signs that stacked-out National Party rallies had in my electorate. There was also, 'Farmers say no to mineral sands on the Wimmera,' but possibly my favourite was, 'Grains of wheat, not uranium.' This was at a National Party rally. I have to say, I said to those farmers: 'I'm with you. Grains of wheat, not uranium. Our party is opposed to nuclear energy.' So, another rule in the 101 of organising rallies is: make sure you get the message right to the constituents who are turning up if you want to get a clear message out about what you're rallying about. If you're going try and organise a political protest, be organised. That's the 101 of organising a rally. At the moment you're trying to please two constituencies, big energy—big mining—and big farming, and it's not working. In my part of the world, central Victoria, we do have the balance of mining and farming. We have goldmining that is growing and going gangbusters. We've rediscovered gold in Bendigo. I'm the first to stand here and say that I'm really proud of what our local mining industry is doing and the way in which they are working not just with our local farmers and agricultural community but also with our First Nations community. Fosterville goldmine has about a thousand workers, including contractors, and Mandalay Resources over in Costerfield are also mining gold. We have significant mining work going on, and it's a demonstration of what can be done well when you bring people together in a collaborative way where you don't try and blow up the relationships, like we are seeing to the north of my electorate and to the west of my electorate. I just don't know how the member for Mallee—who I notice isn't speaking on this—can reconcile those two issues: 'Grains of wheat, not uranium' and 'Farming, not mining of mineral sands.' They're at this stage where the farmers in the Mallee are starting to call for a moratorium on mining farming land because they don't want mining going on. The Nationals are heading for a collision within their caucus room—a collision between their original constituency, the farming community, and then their big mining mates. To give you an example of the mining mates that have moved into the north, Gina Rinehart has an interest to the north. These are the kinds of interests that are coming back into Victoria, and it's a problem that they've created because of the way in which they've fuelled misinformation and disinformation in communities. In the government, on our side, we believe in bringing people together and in finding common ground to work through smart policy. We want to make sure that new resource projects stack up economically and environmentally. We want to make sure that, when people are investing in these, the local constituents, the local people who might be concerned, have their day and can raise their concerns, but that then decisions are made based on the law—that we've applied the law to all projects. I can see that rolling out in my state of Victoria, as well as in other parts of the country. We also want to make sure that, when we are farming, we are doing it in a way that is collaborative and we're supporting and embracing new farming technologies and new farming methods. 15:55 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Australian farmers are the backbone of our nation, and their contribution extends far beyond putting food on our tables. In my electorate of Capricornia, over 73,900 people are directly employed in the agriculture sector. The dominant form of farming here is cattle production, with 768 dedicated cattle graziers working the land to sustain our thriving beef industry. Farmers across Capricornia contributed an astounding $1.88 billion in gross value product for the 2023-24 financial year, but that's just the beginning. This industry alone employs 270,000 Australians, and nearly 37 per cent of those workers are outside our major cities. These aren't just numbers. They represent how agriculture is the lifeblood of rural communities. It sustains families, businesses and entire regions. Our farmers ensure Australia's food security, and without them we would be far more vulnerable to global shocks and supply chain disruptions. The hard work of our farmers doesn't end in the paddock; it continues when they come together to share knowledge and advance their industry. Beef2024—these events are held every three years—is one such event that attracts graziers not only from across Australia but from across the globe. This year the impact of Beef2024 on the Rockhampton region was nothing short of remarkable, injecting an astounding $102 million into the local economy. This event showcases the critical role agriculture plays in supporting local businesses, creating jobs and driving economic growth in our community. However, the importance of the agriculture industry is lost on a government who bows to the loud voices in the inner city. Since taking office, the Albanese Labor government has consistently targeted regional Australia with policies that have hit our farmers hard. As the backbone of our agriculture sector, they are now facing increased challenges due to Labor's misguided approach. Rather than offering the support needed to sustain the industry that feeds both Australia and the world, Labor's decisions have led to greater uncertainty and instability and mounting pressure on our farmers. One of the most detrimental actions taken by the Albanese Labor government was scrapping the agriculture visa. Industry leaders have made it clear that Australian agriculture is in desperate need of more workers, with an estimated shortfall of 172,000 people. Despite these warnings, Labor's decision has left farmers without the necessary workforce to keep operations running smoothly. The government's heavy reliance on the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme has only worsened the situation. Additionally, Labor proposed a fresh food tax which would force farmers to bear the financial responsibility for biosecurity risks introduced by international competitors. Labor's assault on farmers extends beyond workforce challenges, more red tape and taxes. They are also undermining the critical infrastructure that supports water security and boosts agricultural productivity. By stripping billions of dollars from vital water infrastructure projects, Labor is putting the future of Australian agriculture at risk. In their first budget, Labor stripped $483 million of funding from the Urannah Dam, a project which would deliver water security for Central Queensland farmers. Yet the blatant hypocrisy of the Labor Party is to rush to Rookwood Weir only weeks ago to officially open this coalition-funded project. It's ironic that Labor pretends to support water projects one week, then the next week axes 970 gigalitres from Urannah Dam, killing off water security for 20,000 hectares of prime agricultural land. Those opposite are quick to cut the ribbon on coalition-funded projects but refuse to invest in the very initiatives that could drive growth in our regions. These cuts are not just an attack on our farmers but an attack on the entire agricultural supply chain. Every dollar invested in water projects brings exponential returns, ensuring that our farmers can continue to thrive, even during challenging weather conditions. By pulling funding from these essential initiatives, Labor is not only jeopardising the livelihoods of farmers but also threatening the stability of rural communities and the broader Australian economy. Australian farmers are staring down the barrel of a government who doesn't care for the work they do to create jobs and growth, while also driving up the cost of every Australian's grocery bill. Labor's agriculture policies are nothing short of shameful, reckless and blatantly ideological. As I did today at the National Farmer Rally, and as I have done every day of my four terms as the member for Capricornia, I will stand with farmers and fight to keep farmers farming. 16:00 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Firstly, I want to say how proud I am to be the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture. We work collectively and in a bipartisan way with both members of the opposition and the crossbench. Earlier this year, we were asked to conduct an inquiry into the phasing out of live sheep exports, and I'm pleased the member for Lyons and the member for Hasluck are both in the House with me today, talking about this matter of public importance. I want to say to the 3,500 people that came along to our inquiry, many more than were here today—but I understand that distance can be a tyranny. They came to the Muresk Institute to hear the inquiry, and I understand it is a concern for the farming community. I want to acknowledge that sheep farmers in the west are concerned about this. I acknowledge that, and I thank them for their efforts and the input they had into our inquiry. It is now the law that the trade will cease from 1 July 2028, and it won't be revisited. But what our government wants to do is provide certainty. We're not vacillating on this, as those opposite have done with so many policies over the last decade. We have made a decision; we were not afraid to make that decision, but we recognise that there are going to be challenges for the people involved in that industry, particularly in Western Australia. With this in mind, that's why we have offered up the $107 million transition support package, to help individuals and families who are going to make some business decisions and do some planning around what will replace that live sheep export trade revenue for their businesses and families. It's four years away, and we did make a recommendation that, in concert with the Western Australian state government, we look at potentially extending that package. So I do want to say it is important. We get it, and we thank and recognise the farmers who work so hard for not only the Western Australian farming economy but also our Australian farming economy. I also want to share an interesting statistic. We spoke with Roger Fletcher, who gave evidence to us at that inquiry. He, of course, on the eastern seaboard will be well-known to the people of Dubbo because he has a very big abattoir out there—and he also has abattoirs in the west. I asked him about the export of sheepmeat, and I was interested in how long it would take to process in Australia the sheep currently being exported live. If they weren't being exported, if they were being slaughtered in Australia, how long would it take for them to be processed and boxed up to be exported? The amount of sheep currently going out on boats in Australia could be processed in four days. That gives you an understanding of the size of the industry these days. We know that this industry is in decline. No matter what those opposite say, these are the facts. We know that we can earn more and we know that we can support farmers with better, more vibrant export markets. The trade minister, Don Farrell, from South Australia, has been working night and day, doing a brilliant job restoring our relationships with Asia, particularly China, and opening up those markets for our farmers. To close, I received an email from a vet about this. Today, the Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, asked the Prime Minister about sheep from Sudan. In this email the vet said to me: 'The move away from sheep exports from Australia should actually see a net global animal welfare gain, as our sheep will no longer be travelling for up to three-plus weeks by sea from opposite seasons. Instead, locally grown and heat acclimatised sheep and goats will be sourced from much closer destinations to the Middle East, some with voyages as short as 10 hours, from Sudan and Saudi Arabia, animals that were never going to be afforded the relative luxury of a pre-stunned slaughter. Also, with our less-crappy ships more freely available, they will most likely displace some of the very old ships in the Middle Eastern region and lead to safer shipping. Thanks again for your work. I value that I can put away all the memories I have of sheep suffering on these unnecessary voyages. Sincerely, Dr Lynn Simpson, live export vet.' We want to support Australian farming and Australian farmers, and we also want to play our role across the globe in the adoption of better farming practices—and I think that we're achieving it. 16:05 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I want to reflect on the contribution the member for Paterson has just made. It must be a frustration for her to be sitting on the backbench. She quite frankly should be on the frontbench, but of course her attitudes to many of those things don't accord with those of the Prime Minister. She's more Fitzroy River than she is Fitzroy, and that's the problem here in this debate. I do want to address contribution from the member for Bendigo. I think she was kind of critical of the number of people who came all the way to Canberra to protest. I mean, I've got constituents up there. They've driven for two days, and, unlike those at the rallies that the member for Bendigo used to organise, the people up there aren't being paid to come here to represent the interests of their community. When the member for Bendigo was an organiser for United Voice every single one of those people who turned up to protest was on the pay. So I don't think those opposite should be critical of people coming here and expressing their objection to the policies of those opposite, particularly when those opposite are led by a man so weak, so gutless that he wouldn't even walk out the front of the building and confront these constituents. Now, talk about someone who is more focused on Fitzroy than he is on Fitzroy River. Those opposite are led by exactly that person. Now the reality here is this: the Australian live sheep export industry provides the best animal welfare standards anywhere in the world. We not only export sheep; we export animal welfare standards. What those opposite don't understand is that Western Australia producers cannot produce an animal that has the characteristics that processors want and that consumers want. You're effectively saying to these producers that they don't have a future. Mr PASIN 240756 The member for Hasluck is welcome to contribute. But the bigger issue is this: this industry, to those opposite—and the member for Paterson knows this—has done every single thing the government has asked it to do, and yet it has been banned. Mark Peuker, up there in the gallery, all the way from Mount Gambier, is a beef producer. He is thinking, 'Am I next?' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 Order. The member for Hasluck— Mr PASIN 240756 'I've done everything I can.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 The member for Hasluck will cease interjecting. I call the member for Barker. Mr PASIN 240756 He's thinking, 'Am I next?' He's living in an electorate where he has watched a government make life very difficult. Mr Repacholi 298840 Scare tactics. Mr PASIN 240756 No. If those opposite want to talk about scare tactics, they gave us 'Mediscare'. Mr Repacholi 298840 Scare tactics. Mr PASIN 240756 Oh, please. This isn't a scare tactic; this is real. Go to Western Australia and talk to a Western Australian sheep producer and ask him if it's a scare campaign. It's not, mate. It's a bill that has become law, which means their business doesn't exist anymore. I don't know why those opposite hate farmers so much. You've ruled out an industry. You've rubbed it out. And while I'm talking about rubbing out food production let's talk about the Murray-Darling Basin. Those opposite want to take water from the basin, from farmers—intergenerational farmers—and take their water rights away. The Riverland in my electorate is a highly productive horticultural zone but without water it is a desert. Those opposite are going to take the equivalent of all of South Australia's water entitlement away. In the South Australian context, many people think South Australia won't have to make a contribution. That's not true. South Australia will have to make a contribution. It is best estimated at 32 gigs. That is the size of the Renmark irrigation district. That would be like saying to every horticultural producer, every almond producer, everyone growing an orange, mandarin, an apricot, in the Renmark irrigation district, 'We are going to rub you out, just like we rubbed out West Australian sheep producers.' Those opposite can call it a scare campaign all they want. The people of Western Australia call it something else: real. 16:10 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons The Leader of the Opposition stood outside this place today and told farmers he has their backs. Well, if that was true he would come clean on his nuclear plan. How much water will his nuclear reactors use and how much more will water cost as a result? How much more will farmers be paying for energy under the Liberal-National nuclear plan? The CSIRO and others say it will be at least twice as expensive and perhaps up to six times as much as it would cost under renewables. If the Leader of the Opposition had farmers' backs, he would acknowledge that the National Farmers' Federation is one of 18 major business and farming groups that last month issued a statement saying Australia requires more renewable energy at all scales. The Leader of the Opposition would acknowledge that 12,000 farms are located within 80 kilometres of his seven reactor sites in regions that are major contributors to Australia's food supply, with cattle, milk, lamb, grain and vegetable production. Under international standards, that radius is classified as an ingestion exposure pathway, and farmers must take preventative measures to protect food supply in the event of a nuclear accident. Farmers would be required to inform customers of the risk of nuclear contamination. They would have to stump up for the cost of decontamination and livestock destruction. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell farmers how much that is going to cost them and what the implications are for their farms? No, because this is a Leader of the Opposition interested in only one thing—his own relentless political ambition—and he will tear down and rip up anyone and anything who gets in his way. He will say anything for a headline—wedge, divide, dog whistle, drive Australians apart. That is the stock in trade of this Leader of the Opposition. He won't support renewables, even though they are already delivering results for farmers and regional communities, cheaper power and more jobs for the regions, and it is the Liberals and Nationals standing against it. Now outside this place today we have a couple of hundred sheep farmers from WA who don't agree with our government's decision to phase out the live sheep export trade. They have the right to express their views. Our decision directly affects them and we accept that, which is why we have put a $107 million transition package on the table. The fact is our decision is consistent with the position we took to the 2022 election. We have been upfront and fair dinkum. It is worth noting the live sheep export trade is valued at $77 million, which is one-third the value of Australian's total mandarin exports, by way of comparison. It also contrasts to the $4.5 billion sheepmeat export trade and the $3.5 billion domestic sheepmeat industry. It is also important to say that that $77 million doesn't disappear. Those sheep, once destined for live export, go instead to domestic processing. Our Labor government is not alone in supporting the transition away from live sheep exports. The deputy Liberal leader, the member for the regional New South Wales seat of Farrer, has referred to the live sheep export trade as 'an awful trade'. The member for Farrer said the trade 'fails on both economic and animal welfare grounds'. So, when the Leader of the Opposition falsely seeks to paint this issue as Labor versus the bush, remember we have a regional, senior Liberal MP—his own deputy—who is on the record in sharing our position. Mr Ramsey HWS She's changed her mind! Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 I acknowledge she's since changed—of course she's changed her mind now she's the deputy Liberal leader. With the opposition leader breathing down her neck, of course she has. But we know what's in her heart. We know what she really thinks. One of the more tiresome tropes of this place is those opposite claiming this government doesn't get the regions. We have a number of regional MPs: Ministers Collins, King, McBain, McCarthy, Marles, Conroy and Jones, as well as the members for Gilmore, Bendigo, Cunningham, Dobell, Lingiari, Hunter, Newcastle, Paterson and myself, to name a few. The fact is our Labor government is committed to a robust, sustainable agriculture industry, which currently stands at $84 billion a year and is expected to get to $86 billion. We stand by that, and we're going to grow it. 16:15 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I have severe doubts about the last statement. I do defend the Labor Party in my electorate when people say to me, 'Why do they hate us so much?' I say, 'I don't think the Labor Party hates miners or farmers, but they think they can bear any amount of pain that they inflict upon them.' They say, in the Labor Party: 'They'll be alright; those farmers have got big utes and things. They always whinge about everything, and they don't vote for us anyhow. They'll be able to soak it up, don't worry. We'll be able to grab a few green votes in the city.' Don't think that this isn't about that. They say, 'We'll be able to grab a few green votes in the city, and they'll get over it.' They say the same to the miners. I attended the Keep the Sheep rally out the front this morning. I don't think any members opposite did. From my estimation, there weren't 200 farmers there; there was somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000. I didn't put them all down the sheep race and count them personally. I can count by about five at a time, but that's the number I reckon were there. Farmers had come from my own electorate, and I recognised them. They came up to me and said g'day to me. It's no wonder the banning of live exports has galvanised farmers, because there's no science behind it. There was precious little consultation and no courage. In fact, the industry has jumped through every hoop. Millions have been spent on upgrading ship ventilation; on decreasing onboard stocking rates; on better handling, feed and water systems; and on having mandatory onboard vets, resulting in close to negligible stock losses. Additionally, the ESCAS system ensures Australian animals are tracked beyond demarcation and slaughtered in approved facilities. We're setting the standards for the world. I led the coalition ag policy committee through the sheep country of Western Australia in March this year. I had one meeting in Adelaide—a hundred people rolled up there—and we staged another seven meetings across WA, culminating at the Wagin Woolorama. I have to say: we went there because the government members would not. We went and talked to the farmers there because government members would not. One of the things we told them was, 'We will fight for you here in Canberra, but we can't win the battle unless you're prepared to fight for yourselves.' Well, they showed today that they are more than prepared to fight for themselves. But it's not just in relation to sheep that farmers are being attacked. We have the recommencement of the indiscriminate water buybacks, and others have mentioned that. There's the closing of the fully sustainable Gulf of Carpentaria gillnet fishing to protect the reef thousands and thousands of kilometres away—someone should look at a map. There's the building of transmission lines and renewable energy parks all over farming country—and that is even starting to bark in my electorate, I have to say. There's the abolition of the ag visa program, reducing the instant tax write-offs and imposing a biosecurity levy on farmers to inspect imports brought into Australia by non-agricultural businesses. Really! There's the abolition of the native title respondents fund, the commitment to expand Australia's parks and reserves from 20 to 30 per cent and the new vehicle emissions standards, which punish people who live in regional and remote Australia, in particular farmers. We've got the scope 3 emissions coming down the pipeline, and some big emitters are buying up agricultural land to offset their emissions. I heard the APVMA mentioned by the minister earlier, and now it's looking like they're going to ban paraquat for all intents and purposes. This is an incredible assault on farming. But it's not just farmers; they're after miners as well. Last night, I attend the Mineral Council dinner and I heard their CEO, Tania Constable, lay down quite clearly what the minerals industry think about what the government is doing to them. She said that Labor risk returning the mining tax wars between the big resources companies and the Gillard government. 'We want cooperation, not conflict,' Ms Constable said. The sector was under siege and being punished by the Albanese government for its stream of reckless, restrictive policies, industrial relations changes, raids on mining royalties, new regulations, and a looming threat of onerous and arbitrary environmental approvals. Of course, we've just seen in this last week the Blayney goldmine disapproved, if you like, something that had already been through the process with the local Indigenous owners then some fringe group claimed to have an interest and the minister folded like a deck of cards. No wonder Australian farmers and miners are upset with this government. 16:20 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Once again, we are confronted in this place with an opposition focused only on believing its own hype. This coalition are totally convinced that nobody knows about agriculture except for them, totally convinced that being on this side of the House removes you from the lived experience of Australian agriculture. In fact, the member for Barker made that point himself before question time today. That sentiment is offensively wrong, and those opposite should dispel that notion rather than use it to score political points. Let me demonstrate why. Referring to the earlier comments of the member for Barker, I was also born in a regional community. I also grew up on a farm in Sunraysia. I also know, to quote the member for Barker, what 'blood, sweat and tears' go into the work of farming families. I watched my parents pour their very hearts and souls into our family farm while raising me and my two sisters. It's physically and emotionally draining work. I lived that experience that the member for Barker spoke of, and I'm proud of it too. I remember clearly when we had our last farm, our vineyard. I'd have to go off to school in the morning, come home, my father would come in and look after my two sisters, and I'd have to go out on the tractor and work the property, just to make sure we could keep on top of our day-to-day requirements. During the middle of harvest, we would get up early in the morning, unwrap all of the dried fruit, rake it out before heading off to school, rinse and repeat every single day during the harvest, just to make sure that we made ends meet. I know what hard work is. I've lived those experiences all too often, and I'm proud of it too—extremely proud. I was on the phone just hours ago, just before question time, speaking to growers in my electorate, discussing the concerns that they're experiencing. For those that don't know the electorate of Spence, it's a peri-urban seat, and we have the largest undercover cropping in the Southern Hemisphere. We produce around one-third of the state's fresh produce. I'm extremely proud of what we grow in my area, so it's hugely offensive that the member for Barker would insinuate that I am working against farmers in this country and that I don't know what they're going through. It is absolutely disgusting that the member for Barker would even attempt to make that point, not just because it's completely separate from reality but because I share the same lived experience as him. It's even worse that his colleagues would try to back it in with a statement like this. This kind of born-to-rule rhetoric from the coalition when it comes to agriculture has become all too familiar in Australian political discourse and it's incredibly disappointing because all that talk does nothing to actually improve livelihoods on farms in this country. Instead, that perception tries to weaponise Australian agriculture as a tool to fill a Liberal-National ballot box. That agriculture sector deserves so much more respect than it gets from those opposite. A Labor government will always show that respect, take farmers seriously and work with them to produce positive outcomes. That's why we are investing more than a billion dollars in new biosecurity funding, to help ensure that our farmers can remain free of disruption and continue to operate effectively, as our nation leads the world in biosecurity. Those opposite would have instead persisted with the $100 million drain they placed on that funding while in power, which this government fixed—despite knowing agriculture better than everyone else. Our respect for farmers is why we've opened the doors to a multitude of export markets: in cotton, barley, oaten hay—and especially wine, given the foreign policy failure of those opposite, which brought winemakers to their knees in 2020. This government has corrected that failure, getting rid of the tariffs in China, with $142 million of wine exported to China in May alone as a result. We're making farmers more resistant to climate in the years to come, to ensure their sustainability. The coalition would rather weaponise our future for their own nuclear ends. We're also scrutinising Australia's food security, taking the necessary steps to ensure supply to the most precious of resources, the Australian people. Of course, those opposite know all of this already because, just by virtue of being themselves, they know everything! Perhaps they aren't quite sure on the resources sector—I'm yet to hear a member state they were born in a copper mine and then use that to justify their point of view. I'm happy to help those opposite on this front, too. Our last budget was the most significant investment in resources in a generation, including the $17.6 billion production tax incentive to help secure a future made in Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 46 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 46

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024

Second Reading 46 16:26 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is an important bill that we are now looking at. I will be moving an amendment, which I'll outline in a moment, in relation to paid parental leave. I want to state at the outset that, whilst the coalition will be supporting the bill, I will be moving a second reading amendment calling on the government to provide choice to recipients of paid parental leave. From the government's perspective, paid parental leave has been quite a torturous path, in that we see the government in here talking about their support for paid parental leave on a daily basis. Those of us with any history or background whatsoever wonder how they can say that with a straight face, particularly those of us who've faced the trenchant criticism of the then Labor opposition in relation to the former coalition government's generous Paid Parental Leave scheme, a scheme that the Australian people voted on and the Labor Party opposed vehemently. It was essentially wage replacement paid parental leave, as it then was. Well, time has moved on, and, notwithstanding the very unprincipled position that Labor has adopted in relation to paid parental leave in the past, we have sought to be much more constructive in opposition. Where the government has put forward ideas that we have no objection to, we have supported them. Indeed, we've supported a range of measures in this House and in the other place in relation to paid parental leave changes, some that were amendments and changes that were, in a sense, waiting to be legislated when the government took power after the election in May of 2022; and other changes that have been of the volition of the government. This is in that second category, an amendment essentially seeking to extend superannuation contributions onto paid parental leave. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes: (a) the Coalition's strong record supporting government funded paid parental leave in Australia; (b) at the 2010 and 2013 federal elections, the Coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver 26 weeks paid parental leave based on actual wage and included superannuation; and (c) both Labor and the Greens opposed the Coalition's paid parental leave policy; and (2) calls on the Government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to provide choice to Australian families by giving eligible PPL recipients the option of: (a) receiving superannuation on the government-funded paid parental leave payment; or (b) receiving 26 weeks of paid parental leave from 1 July 2025, increasing to 28 weeks from 1 July 2026; or (c) receiving a one-off payment equal to the value of the superannuation amount to help with costs associated with the arrival of a newborn or adopted child". The amendment that I have moved seeks to do two things. It seeks to provide parents of a newborn or adopted child with an additional two options. They can choose to take the additional superannuation contributions on the PPL payments as outlined in this bill or they can choose one of two additional options. Firstly, they can elect to take an additional two weeks of PPL. So, at each stage, over the next two years, they can elect to take an additional two weeks more than they would otherwise be entitled to, which is almost identically equivalent in financial terms to taking the superannuation on those payments. Secondly, they can take a one-off payment. We think parents are in the best possible position to determine, in their own circumstances, what it is they need. For many Australians, one of the primary purposes of paid parental leave is to provide them with the financial flexibility that they need at a really special and beautiful time in their lives: the arrival of a newborn or an adopted child. Providing them, through this amendment, with the option of taking those extra two weeks is something we think the government should absolutely support. Finally, we know how difficult it is for families generally with this cost-of-living crisis. So, providing them with an additional option of being able to take an equivalent amount to the PPL in superannuation as a lump sum through existing payment mechanisms is a very worthwhile amendment, which is why I have moved it. We implore the government to accept this amendment to provide families, if they so choose, with an additional two weeks of leave, or to provide the additional lump sum amount of PPL because families and parents are in the best possible position to determine what is in their best interests at any given time. Anyone in this House and anyone watching this who's had a child—many people have never had the benefit of PPL, I suspect—knows that it is an extraordinarily difficult time financially, so providing these additional options to parents is treating them with the respect they deserve. On that, we hope the government will see a good idea and will seek to support it. The key measures in the bill, which we don't object to in any way, are obviously to provide the entitlement as part of the scheme, provide the calculation mechanism and create mechanisms for the Commissioner of Taxation to deal with any underpayments or overpayments. Those are all rudimentary mechanical provisions of the bill which we have no concerns with. The bill provides an avenue for recipients to seek review of decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation, and it gives the commissioner compliance and enforcement powers. Those measures are all contained in schedule 1. In schedule 2 there's an additional minor technical amendment to the unpaid parental leave provisions of the Fair Work Act to clarify the entitlement of the defined term 'keeping in touch' days and there are amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act that are consequential to the paid parental leave and super contribution related aspects of schedule 1. It's estimated that 180,000 families will benefit from the changes in the bill when the scheme reaches 26 weeks, in 2026. Under my amendment that I have just put forward, that will be 28 weeks if that parent, that family, chooses to take the extra two weeks as opposed to the additional entitlement. The maximum a family would receive in super contributions is around $3,000, based on a super guarantee rate of 12 per cent, and, for children born or adopted from 1 July, parents eligible for the PPL scheme will receive an additional 12 per cent paid into their complying superannuation fund. These are all mechanical aspects of the bill that affect the intent. As I said earlier, for some people, giving them the optionality of an additional two weeks will mean much more than a financial benefit. For many people who adopt to take an additional two weeks, as opposed to the additional super on their PPL, it will mean an extra two weeks with their child, an extra two weeks potentially as the primary carer for their newborn baby or adopted baby that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. We think giving people that precious time, or the option of having that additional precious time, is worthy of this amendment. I'm not sure how the government will be able to argue against providing people with that option of taking that additional precious time with their baby without any additional cost to the Commonwealth. This is all done within the same envelope of cost that the current bill puts in place. That would equally apply to a family or a parent who adopted to take a lump sum. Taking that lump sum in lieu of taking the additional PPL contributions into superannuation may mean for that individual and for that family that they can spend more time with that very newborn baby. We think that providing families with that option is extraordinarily important. Again, just to summarise without being too repetitive, the amendment that I have moved will seek to provide optionality to families so they will be able to choose one of three options under our amendment: take the additional superannuation contributions on the PPL payments; take an additional two weeks of PPL leave, which is almost an identical amount to what they would be receiving as additional contributions; or take that exact amount as an additional lump sum at the time when they're bearing all of the costs associated with a new baby—and I could rattle off the long list. Providing those options, we think, treats Australians, mothers and families with respect. In the end, they know what's in their best interests and they know what is going to work best for them. You get the best of all worlds in that they can choose which option they take. I commend the amendment to the government. I hope that, where the government see a good idea, they are willing to adopt it in the best interests of families and, importantly, in the best interests of children in Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the amendment seconded? 16:39 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass It is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Deakin has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 48

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024

Second Reading 48 16:40 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin In relation to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, I want to reiterate that the coalition has said many times since the delivery of the Set the standard report into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces that everyone in this place deserves to have a safe and respectful workplace. All parties have a role in improving and maintaining the good culture of parliament. This bill represents the culmination of work in both the passage of other legislation and the consultation across this building to ensure the process for change in this place hears the perspective of all sides. The coalition would like to thank the many people across the parliament who have worked to develop the legislation to bring it into place. In particular, the coalition would like to thank the Independent Chair of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, Dr Thom, and her staff for their endless patience and commitment. There have been challenges in our workplace, as most Australians would know, and the coalition has been working with all other parties and parliamentarians to address them. This includes through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, its staff and consultative group and the work of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Since the beginning of this process, the coalition has worked for practical and implementable changes that, importantly, respect the institution of our parliament. It's why we accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Foster review, including an independent complaints mechanism, workplace training and improved independent support services. It's also why the former government accepted the Jenkins review and committed to working towards all of the 28 recommendations at that time. There have been concrete changes that we have no doubt will make our workplaces more safe and respectful. We now have in place an independent and confidential complaints mechanism for current and former parliamentarians and staff, which this bill will further formalise and enhance by placing it in the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. We have a confidential 24-hour support service for current and former parliamentarians and staff. We have new training and education programs for all of our staff and parliamentarians to keep our workplaces as safe and respectful as they can be. It was the coalition that first established the parliamentary independent complaints mechanism under the first iteration of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. That mechanism introduced a complaints process that for the first time was independent from the Department of Finance and its predecessors. This was an important step and was completed before the Set the standard report had been provided to the parliament. This new independent complaints mechanism had the power to hold parliamentarians as employers accountable for their actions and introduced the concept of referring parliamentarians to the relevant privileges committee if they failed to implement recommendations of relevant workplace reviews. It brought in new practices to improve the culture of our workplaces, which used the current institution's functions to apply accountability that, importantly, respects the role of the parliament in that process. The purpose of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill is to establish the final piece in a legislative framework outlined by the Set the standard report. The bill will create a commission within the statutory PWSS and allow for the commission to investigate breaches of conduct by parliamentarians, their staff and other occupants within the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The commission will comprise nine commissioners, with one being the chair. The commission will enforce behaviour codes within the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces and investigate breaches of these codes when they occur. These investigations will be conducted to establish on the balance of probabilities whether the code was breached or whether some other matter relating to work health and safety in our workplaces needs to be addressed. The process established by this legislation for investigating a matter will ensure confidentiality, an appropriate process to deliver natural justice and the necessary fairness to allow for reviews of outcomes. Most importantly, for the first time, this body will be able to place sanctions on those individuals who breach the codes. This is a new element that does not exist in the current regime of the independent complaints mechanism. The sanctions placed on staff and other Commonwealth parliamentary workplace occupants can be recommended directly by the commissioner to the relevant employer. However, when it comes to sanctions on parliamentarians, this legislation recognises and respects the importance of the parliament and parliamentarians within our Constitution. It's worth touching on the importance here of the work undertaken by parliamentarians, why we are afforded parliamentary privilege and are covered by protections under the Constitution. It's a fundamental right of this place to govern itself and its proceedings. The absence from interference from either the judiciary or the executive is a fundamental protection for the independence of all of us as legislators. But this does not mean that there can be no change or progress or that we should be unaccountable as employers. This legislation is the result of a careful process in which the last parliament and the current parliament have engaged on how to manage the change. All parliamentarians have had to grapple with how best to approach a unique work environment where the employer is constitutionally protected. The opposition wants to acknowledge the government for prioritising this institution and its integrity over rushed expediency. It is right that only the parliament can ensure that its privileges are appropriate and fit for purpose. It's also worth noting that the first person to commence a process whereby Australia saw updates to the privileges in this place was the father of the member for Wentworth, the former Liberal member for North Sydney, John Spender. But, until that point, the privileges of the chamber had not been altered since they were established at Federation. The late Mr Spender acknowledged the fact that there needed to be modernisation but, importantly, with respect to the past. Speaking on the Parliamentary Privileges Bill in 1987, he said, I believe that it is necessary for us to come into the 1980s. As Australians we should state what our main privileges should be and say that there are some privileges which we inherited in 1901 which have nothing to do with the way in which this Parliament should run in the 1980s. Today's bill will acknowledge the need to modernise our parliamentary workplaces but, importantly, will also respect the important role of the protections that exist for this place. To do so it's recognised that sanctions on parliamentarians on how they conduct themselves in their work can only be determined by the relevant chamber of parliament. It will be the respective privileges committee that will ensure that parliamentarians adhere to the standards expected and sanction members appropriately. To oversee this new commission and the process of enforcing the behaviour codes, a new joint committee will be established. This committee will be charged with overseeing the operation of the commission, approving the appointment of commissioners and undertaking necessary reviews including of the behaviour codes. While the measures in these bills have the in-principle support of the opposition, at this time the opposition will be reserving its position, noting that the Minister for Finance has committed to our shadow minister to consider some minor technical changes to this legislation to improve the operation and to provide clarity. The coalition, in government and now in opposition, have consistently taken the approach that these matters should remain non-partisan, and we've sought to deal with these by consensus. We acknowledge that the Labor Party, in government, has worked to do the same, particularly when reasonable and sensible compromises can and have been achieved. This is important and appreciated by the opposition, as we have consulted widely since this legislation was made public one month ago, at its time of introduction. Staff and parliamentarians have provided views to the opposition that there remain, as I said, some minor and technical issues as well as other concerns that the government will be aware of regarding the oversight committee and ensuring, importantly, that the codes of conduct are fit for purpose. The opposition takes these views seriously, particularly the views of staff who have raised concerns that the codes of conduct were not provided to the relevant employment groups before they were finalised. We appreciate the minister has recognised the need for bipartisanship in these matters and is therefore taking time to work through the concerns of the staff and concerns of a number of opposition parliamentarians. We note the need for this legislation to pass soon to ensure it can achieve a start date of 1 October 2024, and we note the government has indicated that it will preference consensus over the timeline. Noting this goodwill, the opposition will assist with passage while the discussions between the minister and the shadow minister continue. I understand that there's been significant, good work, even in the last few days, of which the opposition is appreciative. We support the improvements that this bill will implement in our workplaces and look forward to the continued discussions with the government as this bill moves to the other place. 16:51 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Throughout my working life I've been a farm worker, I've worked at Hungry Jack's, I've been a teacher, I've been a lawyer, I've been a union organiser, I've been a policy adviser and, for the last 17 years, I've been a member of parliament. So I have some understanding of what a safe and respectful workplace looks like. The best workplaces have fair treatment of all who work there. They respect each other's differences, whether they be in values, religion, culture, sexuality, sporting teams and so on. Those workplaces have open and civil communication, and people are always acting with integrity. I would add another point: good workplaces have accountability for employers' actions. In February 2023, both the House of Representatives and the Senate endorsed, on an interim basis, the parliamentarian behaviour codes and standards for Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. These were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards and apply to parliamentarians, staff and the wider parliamentary workplace. The passage of this bill means that the behaviour codes will be formally adopted. It is worth highlighting the behaviour codes. The headline standards are: Act respectfully, professionally and with integrity. Encourage and value diverse perspectives and recognise the importance of a free exchange of ideas. Recognise your power, influence or authority and do not abuse them. Uphold laws that support safe and respectful workplaces, including anti-discrimination, employment, work health and safety and criminal laws. Bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or assault, or discrimination in any form, including on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability, or religion will not be tolerated, condoned or ignored. The behaviour code for Australian parliamentarians states: All Australian Parliamentarians have a shared responsibility as employers and leaders in the community to ensure that Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces meet the highest standards of integrity— I'll say that again: the highest standards of integrity— dignity, safety and mutual respect. It's a good thing to remind every MP and senator but also, in the lead-up to the election next year, every candidate that it's the 'highest standards of integrity' in this workplace. Unlike every other workplace in Australia, here we expect the highest standards. With the possible exception of early morning sporting events, where some people have unfairly indicated that I occasionally suffer from white-line fever, I agree with this statement. This parliament should have the highest standards. We do not hold these positions lightly or take them for granted. We need to reflect these standards in our daily activity, whether that's here in parliament, in our electorate offices or when travelling for work. That's why I'm pleased to support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill. This bill directly addresses recommendation 22 of the Set the standard: report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces from November 2021, probably more commonly known as the Jenkins report. Recommendation 22 states that the houses of parliament should establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, or the IPSC, to handle complaints and make findings about misconduct, and to make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct. Labor has been committed to implementing all 28 recommendations in the Jenkins report to ensure that this workplace, and all of the electorate offices and ministerial offices throughout the country—and anywhere else where parliamentary work occurs, because committees do a lot of travelling—operate in a safe and respectful manner, as I previously described. This is the standard we should have and one that proves worthy of the community we serve. This place should be, as the Jenkins report describes, a model workplace. It is fair to say that the lack of clear standards of conduct and the lack of accountability for misconduct have put the Australian parliament behind most other workplaces. I remember, and I'm sure most people know—and you, Deputy Speaker Chesters, particularly—that when this building opened in 1988, it had four bars. Now it has none. One of those bars is a childcare centre that I know my children have been to and your children have been to. It reflects the modern parliament. That this bill ensures that it will no longer be the case that we're different to other workplaces in a bad way. Labor intends that the IPSC will start on 1 October this year. This body will investigate complaints about breaches of the behaviour codes. It will be an independent body with fair, impartial and confidential processes, and it won't be toothless. If the IPSC decides that there has been a breach of the behaviour codes, it will be able to directly impose sanctions on MPs. The sanctions may include training, behaviour agreements or reprimands. Serious findings will be referred to the relevant Privileges Committee to recommend appropriate sanctions. I'm sure all of us in this place agree with these measures, and with the concept of holding each other to account for respectful behaviour at work. Any sanctions implemented by the Privileges Committee will become public. The Jenkins Report states that taking steps to prevent and respond to misconduct effectively has several benefits. Not least of these is improved conditions for employees. In 'establishing Parliament as a model safe and respectful workplace', it will 'help to attract and retain and attract the best staff' in a competitive labour environment, 'support high performance in complex operating environments …' and 'support diversity and better democratic representation and decision-making'. This bill builds on Labor's leadership in bringing reforms to the parliamentary workplace. In 2023, the Albanese Labor government worked closely with the cross-party parliamentary leadership taskforce and its staff consultation group to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. I extend my thanks to those who participated in this process that will benefit us here in this chamber, our colleagues and our staff. I especially thank one of my indefatigable comrades, the member for Newcastle, who made a great contribution in steering that process—the Deputy Speaker, in a more respectful way. The remit of the PWSS is to provide independent and confidential human resource advice to create and maintain safe, respectful and inclusive workplaces. This encompasses workplace health and safety support, wellbeing, workplace reviews, conflict resolution, and early intervention to all who work or volunteer in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The PWSS is driving cultural change in response to the Jenkins report and the IPSC will continue the charge. It is important to us that the reforms hit the mark, which is why there has been careful consultation with the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. The IPSC will be established as part of the PWSS while retaining a separate function between its investigatory function and the daily operations of the PWSS. Currently, the PWSS has the power to undertake workplace investigations. This function will sunset—hopefully, all going well—on 1 October in order for the IPSC to operate. Going forward, we anticipate that the PWSS will still be the initial recipient of any complaints or reports, and that the IPSC will not investigate any issues that are better off addressed through the complaint resolution function of the PWSS. If the complaint is determined to need an IPSC workplace investigation, PWSS could assist the complainant in their initial dealings with the IPSC. Employees in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have existing obligations under workplace health and safety legislation. It is important to note that the IPSC complements these existing laws. It does not require additional reporting, but it does provide an additional pathway, if appropriate. Again, the PWSS can assist in determining if a complaint is best suited to existing work health and safety laws or to the IPSC. It will operate as the Set the standard report recommended. The structure of an investigation acknowledges that parliamentarians are elected members, so three commissioners will make the final deliberation for a parliamentary respondent. In the case of a staff respondent or other worker, a single commissioner would make the decision. There are pathways for internal review of decisions, and in these circumstances three commissioners would do the review. It is intended that the behaviour codes be adopted into the standing orders for both the House of Reps and the Senate, in line with recommendation 2 of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards report, and the behaviour code for staffers will be formalised under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. Going forward, the PWSS will provide training on the behaviour code so parliamentarians, their staff and others who work in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces will understand their obligations, and the standards will be reviewed within one year of the first session of each new parliament, keeping them front of mind for all. The Albanese Labor government has committed $3.8 million to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. This is an important reform which must be taken seriously. Obviously, I believe that this is the best country in the world, and we have the best parliament in the world, but it can still be better, and it can still be improved. As the song goes, rust never sleeps. We must keep trying to improve this building and all who dwell in it. The behaviour codes in the IPSC will work together to set expectations for safe and respectful workplaces and add accountability for actions. We all have a part to play, now and ongoing, and that's why I'm happy to commend the bill to the House. 17:02 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I am very pleased to rise to speak on this bill. After years of advocacy from many corners of this country, we are finally seeing laws that establish a robust Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. It's been a long time coming. When I was first elected to parliament in 2019, I, like others, was shocked to learn there was no code of conduct for members of parliament and a complete lack of accountability for parliamentarians and parliamentary staff who breached the most basic workplace behaviour standards. Across the hospitals and universities that mark many years of my career, the high professional standards expected of me and my colleagues had always been clear. As a nurse and an academic, I could see how codes of conduct and independent complaints procedures offset the risk of power imbalances and harmful workplace environments from forming. These exist for judicial officers, journalists, barristers and medical professionals. Codes of conduct for parliamentarians also exist in many other democracies: Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This workplace, the Australian parliament, should be no exception. Like many Australians, I was appalled by the behaviour of some elected representatives that would not be tolerated in other workplaces—behaviour that, in the absence of clear standards and, importantly, enforcement mechanisms, has been allowed to fester: excessive alcohol consumption within parliamentary offices; unashamedly hosting political fundraisers with major donors inside this building; the use of taxpayer funded flights used for holidays, sport events or to host private fundraisers; and, of course, the terrible, traumatic, unacceptable rates of bullying, sexual harassment and even sexual assault. These are all examples of unethical, toxic behaviour that should not be accepted in any workplace, let alone in the workplace of representatives who must uphold the highest standards expected of public life and of elected office. These are behaviours that have gone on without any consequences for too long or have become another rolling news headline. But these aren't unsubstantiated rumours within the Canberra bubble or media reports that haven't gone anywhere. The Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the standard report into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces in 2021, led by Kate Jenkins, clearly found an unacceptably high number of people, in particular women, experiencing bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplace settings. We all know the grave impacts of this. Even before the Jenkins review, I sat with brilliant people who came to me to tell their stories of their experiences in this place—people full of potential who had come here to contribute to their country, who then had to deal with the consequences of a culture which enabled harm and were then disbelieved and sidelined when they tried to speak up about that abuse or about unethical behaviour that they had witnessed. I thank those people and the many people who came forward subsequently for their bravery. It's their actions that sparked us to progress reforms like this one. As an MP with staff that I'm responsible for, I do not want them to feel threatened or experience harm in their workplace. As an MP who, every single sitting week, hosts in parliament volunteers from my electorate and interns from universities, I want their time here to be a catalysing moment that shapes their lives, not one that casts a long shadow. Those who have come forward with their experiences undoubtedly set the wheels in motion for reform, and I want to acknowledge the many people who then listened to them and championed their cause. I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the first Independent member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, who in 2018 brought a parliamentary standards bill to the parliament. I then followed this work with my own parliamentary standards private member's bill in 2020. That was introduced alongside my bill for a federal integrity commission. Once again we are seeing a bill before parliament that has received consensus support, just like the one for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, after the hard work and relentless advocacy of many, especially the Independents on the crossbench. I want to particularly acknowledge the work of Kate Jenkins and the Australian Human Rights Commission. This Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission implements one of their final outstanding recommendations. When they were writing their report back in 2020, I was pleased to share detailed information about my own private member's bill with them, and I thank them for listening to me and for their vital work in reforming this parliament's workplace culture. I want to thank the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, which includes representation from across the political spectrum. They worked hard to reach agreement on this bill, despite political differences. I thank the work of the staff consultative group, which includes a member of my own staff. It's important that everyone who works in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces has had say on this bill. I also acknowledge the work of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, led by the Deputy Speaker, the member for Newcastle. I thank her for her leadership and outstanding contribution. The committee has been particularly instrumental in formulating the behaviour standards and the code, and I thank them all for their work. Even though this bill directly impacts those who work in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces it is vitally important to those who exist outside the Canberra bubble. It is, of course, voters, everyday Australians, who expect their representatives in parliament to uphold their values and to behave to the highest standards, even if those standards might seem like basic professional conduct. Unfortunately, this expectation of the Australian public has not been met for some time. It is the scandals and more that are chipping away at the trust Australians have in government, in democracy and in all of us here in this place. According to Transparency International's 2023 corruption perceptions index, Australia's rating has dropped 10 points since 2012. There are many factors that we can attribute to the worsening perception of corruption in Australia's public sector—pork barrelling, jobs for mates, lack of accountability for serious corruption—but the poor behaviour, the unethical behaviour, seemingly without consequence, of elected representatives is without doubt a key contributor to Australians' failing trust. If we, as parliamentarians, want the trust of the Australian people, if we want them to trust in government and in democracy, we have to show that bad behaviour won't be swept under the rug, that there are consequences and that we are holding ourselves accountable. There are many reasons why the Jenkins report is called Set the standard, because we must set the standard in this workplace and demonstrate that to the nation. This bill is a significant step towards achieving that. The bill will establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to enforce behaviour codes and apply sanctions for parliamentarians, parliamentary staff and others working in the parliamentary setting. These behaviour codes set clear standards for behaviour and consequences when MPs and staff do not meet those standards. They were endorsed by both houses of parliament in 2023. They include basic yet fundamentally important standards that parliamentarians and their staff must comply with. These include: to act respectfully, professionally and with integrity; to recognise your power, influence, authority and do not abuse them; to have a shared responsibility as employers and leaders in the community to ensure parliamentary workplaces meet the highest standards of integrity, dignity, safety and mutual respect; a prohibition on bullying and harassment, sexual harassment and assault and discrimination; and the requirement to cultivate respectful and inclusive workplaces. The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards heard from many witnesses who made it clear these codes would not be able to drive the long-term cultural change that is needed unless there is confidential, independent and serious investigative body with an effective sanctions regime, and this is what the bill before us ultimately attempts to achieve. Under the bill, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner would have powers to receive and investigate complaints against parliamentarians and staff. There are important safeguards, including that the commissioner can decide not to investigate a complaint if it is frivolous, vexatious or may be dealt with by another appropriate body. For parliamentarians, a panel of three commissioners would make decisions about whether that parliamentarian has engaged in misconduct. They could impose a less serious section such as a reprimand, training requirement or behaviour agreement. If they believe a more serious sanction is warranted, such as a fine, discharge from a committee or suspension from parliament, they would have to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, and I will address this more in a moment. For staff, a single commissioner would make the decision whether they have engaged in misconduct and make a recommendation to the relevant employing parliamentarian about an appropriate sanction. If a respondent or a claimant wants to review any of the commission's decisions, this review would be conducted by a panel of three commissioners. The bill reflects key elements of my own private member's bill to ensure the independent commissioner conducts investigations with appropriate safeguards to protect rights to procedural fairness, rights to privacy and the protection of personal reputation. The bill also sets up appropriate oversight mechanisms in the creation of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards. This committee would have important functions to protect the independence of the commission, such as the appointment of commissioners, and would also be responsible for undertaking a review of the behaviour codes. I also note the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce agreed to a review of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission itself 18 months after the commencement of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Services, and the government had budgeted for such a review. It is important to make sure these new bodies are operating as they should and to make any necessary adjustments. Now, I want to briefly address any concerns that by holding parliamentarians accountable for bad behaviour, this bill may hamper robust debate in parliament. Robust debate—a contest of ideas that serves the public interest—is a core function of parliament. I absolutely agree with this. But debate must still occur with respect. At the end of the day, parliamentarians are models of behaviour for their staff, for other MPs and for the public. The establishment of a Parliamentary Standards Commissioner recognises and upholds this. I support this bill but I want to acknowledge it is not perfect. As I mentioned earlier, if the commission were to make a finding against a parliamentarian that would attract a serious sanction—a fine, suspension, discharge from a committee—it would have to refer this to the privileges committee. The commission will not make a recommendation of which sanction would be appropriate, and the report they provide to the privileges committee would not be published nor tabled in parliament. It would then be up to the privileges committee to make a finding against that MP and recommend a sanction for the parliament to vote on. It would also be up to the Privileges Committee to name that MP in any reports it made to parliament. I share the concerns of many about these aspects of the bill. Fair Agenda have undertaken significant work on these reforms and share this concern, because this means serious findings could be made about an MP but they could face no sanction, the public would never know, and that's a problem. The bad behaviour of parliamentarians should not be swept under the rug, because of the nature of the office that they hold. We are legislating not just for now but for the future. We frankly don't know how future privileges committees will operate, even if the one that exists now is robust and non-partisan. We must ensure the commission and the privileges committee operate with transparency if we want the public to trust in the new frameworks established through this bill. That's why I support any amendments moved that would allow the commission to make recommendations to the privileges committee of serious sanctions against parliamentarians and that require the privileges committee to table reasons where its findings differ from recommendations of the commission. I urge the government and the opposition to listen to these concerns and support these amendments. Finally I want to acknowledge that this bill has achieved the broad support of all major parties and from many Independent members in this place. Consensus decision-making is a significant achievement at any time in this parliament, and we should not underestimate it. With one voice, we recognise that we must do better—that we must meet the standards the public holds us to and that we hold ourselves to. It's up to us now to make this a safe and respectful workplace that attracts the highest calibre of people in our society. I commend this bill to the House. 17:16 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I remember very well, during the election campaign in 2022, knocking on doors in my electorate of Chisholm. The issues of integrity and of trust in institutions, in parliament and in the government were a really big deal. At the heart of some of these conversations, every single day, was the issue of gender equality and the experience of women in this place. Indeed, it was a frequent question I had on the doors, with my now constituents asking me, 'How will you go in that place?' This is a really important issue in my community and in communities right across the country. People expect to see consequences for bad behaviour here. This institution really does matter. It must be a place that sets the standard, where integrity, respect, accountability and inclusion are at the centre of everything we do. And this must be a safe workplace. I want to acknowledge everybody who did so much work to bring this bill to the House today, including the member for Newcastle, Minister Gallagher, Kate Jenkins and the hundreds of people who participated in and contributed to the set the standard inquiry. Here I want to say that I contributed to the set the standard inquiry before I was a candidate to be in this place, not knowing that I would end up here. I want to be a bit personal for a number of reasons, including the fact that yesterday we had a celebration of affirmative action in the Labor Party, marking 30 years of rules changes in the Australian Labor Party. What I have been reflecting on is that we bring our whole selves to this place, and there is a reason that we have fought to have more female representation on this side of the House. It's to make the kinds of changes that need to be made in this country. So I will say that I participated in interviews and completed surveys during the set the standard inquiry process because, about 10 years ago, I worked here, and I do not believe I worked in a safe environment. I do not intend to detail discrete experiences here in the chamber today, but I want to do everything that I can, now that I'm a member of the House of Representatives, to make sure that this place is a safe and respectful environment. I take my responsibility as an employer very seriously and I take my responsibility as a woman in this place very seriously. I want to make sure that there are real and meaningful consequences for bad behaviour. I'm also really sad to reflect on the fact that people I know, people who I care for and are my friends, have had their careers cut short due to the environments that they've worked in here, whilst others, who very well may have misbehaved, have thrived. This isn't fair. This isn't fair at all. So the bill before us today will make a real difference to the culture in this place and the experiences of workers in this place. It is an incredibly important achievement from everybody who has worked on it. Since the Set the standard report was first handed down, the Labor Party has been committed to implementing all 28 of its recommendations. Of course parliamentary workplaces, like every other workplace in this country, should be safe and respectful for everyone. Last year, the government, working with the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and its Staff Consultation Group, established the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The PWSS, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, commenced its enhanced operations in October last year, providing centralised human resources support to parliamentarians and their staff. The PWSS also provides services to a broader cohort of people who work in the parliament, to support a safe and respectful workplace. This bill will establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, and this entity will be able to investigate complaints about breaches of behaviour codes that will apply in the parliamentary workplace. Its commencement will mean those codes can finally commence. It will have fair and confidential processes. It will be independent and it will be impartial. Our government has worked really closely with parliamentarians, through the PLT, staff and others across parliament to get these important reforms right, so that, when serious workplace issues arise, people have recourse through an independent investigation and real accountability for those doing the wrong thing. We've also sought to align as much as possible with the approach and recommendations of the Set the standard report, whilst balancing the need for the legislation to carefully interact with the role of the parliament—which is, of course, a unique workplace. We've sought really carefully to strike this balance. The IPSC would be established as part of the PWSS. There's going to be a functional separation between the IPSC's investigation function and the PWSS's functions. Nevertheless, they will work together in complementary ways. It is intended that the PWSS will continue to be the front door for complainants, although a complaint could be made directly to the IPSC. The IPSC would not commence investigations that would be better addressed through the PWSS's complaint resolution function. As an independent and impartial body, the IPSC is well placed to undertake investigations and determine whether misconduct has occurred. Their process is very important in all of this. The IPSC will be able to directly impose sanctions on MPs, including training, behaviour agreements and reprimands, and will refer serious findings to the relevant privileges committee, to recommend appropriate sanctions to the parliament. This is really important in restoring faith in institutions that we know globally are in decline, including in Australia. People do expect parliamentarians to behave in a way that demonstrates integrity and accountability, and this body, I think, will enhance that part of the role of an MP. The relevant house privileges committee would then be responsible for considering the appropriate sanction and would be required to report to the parliament with their recommendation. This would require a public report and ensure they are accountable for their recommendation to the parliament. This is consistent with the longstanding convention of the parliament appropriately holding members to account. Passage of this legislation will help finalise the implementation of government recommendations from the Set the standard report. This was a historic report and, as I noted earlier, the government accepted the recommendations. So this really means that we are being good-faith operators in relation to what we believe are our obligations from those recommendations in the report and honouring the evidence that so many people generously and courageously gave to the inquiry. As I mentioned earlier, there were hundreds of people that were involved in that process. This legislation will help ensure this workplace is able to lead by example and is safer for everyone—for parliamentarians, for staff—who works in this building and in other parliamentary workplaces. Parliament House is a unique workplace. We do want to attract the best here, and we want everyone who works here to have an enriching and fulfilling experience. Nobody's career should be cut short because they were subjected to inappropriate conduct with no recourse to any kind of action against any alleged perpetrator. All of us here have a shared responsibility to make sure that people who work in this building and in other political offices are able to do their job in a safe way and where they're confident that the systems and supports are there for them when they need them. I think 'set the standard' as a title for the report is incredibly important, and I also reflect on the perhaps cliche maxim 'the standard we walk past is the standard that we accept'. I think it is really important that all of us here recognise the responsibility we collectively have to make sure that we are all paying attention and making sure that standards do not slip and that everyone here is included, respected and safe in this workplace and other parliamentary workplaces. We've taken time to get this right. I'm really pleased that we are here today speaking about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. I hope that this will mean that, in the future, if things go wrong—and we absolutely hope that they do not and that the culture in this place improves—there will be meaningful consequences that will be able to be delivered. I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the House. 17:27 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney It's been three years since the Australian Human Rights Commission Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces and 2½ years since the North Sydney community sent me here to fight for the reform that that report recommended. It's frustrating that it's taken so long to see legislation that establishes the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the IPSC. Yet, having now seen this place from the inside out, I'm not surprised. The continued push-back says everything that needs to be said about the resistance of the old guard in this place to change. In 2022 Australians, particularly Australian women and their allies, sent a clear message to our federal parliament that enough was enough, for while this bubble, as it's often described, sees itself as existing outside normal community expectations, everyday Australians disagree. The people we serve expect more from us. While we have made some progress, there are many in this place determined to do everything they can to block reform because they are, quite simply, threatened by it. This legislation, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, represents tentative steps in the drive for reform by establishing the IPSC, and I thank the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce for producing it. The Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces was established following numerous reports about the toxic workplace culture in the system. Run by the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, the review followed allegations of rape, bullying and abuse of power by former and current ministerial staffers and came in the wake of growing public anger about the treatment of women. That anger came to a head during the march for justice rallies attended by over 100,000 women and their supporters, including 10,000 outside this very building. It was further evidenced by the emergence of people like me, who stood as community independent candidates in the 2022 election. As a consequence, we now have the largest ever crossbench in the history of our parliament—one dominated by people who were committed to fighting for integrity in this place. This bill is designed to make this place a safer and more inclusive work environment. With over 4,000 people working in Parliament House every day and thousands more in electoral offices or visiting parliamentary spaces, it's an important piece of reform because it finally provides an independent avenue for people, from parliamentarians and staff to parliamentary and service employees and all who work in this environment, to raise a complaint when they experience behaviour that they feel breaches a common understanding of what is acceptable. I was a member of the joint parliamentary select committee that developed the codes of conduct and the behaviour standards in late 2022, so the importance of this legislation as a next step is not lost on me. The expectation has always been that the codes would set behavioural standards that would be binding and, if breached, would carry consequences. The absence of clear standards of conduct has left the Australian parliament out of step, not only with other jurisdictions and other workplaces but importantly with our community. Reflecting on the response to this bill then, the very fact that there are those in this place who argue enforceable standards are not necessary concerns me greatly. It is the strongest indication yet that the old guard in this place are fundamentally out of step with our wider community. Some from the opposition have even gone so far as to suggest that establishing a mechanism for enforcing standards of behaviour would deter people from politics. I've got to say, that's just rubbish. If someone is deterred by behaviour standards, they probably have no place being here in the first instance. Indeed I'm pretty sure they'll struggle to find work anywhere, because behaviour standards are common in every work environment. Reform like this is more likely to encourage people to consider careers in this space because it will make politics more attractive for a diverse range of people, from women and younger people to people from migrant backgrounds, LGBTQIA+ people and Indigenous Australians, because the establishment of this body will help build trust. While the bill is welcome, it ultimately falls short of the vision laid out in the Set the standard report and recommended by the joint parliamentary committee, and this is disappointing. As it stands there is no guarantee that findings of parliamentary misconduct will be made public, and the ability to make independent sanctions in cases of serious misconduct has been left to the discretion of the privileges committee rather than the IPSC. The scope of the behaviour standards is also disappointingly limited to parliamentarians' conduct in the course of their role and pursuant to parliamentary privilege. Each of these weaknesses represents a significant dilution of this reform. The lack of transparency and true independence in the process means that, while the IPSC will be tasked with investigating referrals, their capacity to move and recommend sanctions will be limited to the scale of the breach. If the breach is considered minor, the IPSC will be empowered to act. If the breach is more significant, the IPSC will be required to refer the matter to the privileges committee, which in effect means that consequential steps will be shrouded. It's akin to empowering arsonists to put out their own fires. This weakening of accountability flies in the face of the Set the standard report. Whether the established system likes it or not, Australians want to see parliamentarians in this place held to the same standards that apply in other work environments, and I can confidently predict most people will see this exclusion as politicians yet again looking out for themselves. Turning the light on poor behaviour is the quickest way to effect change, and for this reason I believe greater transparency and independence in this process is imperative. By placing the IPSC in a position where it must refer cases of serious misconduct to the privileges committee, this legislation significantly weakens the body. To be clear, I believe the process of investigation proposed in this legislation is reasonable, with a panel of three independent commissioners looking into any case that involves a parliamentarian. If the commission finds misconduct they will consider the appropriate sanction. In less serious cases, the IPSC can impose non-parliamentary sanctions, including a reprimand or requiring a member to undertake training or to enter a behaviour agreement with the IPSC. If the commission determines a breach is serious, however, the matter will be referred to the privileges committee of the relevant chamber, and that committee will then decide whether to recommend a sanction. These sanctions may include fines, a discharge from a parliamentary committee or a suspension from parliament among other things. However, this approach is a departure from the recommendations of the Set the standard report that specifically stated it was critical that the IPSC be able to make independent recommendations. The report says, 'An independent mechanism and structural independence from parliamentarians and political parties is imperative to ensure a standards and accountability system is able to fulfil its accountability, deterrence and public confidence objectives.' The ability for the IPSC to recommend serious sanctions was endorsed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, and it is already a feature of the parliamentary standards legislation recently introduced in Victoria. Indeed, a joint investigation conducted by IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman not only recommended a process for independent recommendations for serious sanctions but also recommended that the privileges committee of each house be reformed to dilute the capacity of the majority in each house to determine the privileges committee's priorities and decision-making. In addition to this, as it currently stands, there is no requirement that the findings of the IPSC investigation be made public. This is unlike in the UK, where the findings of the independent body are published along with their recommended sanctions when a member of parliament has been found to be in breach of a code of conduct. While I understand there may be circumstances where someone who has made a referral may wish to remain anonymous, I think the expectation that those who have been found to be in breach of the code are protected by secrecy is a serious flaw in this legislation. I also believe the IPSC should be given the scope to address any conduct that brings the parliament into disrepute, including conduct that is currently protected by parliamentary privilege or happens outside the normal scope of our roles. As drafted, the IPSC will not be able to investigate allegations of poor behaviour that happens in this chamber or during the proceedings of parliament, nor will it be able to investigate allegations of bad behaviour that occurs outside the normal course of work. This is, again, a departure from the Set the standard report, which recommended an approach which was more consistent with that which already exists in the United Kingdom House of Commons and the Scottish parliament. Parliamentary privilege has long been an obstacle to behavioural reform here, with it often seemingly interpreted as an entitlement for parliamentarians to behave however they want. But I believe that interpretation is flawed and that parliamentary privilege should not elevate us above the people who elect us. The impunity it provides should come with responsibility and should not be exploited or used to resist regulatory changes to govern conduct. The evidence received during the inquiry into parliamentary standards was largely supportive of behaviour codes applying to all parliamentary proceedings, with even the President of the Senate, the Hon. Sue Lines, giving evidence that the presence of a clear set of standards would be helpful in managing behaviour in the chambers. At the same time, multiple submissions pointed to the experiences of other parliaments that have implemented codes of conduct, including the United Kingdom, where misconduct is placed outside the protection of parliamentary privilege. The Set the standard report asserted that, while parliamentary supremacy needed to be recognised, the powers of the IPSC should be delegated from the houses of parliament. By doing so, the IPSC's investigations would not conflict with parliamentary privilege, because the scheme remains within the parliament. Ultimately, if we can't agree that behavioural expectations should apply to us in all circumstances, we will have not only missed the opportunity to set a meaningful standard of behaviour in this place but failed to meet our communities' expectations. There is much more to do to ensure the behaviour in our federal parliamentary system meets the standards our public currently and rightly expects, and, while people like me can come here to deliver that message to the major parties, ultimately it's on them to get with the program and show they can change to meet modern expectations. The distinction between legitimate, robust debate and harassment, sexism and bullying continues to be something many in this place struggle to understand. Many of these same people continue to mistakenly think that Australians want to see a performative contest and that Australians like the aggressive and combative behaviour that they see. While those same people hide behind an argument that the Westminster system is traditionally adversarial, they are missing the fact that everyday Australians want to see us challenge that highly gendered institutional legacy. After all, they did it in the UK. Why can't we? Each time poor behaviour in this place is called out, I am inundated with messages from the community. People call my offices, they send emails and they call in en masse during radio interviews, as was the case when I recently spoke with Richard Glover on the ABC and he opened the phone lines. And the resounding message is consistent: this must stop. People are fed up with their elected representatives behaving like overindulged children, and, as someone who has worked her entire life in often male dominated environments where debate was part of unlocking great ideas, I can guarantee the behaviour we see in this place every day would not be tolerated in any other workplace. Yet, while parliaments, including in Wales and Northern Ireland, have banned parliamentarians from subjecting others to unreasonable and excessive personal attacks, and have prohibited language that is sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory, in a bid to improve everyday respect in their chambers, it would seem the major parties in this parliament are paralysed by their idea of ambitious reform and accountability beyond a three-year election cycle. Improving everyday respect in this place would benefit not only those who work here but also those who watch, because the norms exhibited here influence our society more broadly. If we cannot agree that it's not okay to yell out or harass each other when we disagree, how can we expect a man prone to dominance in the real world to allow his partner to express a divergent opinion at home? This very issue was noted in the Set the Standard report when one participant shared: 'You're constantly in that adversarial environment', with people 'just constantly arguing and yelling and screaming across the chamber … So if it's acceptable here when the public is watching, it must be acceptable in my office when the door's closed.' Clearly, not only embracing but enforcing behaviour standards here would have positive outcomes across both our work environment and, more broadly, in our community, but for it to work all of us in this place must accept that this workplace should reflect the nation's values and meet our community's expectations. While this bill is welcomed, then, it is weaker than many had hoped, and for this reason I move the amendments circulated in my name. We must continue to advocate for greater ambition, to not only ensure any parliamentary workplace is respectful and inclusive but also, ultimately, to ensure it reflects everything our community wants us to be. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Ms Daniel 008CH I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:41 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to support the original content of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 to establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, or IPSC. The bill represents a critical step towards enhancing the integrity and accountability of our parliament. In 2021, reports of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in our parliament justly shocked the nation. It highlighted the need for urgent reform to ensure that all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful places to work, and it resonated with the community as well. Indeed, tens of thousands of people took part in marches for justice, as they were known—rallies right across Australia calling for an end to gender-based violence and workplace harassment. The public were demanding change, as were voices from all parts of the parliamentary ecosystem. These demands culminated in the Australian Human Rights Commission being engaged to conduct an independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces or CPWs. Led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, this review lifted a lid on parliamentary misconduct and found one in three people surveyed across the federal parliament reported being sexually harassed on the job. The review uncovered some shocking discoveries. For example, 51 per cent of those surveyed for the review had experienced at least one incident of bullying, harassment, or actual or attempted sexual assault in a Commonwealth parliamentary workplace. Some 1,723 individuals added their voice to the review, as well as 33 organisations and collectives. This included 935 survey responses, 490 interviews, 302 written submissions and 11 focus groups. I won't read the testimonies from that report, because I have gone to some of that in previous speeches, but it is very sobering reading, and all members of this parliament should take the time to read that report again. Suffice it to say, much of that testimony was genuinely heartbreaking, some of it was infuriating, and some of it was just downright disgusting, and we should never lose sight of that. The 2021 report of the review, entitled Set the standard, was a thorough and far-reaching review. It made 28 recommendations for improving safety and culture in our workplaces, including an expansion of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service; the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards to inquire into and report on matters relating to the development of codes of conduct; and the establishment of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, with responsibility for enforcing the codes of conduct—and that's the bill before us today. As part of Labor's statement of acknowledgement to the parliament back in 2022, the government committed to implementing all recommendations of the report. While there are some people who want to see more, and there are some people who don't want this to see the light of day, I've got to say, as somebody who's been in this parliament for 11 years now, that 11 years ago it would have been unimaginable that this bill would have even been before the House—and I'll come back to that a little bit later. But, as infuriating and as slow as change can be at times, we have to recognise that these are all very important steps we make on a journey that we all have to collectively sign up to. In February 2022, I was very privileged to be appointed the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, which brought together a group of 11 parliamentarians from right across the political spectrum, from the Senate and the House. I want to acknowledge the work and contribution of the member for North Sydney and, indeed, her speech earlier, and I want to acknowledge the members from this House, the members for Ryan, Bean, Calwell and Forrest, and the senators that joined us. This committee was quite exceptional in its work. Seldom is a parliamentary committee asked to draft legislation or codes of conduct, as the case might be, for the work that was before us. We were asked to draft three codes of conduct—one that was specifically for parliamentarians, one for parliamentarians' staff, and one for all other occupants of, and people who come in and out of, Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The need and, indeed, the public expectation for codes of conduct was not new. In fact, this House has debated this issue for more than 50 years. We've been considering these codes. They have come before the parliament on four separate occasions, and previous parliaments were spectacularly unsuccessful in bedding down some codes of conduct. So to have them introduced is an incredible achievement for this 47th Parliament. I acknowledge the hard work of all members of that committee. As I said, this had been a longstanding failure of successive parliaments, where codes focused on conflicts of interest and broader ethical concerns rather than ensuring safe and respectful workplaces. All of those other codes of conduct did not see the light of day. We wanted the codes to be part of a suite of reforms that created long-lasting cultural change in Commonwealth workplaces. The draft codes underwent extensive consultation with parliamentarians and their staff, parliamentary department employees, public servants, the press gallery, lobbyists, and other people that work in or visit our workplaces. The committee conducted staff surveys, considered submissions, consulted with expert stakeholders, held public and private hearings, and considered codes of conduct in similar, comparable jurisdictions such as the British parliament. We chose to collectively call them behaviour codes instead of codes of conduct because we wanted them to reflect the standard of behaviours that we expect in our workplace. The committee eventually produced a consensus report, making 16 recommendations and including three draft behaviour codes—one, as I said, for parliamentarians, one for our staff and one for all other people entering and working in Commonwealth workplaces. Included in the recommendations were the development of guidance materials for those codes as well, the frameworks for continued review and monitoring, support for a body to apply sanctions for breaches of the codes, and for both houses of parliament to adopt interim codes ahead of the development of this sanctioning body. The draft behaviour codes have since been endorsed by all political parties and Independents both in the House and the Senate. The power and strength that comes from that collective action should not be underestimated. This is an Australian first. I look forward to them being adopted by both houses of parliament following the passage of this bill. There will be nobody in this House happier than myself, other than perhaps the member for North Sydney and everybody else who toiled on these behaviour codes. The committee were constantly cognisant that the codes would be worth nothing without the independent enforcement regime. Witnesses to the committee's inquiry were most vocal in declaring that the codes of conduct were not worth the paper they were written on if there weren't a strong, independent enforcement regime to accompany them. This bill will establish that enforcement regime which is the next piece of the parliamentary cultural reform work. This is serious, hard work, but this IPSC will act as a fair and independent workplace investigatory body to handle complaints, make findings about misconduct, and make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct. It will have the power to investigate genuine complaints, to impose sanctions and to recommend reforms. It will not replace parliamentary privilege—it will work with the privileges committee where necessary—nor will the IPSC be an avenue for vexatious or malicious complaints or political pointscoring. The IPSC's independence from political pressure will be crucial. Decisions will be made based on principles of fairness and justice, not partisanship. The bill outlines a clear and transparent process for handling grievances and disciplinary actions by establishing rigorous procedures and open channels for reporting and addressing misconduct. The commission will foster a culture of responsibility and ethical conduct within our system. The expanded Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, whom building occupants now know and trust, will remain the front door for people who have a workplace complaint. The IPSC will be located within the PWSS and will share some resourcing but will otherwise operate independently, and that is important. That means that if you have a complaint, you can go to the PWSS, like you currently can, and they will give advice on how it can be resolved, including whether it would be appropriate to be handled and investigated by the IPSC. If it is determined that an investigation is needed by the IPSC, the process will be rigorous, conducted by the independent expert commissioners and in accordance with the legislation before this House today. Importantly, this legislation also allows for oversight and review. I say that to all those that have reservations, whether they're people who are very anxious about having any form of independent oversight or those that would wish to see even further requirements for greater independence. This is a process that we embark on now with, I hope and expect, the full support of everybody in this House. Notwithstanding some reservations that have been articulated, I believe there will be support for this bill from every single one of the 151 members of this House. That's an important signal to send to us all. This is a body that has a review mechanism in place, and it will be important to ensure that this is in fact delivering everything we want and need an independent body to be able to do. This legislation, as I said, will allow for that oversight and review, and I expect that that will be conducted in a very rigorous manner. It will also establish a Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards to reform a whole range of important functions: recommendations about the appointment of commissioners, reviewing the behaviour codes, monitoring and reviewing the performance of commissioners, and reporting on any matters connected with the performance and function of the IPSC and its commissioners. Just like the way we drafted those behaviour codes, where we sought to reach consensus on that, I don't for one moment suggest that they should be set in stone, that they are perfect. They too will be subject to a review. This is important work. What we do in 2024 might not necessarily hold in 2034. I expect to see change in these. I expect to see a process of continuous improvement and best practice always applied to this House. This is much-needed legislation, it is long-awaited legislation and it offers so many benefits to our parliament. There will be the enhanced accountability. There will be consistency in standards. There will be protection against political influence through independence to ensure that the investigations and decisions that are made are based on evidence rather than political interests. It will bring us improved public confidence by demonstrating a commitment to high ethical standards and transparency in the nation's parliament. It will bring effective oversight through the ability to investigate complaints, enforce rules and recommend sanctions or reforms. It will promote ethical behaviour by acting as a deterrent against unethical behaviour and encouraging a culture of integrity. And it will bring objective decision-making based on objective assessments and established criteria, rather than influence by external pressures or internal biases. The Jenkins report gifted us, through very difficult circumstances, an opportunity to transform Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces to become what they already should be—workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed, and enforced, where respectful behaviour is rewarded and in which any Australian, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or age, feel safe and welcome to contribute. I also just want to acknowledge the work of Senator Katy Gallagher. We need to set the standard. I urge all members to support this bill. 17:57 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise today to just make a few short remarks about this bill. Further and more detailed contributions are going to be made by Senator Larissa Waters and our other members in the Senate but I do just want a place a few matters on record. Establishing this Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to enforce the codes of conduct that should regulate parliamentarians' behaviour has been a long time coming. Recommendation 22 of the Set the Standard report was that the houses of parliament should establish this body within 12 months. The IPSC was initially expected in October 2023 but that timeframe has since been delayed until October 2024. Both houses of parliament have now endorsed codes of conduct for behaviour, but one of the things that we strongly believe and why we are pleased to see legislation coming here is that, without an independent body to investigate breaches, those codes have been unenforceable. It's for that reason that the Greens support the establishment of an IPSC to hold MPs accountable for bad behaviour. We do have some concerns that some of the provisions in this bill don't go far enough, as far as had been mooted and had been recommended. We think there should be higher fines for MPs and more consequences for ministers where there is an adverse finding and that it shouldn't be up to the Prime Minister to determine what happens to ministers who misbehave. We are disappointed to see that the bill doesn't allow the IPSC to suggest appropriate parliamentary sanctions to be imposed on MPs by the privileges committee, because this is something that recommendation 22 of the Set the Standard report actually specified and actually proposed. We are disappointed that that hasn't been picked up. We're also disappointed that there's no requirement for the privileges committee to report its reasons if it departs from IPSC recommendations. This is important. The 'I' in IPSC stands for 'independent'. Part of the reason that the public ought to have faith in this is that it may well be the IPSC that recommends action be taken. When that comes here—if it comes here—and, for constitutional reasons, it is only able to be dealt with by the privileges committee, if the privileges committee doesn't do what the independent body has recommended, I think people will be entitled to know why. If we've set up this independent body and then someone does something wrong and a sanction is recommended, but the privileges committee or a committee of the parliament—that is, the parliament itself—decides to depart from that, then, at a minimum, we say there should be reporting of reasons because the public must have confidence that politicians will be held to account. A strong and transparent process is needed for that confidence. On those issues that are flagged—and potentially others as we work our way through the bill, but certainly on those—our leader in the Senate, Senator Waters, will move amendments in the Senate to address those omissions. I want to pay tribute to the work of Senator Waters and, indeed, all of the other members across parliament on the leadership task force as well as Greens deputy leader, Senator Mehreen Faruqi, and all of the other members of parliament for their work on the codes of conduct. The Greens think that having an IPSC to enforce these codes of conduct is a very important step in making parliamentary workplaces safer. Finally, to conclude my brief remarks, it is worth noting that as well as the work of people within the parliament, this progress would not have happened without all of the brave staff that spoke out. Many of those staff spoke out with great fear and trepidation, but they were brave. They brought their stories forward and they forced us to act. The request that they had is, indeed, a request that pretty much everyone else in this country would have—namely, that that this place set the standard rather than be a national shame; it is about time. 18:02 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I have spoken in this place many times about the need for us to hold ourselves accountable and to, indeed, set the standard. I want to, once again, take the opportunity to acknowledge the critical work of the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins and her team at the Australian Human Rights Commission in helping to set us on this course. I also want to acknowledge all the staff—current and former—in this place who contributed their experiences to that report. I know that was not easy for many of those staff, but we are a better parliament because of your efforts; thank you. I want to acknowledge the people in this place who have helped steer us to this point because—again, let's be honest—this isn't a workplace that embraces change easily. It is not a workplace that has done this really difficult work in the past. It has taken us far too long to get to this point. I want to acknowledge the people who, in just two years of our government being in power, have now got us to the point where we are introducing something that probably should have happened a very long time ago. In particular, I pay tribute to my friend and colleague the member for Newcastle for her leadership and, of course, to the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher. Labor—both in opposition are now in government—have been steadfast in our commitment to making this a safer workplace for all people. This is something that we need to see action on. For too long, this parliament hasn't met the standards the Australian people expect of us. In fact, we're the place that sets the standards and the rules for other workplaces, yet we haven't managed to meet the standards that we have expected of those in the Australian community. That is shameful for all of us, and it is something that, collectively, we must continue to set right. In particular, it is very concerning that this parliament has, in too many cases, not been a safe workplace for women. It is positive that that is changing, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought it was job done. This is a really important part of the puzzle, but it is still on all of us in this place, particularly those of us elected to this place and those of us who employ staff in this place, to make sure that we are doing everything we can, everything that we have a responsibility for, to make this a safer workplace for all, particularly for women. The Set the standard report found that, for so many staffers and others who work in parliament or other parliamentary workplaces, their experiences were of a workplace that was often toxic and harmful. It's been absolutely clear for some time that parliament needs to improve and that we need that long-term cultural piece of change in how our parliament workplace operates. The recommendations that were put forward in the Set the standard report have helped us to ensure that we are on the pathway to making sure that this workplace, our electorate offices and related workplaces are safe and respectful. They put us in the area where we are now following best practice in preventing and responding to bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. The delivery of all of that work, as I said, is on all of us. Government members, opposition members, crossbench members—we all have a responsibility to deliver on making this a safe workplace and to ensure this building and Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces here and around the country are safe and respectful. In particular, I think it's important that the architecture of the IPSC, which will be set up through this bill, ensures that there are consequences for actions and that we know that, if we are not behaving in a way in which staff feel safe and respected and we're not doing the work to make this a workplace where that is the norm, we will be held accountable for our actions. For too long, there has been impunity in this place. There has been a sense that being an elected member of parliament somehow, in some way, puts you above consequences or rules that apply to people who work in other workplaces. That is no longer the case. With the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, we will have, in this place, a mechanism to see the outcomes that will hold people accountable for their actions. Since the Set the standard report was first handed down, our government has been committed to implementing all 28 of its recommendations. We are very clear that parliamentary workplaces should be safe and respectful for everyone, and it's work that we have done and tried to do by bringing the whole parliament together. Last year, the government, working with the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and its staff consultation group, established the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The PWSS has since enhanced its operations, providing centralised human resources support to parliamentarians and their staff. I think, again, if you talked to people in many other professional workplaces around Australia, you would find that they would be astounded to hear that it took us until 2023 to really have in place a centralised professional HR service for this building, but that is, in fact, the case. I know, certainly from my experience, the experience of my staff and the experience of others I've spoken to, that having the PWSS in place has made a difference to our experience in this building. The PWSS provides services to a broader cohort of people who work in the parliament, to support a safe and respectful workplace. That is a really important part of that architecture that we needed to set up to make this a safer workplace. What we're doing now with this bill is the next part, which is the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The IPSC will be able to investigate complaints about breaches of behaviour codes that will apply in the parliamentary workplace. In fact, having the IPSC in place means that those behaviour codes that we have all signed up to can finally commence. Importantly, the IPSC will have fair and confidential processes. Again, that is important. I acknowledge all of the staff who, as part of this process, have brought forward their stories and experiences. It is vital that, as part of these mechanisms we are putting in place now, staff feel like they have avenues that they feel are safe and respectful to take complaints and issues to, and that is how the IPSC is being set up. It will be independent, and it will be impartial. The government has worked very closely with parliamentarians through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, with staff in the building and with other people right across the parliament to get these important reforms right. We do have to make sure that, when serious workplace issues arise in this place, people have recourse through an independent investigation and that there is real accountability for people doing the wrong thing. That accountability has been lacking in the past, and I think it has been a factor in making people feel both unsafe and also like they do not have genuine avenues to take complaints or concerns through. In doing all of this work we've sought as much as possible to align with the approach and the recommendations of the Set the standard report, while also balancing that against the need for this legislation to carefully interact with the role of the parliament. In striking this balance we've worked out that the IPSC would be established as part of the PWSS and that there will be functional separation between the IPSC's investigation function and the PWSS's functions. They'll work together in complementary ways. The PWSS will continue to be a front door for complainants, although a complaint could be made directly to the IPSC. The IPSC will not commence investigations that would be better addressed through the PWSS's complaint resolution function. Again, we have tried to be very thoughtful about how both of these bodies are providing people in this workplace with avenues to have issues addressed. Then at the end point, where necessary, there are also consequences for findings against people, and, as I said, those consequences will be an important part of the architecture that we're setting up. As an independent and impartial body, the IPSC will be well placed to undertake investigations and to determine whether misconduct has occurred. The IPSC would be able to directly impose on MPs sanctions including training, behaviour agreements and reprimands and would refer serious findings to the relevant privileges committee to recommend appropriate sanctions to the parliament. The relevant privileges committee would then be responsible for considering the appropriate sanction and would be required to report to the parliament with their recommendation. Importantly, this would require a public report, ensuring that the committee is accountable for their recommendation to the parliament. Accountability, again, is part of what has been missing. I've spoken with many people over the years that this process has been active in this parliament. I know, from many conversations with broader members of the public but particularly young women about how they view this place as a workplace, that they have really seen it as a consequence-free environment. Obviously, the concern for all of us in here is not just that which we should all hold that the Australian public aren't very impressed sometimes with how we conduct ourselves and how we treat this place as a workplace but also that the message we are sending to young women and that they're receiving is one of this not being a safe place for them either to want to work in or to enter into as an MP. That is something that is on all of us to actively work to change. Passage of this legislation will help finalise the implementation of the recommendations from the Set the standard report, helping to ensure that this workplace leads by example and is safer for all—for parliamentarians, for staff and for all of those in the building. I absolutely acknowledge that Parliament House is a unique workplace. In that uniqueness we want to attract the best and the brightest here. We don't want to be exclusive about it. We don't want to be saying, 'You can only come if you can hack it; you can only come if you can work our unique workplace to your advantage.' We want to say, 'This is a safe and respectful workplace for all people,' and this legislation is an important part of sending that message both to the Australian people and also to all of those who work in this building. We have a shared responsibility to make sure that people who work in this building and in other political offices are able to do their jobs in a safe way and be confident that the systems and supports that should be in place to support them are there when and if they need them. We have taken the time to get this legislation right and, as I said, to consult across the parliament. I do thank all the people not just in the government but in the other parties and the opposition who have been involved in that consultation. I am sure that, as a result of this legislation, we will get a better parliament. We will get a parliament that is more respectful. We will get a parliament that is safer for staff and people who work in this environment. We will place this parliament in line with the standards that we request of other workplaces right around the country. Change like this doesn't happen overnight. I'm not kidding myself that we have done all the work we need to do. I say again that the responsibility is on all of us, particularly those of us who are elected members of this place, to make sure that we live up to setting the standard, to make sure that we don't think this is a set-and-forget and the work is done. We should continue to work together to set the standard to make sure that people are safe and respected in this workplace. 18:15 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I move: That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House: (1) notes that: (a) the Code of Conduct requires parliamentarians to treat people with "dignity, courtesy, fairness, and respect"; (b) the conduct of parliamentarians in the House of Representatives chamber—especially during Question Time—frequently falls short of these standards; (c) there is no other workplace environment where shouting, mocking, and hurling insults is not only tolerated, but celebrated; (d) since May 2022, politicians have been thrown out of the chamber over 200 times; (e) this behaviour sets a terrible example to young Australians and does nothing to support constructive discussion and social cohesion, at a time when we are struggling to disagree well as a country; and (f) the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission is supposed to enforce the Code of Conduct for parliamentarians, but its remit will not extend to conduct in the chamber; and (2) calls on the Government to embed the new Code of Conduct in the House of Representatives Standing Orders, and to take real steps to improve behaviour in the chamber." I rise to speak in support of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. The legislation represents an essential step towards addressing the deep-rooted issues that have plagued our parliamentary workplace for too long. I commend the work of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, including the member for Warringah, in getting us to this point. Like many Australians, I've been appalled by the reports and revelations about conduct in parliament over the last few years. Kate Jenkins's Set the standard report shone a stark light on the toxic culture that had been allowed to fester within these very walls, revealing a workplace where inappropriate behaviour, including sexual harassment, bullying and assault, was allowed to proceed unchecked. Her report found that parliament had become a breeding ground for misconduct, particularly against women, who were underrepresented in senior roles and often subject to gender discrimination in the workplace. As one woman interviewed for the inquiry lamented: It is a man's world and you are reminded of it every day thanks to the looks up and down you get, to the representation in the parliamentary chambers, to the preferential treatment politicians give senior male journalists. This male-dominated culture, described by Jenkins as 'testosterone fuelled', allowed a dangerous sense of entitlement to flourish. The report recounts the harrowing experience of one individual who recalled: The MP sitting beside me leaned over … thinking he wanted to tell me something, I leaned in. He grabbed me and stuck his tongue down my throat. The others all laughed. It was revolting and humiliating. Such behaviour is not only unacceptable but an indication of how far removed this workplace had become from the values of respect and equality that we as representatives of the Australian people are meant to uphold. TheSet the standard report also highlighted the extensive culture of bullying that existed within parliamentary workplaces, with 37 per cent of employees reporting that they had experienced some kind of bullying at work. One individual shared the disheartening advice they'd received: Frequently, like at least every week, the advice was go and cry in the toilet so that nobody can see you, because that's what it's like up here. Even more alarmingly, over half the people in the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces reported experiencing at least one incident of either bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault. A staggering 77 per cent said they had witnessed, experienced or heard about such behaviour. These statistics paint a grim picture of our parliamentary workplace. They reveal a culture that not only fails to protect its workers but also perpetuates harm. As one individual described: Aspiring male politicians who thought nothing of, in one case, picking you up, kissing you on the lips, lifting you up, touching you, pats on the bottom, comments about appearance, you know, the usual ... the culture allowed it … Such casual references to such deeply inappropriate behaviour highlight are deeply troubling normalisation of this kind of misconduct. But one of the most damning findings of the Set the standard report was that parliamentarians who engaged in misconduct were often not held to account. As one participant put it, 'There are no ramifications for bad behaviour because there is no risk of MPs getting fired or otherwise being held accountable for their actions.' This glaring lack of accountability is unacceptable. It undermines public trust in our institution and tarnishes the reputation of our democracy. The findings of the Set the standard report sent shockwaves through my community and demand immediate and comprehensive action. It is clear that the status quo cannot continue. We need to create a parliamentary workplace that is safe, respectful and inclusive, where misconduct is not tolerated and where those who perpetuate it are held to account. This is not only about justice for those who suffered in the past but a necessary step towards restoring the public's faith in our political system. Whilst many of the recommendations from the Set the standard report have now been addressed, this bill seeks to address several issues that remain outstanding by establishing an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The IPSC will have the authority to investigate allegations of breaches of codes of conduct for parliamentarians and staff, as well as breaches of conduct standards which apply to all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. Importantly, it will address bullying and sexual harassment. Complaints to the IPSC can be made through various channels, including through referrals from a parliamentarian, a party leader or the PWSS CEO. A single investigating commissioner will determine whether an investigation should commence, with protections in place to deal with frivolous complaints or those which should be addressed under other laws. After an investigation, the IPSC will make findings on whether a person has engaged in misconduct and impose or recommend sanctions. This bill is a critical step forward in addressing misconduct in parliamentary workplaces. It sends a clear message that inappropriate behaviour will no longer be tolerated and that those who engage in misconduct will be held accountable. However, I have two key concerns with the legislation. First, when it comes to the most serious instances of misconduct, this bill only partially implements recommendation 22 of the Set the standard report. The Set the standard report recommended that the IPSC should have the power to recommend specific sanctions in relation to parliamentarians that had engaged in misconduct, but this is not fully provided for under this legislation. Where there is a less serious breach of the code, the IPSC will have the power to determine and impose sanctions on parliamentarians, such as a reprimand or a requirement to undertake training, but where the IPSC determines that a breach justifies serious sanctions it will have to refer the matter to the privileges committee, which will then determine the relevant sanction and, in turn, recommend it to parliament. As a result there'll be no mechanism for the IPSC to recommend sanctions against parliamentarians for the most serious breaches of the code of conduct. This is concerning and creates a risk that the most serious offences could go unpunished or indeed be covered up for political expediency. Now, I have the utmost respect for the privileges committee and I believe it will do its job well, but we are operating on trust here, without a legislative backstop, and the community doesn't have great trust in many of the institutions we hold dear at this stage. I therefore urge the government to look again at this issue and to ensure that there is appropriate transparency in the cases of the most serious breaches of the code. Without this, the IPSC will not meet public expectations of reform. The second limitation of this bill is that it does not address conduct within the parliamentary chamber, and my second reading amendment goes to this point. The current code of conduct requires parliamentarians to treat people with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect, but the conduct of parliamentarians in this House of Representatives chamber, especially during question time, frequently falls well short of these standards. There is no other workplace where shouting, mocking and hurling insults are not only tolerated but celebrated. At times this House is more like a sporting event than a place of serious discussion about the laws and the most important issues facing this country. I recall an instance during question time where a parliamentary colleague shouted, 'Rip him another one,' in the middle of a debate. On another occasion I left the chamber after question time, and two members of the public came up and asked me, 'Is it always like that?' They were so stunned by the behaviour they witnessed. Today, we had members of the public leave the gallery and make obscene gestures towards the parliament, but the behaviour in this place, I think, encourages this sort of behaviour. It says: 'Hey, that's okay. This is the sort of behaviour that is expected in this place.' It made them think that was okay. There are so many other examples that I could cite, and indeed, since May 2022, politicians have been thrown out of the chamber over 200 times. I've heard of politicians, particularly on the coalition side, boasting of how many times they have been thrown out, as if this is some sort of badge of honour. This is disgusting. We have young people in this chamber almost every single day, looking down at this chamber as an example of how to have conversations about the most important issues of the day, and these politicians are competing with each other to be thrown out. It does nothing to support constructive discussion and social cohesion at a time when we are struggling so hard to disagree well as a country. I have heard many sermons from all sides of the House about how social cohesion is so important and we can't stand for bad behaviour and we need to lead. We need to start by leading in this place. The director-general of ASIO, Mike Burgess, said: … words matter. ASIO has seen direct connections between inflamed language and inflamed community tensions. These are sobering words, but I fear that many in this place have not listened. My community is, at this point in time, feeling these inflamed tensions more than most. At a time when we desperately need to bring people together, when we desperately need to be listening respectfully to each other, to hold deep emotions and deep convictions but still be able to listen and learn from each other, our tone and our language in this parliament are frequently seeking to divide. We should be setting an example for this nation, having difficult debates but doing so in a way that does not undermine social cohesion and does not foment fear and anger, and engaging in constructive discussions, not trading insults. The Governor-General, in her first speech as Governor-General, spoke about going around the country and listening to what was important to the members of our community. She noted that many people expressed their concern that we might lose our capacity to conduct robust and passionate argument and debate with civility and respect without resorting to rancour or violence. Question time frequently shows politics at its worst. It undermines the institution, it undermines support for politicians and it undermines our democracy. The problem with this bill is the IPSC and the codes of conduct do not apply in this place, which is the most visible place of debate in the country. I think that there are some people who have been in this parliament for so long, either as staffers or as members, that they have become completely out of touch with the Australian public and what they expect. While I think this bill is a positive step forward, I am disappointed that the most important part of parliamentary conduct is not included. The IPSC is supposed to enforce a code of conduct for parliamentarians, but its remit will not extend to conduct in this chamber. I call on the government, through my second reading amendment, to embed the new code of conduct in the standing orders of the House of Representatives and to take real steps to improve behaviour in this chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amended seconded? Ms Chaney 300006 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:29 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah It is an important day, as we finally see this legislation, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, here and we have the opportunity to debate it. The Australian federal parliament has failed to be a safe, supportive workplace in recent years. Indeed, we see, all too often, conduct that is incredibly inappropriate. We know from the Set the standard report that, too often, staff have had a very unsatisfactory experience. When it comes to sexual harassment, bullying, intimidation and even assaults, the rates have been incredibly high. The Set the standard report shocked the nation with the idea that our Commonwealth workplace—which should be the gold standard, leading the way for the private sector and other areas—was in fact miles and years behind the private sector. But is that really surprising, when we see the conduct in this place during the course of debate and often during question time? The government has been investing in a campaign around respect, to address domestic violence, called Stop it at the Start. As I've said, and as I think the member for Mackellar said, we need to start it at the top. Ultimately, behaviour and culture change come down to leadership; it's how our leadership behaves that really makes a difference. What we see, too often, especially during question time, is behaviour that has vitriol—bad behaviour. We have often tried to discuss those experiences—experiences of behaviour that is condescending, aggressive and misogynistic. The events of today just reinforced that perception and the reality that, as soon as there is a viewpoint that some members in this place—in particular, members of the coalition—don't like and don't want to hear, they think it is their right to yell over the top of someone, to try and bully them out of the opportunity to speak. I would remind the coalition: this is the House of Representatives, and all communities, under our Constitution, have a right of representation and a right to speak. That is what this place is for. Just today, in fact, I had the Leader of the Nationals yelling at me that I should be 'careful'. Now, what exactly does that mean? Is that a threat? I raised my concern about conduct in the public gallery. Should I then feel threatened or intimidated from raising that point? That goes to the heart of what is wrong with this place and the culture that needs to change. As today's events show all too well, that change has to come from the top. Leadership matters, and those in positions of leadership of parties need to do better—or those below them in the parties need to seek better leadership that will set an example, will show integrity and will be the kind of behaviour that is becoming to this place, so that we can set the standard for other workplaces. I know, and Set the standard identified, that many female MPs and staff have been subject to a lot of condescending, aggressive, misogynistic behaviour. We should be a gold-standard workplace here. We set the ethics and the laws that direct so many other workplaces. They look at the behaviour in this place and shake their heads at the arrogance of members in this place in trying to dictate to other workplaces the standards they should comply with, when this very workplace does not comply with any kind of standard or set any example. So is it any wonder that most Australians don't believe we are good role models? Yet we are elected to be leaders of our communities. The Guardian Essential poll, reported in July, showed that the public is extremely dissatisfied with members as democratic leaders. Only 29 per cent are satisfied with the federal parliament. An overwhelming 75 per cent think most politicians enter politics to serve their own interests. Is it any wonder that the public has so little faith in what we do here as parliamentarians, when our own behaviour and standards fall well below what the community expects of us? It is just incredible to hear the justification we hear, all too often, when trying to raise the standard. People have said: 'If you're not up for a robust debate, you should do something else.' I've been an Olympic athlete; I've been to Olympic games and stared down incredible pressure in other aspects. I've been a barrister for 10 years. I've been in courts with incredibly robust debate and arguments. Never have I seen, in any other professional environment, the disrespect we see in this place. Members in this place are kidding themselves if they think that in any way this is a question of robust debate. Robust debate is not disrespectful debate, and that's what, all too often, we see evolve in this place. When I think of the schoolchildren in years 5 and 6 coming to see the place of debate, I really am concerned. And they all invariably raise concern and are surprised at the conduct they witness. I often think it's nearly like a white line syndrome. MPs come into this place thinking that it's going to be held to a different standard, that it's part of the game of parliament or of question time, without thinking about the impact, the role modelling, that this has at a time when we have a crisis of respect. We have a crisis when it comes to domestic violence. It really matters what kind of behaviour we say is acceptable, and it needs to start in this place. Whilst I welcome the legislation we have before us today, it's incredibly disappointing that, ultimately, it does not apply to the conduct in this place, does not apply to the conduct in the Senate and does not apply to the conduct during Senate inquiries. I appreciate it is because of the question of parliamentary privilege, but I strongly support the amendment, and I call on the leaders of political parties to go that extra step of leadership and endorse the code of conduct in this place, take it to your party room. That is within the power of every leader of a political party. I have been a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, and I know how difficult it has been to even bring this legislation to this point. Obviously, a lot of the deliberations of the committee have been confidential. I thank the government and the minister, Senator Gallagher, for her leadership in bringing it forward. And I very much want to thank the secretariat and the taskforce chair, Dr Vivienne Thom, for all the work they've done to help us undertake implementing the recommendations of Set the standard and bringing this legislation to the front. Establishing the IPSC is a key recommendation of the Set the standard report, completed by Kate Jenkins in 2021. Work on fully implementing the recommendations in this report has not been as quick as it should have been or as many wanted; it has taken too long. But we have to look at the glass half full—progress is being made. Change to the culture of the federal parliament is happening. But events of today would say it's happening very, very slowly, in this room at least. I hope that, at least for staff, this provides some level of security or a feeling that they are now going to have a body to properly investigate complaints. The legislation before us formally establishes the IPSC. In Set the standard, the IPSC was recommended to ensure independent and consistent respondents to reports and complaints of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces—again noting that this is part of our workplace yet it is exempt from the application. The bill aims—at least outside of this chamber—to apply those principles and that process. It will lift the standard and keep people safe—staff safe and MPs safe. And it will ensure there is the right support for everyone—MPs, senators and staff members alike. It's important to have a clear body that can investigate where these standards are not met. The draft behaviour standards, the codes of conduct, will now be enforceable by the IPSC, and that's important. I thank my colleague the member for North Sydney and all those on the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, who did the work to prepare the draft codes. The IPSC will have the power to enforce these codes and investigate instances of where these codes have been breached for those who work in this place. It will also have the power to enforce sanctions on those found to have breached expected standards. Sanctions for staff will include fines or even dismissal. For parliamentarians, it's more complicated. Fines can also be imposed, along with more severe sanction, but there obviously are issues when it comes to sanctions for parliamentarians. The bill formalises the parliament's first ever workplace investigation framework to cover everyone. That is real process and well overdue. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, or PWSS, remains the place to provide advice and guidance for any in this place who need it. The IPSC is the accountability and enforcement mechanism for when the behaviour codes are breached. It will be independent and impartial, it will ascertain the facts, and it will conduct investigations. Commissioners will be appointed who have the relevant experience and training to ensure they can undertake their investigative function as fully and properly as possible. Investigations would be undertaken where a commissioner judges sufficient information to do so with a complainant's consent. A commissioner has discretion not to investigate on several grounds, including if the conduct would be more appropriately dealt with under any other law, by the PWSS complaint resolution service, or if it is vexatious or lacking in substance. That is important, because complaints can obviously have huge reputational damage if it is vexatious or without proper merit. It's important to note that if another authority at the federal, state or territory level has jurisdiction, and it would be considered the appropriate place to take a particular issue or grievance, then that will occur. The PWSS will remain an avenue to support people involved in an investigation, whether as complainant, respondent or witness, at all times. It is really important to emphasise the continued role that the PWSS will play in parliament and electorate offices. Potential complainants are encouraged to seek advice from PWSS, who can talk through options to facilitate resolutions of workplace issues. PWSS can provide advice about making a complaint to the IPSC if an investigation would be appropriate. However, there might be those who will be more comfortable reporting directly to the IPSC, and that is possible. In relation to the more serious misconduct, particularly by parliamentarians, the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has landed on a model which requires serious misconduct to be, essentially, referred to the privileges committee, and there will be a range of sanctions that can be imposed. I should say that is not my preferred pathway; ultimately, the privileges committee—without detracting from their professionalism, authenticity and integrity—are also parliamentarians and are also party members, so you have a situation where we are regulating ourselves. To date, that has not been a sufficient enough deterrent to improve behaviour. I do have questions about the effectiveness of the referral to the privileges committee and about leaving it to the privileges committee to determine the sanctions. The commission will not make recommendations and there is no requirement for the privileges committee to consider particular recommendations as to sanctions nor to explain why they may depart from recommendations. I understand the Constitutional and ethical dilemma around the fact that parliamentarians are elected—it is not a traditional employment situation—and the privileges committee is the committee that has oversight over the conduct of parliamentarians in other circumstances. But it's clear there is an expectation from the public that we as members of parliament need to be held more accountable than we currently are. There is a question whether or not the privileges committee will be capable of doing that, especially since it is, ultimately, still government-led. Is that going to provide increased scrutiny on conduct? The jury's out. Ultimately, I support the legislation because it's overdue and we need it, but we need to be open to whether or not further amendments are going to be needed to ensure there is greater direction given to the privileges committee and accountability of the privileges committee in how it gets there. Ultimately, I am appreciative of the steps the government has taken to engage in genuine consultation, and in seeking to get as broad an agreement as possible. That is the difficulty with the nature of this place; it's so adversarial that even the question of whether we should be held to a better standard becomes adversarial in itself. Unless everyone is genuinely at the table wanting these changes to happen, it is difficult. Ultimately, the public will judge us on how well we improve standards in this place, but the key is to make sure there is visibility on those processes. I am absolutely committed as a parliamentarian to pull the curtain back on this place and keep the public informed. 18:44 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein If there is one thing that gets under the skin of the members of the Goldstein community who approach me it is parliamentary behaviour inside and outside this chamber. If there was one thing that helped motivate me to stand for parliament as a community independent, it was the account of sexual assault, harassment and bullying of parliamentary staff in the months and years before the 2022 election. What the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 does is give effect to the most important recommendations of Set the Standard, the landmark report of former sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins into workplace culture in and around Parliament House—that is, the establishment of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the next step in bringing workplace culture and parliamentary officers into line with those that apply or should apply, in every other workplace in the country and also in line with community expectations, as voters made clear at the 2022 election. Based on contributions from 1,700 people, Set the Standard condemned the workplace culture here in Parliament House. It found that 51 per cent of all people currently working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment, or actual or attempted sexual assault. What a disgrace. It revealed that one in three workers had experienced sexual harassment, with young women and people who identified as LGBTQIA+ the most vulnerable. It was laid bare for all to see: the nation's parliament was an unsafe place to work. Kate Jenkins noted that, while men and women spoke of their experiences, the harassment and bullying was disproportionately aimed at female staff and MPs. It was largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality, exclusion and a lack of accountability. The contributions from those interviewed in the report are harrowing. For example, 'I now have the privileged position to have a good home, a family of my own but the scars of this period of my life run deep. I left the office after basically having a nervous breakdown,' one person said. 'I will never work in a political office again. It is not worth it,' another said. Another: 'I didn't want to stay in an environment where I was going to be subject that level of abuse.' And another: 'From the get go there is no incentive to actually report because it is not going to change it and it is probably actually going to make it worse.' Again, disgraceful. In the past it has been too easy to say that parliament is a unique workplace, that no other workplace is like it. This narrative has to stop. By speaking about parliament this way, either intentionally or unintentionally, we excuse antisocial behaviour. Yes, it is the national parliament, the imposing house on the hill, but the people who work here have every right to feel safe and respected. The people who work here should have the systems they need to go about their work in a safe and respectful environment—no exceptions. Society has a problem with the way it treats women and, if we cannot lead by example right here in Parliament House, how can we expect respect at work in other workplaces across the nation? Excusing poor behaviour perpetuates myths and misconceptions about sexual assault. The facts are that sexual assault is an underreported and under-prosecuted crime. According to the national statistics, in 2023, 92 per cent of women who experienced sexual assault did not report the incident to the police. Changing the culture here in parliament has been a lengthy and tortuous process. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service is up and running, and parliament has accepted draft behaviour codes for MPs, senators and their staff. Establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission means that those codes can be formally adopted and that there will be a mechanism to ensure that they are enforced. As Kate Jenkins put in her report: The Commission heard that reporting processes were opaque and ineffective, with employees perceiving the risks of reporting as outweighing the benefits. Establishing an independent complaints mechanism will ensure that people working across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces feel confident to report misconduct and that standards will be enforced. As the minister stated in his second reading speech, 'the absence of clear standards of conduct, and the absence of consequences for misconduct, make the Australian parliament not only out of step with developments in other parliamentary contexts but also with the most basic standards in other Australian workplaces.' You can say that again. The question is whether the consequences for misconduct enshrined in the legislation are sufficient to be a deterrent and whether they provide adequate penalties for transgression. Fair Agenda, which campaigns for gender equality and safety, thinks not, arguing that the legislation does not go far enough to deliver strong transparency around misconduct by MPs and senators. It says: Serious sanctions (like suspensions, fines or removal from a Committee) can only be imposed by the parliament itself—so will have to be voted on in the House or the Senate … Indeed, this approach is at odds with recommendation 22 of the Set the standard report, which says that an independent parliamentary standards commission would: make recommendations on sanctions … in relation to parliamentarians, staff and others … The report further adds: … an independent mechanism is needed to provide an effective reporting, investigations and sanctions authority in the context of CPWs— Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces— In particular, a level of structural independence from parliamentarians and political parties is imperative to ensure that a standards and accountability system is able to fulfil its accountability, deterrence and public confidence objectives. Instead, this legislation would require that where serious sanctions are recommended, the IPSC's report—including its findings and the recommended sanctions—would be directed to the relevant chamber's privileges committee. The privileges committee would then conduct its own inquiry, decide whether the alleged behaviour is substantiated and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be applied. It would be open to the committee to dismiss the complaint and to determine its own sanction rather than that recommended by the IPSC. I agree with Fair Agenda—and with the implications of the Jenkins report—that if the privileges committee does not accept the recommendations of the IPSC, it should say so publicly and give its reasons in a timely fashion. This is a requirement of recently enacted Victorian legislation, and there is no reason it should not apply in this parliament as well. The members for North Sydney and Clark are both moving amendments along those lines, and they will have my support. I urge members of the major parties to support them too because the accounts of bullying and harassment reported to Set the standard show just how poorly this parliament has rated as a workplace. The accounts of bullying and harassment are, quite frankly, appalling and demand drastic remedies rather than halfway measures. It's time for the major parties to step up and support these amendments which would give the public confidence that we mean what we say when we declare that this must be a workplace that is safe and attractive. Confidence in the quality of our democracy is low enough as it is. It will not be enhanced if we cannot attract the best young people to come and work for us. On the matter of whether this legislation should have addressed behaviour within the chamber, I'm inclined to believe that that's a matter that is within our own hands in the absence of those particular clauses within the bill. It's up to us to show the voters that we can behave with the civility and decency that would be regarded as the norm in any other workplace. It's up to us to change the standing orders in such a way as to encourage robust but respectful debate, if that is what the majority wishes. To date, governments of either stripe have shown no signs of wanting to reduce the advantage, as they see it, that being in majority provides. Indeed, the only significant steps forward in recent times were the improvements to question time initiated by the crossbench when it had the balance of power between 2010 and 2013. It looks like we'll have to wait until that happens again if there's to be any substantial improvement—unless, that is, that the government is hearing similar complaints from constituents to those that I get on an almost daily basis and decides to actually listen and act on making the standing orders in this House fit for purpose. I commend this bill to the House. 18:54 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I'm pleased to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, particularly after the last fortnight in parliament when the question of whether parliamentary standards are up to scratch was on display for all to see. It's also an important discussion to have when trust in politicians and, indeed, in our democracy is at a bit of a low. As a first-time crossbencher, I feel that I've brought fresh eyes to the parliament, and, while this legislation does not directly address behaviour in the chamber, that's the behaviour that is the most confronting as a newcomer and sets the tone for the rest of the work environment. The jeering, heckling and disrespect shown in the chamber is unlike any other work environment in the country. This chamber should be a place for robust debate, but the culture demonstrated here is a relic of the past, as is the lack of accountability and standards in this place more broadly. The standards in this House should not be so markedly different from the rest of the workplaces all across Australia. If anything, we should be setting an example. If we want our constituents to respect our parliament, we need to demonstrate that we are worthy of respect. If we want our constituents to trust us, we need to earn their trust. Part of this means being transparent and open about misconduct in the parliamentary workplace and holding to account those who betray the trust and respect afforded to them. We also need to provide a safe and respectful workplace for our staff, just like any other workplace, and the sad reality is that this place does not have a good reputation. I interviewed a young woman about a job on my team. She was hesitating about taking the job, and I asked her why. She said she was quite worried because she had heard that Parliament House was a bit 'rapey'. It's absolutely horrific that this could be the reputation of the centre of our lawmaking, and we must do better. This bill is the final piece of reform coming out of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces in response to public outcry over toxic culture and poor behaviour in the Commonwealth parliament. The response to the review, the Set the standard report, was tabled in November 2021, and it contained 28 recommendations to ensure Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful. Recommendation 21 was to establish clear and consistent codes of conduct. Recommendation 22 was to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission—I'll call it the IPSC—which would enforce those codes of conduct. In November 2021, it was recommended that the codes and the IPSC should be implemented within 12 months. The parliamentary behaviour codes were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards and endorsed by both houses of parliament in February 2023, sometime later. An independent parliamentary workplace support service was established and commenced in October 2023, and today, sometime later, we're debating this bill that establishes the IPSC and determining whether this is an appropriate response to the recommendations in Set the standard. What did the report say? The Set the standard report says that the IPSC should make findings about misconduct, make recommendations on sanctions and apply sanctions for a breach of the code of conduct for parliamentarians. It also says the IPSC should: … operate a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to receive disclosures … complaints and appeals about misconduct. I want to look at how this has been translated into legislation. Firstly, on the functions and powers of the IPSC, it has been set up to provide an enforcement mechanism for the behaviour codes. It's set up as an impartial, fact-finding body that investigates conduct issues that have been submitted to the commission in writing, if it's satisfied on reasonable grounds that there's sufficient evidence or information to justify doing so. After investigation, the decision-maker provides a draft report which includes preliminary findings, a summary of evidence and, where relevant, proposed recommendations and sanctions. The person who's subject to critical preliminary findings or proposed sanction then has an opportunity to respond before final sanctions are recommended. In the case of a serious breach finding, the IPSC will refer its findings to the privileges committee, which then considers the appropriate sanction and reports to the relevant house of parliament with its recommendation, and a recommendation by the privileges committee will become public. All of this seems a reasonably appropriate response to the Set the standard report and the committee report, and I agree that it's important there's a division between the IPSC's role of investigating and proposing sanctions, and the functions of setting policy and providing advice and support on behaviour standards. I support structure of the IPSC that requires MoPS employees to have one allocated investigating commissioner and parliamentarians to require a panel of commissioners. I think it is correct to have recommended sanctions communicated to the employer of a MoPS employee found to have breached a behaviour code, while less-serious sanctions can be imposed by the IPSC on parliamentarians. I also believe that serious sanctions against parliamentarians should be applied through the House by the Privileges Committee. As I said at the outset, so much of the rebuilding and trust in this place requires the public to believe parliamentarians and their staff are acting within the highest standards. Second, will it be fair, independent, confidential and transparent? I want to address those requirements in reverse. Firstly, is it transparent? Transparency is essential to build trust. This bill does not require full transparency. In fact, there is no need for the IPSC to ever show its fact-finding assessment nor its recommendations. In the case of serious misconduct, the IPSC assessment and recommendations are given to the Privileges Committee to determine a sanction, and the report of the committee is tabled, so there is some transparency and determination of sanctions for serious misconduct that goes through the Privileges Committee. There is no transparency for lesser breaches and limited transparency on serious misconduct based on the discretion of the committee. A number of advocates are concerned about his lack of transparency. Fair Agenda said that as long as the complainant has given their consent, information about serious misconduct by parliamentarians should be made public as a matter of course so the public has visibility on whether those recommendations have been implemented in full. Australian Democracy Network says that it is crucial there is transparency to the public if a member of parliament violates the standards in the code of conduct. But there is definitely conflict with the requirement of increased transparency balanced with the next requirement—that of confidentiality. As far as employment law and HR are concerned, it makes complete sense that the processes of the IPSC while they investigate and assess need to be confidential. Particularly for MoPS employees or for less serious allegations, the investigation and the outcome or sanction should be treated like a HR issue is treated in the commercial sector. This bill keeps nonserious allegations confidential but includes limited provision for a commissioner or commissioners to make public statements regarding conduct issues. A public statement may also be made by the responsible commissioner where a parliamentarian decision panel imposes a sanction on a parliamentarian in limited circumstances. So we are finding that balance between maintaining MoPS employee nonserious breaches as confidential employee management procedures, and allowing the public to bear witness to serious or endemic conduct issues. My preference is probably for a bit more transparency but I can see this is a difficult balance to find and I think we can achieve the desired purpose in its current form. Next, is it independent? Some have argued that the IPSC, as an independent body, should have final say on all sanctions and the Privileges Committee should not be permitted to impose sanctions on MPs, but there is a problem with this line of argument. MPs are, by nature of their election, in a different employment arrangement than others employed under the MoPS Act. MPs have in effect been employed by the electorate, and a sanctioning by an administrative body is imposing restrictions on a representative that does not report to that body. I am actually happy with the balance found on this. The procedure committee is probably the appropriate body to do the ultimate sanctioning but the proof will be in the pudding. Lastly, is it fair? The final recommendation from Set the Standard is to make sure the process is fair, which is probably the crux of the argument. The premise is clear: MPs and employees must abide by the code of conduct. MPs and employees must have a standard of behaviour that is appropriate for their position. We cannot accept lower standards of behaviour in parliament than we would expect anywhere else. Is it fair that investigations and recommendations are confidential and that MPs are sanctioned only by their peers? The public demands more from politicians than it has in the past. We definitely need to be better and we have the opportunity to use this to make sure we can reform the way this place operates. So while I think there are likely to be future discussions about fairness, this is huge progress and I am really pleased to see this bill. I do support the amendment put by the member for Wentworth that would make this standard apply in this House as well. It's the behaviour in this House that people see. It's that behaviour that we are judged by, not only by the public but also by the schoolchildren that come in and observe us, and I think it's really important that there be a higher standard of behaviour in this House as well as in the building more broadly. This piece of legislation could have gone further, but it is a huge and necessary step up, and I will support it. It's arguably fair, independent and finds a balance between being confidential and transparent, even if it's not exactly the balance that I might have preferred. I commend the bill to the House. 19:05 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth It now comes to me to sum up this debate and thank members across the parliament for their contributions. The purpose of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 is to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. It will implement recommendation 22 of the Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the standard report. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission would function as an accountability mechanism to ensure safe and respectful parliamentary workplaces. We have in this place a shared responsibility to meet that objective. That has been widely acknowledged by members in their contributions today. A range of actions have already been taken to ensure we have a professional and respectful working environment. This bill will build on those actions already taken by this House and by the Senate. Importantly, it will mean that, shortly after the IPSC's commencement, the behaviour codes can finally be adopted. The government thanks members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce for their assistance in developing this bill. This bill will have application across the parliament and affects us all. We also thank members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce's staff consultation group for their time and constructive feedback on the draft bill. That input was very welcome, and I want to again thank every staff member in this building, both current and former, who helped get us to this place. I want to highlight a few of the many contributions from today. The member for Moreton highlighted that, while we're talking about cultural change, sometimes it's the physical change that also reminds us what a journey this place has been on. He reminded us that it was this parliament that turned a pub into a childcare centre—a sign of this building reflecting modern Australia. The member for Indi talked intelligently about the fact that robust debate is a core function and job of the parliament but that that needs to be balanced with our role as role models—and that doesn't mean we can't also engage in respectful debate. The member for Chisholm spoke about her contribution to the Set the standard report from her experience as a staff member in this building a decade ago. She spoke very openly about people who've had their careers cut short in parliament, while others have thrived, and that this is about changing that culture. The member for North Sydney highlighted that everyday Australians disagree that this building exists outside of community expectations; indeed, we sit within those expectations and we should seek to raise those expectations. The member for Newcastle and Deputy Speaker spoke about the work to land the behaviour codes and how much care was put into them. I want to thank the member for Newcastle and Deputy Speaker for her work. She also reflected that a decade ago you wouldn't have been able to get legislation like this through the House. That's a positive reflection on all of us. I also want to thank her for her work on the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, something to which she—like many others—has given countless hours, which has allowed us to be in the position we are in today. I want to note the contribution from the Assistant Minister for Women, who acknowledged that this is a unique workplace but that the mechanisms for transparency and the interaction with the privileges committees of the parliament are so important that we need to make sure that we don't use the fact that we are a unique workplace to not meet the standards of modern workplaces. There is one other thing she noted that I want to echo. She acknowledged all the staff who contributed their experiences, and she said very simply, 'For too long, this parliament hasn't met the standards the Australian people expect of us' and that we have set standards for other workplaces while not meeting those standards ourselves. Again, in passing this bill we will seek to walk in a different direction. The member for Warringah noted the importance of the skill of the commissioners, and I want to echo that. She also said that it's important this be a service available to those that need it and that there is an appropriate way to deal with vexatious complaints, and I echo that. The member for Goldstein talked about the importance of leading here, in parliament, and how it lifts the standards for other Australian workplaces. And I really want to welcome the member for Curtin's commitment to seeing the passage of this bill and also her commitment to making sure that, when people look at this place, they more often than not do see the role models they expect to see. Finally, I want to thank the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and her team. This bill is, hopefully, the final piece of the legislative actions we need to take for the full establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Services and associated functions. Her leadership has got us to this point. She has negotiated and consulted very broadly across the parliament, recognising how important it is that we all go on this journey together. Again, I want to commend her and her team for that. In saying all of that, I really do commend this bill to the parliament. It is a credit to all of us that we have got to this point. I am aware there are some foreshadowed amendments, and we will deal with those in the normal way. I want to thank all members for their constructive engagement, including members of the opposition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The original question was that the bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for North Sydney moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Wentworth has moved, as an amendment to that amendment, that all words after 'reading' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity at the next sitting day. Debated adjourned. Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 73

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024

Second Reading 73 19:12 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. I'm proud to support these important reforms, which are essential to the economy, essential for families and essential for gender equality. You can always trust a Labor government to make the large-scale reforms that change Australian lives for the better, and this amendment to paid parental leave follows in that tradition. It builds on the Gillard government's introduction of paid parental leave way back in 2011. Who can imagine being in the parliament way back then, in 2011! I spoke in this place at the time about how proud I was of the introduction of 18 weeks of government funded pay and how valuable it was to everyday Australians. For many parents, it was the first time they could access any paid parental leave. The 2009 Productivity Commission inquiry had laid the groundwork for paid parental leave initiatives and highlighted its numerous benefits. One of the key benefits was the improved wellbeing of families. In particular, there was a focus on the benefits for both child and maternal health that were associated with an extended period of absence from work around the birth of the baby and, crucially, secure financial support during this period. Other benefits include women maintaining their participation in the workforce and the expression of community values. This included the belief that having a child and taking time out for family reasons are part of the usual course of work and life for many people in the paid workforce, including fathers. These points may all seem very obvious in 2024, but 13 years ago this was momentous legislation. As the Minister for Social Services said, paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and we will always work to strengthen it. Consequently, it has been one of the priorities of the Albanese Labor government to modernise the Paid Parental Leave scheme. That's why, from 1 July last year, we enabled more families to access the payment due to a more generous family income test. It's also why we have made it easier for parents to share care and increased the flexibility of the scheme to help with parents' transition back to work. That is some low-hanging fruit when it comes to productivity gains. Most recently, the Labor government extended the length of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. From 1 July this year, we increased it by two weeks, expanding the scheme from 20 weeks to 22, and the scheme will increase by two weeks each year until it reaches 26 weeks of paid parental leave in 2026. This bill is a continuation of these significant reforms. It has acknowledged that women undertake the majority of unpaid care in Australia, whether that's looking after children, aging parents or other family members for various reasons. I certainly would like to commend my wife for doing that while I've been running around in Canberra. She had two young children, also got a law degree and changed careers at the same time—an amazing woman. Time spent away from the workforce during this crucial work unfairly affects women financially, and that is understating the effect. The Women's Budget Statement from May described: Spending more time on unpaid care than their male counterparts impacts women's lifelong economic security by limiting their labour force participation, career progression, and leadership opportunities. The Albanese Labor government not only recognises the long-term economic consequences of the disproportionate share of unpaid care work that women primarily do; with this bill, we are doing something positive about it. The Women's Budget Statement drew on Working for women: a strategy for gender equality, when it stated: To achieve an Australia where people are safe, treated with respect, have choices and have access to resources and equal outcomes no matter their gender, women and gender equality must be at the centre of Australia's economic plan. That is what this bill does. The Albanese Labor government is investing $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from 25 July. This will directly address the current inequitable situation where women with children experience an average 55 per cent drop in income in their first five years of parenthood. This compounds over time with more children to the point that women retire with around 25 per cent less in their superannuation than men—yes, 25 per cent. This bill means that all eligible parents will receive an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave directly into their super fund from 1 July next year, and it will continue to match the superannuation guarantee rate. The ATO will make the contribution annually after the end of each financial year. The payment will include an additional interest component to address any issues resulting from the payment not being made more frequently. We anticipate that around 180,000 families will benefit from these changes, and, once the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches its full 26 weeks in 2026, a family will receive a superannuation contribution of around $3,000. Beyond the financial benefits, I think it's important to note that paying super on paid parental leave will go a long way to normalising paid parental leave. This means making it a standard in every workplace, like annual leave or personal leave. It also signifies that care work is highly valued, a much-needed cultural shift, and enables it to be shared between parents. Businesses, unions, experts and economists acknowledge that a key factor in boosting productivity and participation is to provide more support and choice for families, which results in more opportunities for women. The benefits for business include the retention of trained and valued staff, the reduction of recruitment costs and the enhancement of staff morale and productivity. This bill also contains some technical amendments. It ensures that the paid parental leave framework in the Fair Work Act is in sync with the Paid Parental Leave scheme. This reform is in the tradition of the life-changing economic and social initiatives of former Labor governments. I'm talking about the governments who gave the nation Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme—all devoted to helping the collective. Reforms in both unpaid and paid care are a key focus of Working for women: a strategy for gender equality. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce stated: Despite women's work, both paid and unpaid, acting as the backbone of our economy during the COVID-19 pandemic, today women's work is still undervalued. Superannuation on paid parental leave is an important way of addressing this issue and narrowing the gap in the use of and access to paid parental leave. It is a key outcome. Paid parental leave supports parents when they're caring for newborn children and helps families balance their caring responsibilities with work, and now it will support them when they retire. The Albanese Labor government's tranche of reforms is the largest expansion to paid parental leave since it was established by the Gillard government. I commend the bill to the House. 19:20 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein More than 11,000 women in Goldstein have received Commonwealth parental leave pay since the scheme began, in 2011, and they've lost out as a result of superannuation not being paid on the scheme. A fair paid parental leave system has the potential to be a game changer for families, the economy and women's economic security in this country. It's a bold statement, but not many policy levers have the power to bring about the sort of cultural change that's needed to elevate Australia's recent poor record on gender equality. Women don't start out behind. Australian women are among the most highly educated in the world and have similar levels of labour force participation to men, until they have children. This triggers a pattern of unequal care and work during prime working years for both parents, with the responsibility of care falling more heavily on women. This results in women's participation in the workforce sitting well below that of men. When mothers take time out of the workforce to care for their children, they not only struggle to maintain a meaningful connection to work but also can go years without receiving any super. Unpaid care, part-time and casual employment, and the gender pay gap—these are the drivers of the gender super gap. Leading up to retirement, the median superannuation balance for women is a third less that of men. That translates to around $50,000 less. The super gap becomes evident around the age of 30, when women take time out of work and reduce their hours to have and care for children. The gap continues to increase until women are in their early 50s, when it's common to care for ageing family members. Women at this stage in their life are often caring for their own children and their parents, a life stage referred to as the sandwich generation. Progress in closing the gender super gap has been slow. Australian Taxation Office statistics show that, over the eight years to 2021-22, the gap in average balances for those aged 18 to 59 has only narrowed by five percentage points, from 28 per cent to 23 per cent across all ages. However, for women in their 30s, the gap has failed to narrow, remaining around a stubborn 20 per cent. Paying super on paid parental leave is one way to reduce the super gap and reduce the impact of parental leave on retirement incomes. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is another step towards a fairer system, and I commend the government for building on the changes to paid parental leave that came into effect last year, including expanding the payment to six months by 2026. Eligible parents with babies born or adopted from July next year will receive an extra 12 per cent of their government funded paid parental leave as an annual lump sum payment to their super fund. This will benefit about 180,000 families annually. Super Members Council analysis shows that paying super on the government scheme could boost a mother of two's retirement savings by about $14½ thousand. Paying super on PPL was one of the recommendations of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. Central to this recommendation is a recognition of the value of care work and the need to better share caring responsibilities. While the number of men taking primary carer parental leave increased by 0.6 per cent in 2022-23, women still make up 86 per cent of employees taking the carer leave option, according to the HILDA Survey of Australian households. The use of parental leave by fathers in Australia is very low by global standards. Because caring patterns are established in the first year of a child's life, that entrenches stereotypical gender roles. We should be encouraging men to take up parental leave to normalise flexible work and shared care responsibilities and to strengthen women's workforce participation and financial security. But it's not only good for women; it's healthy for men. When fathers take parental leave, fathers, their children and their partners all benefit from stronger relationships. This is why I've strongly pushed for super on paid parental leave in this place and in my many conversations with families in Goldstein. As I've said before, it's time we stop punishing women for the burden of unpaid care work that they carry. Taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child should be part of the usual course of life and work for both parents. The evidence is clear: accessible and well-funded paid parental leave is crucial if we want people to stay connected to the workforce. It's also vital to support the health and wellbeing of women, men and children and to improve wider gender equality outcomes. I commend the government for adding super to paid parental leave, but there are also other things the government can do to reduce the super gap. The low income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO, is not indexed. It has not kept pace with increases in the super guarantee rate and current tax brackets. The current cap means workers earning up to $45,000 are paying more tax on their super than they should be. Low-income women would be the biggest beneficiaries of updating the LISTO. Another policy area of potential benefit to women is adjusting the rules around catch-up contributions to allow women to put more money into super as they're approaching retirement. The Goldstein community elected me on a platform of gender equality, and at every opportunity I'll continue to work with the government to improve women's economic security. Adding super to paid parental leave goes some way to achieving that. Consider the more than 11,000 women living in Goldstein who've received Commonwealth parental leave pay since the scheme began in 2011. They've missed out on a combined $13.1 million in superannuation. About 850 women in Goldstein per year are set to benefit from the government's commitment to pay super on parental leave each year. It's long overdue, and I commend this bill to the House. 19:26 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is an important and absolutely critical piece of legislation from this government. It will add superannuation for a more secure retirement. That of course is the name of the bill. This is an important thing, in particular for women across the country. We all know that women finish work with less in their superannuation. In fact, they often have half of what the male population finish work with. Some of that is due to the child-bearing years, and some of that is due to the time they spend out of work because they're caring for children. This superannuation added to PPL will make an enormous difference to the end outcomes for women. Of course we have the compounding interest impact of those superannuation savings over the course of decades. That will make a difference in terms of what's happening to women's superannuation when they're in their 20s and their 30s, all adding to a finish. If I take my superannuation, for instance, I'm sure that, in real terms, my superannuation lump sum is going to be very different from that of some of the men sitting in this chamber now, because I was a teacher, I'm a mother of three and I took six years out of employment in my child-bearing years to have my family. So my superannuation has already been impacted by that because, of course, there was no paid parental leave superannuation when I was having my family. So this is a critical piece of legislation, and it needs to be passed in this chamber. We need to ensure that it comes into law so that women can have the surety that their superannuation on retirement will come near matching that of their partners, their brothers and their fathers. It is a hallmark of this government that we take seriously women's participation in the workforce and women's financial security, not in terms of welfare for women but in terms of women's earning capacity and their legitimate right to the same outcomes as the male population. It is not an accident that a 15 per cent pay rise for the feminised workforces in aged care and in early childhood education is coming from this government, because it's a government with a majority of women—women who are driving policy to improve the lives of women. That includes the financial lives of women, ensuring that they have a similar retirement capacity to men. It is critical that this bill be passed through this House uncontested. I would suggest that anyone who stands in the way of this bill— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! In accordance with the resolution of the House, a scheduled test of the House of Representatives emergency procedures is going to be undertaken. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. I ask that sound and vision broadcasting now cease. Sitting suspended from 19:30 to 19:57 The SPEAKER 53517 Members, in accordance with the resolution of the House, the sitting is resumed. Sound and vision broadcasting has resumed. The lockdown exercise has concluded. Lockdown infrastructure has been lifted and returned to its normal operating state. Thank you for your participation in the exercise. All emergency advice from this point forward must be treated as a real emergency and should be acted upon immediately and accordingly. The House stands adjourned until 9 am tomorrow in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today. House adjourned at 19 : 57 NOTICES 76 NOTICES Presentation 76

Tuesday, 10 September 2024

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Australian Society 78 16:00 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The Silkwood Hotel in Far North Queensland was fined $1,600 because its decibel level was too high—the noise level in its pub. The hotel is a stone's throw from the clay pigeon shooting range across the road and a stone's throw from the Feast of the Three Saints, which is the biggest religious festival, maybe, in Australia. Over 3,000 people attend. Of course, Silkwood very famously was where the Fields of Fire television series was filmed. But I note these petty attacks. There is no doubt that Queensland is one of the least free states on earth. I use my own family as an example. With the grandkids coming up, I thought: 'Beauty! We'll get out the air rifles and I'll set up the targets.' We have 10 acres outside of town. My wife said, 'No, kids under 15 are not allowed to go near a rifle.' 'What? Not a 70-year-old air rifle?' 'No.' 'Alright. We'll set up the flying fox—zoom, zoom, zoom and splash in the pool.' 'No, you've got to remove a panel to do that.' 'But they're not going to come out here and inspect it.' 'An inspector was out last week, and our fence is three centimetres lower than it should be, so we've got to find $3½ thousand to fix the fence up.' I said, 'Oh, well, we'll complete the treehouse.' 'No, a kid fell out of a treehouse two months ago in Brisbane, so treehouses are banned.' 'Well, we'll go down to the flat, boil a billy and make some tea and damper.' She said, 'No, you've got to get a permit for a fire in the open.' This is one of the most restrictive societies on earth. Every day and every week in this place, we put out more restrictions and more restrictions and more restrictions. Who the hell do we think we are? Once upon a time, this was a very free country. One of the great things about being an Australian was the freedoms that we enjoyed. If I get a taipan snake in my house, I am not allowed to kill the snake. I'm not allowed to use a rifle to kill the snake. If my wife is being attacked with a knife, I'm not allowed to defend her or myself with a firearm. 'Oh, ring the police.' Well, the average downtime is about 70 minutes in Queensland. That's the average. My daughter had burglars in her apartment in Townsville, and the police turned up two weeks later. She rang them 16 times because the burglar was in there, and they could have caught him. So don't tell me about ringing up the police. The most important principle outside of Christianity—'Love your neighbours and show responsibility to other people'—is the right of property, which was in the Magna Carta. On that little piece of land, I am the king, not the government. My family and I are the king. Chisholm Electorate: Medicare 78 16:03 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Our government is strengthening Medicare by ensuring that all Australians have access to affordable primary care services when they need them, and I'm really excited to share that Chisholm now has a Medicare urgent care clinic. Medicare urgent care clinics are a game changer for communities around the country. Having a Medicare urgent care clinic located right in the heart of my electorate means locals can get the care they need and be on the mend quickly without paying a cent. The Chisholm Medicare urgent care clinic is fully bulk-billed, which means that people in our community just need a Medicare card, not their credit card. It's important that people don't worry about the costs to visit urgent care clinics because it means they can instead focus on getting better soon and focus on their health. This clinic will help reduce the number of people attending the local emergency department for urgent-but-non-life-threatening conditions like sprains, infections, rashes, minor illnesses, burns or cuts. Over 40 per cent of Medicare urgent care clinic presentations in Victoria have been outside standard business hours, which shows that the clinic is filling an important gap in services across extended hours and over the weekend, with the clinic open from 9 am to 11 pm seven days a week. Everyone from our community can walk in and get the urgent care they need, fully bulk-billed, without waiting hours in a busy hospital emergency department. I have already received really positive feedback from the Chisholm community about this news and their experiences. I want to share the story of Chisholm local Michelle, who visited the Medicare urgent care clinic over the weekend. Michelle told me that she had a cough and a fever. She went to the urgent care clinic and was able to simply walk in and get attended to promptly and very kindly by a doctor, who she described as amazing. Opposition members interjecting— Dr GARLAND 295588 Those opposite are laughing for some reason about the fact that we're really standing up universal health care in this country. Unbelievable. Michelle, though, was able to get a diagnosis and get treated. She was really grateful to be able to see a doctor in person so promptly. She said she was thankful to the urgent care clinic for making her life easier. Her appointment was fully bulk-billed. I know what a positive impact this urgent care clinic will continue to have for our community in Chisholm and for people just like Michelle. The Albanese Labor government is working hard to strengthen Medicare and keep the cost of medicines down. We are freezing the cost of PBS prescriptions. We will always fight—and I will always fight—for affordable, accessible, quality health care for people in our Chisholm community. Men's Shed Week 79 16:06 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It's Men's Shed Week, and this year's theme is 'Send him down to the Shed.' It's a fitting theme that encapsulates what men's sheds are all about: heading down to the shed to enjoy some conversation, meet some new mates, learn some new skills and keep the mind active. In Casey we are fortunate to have 11 men's sheds, including the Morrison Men's Shed in Mount Evelyn, Mooroolbark Men's Shed, Montrose & District Men's Shed, Yarra Glen & District Men's Shed, the Monbulk District Men's Shed, Upwey Men's Shed, Belgrave Men's Shed, the Badger Creek & District Men's Shed, as well as Ben's Shed in Yarra Junction and Boorndawan Men's Shed in Lilydale. I've been fortunate to visit most of these men's sheds in the past two years and I've seen firsthand the value that they provide not only to their members but to the wider community. The minute you step foot inside a local men's shed, you can feel the camaraderie and the joy that they get from catching up and building things to support our community. I was recently at Monbulk Men's Shed, where a member of the public came in and brought an old chair that had a broken leg. The men quickly came together with a plan to repair the chair. Not only do these sheds give men something to do when they have retired but they are full of skills that help the wider community. Ben's Shed in Yarra Junction is another example. They run programs each semester for local schoolchildren to come and learn vital skills. Each and every men's shed across Casey spends time on projects that support local schools, toy libraries and our community. They raise money for charity as well as running their own sheds. Last week I was in my old home town of Yarra Glen visiting the men's shed; the secretary, Ross; and the team there. I'm looking forward to joining them at the barbecue at Bunnings on grand final Friday, which is one of their main fundraisers for the year. These fundraisers provide important funds to fuel their outings, equipment and tools that allow them to keep busy and support the community. Everyone in Mooroolbark knows that every second Saturday you've got to go down to Coles to grab a sausage from the Mooroolbark Men's Shed. The Montrose Men's Shed will always be found at the Montrose market, much like the Upwey Men's Shed can be found at the Upwey market. I had a wonderful conversation with them a few weeks ago, and we're very close, hopefully, to getting a new home for the Upwey Men's Shed. I've been really proud to support them over the last 2½ years as they continue to advocate for the new home that they deserve. I was proud to commit money in the last election to the Belgrave Men's Shed so they could get a new home. I will continue to advocate for them and all the men's sheds across Casey because they do such a great job for our community. Energy Efficiency Grants for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises 79 16:09 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Bellarine based business Adelia Fine Foods is the latest local recipient of our energy efficiency grants. These grains are all part of the Albanese government's program to support small business, reduce operational costs, reduce emissions and act on climate change. I'd like to congratulate the business owners, husband and wife team Adam and Amelia, on receiving funding of more than $24,000 to upgrade their food processing machinery. Amelia said the business is investing in a new, energy-efficient automation process for the temporary and finishing of chocolate for its rocky road range of gluten-free treats—and they are good!—an upgrade that will reduce power consumption by 50 per cent. Amelia said, 'With the support of this grant, we're excited to take this important step towards greater energy efficiency in operations.' Amelia also told me that her business's incredible journey from humble beginnings to the iconic local brand it is today is so significant for her. Adelia started life as a hobby with five varieties of granola, selling at weekend markets around the Bellarine Peninsula and the Surf Coast whilst Adam and Amelia kept working full-time jobs. Adelia remained a home based business for three years, but, as sales surged and a grew, Adam and Amelia took the plunge and moved into a warehouse in Ocean Grove before moving into an even bigger facility earlier this year. From there the business has continued to grow, reach new heights and employ more locals in rewarding work. I was lucky enough to experience the work they do behind the scenes making their amazing food. Without giving too much away, it's like walking into a Willie Wonka factory but with an absolute focus on nutrition. Adelia is now the second recipient I've visited as part of the latest round of the energy efficiency grants, with Bells Beach Brewing in Torquay also receiving funding. Round 2 supported over 1,700 small and medium-size businesses with $41.2 million in grants. There are so many businesses across my region who are doing amazing things: small businesses that have grown from kitchen bench hobbies into regional juggernauts; small businesses that have taken a bright, innovative concept and turned it into a viable commodity, growing jobs and pride in our region. Our energy efficiency grants are supporting these businesses, empowering them to take control of their power bills whilst keeping an absolute focus on sustainability. These grants are good for the environment, good for business and a great result for my electorate of Corangamite. Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games 80 16:13 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Just a few weeks ago I stood here and proudly spoke about the support for our Olympians and how my electorate of Forde and our city of Logan have produced several stars—gold medal winners, in fact. Now it's our Paralympians who deserve the respect and plaudits of this House. I reiterate something that I said in this House before: I take immense pride in being a member of the Parliamentary Friends of the Olympic and Paralympic Movement and I'm pleased to co-chair that with my good friend the member for Moreton. We're just as proud to see the Paralympians from the local region don the green and gold. Sadly, another Olympics and Paralympics have now gone by. We look forward to Los Angeles up next, and then it will be our turn, in Brisbane, to showcase what we have to offer in the wonderful sunshine state. But I want to focus on the here and now and the three incredible women presenting the Logan region at the Paris Paralympics: Logan Village mum of two AJ Jennings, Meadowbrook's Natalie Smith and Logan-born Samantha Schmidt have all done our region proud. AJ, along with her mixed team recurve open para-archery partner, Taymon Kenton-Smith, quickly became crowd favourites. Their campaign came to a dramatic close as they faced off against the Indians in the elimination stages. In a tense and nailbiting shoot-off, it came down to the final two arrows, with the Indian pair holding their nerve and delivering the decisive shots to secure victory. No matter the outcome, the Logan Village Paralympian should absolutely hold their head high on their tremendous achievement. Though disappointed by the campaign's end, Jennings expressed a sense of anticipation for future challenges. Jennings told the media: It's a shame it's finished because I was enjoying it so much, but it just makes us hungrier for the next one. I look forward to cheering her on in LA in 2028. As well as Ms Jennings, para-shooter Natalie Smith shone. She equalled her best Paralympic result in the R8 50-metre rifle 3 position SH1, making the final and placing eighth overall in a fiercely competitive field. The rewarding result capped off Smith's 2024 Paris campaign, after placing 12th in the R2 women's 10-metre air rifle standing SH1. Logan thrower Samantha Schmidt, who holds the Australian Paralympic records in discus, shot put and javelin in the F38 class, finished seventh in the women's discus. I want to thank our Olympians and also incredibly proudly our Paralympians over the past couple of weeks for their incredible representation of our nation on the global stage. We should all be very proud of their achievements. Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 80 16:16 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley I rise to speak on the important funding announcement made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Women last week to address gender based violence. The Albanese government will invest a total of $4.7 billion in new funding to combat gender based violence and implement the recommendations from the Rapid Review of Prevention Approaches. This includes investing in frontline services and initiatives aimed at preventing violence. This will have a significant impact on my community of Dunkley. Shockingly, the rate of family violence incidents in the Frankston local government area rose by 17.1 per cent in 2023. The family violence rate per 100,000 was the highest it's been in five years. And—no surprise—it was women who were disproportionately affected by the violence. I have spent the last 15 years of my career working for and with women and children fleeing domestic and family violence. I have seen firsthand the devastating impact of domestic violence. That is why I established the Women's Spirit Project—to support these women in my community of Dunkley to recover and prevent them from returning to abusive relationships. This government knows gender based violence is a scourge on our community. This funding will take important steps to prevent violence. There will be $3.9 billion invested in frontline legal assistance services through a national access to justice partnership with states and territories, addressing the funding shortfall left by the previous government. This will result in an essential increase of nearly $800 million over five years, starting in 2025-26. It will focus on supporting legal services that support women fleeing gender based violence, such as Peninsula Community Legal Centre and the team led by Jackie Galloway, who deliver crucial services in my electorate of Dunkley. The funding also covers indexation and supports pay parity in the sector. A total of $351 million will be provided over five years from 2025 for a renewed national partnership agreement on family, domestic and sexual violence responses which will fund frontline services. This amount will be matched by contributions from states and territories. Importantly, this will be coordinated with the states and territories to ensure we have a national approach. As the Prime Minister said, a nationally coordinated approach is required to address this national crisis. There is always more work to do, but this is an important step. Agriculture Industry 81 16:19 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Today, farmers from across Australia descended on Canberra with a powerful message for the Albanese Labor government: if you have no farmers, you have no food. As a farmer by trade, watching the havoc that this government has unleashed on the hardworking Aussies who keep our nation fed and clothed is gut-wrenching. I have one thing to say to the Prime Minister: this isn't political; this is personal. In the last two years, this government has ripped thousands of hectares of prime agricultural land away for wind and solar farms; created mandatory emissions reporting, when the science to calculate this doesn't even exist; increased taxes, denying farmers access to critical workforces; introduced the fresh food tax; increased taxes on superannuation; introduced the family car and ute tax; axed the agricultural visa; and shut down the live sheep export trade. And make no mistake about it, they'll be coming for our live cattle next. Looking back, it's clear the Albanese Labor government crucify farmers at every opportunity. Anyone who has worked the land will know that farming is not just a job but a core part of our identity and purpose. It isn't in our blood; it is our blood. Without farmers, our rural and regional communities simply don't exist. The local school doesn't survive. The supermarket doesn't survive. Local businesses don't survive. Your kids simply do not have jobs. It's not just the economic toll; the mental anguish these decisions have on our farmers is real. It's been over 40 years since farmers were last tested against the government. There is a better way. A coalition government will reinstate the live sheep export trade, bring back the agricultural visa, legislate that the 88-day backpacker visa remains in place for the agricultural sector, introduce a container levy so that our farmers don't pay for the biosecurity risks of our overseas competitors; reverse Labor's cuts to regional infrastructure, stop Labor's trucky and vehicle efficiency standards tax, make nuclear energy a part of our energy mix, scrap harmful emission profiles and stop Labor's proposed taxes on superannuation. I want every Australian farmer to know that the coalition is listening. We are hearing you. Farmers get blamed for every climate change argument under the sun by Labor, the Greens and the teals. Enough is enough! As the federal member for Dawson and a proud farmer, I stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers. Without farmers, we would all be naked, starving and sober. Bangladesh 81 16:22 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The honourable members and the whole House would have watched with great concern the episodes in Bangladesh over recent months, with the fall of the government and the violence. Our thoughts are with all Bangladeshis at this difficult time. I particularly want to make reference to the violence and the plight of ethnic and religious minorities in Bangladesh and to raise some matters for the House. Recently, there was a briefing of members of parliament, which I participated in online. I was joined by Dr Charlton, Dr Freelander, Anne Stanley, Mr Thistlethwaite and representatives from Minister Husic's office and Minister Rollin's office. The briefing was organised by Councillor Suman Saha of Cumberland City Council and 46 leaders of the Bangladeshi community who raised issues. We were also joined by three members of the families of victims of violence in Bangladesh over recent months. There are very complex matters at play and not every report will be accurate, but, nevertheless, I'm satisfied that there are genuine issues that need to be addressed. Genuine issues were raised in this meeting: 725 homes and businesses damaged, 724 homes and businesses looted, 58 homes and businesses set on fire, 17 places of worship damaged, 21 places of worship looted. Included in these statistics are human stories. It has been reported that Rahul Ananda's home was looted and set on fire. I'm told that Rahul's home was host to cultural vibrance and community. Rahul is a very famous musician in the Bangladeshi community. His house has previously been visited by President Macron of France. But, since the attack, Rahul has been forced to flee Bangladesh. This is one of many stories during this tragedy. All violence is to be abhorred. Minister Wong made it clear that we want restoration of stability in Bangladesh. I do recognise the efforts of the new government, led by Muhammad Yunus. As I said at the outset, all violence to all Bangladeshis is to be deplored, but I want to take this opportunity to raise the particular matter of attacks on religious and ethnic minorities in Bangladesh—Hindus, Christians and others. I, together with other Western Sydney colleagues, have written to Minister Wong raising this issue. We'll continue to raise these concerns. I know our representatives in Bangladesh have been actively ensuring that Australia's views about the need for a return to stability and lack of violence are represented. There has been violence against these minorities in the past, particularly in 2021 during the Durga Puja, but I wanted to take this opportunity to raise this very important matter for the information of the House and to assure Bangladeshis who are ethnic minorities that the House is watching and listening. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 82 16:25 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I quote: [N]othing will take away what it does to a person to literally sign a piece of paper to say they will go anywhere at any time and do anything—including sacrificing their own life—in the defence of our country. And then for that country to turn around and say to them they are not worth anything to them broken. Not worth anything to them injured. That they see me as nothing. They are the opening four sentences of the report that was released yesterday, the final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. That is a comment that was taken by somebody unnamed. The quote is attributed to an ex-serving Air Force member. The report that was handed down yesterday consists of seven volumes, 122 recommendations and over 5,800 submissions. The royal commission ran for over three years. It received thousands of painful submissions discussing suicidality among serving and ex-serving members of our Defence Force. There are 89,395 current serving permanent and reserve members of our defence forces. More than 6,000 Australians enlist in the Australian Defence Force on average each year. More than half a million living Australians have served or are currently serving in the ADF. I acknowledge and thank all of the men and women serving in our defence forces, former veterans and particularly their families. As the member for Hughes, I acknowledge all Defence Force personnel at Holsworthy Barracks in my electorate, as well as the RSL sub-branches that support them: Bundeena, Engadine, Heathcote, Woronora River, Ingleburn, City of Campbelltown and City of Liverpool. The report that was handed down yesterday highlighted one very important thing among many. There has been no sustained reduction in the high rates of suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members over the last 20 years. That is simply not good enough, but this report is the beginning of us righting this. This report is an indication that we have started down the correct path. Our job in parliament is to work together across the chamber to ensure that we put in policies and legislation so that, going into the future, we will be resolute. We will ensure that never again will serving and ex-serving ADF members feel they are not worth anything broken. I also want us to embrace the comments of RSL New South Wales to ensure that veterans' wellbeing is supported from the first day they enter service onwards. Let us work together. Let us ensure that never again will those who sign up to go anywhere, at any time, to do anything, including sacrificing their own lives, feel worthless and take their own lives. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia 82 16:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson It's the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia was founded by Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople in 1924 and has established many religious, cultural and social welfare initiatives, many of which provide essential services in my part of Sydney: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese schools in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia; St Basil's Homes, which have been instituted in every capital city since 1969, caring for older members of the community as well as delivering a variety of community and in-home care programs; the Estia Foundation of Australia, which offers respite to those caring for children and adults with disabilities in its Roselands facilities and permanent and group-home accommodation in Gladesville, North Ryde and Blakehurst; parish-run organisations across Australia, hosting a number of activities, which include pastoral programs, childcare centres, Greek language school and meals for the poor; Greek welfare centres around Australia, which cater for the various needs of our most vulnerable; monasteries in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia; and St Andrew's Greek Orthodox Theological College. I particularly want to congratulate His Eminence Archbishop Makarios, primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, on this 100th anniversary and for the extraordinary leadership of his congregation since arriving in Australia in June 2019. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 82 BILLS National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 82

National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024

Second Reading 82 16:30 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I'm pleased to speak on the National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 because, in part, it reflects on the importance of the stockholding requirements. We've seen severe medicine shortages occur under the Labor government's watch. The recent shortage of saline IV fluids in Australia has posed a serious risk to a lot of our healthcare system. Saline IV bags are absolutely critical to the emergency health care provided to patients in Australian hospitals, but doctors in every hospital around our nation are being told to ration the amount they use for patients. This is not okay. The government has been aware of this, and Minister Gallagher admitted that the government has been aware of this impending shortage for over a year. This is a real problem in Australia. The government had more than 12 months' notice of this impending shortage, but no other country has had the same issues. The problems in rural and regional areas, where we live and work, are even worse. I spoke to Rowan Lowe, who's not only a pharmacist in Donnybrook, a small regional community in my electorate, but also the national pharmacist of the year for 2024. I asked him about the shortages in rural and regional areas, and he said they are impacting our regional patients. These are Rowan's own words. He said: One of the biggest issues that we still experience on a weekly basis is that prescribers are not communicated with medication shortages and then send the patient off with a prescription that they are unable to fill. The Pharmacy then has to reach out to the prescriber, the patient has to wait longer for their medication and if the prescriber does not get back to us in time that wait time can be extended due to the order cut off times. He said: We had an example last week of a patient being discharged from Busselton hospital with critical pain medication post surgery … the prescriber was contacted 3 times and did not call back, the patient was in pain for 24 hours until myself as the Pharmacist went directly to the local GP clinic and used my relationship with the GP to source some alternative pain medication for the patient. There needs to be a more up-to-date resource for all prescribers to access that shows the stock availability in their regional areas. He went on to say: Local GPs are currently experiencing high workloads and long wait times for appointments, therefore trying to follow up with them regarding medication shortages is becoming more difficult with the patients being the ones who are being disadvantaged the most. If we were able to have some point of truth that was live and up-to-date— that would be a real bonus for these pharmacists and for the patients. He said: Current medication shortages that impact patients and some may be WA based— but— Amoxicillin … patients are having to be switched to— a different dosage— which means double the volume, decrease compliance with children and also longer wait times while we call the prescriber to have the changes approved That's what Rowan said. He said: Ezetimibe—the combination product … went Out of stock and that has seen the individual products … now also go out of stock. We are then having to send patients back to their GP for a review as to what path to take with their treatment which is taking up more GP appointments that are currently hard to come by. He spoke of Duodart: Duodart … has been unavailable for almost 2 months and is used for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Not life critical but for many males can create social implications and fears when they are not able to obtain. The individual drugs in this medication are not available on the PBS so we are unable to switch and patients just go without treatment due to cost. Rowan went on to say: Ozempic—this is a well known shortage however has become easier … but again now has been put on restrictions from the wholesaler in which we are only able to order 1 pen per week to cover our 40 diabetic patients per month that are currently on the medication. The release of the new Wegovy is theoretically meant to ease the pressure on Ozempic however we do not see this occurring as the price of Wegovy is so much higher than Ozempic so we still see patients wanting Ozempic over Wegovy. This is what's happening in regional Australia. He spoke about Vyvanse: … this medication has had supply issues for the majority of 2024 and the complexity around seeking alternative treatments is extremely complicated as the medication is a schedule 8 and prescribed through specialists who are often the most difficult to get in contact with. This is happening in my South West. He went on: Again patients then having to go without medication decreasing compliance. Also increasing significantly the workloads on Pharmacy teams to manage these patients, stock supply and be a middleman for communication between the specialist and the patient. He also spoke about Ordine liquid: … the medication is often used for Palliative care and is now discontinued— shortages and being discontinued. He then spoke of hormone replacement therapy: … this is a continual issue in the industry and one that we see the highest rates of non-compliance due to unavailability of patients having to use products that are not effective because it is the best option available. He said: Ordering of stock is often also a logistic issue in regional areas … We see a lack of understanding in this place of what actually happens in the regions. Rowan said: … if we receive a prescription for a medication at 1:05pm on a friday we are not able to have that medication delivered in store till the following Tuesday as we are a regional area. No wonder people in the regions have a lesser health outcome. Rowan said: That is a 96 hour wait for a medication which for me is unacceptable. He's the pharmacist. He said: To help our patient base we chose to hold a higher stock on hand value which comes at a cost to the business, cashflow and me as the owner, all to help service our community, something that Metro businesses do not have to think about. Also being in WA we experience higher number of stock outs and longer stock outs than other states within Australia, another reason why we hold higher stock values and I know that the wholesalers also hold higher stock values in WA. If a product is out of stock, particularly popular items, we may have to send that patient into Bunbury which is an hour return trip when they are sick or unwell to source a medication. That's in the South West of WA. He said: In our store in Dongara WA the same situation occurs and we may need to send a patient on a 2 hour return trip for the same reason. These examples also add to cost of living pressures with patients then having to add the cost of fuel to sourcing medication and being regional those drives can be much further than in metro areas. This is the reality for those of us who live and work in regional Australia. It is not acceptable. Rowan said: This situation is extremely common and as much as we move mountains to ensure that our patients don't have to drive or wait 96 hours more often than not it has to occur. Rowan is the Pharmacist of the Year. He is an exceptional pharmacist. He goes above and beyond in what he provides to his patients and his people. Rowan went on to say: We also see that Pharmacists acting in full scope in regional areas as a great solution to parts of this issue, as Pharmacists would be authorised to make therapeutic substitutions. This would alleviate the pressure on the Pharmacy to contact the GP, patients having to wait for the GP to return a call as often they cannot talk as they are in an appointment— GPs are very busy in regional areas— and the pharmacist would have full visibility of what is available at wholesalers. He went on to say: Medication misadventure is another issue that occurs as often a drug might not be out of stock, however stock might be extremely low and each Pharmacy is having to grab whichever brand it can find to ensure that their patients will have continuity of supply. They are the comments that I got from Rowan Lowe, who is, as I said, the Australian Pharmacist of the Year and has a practice in Donnybrook in my electorate. Rowan went on to say: This is a daily issue, and we have to be very cautious as we are always having to 'brand swap' due to stock availability and this drives confusion for the patient and often a patient then takes 2 brands of the same medication. Often in WA we are not completely out of stock but we are often having to 'brand swap'. What that says to me is that not only is this making the challenge for pharmacists in rural and regional Australia and the more remote parts more and more difficult but the government has a job to do in this space. To actually have those medications available for those pharmacists to be able to dispense when the GP writes out a prescription is surely not too much to ask? As we all know, the health outcomes for people in regional and more remote Australia are far worse than what we see in cities. Surely this is one of the contributing factors? But, unfortunately, what we see here is not enough focus on rural and regional Australia and its needs compared to others in the metro areas. This is very practical example. Should anyone from the government or from the department want to talk to Rowan about what's happening for practical purposes on the ground, I really encourage you to do so. It should be the job of all of us in this place to make sure that it doesn't matter where you live in this country. Your postcode should not be determinant of the health outcomes that you have access to and the medications that you have access to. But that's what we've got. Here's the evidence I'm calling on the government and anyone from the department to take me up on this offer to talk to Rowan and perhaps some other rural and regional pharmacists, not people based in Canberra or based in a city. Why not talk to the pharmacists who have to live and work with this day in and day out? How do you think they feel when they cannot dispense and actually hand over the counter what the local people need? You need to remember that our pharmacists live and work with us as families. When we walk in their doors, they know our history and they know what we are predisposed to. We rely on them as part of—and, often, the only—medical treatment. Because of changes that the government has made, we've seen a flight of GPs out of regional and remote areas. There aren't GPs in every community like there were because overseas trained doctors can now practice in outer metro. So we rely, then, on our pharmacists. If there is a pharmacist in our community, they are the ones we rely on. But they need the medications to be able to dispense. Irrespective of where that prescription comes from and wherever that GP is that prescribed it, we need them to be able to access those medications. In my contribution to this, I'd just like to finish by encouraging people to talk to Rowan. I know he would be very happy to talk to anyone in the government or from the department to give a practical view on what is actually happening to pharmacists and the issue for patients and our people in rural and regional Australia. I refuse to accept that it's okay for people who live in rural, regional are more remote parts of Australia to not be able to access the medications they need compared to others. That is not okay by any standard. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 85

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 85 16:45 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm pleased to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, which completes the Albanese Labor government's legislative package of reforms necessary to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new and improved body. The history of the AAT goes back a long way, and its jurisdiction is quite significant. There's no general jurisdiction for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It goes back to when it was first created. It started operating in 1976, and it was really a creation of the Whitlam government before that. The jurisdiction is not given by a separate piece of legislation but by the various acts of parliament that we pass in this place. There are 400 acts of parliament that actually gave the AAT jurisdiction. The AAT is an important body. The new body, the ART, which is taking over its responsibilities, has the power to affirm, to vary, to set aside and to substitute decisions through an independent decision-making merits review de novo. The AAT is not restricted to the evidence that was before the original decision-maker. It has a very varied jurisdiction, but it's not a court; it's a tribunal. Its decisions are published, of course, so it helps in terms of the jurisprudence. It covers a range of areas that the Australian public will come in contact with, such as child support, what we used to call Centrelink, migration, taxation, veterans entitlements, workers compensation and the like. The Administrative Review Tribunal, or ART, legislative package gave effect to the government's commitment to establish a new administrative review tribunal that's more efficient, user-friendly and accessible. It picks up the good things of the AAT. It is independent and fair, but it doesn't have the problems that were created under the previous government's watch. This miscellaneous bill supports the establishment of the new ART, which will commence on 14 October. The tribunal was established by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, which was given royal assent on 3 June this year, and two additional acts contain consequential and transitional amendments to 248 Commonwealth acts. So you can see the breadth of impact on our jurisprudence and legislative framework from the Commonwealth's point of view, simply by that legislation that was passed and by this consequential and miscellaneous legislation. This bill creates a new system, one that is fair, reasonable and just, timely, accessible and responsive to people's diverse needs. The improved transparency and quality of decision-making will promote public trust and confidence in the ART, and this bill completes the establishment of the tribunal. The amendments are largely procedural and technical, making changes to 52 acts to update references to the AAT in pieces of legislation that have been passed or introduced to parliament since the ART Act. There are some technical amendments to support the efficient conduct of the tribunal review and ensure the legislation operates as intended by the government. The bill we're debating today could only be introduced following the passage of the ART Act due to the volume and complexity of interactions between the ART Act and other pieces of Commonwealth legislation. There are some minor changes to the ART Act to improve the user experience. The bill's intended operation is pretty clear. I'll briefly go through it, but I think it's a demonstration of the government's commitment to the bedrock of a democratic system and a federal system of administrative review. I pay tribute to Gough Whitlam for that, because its genesis goes back to the days of Whitlam and, of course, Lionel Murphy. It harks back to those days, and we are trying to get back to those days and what the AAT originally was intended to be, not how it was effectively changed and, I say, prostituted by the previous government's appointments. The amendments in this legislation exclude a period of time over the Christmas period in the calculation of the 28-day period in which a party can appeal. It makes sense, frankly. This is from 24 December till 14 January. It's an impractical and disadvantaged situation for anyone appealing in that time. It enables practice directions, which are very common, by the way, in any court system, and also allows the president—you have a president, deputy president, senior members and members in the ART—to create these practice directions for the efficient operation of a court's or, in this case, a tribunal's system. It ensures the management requirements and practical implication of how to manage case loads, and the ART is going to have a huge case load. It amends authorisation to ensure the decisions of the National Archives of Australia relate to access to certain national security records and ensures, by the way, that amendments to the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill are reflected in the new tribunal, which makes sense as well. It ensures that the Attorney-General can delegate power to authorise the payment of costs or grant legal or financial assistance to officers in their department. Cost auditors are integral to any tribunal. The Law Officers Act 1964—and noting the significant administrative burden of work associated with these functions—says clarification where an is applicant is no longer able to continue with an application. That often happens when someone is bankrupt, the company is in liquidation or there's been a death. A person can continue the proceedings only if they would have been able to apply for the review in the first place, which is common sense as well and, by the way, is consistent with other areas of law. There are some technical amendments to clarify the operation of the ART which are consistent with the intention of the original legislation. In addition to these amendments, the bill makes some minor amendments to other laws. There are some amendments that update terminology and cross-references, remove specific provisions that duplicate ART timeframes to apply for various reviews of deemed decisions and standardise some frameworks. We're ensuring that the proceedings before the guidance and appeals tribunal and original decision-making may not alter the decision under review without the tribunal's visibility, and that makes sense. If the decision-maker makes a decision and then someone seeks a review of that original decision, you don't want to let that original decision to then be in a position to change that around before the ART makes a decision. That's simply a matter of justice and fairness and of transparency and integrity in the process. The bill makes some amendments across several portfolios to ensure that legislation operates as intended, certainly removing time limits for seeking internal and tribunal review for the Aboriginal study grants scheme, providing assistance for isolated children, amending the Migration Act—this will be a very big part of the ART's jurisdiction as the area of migration was under that AAT. It's clarifying that the application is not valid therefore does not enliven the tribunal's jurisdiction unless it's properly made, which does not change existing requirements but ensures the applicant can easily identify on the face of the legislation that they are required to make a valid application. There are amendments to the Crimes Act to provide that tribunal members nominate to issue post-entry and delayed notification search warrants with the same impunity and protection as tribunals that are nominated to exercise similar functions under the Crimes Act. When it comes to funding, we have provided $206.5 million over four years for the ART in the 2024-25 budget. The funding will ensure that the new tribunal is supported by a demand driven, sustainable model providing timely decision-making. The funding package also includes $9.6 million to provide improved access to merits based review for regional, rural and remote communities as well as a user experience and accessibility team and a pilot First Nations liaison officer program—which I think is terrific, by the way. It's a great idea. This funding builds on our $128 million commitment in previous budgets to tackle the previous AAT's substantial backlog. The bill completes the package of reforms. It's about restoring trust and confidence in our system of administrative review. Tens of thousands of people rely on the AAT every year to independently review decision-making. The reality is that the previous coalition government fatally compromised the AAT, undermining its independence and eroding quality and efficiency over decision-making. The irony of the whole thing was that, having appointed all these people to the AAT, they constantly railed against the decision-making. The AAT's public standing was irreversibly damaged as a result of the coalition's appointment of as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates without any merits based selection processes at all. These appointees possessed no relevant expense or expertise, and some of them were active lobbyists. In recent years, Centre for Public Integrity board member Geoffrey Watson SC has said that the damage to the AAT was too extensive to just replace the existing members over several years, so it's really necessary to start from scratch with a whole new body. And that's what we're doing here with this legislation. Mr Watson was supportive of the government's approach and has argued that it will help restore integrity, openness and accountability and allow it to function independently of politics. That said, the problems at the AAT extend well beyond the absence of a merit based selection process under the former coalition government. We inherited an AAT that was not on a sustainable financial footing; an AAT beset by delays, with an extraordinarily large and growing backlog of applications, operating multiple and ageing electronic management systems. This was a legacy of the former government's mismanagement of the AAT, with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. An inefficient and ineffective administrative system of review comes at a real cost to the taxpayers and to the citizens of this country. These Australians were abandoned by the former government. As the robodebt royal commissioner said: Effective merits review is an essential part of the legal framework that protects the rights and interests of individuals; it also promotes government accountability and plays a broader important role in improving the quality and consistency of government decisions. We're fixing up the mess we inherited, and many people will benefit directly from the government's reform package. This is one of the most important legislative legal legacies in decades that this government will leave. It's something that Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus will be known for in the future as a reforming Attorney-General. Through these reforms, we are seeking to restore integrity, trust and confidence. The new tribunal will build on the 50 years of experience. Our package reforms implement all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee's report Performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system; four recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme; and the government's response to two recommendations from the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System. The legislation was informed by extensive stakeholder consultation, including guidance from an expert advisory group led by former High Court Justice the Hon. Patrick Keane AC KC, and engagement over many months with AAT staff, members, users, peak bodies, legal assistance providers, advocates and other experts. Despite all of this, to the utter shame of the opposition, they voted against these reforms, demonstrating its ongoing commitment to using the AAT as a job agency for Liberal Party and National Party mates at the expense of the Australian public. A central feature of the new ART is a transparent and merit based selection process for the appointment of nonjudicial members and existing nonjudicial members of the AAT, many of whom continue to embody the best traditions of the once-celebrated institution. They have been invited to apply for positions in the new body in accordance with the process. I note that the government recently announced a number of appointments to the existing AAT and the new ART. This will ensure that the AAT maintains the capacity to hear matters prior to the commencement of the new ART. The new AAT members will then transition to the new ART when it commences on 14 October for the remainder of their terms. Each appointee was assessed as suitable for appointment by the independent assessment panel through a transparent and merit-based process conducted in accordance with the guidelines for appointments to the AAT and the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024. I congratulate each of these members on their appointment, and I thank the Attorney-General for this landmark reform and his long-standing commitment to law reform and building trust in government and public institutions. This bill completes a package of reforms that establish a new administrative review tribunal and reflects the ongoing commitment of this government to reforming Australia's system of administrative review. I commend the bill to the House. 17:00 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024. The bill represents the culmination of a reform package that abolishes the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The ART will commence on 14 October 2024. As a result, this bill attracts a time-critical status. Whilst it's preferable that the bill commences at the same time as the entire legislative package, it will not significantly impact upon the operations of the ART if it occurs a short time after commencement. The bill seeks to amend 52 pieces of legislation to make technical amendments to ensure that the ART operates as intended. The bill aims to improve the ART's operation for citizens applying to the tribunal by excluding the period between 24 December and 14 January from the 28-day period in which appeals to the federal court can be made; clarifying that practice directions can specify an alternative timeframe for decision-makers to provide the tribunal with additional documents; amending authorisations so that persons exercising powers and functions in the tribunal's intelligence and security jurisdiction are of an appropriate level of seniority and experience; ensuring that the Attorney-General can delegate the power to authorise the payment of costs or grant legal or financial assistance to officers in the department; and clarifying when an applicant is no longer able to continue with an application for review of a decision for reasons such as death, bankruptcy or liquidation. Another person may only apply to continue the proceedings if they would have been able to apply for the review of the substantive decision. The reconstruction of the AAT as the ART was an essential reform carried out by the Albanese Labor government as a result of the abject failure of the former coalition government to ensure a fully functioning, apolitical tribunal. So fatally compromised was the AAT by almost a decade of coalition political stacking that our government had to take action to entirely reconstruct the tribunal. There's been a long history of blatant political appointments to the AAT. In February 2019, former coalition minister Christian Porter made 34 appointments to the AAT, 19 of which were Liberal Party advisers, candidates or former members of parliament. In April 2022, just prior to the last federal election and prior to entering caretaker mode, former coalition minister Michaelia Cash made 19 appointments to the AAT, six of which were Liberal Party advisers, candidates or former members of parliament. This included a former New South Wales Liberal minister, a biographer of John Howard, two former WA state Liberal MPs who had just lost their seats in the March 2022 WA election, and three advisers to former coalition ministers. Between 2019 and 2022, 40 per cent of the appointments had political backgrounds. Under the Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments, the figure was in the order of five or six per cent. It would seem that the former government saw the purpose of the AAT as a retirement village rather than a key institution of democracy and our legal system. With so many influential former colleagues appointed to the AAT, it is no surprise that the coalition, now in opposition, voted against this package of reforms. It's also no surprise that the government of robodebt, colour-coded spreadsheets and general administrative chaos left the Albanese Labor government an AAT that was not on a sustainable footing and that was beset by delays, with an extraordinarily large backlog of applications. Its independence was so fundamentally undermined and the quality and efficiency of its decision-making so eroded that it necessitated total reconstruction. Whilst this bill is of a highly technical nature, the broader reform package reconstructing the politicised and derelict AAT as the ART will have tangible benefits for many constituents of mine. The new ART will be fair and just. It will resolve applications in a timely manner. It will be accessible and transparent and restore trust and confidence. Improving the practical functions of the ART will assist hundreds of constituents who seek administrative review of government decisions across a broad range of areas. From decisions relating to social security, the NDIS, aged care and immigration appeals, the new ART will assist applicants to reach a conclusion more efficiently and will be easier to navigate. I would like to commend the bill to the House. 17:05 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 supports the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal created by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024—the ART Act. As I said in my second reading speech, this bill updates references to the AAT in legislation that has been introduced into parliament or has been passed since the main package of legislation was introduced. Other minor and technical amendments ensure that the ART legislation operates as intended. The bill is necessary and could only be introduced following the passage of the ART Act due to the volume and complexity of interactions between the ART Act and other pieces of Commonwealth legislation, particularly those already before the parliament when the ART package was introduced. The bill makes minor changes to the ART Act to improve user experience and ensure the act is clear. These changes will remove ambiguity and reduce the need for users of the ART to refer to transitional provisions to identify the application of the act. The bill amends the ART Act to ensure that amendments to the AAT Act in legislation introduced and passed after the ART legislative package was introduced are given effect. This could not be done before the ART Act was passed. The opposition says that the amendments in this bill require extensive scrutiny. What that would mean is yet more delay. They want to delay this bill, like they tried to delay the ART bill, in a misguided effort to protect their stack. In doing so, they will deny ART users, who include veterans, people with a disability and refugees, clarity and simplicity in tribunal processes. This bill completes the package of reforms that establishes the new Administrative Review Tribunal. The bill reflects the ongoing commitment of the Albanese Labor government to reforming Australia's system of administrative review. It simplifies the process for applicants and promotes a more efficient, accessible and cohesive tribunal. I look forward to the first sitting of the new tribunal on 14 October this year. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 89

Family Law Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 89 17:09 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton All of us in this place acknowledge that, tragically, Australia is suffering from an epidemic of family and gendered violence. Indeed, the authors of the Rapid Review of Prevention Approaches report described the situation as 'more than a national crisis'. They labelled it a 'national emergency'. The full title of the report is Unlocking the prevention potential: accelerating action to end domestic, family and sexual violence. It was commissioned by the Albanese Labor government in the context of horrific weekly headlines about gendered violence and highlights 21 substantial recommendations. The amendments in the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 are in line with recommendation 16 of the rapid review, which states: The Commonwealth government should build on work that is already underway and prioritise systems where significant harm is occurring, such as: family law, child support, immigration, and taxation. This emphasised how the Attorney-General characterised the family law system: it is complex and confusing, and it fails to respond effectively to family violence. I'm sure the person who wrote those words would agree with that. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 is a continuation of the Albanese Labor government's action on critical family law reforms. The overarching goal is to reform the family law system so that it is simpler to use, safer and more accessible and delivers justice and equity for Australian families. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 focused on clarifying the needlessly confusing framework in the Family Law Act for making decisions about parenting arrangements, including the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The legislation made it clear that the priority in all decision-making must be in the best interests of the children, something for which I fought for a long time while in opposition. Amongst other reforms, the 2024 bill focuses on recognising the economic impact of family violence on a party, directly addressing concerns made in the rapid review. Currently, family law property settlement is primarily decided based on the contributions of each party to the relationship, as well as the future needs of each party. In most cases up until now, the conduct of the parties is not considered to be relevant to the division of property, but the devil was in the detail, and the devil often sabotaged the details. These reforms underpin the Albanese Labor government's commitment to addressing the economic consequences of family violence on separated families. Statistically, women are the victims of family violence at much higher rates than men, and First Nations women are disproportionately represented in this group. The 2017 Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry stressed how relationship breakdown is well recognised as a contributing cause of poverty in Australia and how a lack of equitable access to financial assets can be a major barrier to the recovery of families affected by violence. The report, titled A better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence, also stated that seven in 10 women who left a violent relationship had to leave property or assets behind. Furthermore, the inquiry found that, when assets are divided, those who have experienced family violence are more likely to accept unfair property settlements. Victims of violence are three times more likely to receive less than 40 per cent of the property. There have been more than two dozen inquiries in the past decade into the family law system, including a parliamentary inquiry that I was on that handed down a report in December 2021 called Improvements in family law proceedings, which was chaired by former MP Kevin Andrews, and an important inquiry and report delivered by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2019. It has long been recognised that improvements to the family law system are required to better support participants through the process and in informing the end judgement. They also identified overly complex and confusing legislation and long-drawn-out and harmful litigation processes. I recall that there were up to 42 steps in the process that a judge would have to consider. This bill addresses some of these issues. It clarifies the framework used by the courts and separated couples negotiating their own settlement to make decisions on property and financial disputes. The new legislation codifies the steps to be taken in reaching a property settlement. The law must be clear and understandable for all. A fair property settlement can be a big part of avoiding poverty following family violence. Importantly, this legislation recognises that there may be an economic impact of family violence on a party. It therefore expressly allows the courts to consider this effect on a party's contributions to the property of the relationship and on their future needs. It also enables the effect of family violence to be considered as part of a spousal maintenance application. The amendments further recognise that the parental requirement to provide appropriate housing for children may be relevant in property and spousal maintenance decisions. Children who have been impacted by family violence may suffer from trauma, and this can be compounded by housing instability and financial insecurity after an unfair property settlement. Another aspect of this bill that will substantially help Australian families going through property settlements is the inclusion of pets in the legislation. Currently, pets are treated like any other property, which can lead to confusion and anxiety for separating couples and their children. In cases of family violence and separation it is, sadly, not unusual for the beloved family pet to become a pawn used in the continuation of abuse. This bill seeks to alleviate this distress by enabling courts to apply particular consideration to pets to help ensure that they are not used as ongoing weapons in family violence. The courts will be able to decide the ownership of the pet as part of the property settlement. Matters to be taken into consideration will include the extent to which each party has cared for the pet, any history of cruelty to the pet by a particular party and, if applicable, a child's or children's relationship with the pet. These measures reflect the nature of the special relationships that people can have with their pets. Some perpetrators of family violence use the family law system to continue exerting control or abusing their ex- partners. This bill gives the courts greater powers to protect parties and innocent children from the effect of long and antagonistic legal proceedings. It also provides for confidentiality of parties' counselling and medical records. This will stop records being viewed by the other party or used as evidence where the harm in doing so outweighs the need for evidence. This is a significant step to reduce harm to survivors and victims of family violence. Simultaneously, the legislation requires that some disclosure obligations are elevated from court rules into the Family Law Act. This prompts parties to share all relevant financial information—particularly supporting separated couples who are negotiating their own settlement. A further amendment to the act is to provide a regulatory framework for children's contact services. This will ensure additional safety, reassurance and predictability for families post-separation. It will help children whose families are having difficulty managing their parental contact arrangements—a source of much conflict. This bill also includes a raft of amendments that further clarify and simplify the Family Law Act. The first of these is the clarification of the arbitration framework, consolidating issues that can be arbitrated and giving arbitrators the power to apply to the family law courts for procedural directions. There will also be increased certainty about the costs in family law matters and how these apply to independent children's lawyers. The bill will also permit the court to decide sole applications for divorce where there are children under the age of 18 without having both parties attend. This will significantly reduce legal cost and stress for families. It promotes the timely resolution of parenting disputes through a range of administrative improvements and also clarifies Commonwealth information order provisions regarding timely and accurate information about the location of a child. Importantly, it widens the safety net around children by expanding the category of family member and persons about which information of actual or threatened violence must be provided. As you can see, this bill responds to the calls from advocates working in the gendered and family violence space for the system to be more responsive to the victims of family violence. The amendments in this bill are positive; they'll provide greater consistency in the court's approach. They acknowledge the impact of family violence on the wealth and welfare of Australian families. Crucially, they indicate how a property settlement between a separated couple should be adjusted to reflect the hardship of family violence, thereby providing economic equality. The bill includes a provision for the statutory review of the reforms three years after these amendments start. This reflects the prioritisation of family violence matters and the willingness to adopt different approaches in increasing the safety of families and the fair resolution of family law matters. Finally, these reforms send a message to the victims and survivors of family and domestic violence: that the law advocates for them and wants fairer outcomes from legal processes. I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House. 17:19 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Family violence isn't something that happens to other families in other suburbs. In my electorate of Goldstein, more than half of the daily police case load is responding to family and domestic violence. This kind of abuse, whether it's physical, psychological or financial, doesn't discriminate by postcode; it is everywhere. We know that women are most likely to experience physical and sexual violence at home at the hands of a current male partner or ex-partner. The offender is much more likely to be in the home than to be some mythical monster lurking in the shadows. We also know that family violence often doesn't end when the relationship ends, and there is a documented heightened risk that a perpetrator will increase or escalate abusive behaviour against victims-survivors during and after separation. In the 2022-23 financial year, 83 per cent of initiating applications for parenting and property related orders filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia contained allegations of family violence in the mandatory notice of risk form. We also know that those affected by family violence may struggle to achieve a fair division of property under the Family Law Act and can suffer long-term financial disadvantage. This was in the 2019 Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry report that sat on the shelf and gathered dust during the previous government's term. Family violence can also act as a barrier to women seeking access to justice, providing a disincentive to many women to pursue financial settlement after a relationship breakdown, causing further financial disadvantage for women. So what does this actually mean in practice? It means women stay in violent relationships due to fear of poverty. It means many that do leave struggle financially for the rest of their lives. It means that children suffer. It means that the legal system, rather than being a way out, is often weaponised against those trying to escape a life of home based terror—because that is what it can be, day in and day out. The family violence prevention sector has known for a long time just how prevalent and destructive family violence is in Australian society. It's told us how the tentacles of this threatening, coercive and abusive behaviour can stretch into the legal system after separation. Finally, lawmakers here in this place are catching up. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 goes a long way towards bringing the Family Law Act up to speed with the reality of Australian society and women's lives. Women who access women's legal service often say they are fearful of seeking the property they are entitled to post separation due to possible repercussions, including escalating violence. This means they don't have the financial resources to appropriately care for themselves or their children or to recover from the violence. Women and children should be able to live free of violence always. The safety of women and children should be at the centre of all legal practice and decision-making. Currently, it's not, because the Family Law Act doesn't identify family violence as a relevant matter for the court to consider in a property settlement. The Family Law Amendment Bill addresses this omission. It makes amendments to explicitly allow the court to consider the effect of family violence on the victims-survivors' ability to contribute to the property pool of a relationship and to consider the effect of family violence on their future needs. These are important changes because we know that family violence often has a significant impact on the economic wellbeing, housing security and health of victims-survivors which is exacerbated by the unjust distribution of property. Under these new changes, the effect of family violence can also be considered by the court in determining an application for spousal maintenance. The bill will also introduce a duty of disclosure for property and financial matters into the Family Law Act. The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that the duty to disclose be codified into the act to support the transparent disclosure of separating couples' financial circumstances to help the early resolution of dispute. Court proceedings can be weaponised by perpetrators to prolong the dispute and continue the abuse. It's only recently that legal system abuse has come to our attention as a form of domestic and family violence. Research studies undertaken across Australia, New Zealand and the UK all demonstrate how family law proceedings are deliberately used by perpetrators to assert continued control and intimidation over their children, their child's other parent, and anyone else who cares for that child. The duty to disclose will go some way to preventing legal system abuse. The bill also makes the family law system safer by including amendments to enhance the operation of children's contact services. We should never lose sight of the fact that children are victims in their own right, and every effort should be made to make the changeover of children as safe and as trauma-free as possible. There are a range of positive changes to the Family Law Act that will lead to better outcomes for victims-survivors, as I've described. However, the provisions in relation to protected confidences, I would argue, don't go far enough to ensure safer outcomes for victims-survivors. In the new legislation, the courts will have the ability to prevent private records from health and specialist domestic, family and sexual assault violence services from being viewed by the other party or used as evidence where the harm in doing so outweighs the need for the evidence. It will be up to the court to give the direction on its own initiative or on application by the protected confider, who is the woman most of the time. Putting this framework in place is an improvement on the current situation where it's open slather and subpoenas are being overused and misused to present confidential records. It puts the onus on the protected confider to make an application to prevent disclosure of their records. My view after extensive expert advice from the women's legal sector is that the onus should be on the person seeking to admit the evidence and not the protected confider seeking leave to have a record of this type admitted in evidence. And if the evidence is admitted, victims-survivors should be able to consent to the release of their protected confidences, including access to legal advice prior to giving consent, and that consent should be provided in writing. This decision to place the onus on the protected confider was made in response to concerns from some in the legal fraternity that seeking leave before issuing a subpoena would delay matters, increase costs for parties and take up court resources. I have concerns that this approach taken to mitigate cost and delay will mean that victims-survivors will continue to be harmed. I am not convinced that it's an appropriate trade-off, and neither are women's legal services who work with women in these situations every single day. It's likely that in many situations women will simply be unaware of their responsibility to make an application to prevent disclosure of confidential information or won't have the ability to make an application due to limited access to free legal advice and representation. There should be a presumption that protected confidences are harmful if used in evidence, and the onus should be on the person seeking to admit the evidence to show otherwise in each instance. In other words, the burden should be flipped. Family, domestic and sexual violence is a deeply entrenched societal problem. We know that women often can't leave violent relationships because of the economic impacts. We know that women are often forced to choose between violence and poverty. Making family violence a specific consideration in property disputes is an important step towards creating a family law system that better supports victims-survivors of family violence to leave violent relationships and to recover safely with their children. It is critical that, alongside any legislative changes, the family law system is properly resourced, including legal assistance services. The federal government must urgently commit to increased stable, long-term funding for women's legal services to assist women engaged in the family law system, particularly victims-survivors of family violence. Women's legal services are on the front line, helping women engage in the family law system. They have unique insights into the impact of the family law system on women experiencing family violence. Indeed, working in such a service carries its own trauma, not only bearing witness to the traumatic experiences of women and children daily but so frequently being unable to help them due to lack of capacity. In 2023, Women's Legal Services Australia collected national turnaway data over a five-day period across all 13 women's legal services. It found that 1,018 women who attempted to seek help missed out on getting assistance. From this, we can estimate that more than 1,000 women per week, and more than 52,000 women per year, will have to be turned away from these services across Australia, and this is representative only of the women who seek assistance. The true extent of unmet legal need related to gender based violence has yet to be measured. Without additional long-term funding, women's legal services will continue to turn away tens of thousands of women and children at risk of violence every year. A strong and sustainable women's legal sector is vital if we are to end violence against women and children in a generation, as the National Plan to end Violence against Women and Children sets out to do. I'm aware of a recent government injection of funding in this area, but in addition I'm calling for investment into women's legal services to fully meet domestic and family violence demand. This must accompany the changes to the Family Law Act to give them full effect. I commend this bill to the House. 17:30 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm pleased to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024. It builds on the Albanese government's landmark reforms in the Australian family law system, which were passed in 2023. Together, these important reforms demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring that the Australian family law system is safer, more accessible and simpler to use and that it delivers justice and equity for Australian families. Recent inquiries, including the 2019 Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry and the 2019 to 2021 Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System inquiry, have highlighted ongoing challenges in the family law system, which is complex and confusing and fails to respond effectively to family violence. This bill makes a range of amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 to address recommendations from these recent family law inquiries, and it builds on the family law reforms which came into effect on 6 May this year. The Family Law Amendment Act 2023 and Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Act 2023 established new information-sharing arrangements to protect against family safety risks and put the best interests of children at the centre of all parenting decisions and family law matters. Where these reforms from last year focus principally on safety and clarity in parenting orders—children's issues—the key amendments in this bill are resolving property and financial aspects of relationship breakdowns. Importantly, the bill before the chamber today implements improvements in the legal frameworks underpinning property settlement and spousal maintenance matters, including specifically recognising the economic impact of family violence on the wealth and welfare of Australian families. The bill makes this family law system safer and simpler. It talks about enhancing the operation of the children's contact services; clarifying important aspects of family law; safeguarding sensitive information in family law proceedings; including specific factors for decisions about family pets; and supporting the effective operation of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Shockingly, yet unsurprisingly, family violence is present in 80 per cent of parenting matters before the family courts. This new legislation will ensure family and domestic violence can be taken into consideration in property settlements for separating families. It seeks to make division of property and finances safer, simpler and fairer. The law builds on the government's previous reforms. The bill before the chamber will implement significant reforms. The family law system has been the subject of more than two dozen inquiries in the last decade. They have raised consistent issues, including the lack of responsiveness to family violence and overly complex and confusing legislation which is a barrier to vulnerable users attempting to access or apply the law. The research indicates that those affected by family violence struggle to achieve a fair division of property and finances after relationship breakdown and suffer long-term financial disadvantage, and certainly that has been my experience. I practised in this jurisdiction for close to 25 years and was an accredited specialist in family law from 1996, and it's been my observation that people without resources and people who don't understand the way the law applies are at significant financial disadvantage, particularly as violence can not only persist in the course of a relationship but be ongoing through the course of the negotiations, the systems and the trial itself. The bill seeks to make division of property and finances safer and simpler. Currently, the courts have the power to make just and equitable orders in relation to marital relationships under section 79(4) and section 75(2). Section 79(4) talks about financial and non-financial contributions to property, and the subsection after that talks about contributions to the welfare of the family, including contribution as a homemaker and parent. That is mirrored, by the way, in relation to de facto relationships. We can find that in section 90SM and 90SF of the Family Law Act. Negative contributions have always been taken into consideration in a whole range of case law in this matter. To give you a couple of illustrations of where it can be taken into consideration: if, for example, one party deliberately destroyed properly or one party deliberately gambled away assets or deliberately engaged in intentional or reckless behaviour, courts have always been a position where they can take that into consideration in terms of a dissipation or a negative contribution to the size of the matrimonial pool of assets. But we have never been able to take into consideration the economic impact or consequence to that pool of assets from domestic and family violence perpetrated by one party to the relationship on the other. That has never been the law. And so this particular legislation is landmark reform. It's absolutely crucial. It's important that we pass legislation like this, because we want to ensure that there is justice and equity in relation to people's property settlement. You've got to take into consideration the real-life impact. The perpetrator of domestic and family violence, if they also are financially better off and have greater resource and qualifications, are often much better off in terms of the outcome of the property settlement. The victim-survivor of domestic and family violence is often a position where they are out of the workforce. They sometimes—tragically, too often—have actually been physically injured as a result of what's gone on and they cannot work or their ability to work is inhibited. These factors should be taken into consideration when it comes to property settlement. For the very first time, we are going to be doing that in terms of property settlement and spousal maintenance proceedings. These are very important impacts in terms of property. Considering that up to 80 per cent of child related issues involve domestic and family violence. Just imagine the impact on the outcome of alterations of property settlements that are going to be made by this legislation or will be available to victim-survivors in bringing that information on affidavit before a final hearing or, indeed, an interim hearing when it comes to spousal maintenance or if it's important to protect property before the final hearing. There are other issues that I think are really important. Disclosure is a big factor in family law matters, as is the case in a lot of civil and criminal litigation. It's important that we have disclosure obligation. One of the things that I found as a practising lawyer was that people often didn't take it seriously enough. When you've got a situation where up to 40 per cent of people in this jurisdiction are self-represented, they don't take it seriously enough more often than not. I've been in situations where people disclose massive amounts of information on the eve of final hearing. So it's important to have disclosure information not simply as a practice direction but elevated to the point of the Family Law Act so they realise they're actually breaching the act when they fail to disclose information that's critical to the outcome of property settlements. It's a fundamental issue of justice. The fundamental importance of disclosure of relevant financial information is about fair and timely resolution of property settlement. The more information that's available to people earlier, the more likely it is they'll settle the case and the less likely it is they'll go to a final hearing. It costs less money and it's better for their family, better for their children and better for the outcome and the future, so this amendment is really important. It recognises that nondisclosure can have an impact from economic or financial abuse and misuse of systems and processes. So this is a critical change that we are making. It's a sensible move. The bill will expand the court's ability to also use less adversarial approaches in all types of proceedings not just for children's matters but supporting parties to safely raise family violence risk to ensure safe conduct of proceedings. The other thing is this. We know this too well. I've experienced it. It's quite astonishing. It used to really frustrate me from time to time. You'd get a situation where the matter was almost resolved out of court. Then I'd be in court, usually in Brisbane, negotiating a property settlement back and forth. Sometimes it took days to do it. You'd get to a point right at the end and often it was some chattels that were being argued about. You would not believe the number of times that a dog or a cat or another pet came up as part of the overall negotiation of property settlement. The love and affection Australians have for their animals, their domestic pets, and the way in which perpetrators of domestic and family violence can use the process to continue the impact of domestic and family violence on the victim-survivor I saw again and again. So the reform here allows changes that will assist to reduce that impact. The bill allows the court to consider a range of factors, including family violence, when determining the ownership of pets in settlements. This recognises recent research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies highlighting how pets are being used in coercive and controlling relationships. It's astonishing the number of people post relationships that want to continue that coercive and controlling relationship by use of not just children but pets as well. So, in addition, the bill will provide support for safe supervision and changeover of children by establishing a framework for the future regulation of children's contact services. How important that is. Changeover is a flashpoint between parties that argue with each other over children. It's an opportunity for domestic and family violence to take place. And it's an opportunity for children to witness the ongoing domestic and family violence of their parents. So this is a critical change that we are making here. These services must operate to a very high standard by professionals and not just someone who says, 'I can do the job,' and provide essential support to vulnerable and high-risk families to safely manage contact arrangements when they can't do it on their own. Too often they will say they will change over at McDonald's or something like that and think that, somehow, being in public will prevent harsh words being used or threats being made or intimidation, harassment and the like occurring again. That sort of coercive control, harassment and threats can continue. Importantly, the bill will provide the court with greater powers to ensure family law proceedings progress efficiently and allow divorce proceedings to be heard in the absence of parties and allow the court to not accept a parenting matter if a party has not met the required pre-filing of a family dispute resolution. I think that's important. I think that's a significant reform. I haven't got time to go through it, but I think it's a very important reform. I think that will have a significant impact on how people think about their relationships with their children and their relationships with each other. The bill clarifies and strengthens the Commonwealth information order provisions and will allow the court to have more information available to assist in the location of a child, including by expanding categories of family members about which family violence information can be sought by a Commonwealth department or agency. So there are new powers to prevent the failure to disclose information. The changes we are making in this space are so critical. I want to finish on this note. If you practise in this jurisdiction—and there are many lawyers who do and many people who come in contact with the system—you know how frustrating it can be. You know how difficult it is to understand practice directions in the Family Law Act in various sections. Just think about how that impacts on people's thinking and their understanding of where they are going to go and how they are going to resolve their children's issues and how they are going to resolve their property settlement. If we can make it safer, if we can make it easier to understand, if we can make sure their children are safe, if they can understand that they can survive, get the help they need, get access to professionals and get a property settlement that understands the impact of domestic and family violence on them as a victim-survivor, that will result in a better country and a better community in which those people can live. Sometimes we debate legislation in this chamber and in the main chamber that doesn't have much impact on people's lives, but legislation like this completes the family law changes that we've been introducing, and it will make a massive impact on the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Australians in the future. The ability of the court system to render justice and equity is critical to people's respect for the law, but it's also important for people's understanding about how they will get on with their lives, and their expectation of justice can be met by this legislation. 17:45 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024. It's always incredibly difficult to deal with family breakdown and separation, and it's sadly a fact of life that currently about 40 per cent of marriages and relationships end in divorce and separation. Many of these separations are amicable and are done without conflict; they're the ones we don't hear about. Unfortunately, where there is breakdown and it's adversarial, there are those who need to rely on the family law system to settle their divorce or separation, divide up property and assets and decide custody of children. Sadly, all too often, domestic and family violence is a part of that process and a part of those marriage and relationship breakdowns. Before I entered parliament, I was a family law barrister. I sadly had the opportunity to observe, all too often, how much domestic and family violence was a part of those situations. I know how distressing this area of law can be for those who have to engage with it. It's frustrating. It's incredibly confronting, because the family unit—your personal situation—goes to the core of people's lives: how and where we live and how we raise our children. Often, the family law system is one of the first points of contact that people have with the justice system. Many people won't have had any engagement with court processes until that breakdown of the family unit and not being able to resolve the dispute. The process of engaging with family law can be adversarial, confrontational, emotionally unsettling, financially crippling, life changing and abusive. It can be a continuation of the abuse that's all too often experienced, maybe in relationships as well. Now, as a member for Warringah representing my community, unfortunately I still deal with many families—and unfortunately, too often, women—who still find this system not working in an equitable way and incredibly frustrating. I commend the government and the Attorney-General for this legislation. It is a step in the right direction in starting to assist. I will take the opportunity to raise that there are still many who raise with me their concerns that the Hague convention proceedings don't always mirror or reflect the kind of progress we're making in the family law system. That is an area in which I'd urge the government and the Attorney-General to make representations on behalf of Australia, to ensure domestic violence and safety are better reflected in the Hague convention proceedings as well. On the family law front, after many inquiries and reports from this place, as well as the Australian Law Reform Commission, we have started to make real headway in reforming the system, and I absolutely welcome that. This legislation builds on recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, of which I was a member. It is obvious to so many of us who have dealt with the family law system that consideration of family and domestic violence needs to be and is finally going to be a consideration when it comes to property settlements and other areas. It really should have been a consideration much before now. We know we have a domestic and family violence epidemic in this country; it's a crisis. I have spoken about it on many opportunities. I think this opportunity, like others, is a good time to remind us that 64 women were killed by domestic violence in Australia in 2023. We note that the number for 2024 is horrendous. According to Destroy The Joint, 47 women have already allegedly been killed by domestic and family violence so far in 2024. We know that the time at which women are most at risk is in the breakdown of a relationship—the leaving of a relationship. That's why the right kind of protection and access to services is so incredibly important, as is making sure that the system works so they don't return to dangerous relationships. So we need to make more changes to ensure that those who suffer from violence don't see living safely and separately as insurmountable. That's why changes to the family law system are so incredibly important so that they feel there is a system that will better recognise, reflect and deal with their circumstances and situation. I know the government has consulted with stakeholders in drafting the legislation, including allowing comment on an exposure draft, but I should say it's disappointing that many of us in the parliament, particularly on the crossbench, have had fairly limited time to review this legislation, which makes it difficult to fully interrogate the bill and get full feedback from interested parties such as law societies and others. I suspect that the bill may well go to inquiry in the other place, which I would welcome because there hasn't been that opportunity to interrogate it and potentially look to amendments in certain areas. But I absolutely acknowledge the Attorney-General has been focused on implementing long-overdue reform in this area, particularly the myriad of recommendations that we have had sitting on the shelf for much, much too long. It's a complex area of law. It's very technical. But there has been a wide range of support for these changes. Women's Legal Services Australia rightly noted in their submission on the exposure draft: Reform to the Family Law Act can significantly enhance women's economic wellbeing by ensuring that family violence is a factor taken into consideration in property settlements, both the impact on contributions to the asset pool and the current and future needs of victim-survivors. I strongly agree with this. At the core of this bill, it will allow magistrates and judges to consider the risk of violence and the economic impact of violence when it comes to dividing up property and finances. It was always such an incredibly frustrating situation, for me as a barrister working in this area, that a client might come to me with a tale that involved incidents of domestic violence or coercive control that clearly impacted their capacity to work, to pursue further education or to better their situation and that impacted their liberty, their access and their freedoms, but, under the Kennon principle, you simply couldn't establish that as a means to show how much that impacted a party's financial contribution to the marriage, which ultimately was what the court would take into account in dividing up the assets. For so many clients, it was incredibly heartbreaking. They still requested that I run the arguments in relation to the domestic and family violence, because for them it was very important to have it on the record and acknowledged, and it was often very important to have the judges actually acknowledge and accept the evidence in respect of domestic violence. But, unfortunately, you had to acknowledge that the threshold from Kennon wasn't met to show that it had a substantial impact on capacity to contribute financially. You essentially had to show someone was in hospital and couldn't attend their job to show that there was an impact on property proceedings. So I very much welcome the fact that we will now have, in legislation, a clear requirement for the court to consider the impact of domestic violence when it comes to dividing up property and finances, because it has a real impact on a victim's financial circumstances. I also really welcome the consideration in the legislation to make allowance for housing needs, particularly in terms of which party has the care of a child. All too often, especially when domestic violence is involved, we see the victims and the children have to leave the family home, and they then find themselves in a housing crisis. We know we will never have enough crisis accommodation to assist victims of domestic violence, so we need to tilt the onus and change the situation so that there is more pressure on the courts, when divvying up assets, to consider the housing needs of those with the care of children more fully, especially if domestic violence has been there. I've talked with the Attorney-General about even reversing the presumption in relation to a right to occupy the family home, especially pending the resolution of proceedings, which, sadly, all too often takes several years and often leads to systems-induced poverty for victims. This legislation also brings in changes when it comes to protecting sensitive information, and I think this bill strikes a fair balance. I'm satisfied that what's been proposed will give an additional ground of objection to a participant, the maker of a protected confidence or the judge. It's important that when a party to proceedings, for example, issues a subpoena in relation to documents—for example, counselling records—a party will always have the grounds to object to the documents being sought for discovery, and now the changes in the legislation mean there's an additional ground on which to object to that production. I think that's really important. It is also open to a judge and/or the person making the protected confidence or a person with a case guardian, for example, to exercise that. So I think these are all positives, and I'm satisfied that they're good changes. Of course we can always go further, and I urge the Attorney-General to consider continuing to reform this sector, because it really does go to the core of so many families. In terms of the changes to the children's contact services and how they operate, again this bill introduces much-needed regulation of the sector, and I strongly support it. The reality in parenting cases is that, when there are any risks of harm to the child, you have to have involvement of supervision and children's contact services. It means that often, for a period of up to two years, contact with a child for one or both parents will be really limited, particularly if there isn't access to children's contact services. So an area I would urge the Attorney-General to focus on is making sure there's equitable access to contact services, because I know regional communities do not have sufficient contact services and, if you can't get in or there's a long waitlist, the reality is that contact ceases between a parent and child, and that has a huge impact on that relationship. That's often before you've had a full working out of the allegations by a court, so it's really important that there is equitable access pending determination of proceedings so that you don't have irreparable damage made to relationships between parents and children and that relationship can continue in a safe and supervised environment. That is absolutely vital. Of course, the standards vary a lot, so I think it's really important to have that regulated. Obviously, apart from the time limit, I feel that a key area for improvement outside of this bill is funding the community legal sector. I've spoken many times about the need for changes to sentencing and for having a much greater deterrent when it comes to the consequences of domestic and family violence, to protect women and children. But pending changes to our laws—and I acknowledge that, with our federated system, it means changes to state laws in terms of sentencing—we need to make sure people can access the law and can access advice. That is where it's so vital that we have funding for frontline legal services, including Indigenous services, especially in regional communities. At the moment, we know they are so pressed for resources they have to pick and choose which courts they may or may not be able to offer services at, which means a huge cohort go unassisted. I went through my law degree. I passed my bar exams. It is complex and it is hard. To expect people, unassisted, unaided and unadvised, to deal with the system leads to really bad outcomes. People misunderstand the law, they don't understand the requirements or the presumptions, and you end up with really bad outcomes and, I think, dangerous outcomes. So I very much urge the Attorney-General to continue focusing on that aspect. I know stakeholders like the Law Council of Australia have noted that the exposure draft and the current draft of the bill may create unintended consequences of further litigation, so there is some concern there. Clarifying and simplifying areas of law in this bill may in fact complicate it, so that's where that inquiry process in the other place, I think, would be beneficial. The community legal sector is facing chronic underfunding, as I said. If we want them to be able to assist participants in the family law system, they need to be funded. It's a basic aspect for this to work. So I urge the government to step up its funding through the National Access to Justice Partnership. We need accountability and transparency for how those funds are being spent and disbursed. I know there's been a recent announcement—I think last week—of $800 million. It's a start, but I argue that it's really only a down payment. Funding and detail need to be increased. The concern is also the delay in accessing it so that the lawyers in this sector can actually have some ongoing contracts and certainty of staying in the system. This is an area that, obviously, will always require a lot of ongoing work. I urge the Attorney-General to stay focused on this and make sure our regional areas have access to the help, because we know that domestic and family violence and, unfortunately, fatalities overwhelmingly occur in the more remote and regional areas, so we have to make sure they have access to assistance as well. 18:00 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 contains important reforms to the Family Law Act 1975 which build on landmark reforms for parenting matters that commenced on 6 May 2024. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring the family law system is safer, more accessible and simpler to use and delivers justice and equity for all Australian families. This bill will make resolving property and financial aspects of relationship breakdowns safer, simpler and fairer for separating families, especially where family violence is present. We know that those affected by family violence struggle to achieve a fair division of property after a relationship breakdown and suffer long-term financial disadvantage. Family violence may also be a barrier to women seeking a property settlement at all. This bill is an opportunity to send a strong message to the community that property settlement outcomes should recognise the effect of family violence on individuals and on the wealth and welfare of the family where this is relevant. It is an opportunity to provide additional safety, reassurance and predictability for families by providing for the establishment of a regulatory framework for children's contact services to ensure safe and child focused services for families who cannot safely manage contact arrangements themselves. The bill also seeks to introduce a power for the courts to safeguard protected confidences in family law proceedings and other measures that clarify the operation of aspects of the law and support the efficient administration of the family courts. This bill will better assist Australians using the family law system by creating a safer and clearer process for separating families. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 97 18:03 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 3, item 30, page 72 (lines 7 to 8), omit the definition of disclosure requirement in subsection 4(1). (2) Schedule 3, item 31, page 73 (line 28) to page 78 (line 5), omit sections 102BC to 102BG, substitute: 102BC Admissibility of evidence of protected confidence Admissibility of evidence of protected confidence (1) Except with the leave of the court under section 102BD, evidence that would disclose any of the following is not admissible in proceedings under this Act: (a) a protected confidence; or (b) the contents of a document recording or relating to a protected confidence. Consent by protected confider (2) Evidence is not inadmissible because of subsection (1) if: (a) consent to the evidence being admitted in the proceedings is given by: (i) if the protected confider is 18 or over—the protected confider; or (ii) if the protected confider is a child under 18: (A) each person who has parental responsibility (within the meaning of Part VII) for the child; or (B) an independent children's lawyer who represents the interests of the child in the proceedings; or (C) a person who has care of the child; or (D) a person who proposes to have parental responsibility for the child; and (b) before giving consent, the person is provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner; and (c) the consent is in writing and witnessed by an independent person who is 18 years of age or over and not party to the proceedings. Relationship with inadmissibility provisions (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to evidence to which any of the following provisions apply: (a) section 10E (admissibility of communications in family counselling and in referrals from family counselling); (b) section 10J (admissibility of communications in family dispute resolution and in referrals from family dispute resolution); (c) section 10V (admissibility of family safety risk screening information etc.). 102BD Leave to admit evidence of protected confidence (1) In deciding for the purposes of section 102BC whether to grant leave to admit evidence in proceedings, the court must determine whether the public interest in admitting the evidence outweighs the public interest in preventing harm to: (a) the protected confider, or a person about whom or on whose behalf the protected confidence was made; or (b) the relationship in the course of which the protected confidence was made or relationships of that kind generally. (2) In making a decision under subsection (1) in proceedings under Part VII, the court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. (3) In making a decision under subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following matters: (a) the probative value of the evidence in the proceedings; (b) its importance of the evidence in the proceedings; (c) the availability of other evidence concerning the matters to which the evidence relates; (d) the likely effect of admitting the evidence, including the likelihood of harm, and the nature and extent of harm, that would or might be caused: (i) to the protected confider; or (ii) to a child to which the proceedings relate; (e) the means available to the court to limit the harm or extent of the harm likely to be caused if the evidence is admitted; (f) whether the substance of the evidence has already been disclosed by the protected confider or any other person; (g) the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of protected confidences. (4) Subsection (3) does not limit the matters to which the court may have regard in making the decision. (5) The court must give reasons for making a decision whether to grant leave to admit evidence in proceedings under this Division. (3) Schedule 3, item 33, page 78 (line 17), omit "102BF(b)", substitute "102BC(3)(b)". My amendments concern protected confidences in family court proceedings and are designed to prevent victims-survivors of domestic and family violence from experiencing further harm. My amendments don't come out of left field. In fact, they almost made it into law. Draft amendments in relation to protected confidences were included in an exposure draft of the Family Law Amendment Bill last year. These amendments would have made documents, such as medical and counselling records, unable to be admitted in evidence without legal support or the consent of the protected confider or, in the case of a child, the consent of those who have parental responsibility for the child. This measure placed the onus on the person seeking to admit the evidence, rather than on the protected confider, to seek leave to have a record of this type admitted in evidence. My amendments are along the lines of the 2023 exposure draft. They flip the burden so that the default is that the evidence is not admissible unless leave is given. My amendments put the onus on the person seeking to admit the evidence or issue a subpoena to seek leave, not the protected confider. This primarily requires changes to section 102BC and 102BD of the bill. They provide enhanced safeguards to ensure protected confiders are giving specific and informed consent for the evidence to be admitted or documents to be disclosed, inspected or copied. The disclosure of protected confidences can be harmful to victim-survivors who are trying to rebuild their lives. That's because information becomes a weapon in the hands of domestic violence perpetrators. Allowing confidential documents in trial processes can provide perpetrators with additional means to cause harm to victims and further disrupt the mother and child relationship. Victim-survivors should be able to consent to the release of their protected confidences provided there are safeguards ensuring this is done with their informed consent, including access to legal advice prior to giving consent and that consent being provided in writing. With the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024, there's no requirement that a party seek leave before issuing a subpoena and the onus is now on the protected confider to make an application to prevent disclosure of their records. I note that these changes were made in response to concerns from some in legal circles that the initial exposure draft would delay matters, increase costs for parties and take up court resources. In some cases, information sharing will lead to more timely outcomes; however, an increase in information will not address the root cause of delays, which is often legal systems abuse. These delays are caused by vexatious former partners who prolong litigation to waste the resources of the other party by refusing to sign legal documents and failing to attend meetings or court dates. If the legal profession is serious about cracking down on these delays, it should tackle systems abuse. Another counter view is that in some cases these records are important in determining the risk the mother poses in the best interest of the child. But counselling records aren't the only way to determine this. There are other ways the court can receive information about what's in the child's best interest, including police reports, child protection and both parties' own evidence. Placing the onus on the protected confider means that victim-survivors will continue to be harmed. They'll potentially be unaware of their responsibility to even make an application to prevent disclosure of confidential information or won't have the ability to make an application due to limited access to free legal advice and presentation. We know that, due to the lack of capacity in the community legal system, getting legal assistance is very difficult. I note that these amendments were formulated with the expert assistance of the women's legal sector. This is what the sector wants. The family law system must allow victim-parents the best possible opportunity to recover without further incursions on the capacity to care for their children. I urge the government to consider accepting this amendment. 18:08 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I do thank the member for Goldstein her proposed amendment and for her engagement on these important family law reforms. With respect to the member for Goldstein, the government has formed a different view. The member for Goldstein correctly points out that this was the subject of the exposure draft, but debate generally on this measure shows what a difficult exercise it is in balancing competing interests. In some instances, while disclosure would be distressing, the information that's contained in a party's sensitive therapeutic records will nevertheless be highly relevant to the best interests of a child involved in the proceedings. Just to give an idea of administrative or procedural scale that we are dealing with: over 61,500 subpoenas were issued in family law proceedings in the last financial year. Many of those subpoenas relate to sensitive therapeutic records. The creation of a presumption of inadmissibility could prevent the court from considering critical information relating to a child's safety and best interests in matters where an application for leave is not made. We've had extensive consultation on this, including two exposure drafts of legislative provisions. The approach that we've adopted makes an additional safeguard available to protect vulnerable parties from harm where it's appropriate while prioritising a decision-maker having all information relevant to the safety and best interests of children at their disposal. Judges will be able to weigh considerations of the potential harm that adducing evidence may cause a person against its probative value in a matter, with the best interests of any children involved as the paramount consideration. The government's view is that this is an appropriate starting point and a step forward to enhance protections against the misuse of evidentiary provisions in family law matters, a risk of which we are acutely aware. The bill includes a statutory review mechanism, three years after commencement, which will enable consideration of the need for any improvements. In addition, I expect the bill will be referred to a committee in the other place for inquiry, but the government will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Goldstein in the House. 18:10 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I have two points of clarification for the minister. Given that, in the 2023-24 financial year, 83 per cent of applications for parenting or parenting-and-property related orders filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court contained allegations of family violence, why should a further burden be placed on victims-survivors to prevent the disclosure of their confidential records? Further to that, given the lack of capacity in the community legal system, how will victims-survivors be made aware of this responsibility, given we know that up to a thousand a week are currently being turned away from free legal advice? 18:11 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs As I've said, the fact that we're having this debate is a real demonstration of the difficult exercise in balancing the quite self-evident competing interests here, but the amendment that the member for Goldstein has moved would impose obligations on those issuing subpoenas or seeking to have documents produced to them, which would greatly increase the administrative burden on the court and on parties. That is why we've opted for the setting that appears in the bill that's now before this House. As I've said, there will be an opportunity for further examination in a committee in the other place and there will be an opportunity for review of this in three years time. We've struck a balance that we think is appropriate. In answer to the question raised by the member for Goldstein as to how parties will be aware, on something like this the court will make sure that parties are aware. I appreciate there is a problem about not every party in the court receiving legal advice, but the court is already highly sensitive to the problems, intrusion and distress that can be caused by the subpoenaing of therapeutic records. It's a matter on which the court is already fully engaged, and I would expect it will continue to be. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 99

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 99 18:13 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The role of Attorney-General is never-ending, and we're fortunate on our side of politics to have produced some of the nation's best. HV Evatt and Gareth Evans come to mind, and to that company I'm sure we can add the current Attorney-General. But the demands of the job are constant. New issues are always emerging, with the result being that existing legislation always needs to be updated, tailored and amended. With this in mind, I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this legislation, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024, before the House today. It updates existing legislation to address the way modern criminals conduct their business and also includes provisions that will deter them from undertaking similar activities in the future. The bill makes a number of amendments to certain crime related provisions in several Commonwealth acts. These acts include the Crimes Act 1914, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. The end result of all these amendments will be that certain legislative provisions administered by the Attorney-General will be improved and clarified. Further, the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate criminal activity relating to digital currency exchanges will be improved. Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the seizing of digital assets under warrant. The means by which criminals conduct their business is always evolving. The days of hiding behind a large rock with a posse and arms waiting for a stagecoach to pass are long gone. Nowadays, with the advent of the digital economy, criminal activity often includes digital assets, especially cryptocurrency. Criminal activity involving digital access includes the purchase of drugs, child exploitation material and firearms through the dark web, ransomware, cyber related offences, money laundering and financing terrorist organisations. Therefore, it is essential that law enforcement agencies have appropriate tools and mechanisms to address the emerging issues. This bill does that by amending the Crimes Act 1914 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to ensure that the powers available to law enforcement to seize digital assets under a warrant reflect the operating environment. In doing so, this amendment will ensure that criminals are deprived of the benefits of their crime and may be deterred from future criminal activity. Schedule 2 refers to extending the current investigative and freezing powers that cover financial institutions to digital currency exchanges. In many respects, this relates to schedule 1, as the way in which criminal activities are undertaken has changed. As a consequence, the responses from law enforcement also need to change. The bill before us, through schedule 2, amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to expand the definition of a financial institution to include digital currency exchanges. These amendments will ensure that freezing orders, notices to financial institutions and monitoring orders can be made in relation to accounts held in digital currency exchanges. Again, the aim is clear: by allowing law enforcement to freeze relevant accounts before any restraint action can be undertaken, criminals will be unable to move or dissipate their proceeds to other activities. Schedule 3 amends the Crimes Act 1914 to increase the value of a penalty for Commonwealth offences for $313 to $330. Maintaining the value of the penalty unit is necessary to ensure that penalties for the Commonwealth offences keep pace with community expectations. It is necessary that penalties act as the deterrent they are meant to be. Raising the amount that is charged will ensure the consequence meets the offence. On this matter, I note the last ad hoc increase was January 2022, and in that time the cost of living in Australia has risen by 9.38 per cent. Schedule 4 clarifies the functions of the Communications Access Coordinator in the Attorney-General's department and creates a new Communications Security Coordinator position in the Department of Home Affairs. The latter reform will, as a result, remove a significant administrative burden by removing the Communications Access Coordinator functions currently administered by the Department of Home Affairs into that department. Schedule 5 of the matter before us will expand the ability of the state and territory integrity agencies to share interception information and interception warrant information with oversight bodies. These amendments will apply to the New South Wales ICAC, the New South Wales Inspector of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, South Australia's inspector of the ICAC, the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission in Western Australia and the Victorian Inspectorate. The amendments accurately reflect developments occurring in the state and territory oversight and integrity space and enable oversight bodies to properly scrutinise and audit interception activities and compliance with the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and fulfil their statutory functions through access to the interception of information and the interception of warrant information. I have spoken in the past about cybercrime and scams. Those intent on criminal and nefarious activities are clever. They're always scheming and planning new ways to do their business. While as individuals we may not be the direct victims of their crime, others are, and our community as a whole therefore loses. The bill before us updates important aspects of our legislative framework for addressing these new types of crime. I commend them to the House. 18:20 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak in support of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024. Sometimes we debate enormous transformational and historic pieces of legislation in this place. They top the news headlines for days, weeks and sometimes months. They define elections and determine the future of our nation. Other times, the changes we debate are small but necessary changes. They clean up ambiguities, clarify grey areas and address those, shall we say, small things that create legal nightmares when the rubber hits the road. This bill is one of those latter examples. Simply put, we are introducing minor changes to ensure our law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to keep pace with the fast-evolving world of digital crime. We need to ensure there is no room for confusion or misinterpretation in the law. It also allows us to better maintain the integrity of our telecommunications systems. Criminals are constantly finding new ways to exploit loopholes in the law, and the rapid advance of technology means that the slow-moving beast of Australian legislation is lagging behind. Law enforcement agencies have identified an increase in criminals' use of digital assets, including cryptocurrency and block chain technologies, to facilitate their offending. We're talking about drug trafficking, firearm sales and, most heinously, child sexual exploitation. We are talking about money laundering, financing of terror organisations, ransomware and scams. These technologies are being used in organised crime and some of the most vile kinds of abuses targeting vulnerable Australians. AUSTRAC, or the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, is Australia's financial intelligence agency. They are responsible for monitoring financial transactions to identify money laundering, organised crime, tax evasion, welfare fraud and terrorism financing. In a recent report into money laundering in Australia, AUSTRAC said: Scam methods are constantly evolving. Offenders are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their delivery and execution, and criminal activity can be more difficult to detect and disrupt. Offenders leverage emerging technologies … And it is Australians, their families and their businesses who are paying the price. I don't think a day or at least a week would go by when I don't get approached by someone in my electorate who shares with me their stories. When I was on my tour to Fisher last week, I met a lovely little old lady who was in her eighties. She had been scammed of her entire life savings. Your heart just breaks, particularly for the older generation. Many of them are very, very vulnerable online. These crooks make their way through the internet, in particular. It makes my blood boil that so many of these people see older and vulnerable Australians, in particular, as easy beats. We, collectively, as legislators in this place, need to make it as difficult and as costly as we possibly can for these crooks. In 2023 alone, Australians made 600,000 reports of scams, with aggregate losses of more than $2.7 billion. Businesses, including small businesses and microbusinesses, reported losses of $29.5 million to Scamwatch. In fact, money laundering costs Australians over $60 billion a year, with a global cost of as much as $1 trillion a year. Dr Dennis Desmond is a lecturer in cybersecurity at UniSC, on the Sunshine Coast. He was a former FBI agent in the US and has undertaken some important research into the use of blockchain and cryptocurrency in organised crime and terror financing. He said: Despite increased global regulation and enforcement, the use of cryptocurrencies in illicit trade and laundering activities grows each year. A corresponding growth in cybercrime, ransomware, identity fraud, and cryptocurrency theft from exchanges feeds the pool of illicit digital proceeds. Recent efforts to reduce cryptolaundering activities have been insufficient despite the global implications for terrorism funding and the cost to governments … We are simply failing to equip our law enforcement agencies with the legislative tools they need to prevent, disrupt and prosecute this kind of unlawful behaviour and organised crime. As Australia's parliament, we have a responsibility to close these gaps, to protect Australians and to secure their future. In relation to cryptocurrency, let me firstly touch on the amendments to the Crimes Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act. These changes will allow our police and anticorruption agencies to more effectively seize digital assets, like cryptocurrency, when investigating criminal activity. We've all heard stories of criminals using cryptocurrency to hide and distribute their ill-gotten gains. This is neither science fiction nor a spy novel; it is happening right now in this country. It's also not a niche issue. Crypto has become a frequently used tool in criminal transactions. The laws we're debating right now make it crystal clear that when law enforcement agencies execute a search warrant they have the authority to access and seize digital assets and cryptocurrencies they hold. And it's not just crypto. Criminals seek to exploit a whole host of legitimate financial channels, assets and services. As a result, it's important that these laws extend to a range of other digital assets that could hold value. The bill in question allows for that kind of flexibility, to ensure that the definition of 'digital asset'    keeps pace with the growth of emerging technologies. I also want to touch on the amendments to the Telecommunications Act because I think that these changes need to be explained. The amendments are about ensuring the security of our telecommunications systems and improving oversight. The bill clarifies the roles of the Communications Access Coordinator and creates a new position, the Communications Security Coordinator, within the Department of Home Affairs. The bill doesn't grant any new functions to this new coordinator role. Rather, it transfers certain existing functions performed by the Communications Access Coordinator to align the roles with the new administrative arrangements in the government. I'd be the first person to point out that creating a new government position or making the government bigger doesn't make Australians safer or our country more secure, but where the public is exposed to investigative and law enforcement powers I believe it's incumbent upon the parliament, as our chief source of civilian oversight, to legislate protections in the public interest. That's why these laws will streamline information-sharing processes while ensuring that our critical communications infrastructure remains secure and protected from malicious actors. They will allow oversight bodies for state-based integrity agencies to access intercepted information, thereby enabling them to scrutinise and audit the activities of the agencies that they oversee. This is about transparency and ensuring that agencies are using their powers lawfully and responsibly. It's a safeguard for the public, ensuring that those who are entrusted with significant powers are themselves subject to appropriate and proper oversight. These minor changes are a responsible update to the laws that govern important aspects of our justice system. The bill also ensures that those tasked with keeping us safe are prepared for community safety in the modern age. We simply must get better at empowering law enforcement to protect Australians. I think one of those areas in which we are seriously lagging behind is artificial intelligence and machine learning. I have often talked about the use of AI in defence, particularly in light of the AUKUS arrangement. But artificial intelligence poses— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Fisher will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 102 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Economy, Gender and Sexual Orientation 102 18:30 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane The new Star casino opened in Brisbane not even two weeks ago and is now asking for a government bailout, asking for billions of dollars to go out the door to prop up the gambling industry. It's a classic case of socialism for the rich but rugged individualism for everyone else. These giant corporations do not play by the same rules that the rest of us do. When they need help, governments of all persuasions go above and beyond to provide absolutely everything they need to be able to keep their failing business models going. No-one else across the economy gets that level of support. This is an economy that has been created by both major parties over the last few decades: one rule for the multinational corporation and another rule for everyone else. It's a matter of priorities, of choices. What governments do, and often what they don't do, speaks volumes. The actions and inactions of the government help to determine what kind of society we will become. So when we hear stories from Australia and around the world about the necessity of bailing out enormous companies—banks, casinos and the like—while at the same time poverty increases and homelessness gets worse it makes sense that people are very angry. These actions make people angry because they always come at a time when everyday people are struggling. People can't afford their rents or mortgages. The cost of groceries is skyrocketing. We are told the government are doing everything they can to help people, but there's always got to be a few billion kept aside just in case a multinational company or a billionaire need a bailout or a nuclear submarine needs buying. There's just never enough for public and social services. This is not a way to run an economy or a country unless you want both to end in ruin. Our economy should work for all of us, not just a small few at the top. Our economy should be built on the idea that everyone should have what they need to live a good life. The essentials of health care, education, food and housing cannot be left solely in the hands of the market. It is these old ideas that have gotten us into this mess. The same ideas will not get us out. We need to start thinking outside the box. We need to push for new ideas of what is even considered possible and what is possible for Australia as society that values human dignity and an economy built on that foundation and of equality of opportunity. But what does that actually look like? It looks like bringing dental and mental health into Medicare for starters. We are all seeing and experiencing rates of bulk-billing slipping away as our healthcare system continues on its slide towards mirroring the United States. We cannot keep going down that path. The best way to protect Medicare is to expand it to cover our brains and our teeth. This new kind of economy looks like wiping student debt and making uni free again so that everyone in this country has access to higher education. We can improve our country's productivity and began to specialise our economy so we are ready for the jobs of the future, of which almost 50 per cent will need a university degree. It looks like fixing our broken housing system so that a house is seen as a home, not as a speculative market to invest in. It means building public housing, introducing caps on rent increases and dramatically scaling back negative gearing so that everyone can afford a house of their own. It means 100 per cent publicly owned renewable energy and a rapid transition to a net zero economy, protecting our environment and our biodiversity at the same time as lowering our emissions and our power bill. But most of all, to achieve any of this, a new kind of economy means taking on the billion dollar corporations, the fossil fuel companies, the politicians of the major parties and the billionaire class who are addicted to the status quo. We can make these changes. We can create a society and an economy that finally put people over profit. And that change is coming, especially as younger people who enter the workforce see just how bleak the future really is. We have to demand and create a better world. All of our futures and the future of our planet depend on us doing so. I also want to talk about the census, not just as an MP whose electorate is home to a large number of queer people but also as a gay man myself. The last couple of weeks have been extremely rough for the LGBTIQA+ community. Counting us in the census was something that the community have been working on and campaigning for years to achieve. To find out that this was not happening after it was dropped to Sky News on a Sunday afternoon was an insult. This Labor Prime Minister truly believed that his government could walk back a promise made to the community in the lead-up to the 2022 election and reaffirmed in Labor's 2023 national platform, seemingly without any blowback. And choosing Sky News, of all places, as the outlet to give this story to said it all for me. It was yet another example of this government letting its fear of the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, call the shots. But I was so proud to see the community unite and demand the government change its position, and the pressure worked. We first saw the government agree to ask a question on sexual orientation, and then a few days later it agreed to ask one on gender identity. But the intersex community are still left behind. The Greens will continue to urge and pressure the government to work with the intersex community and the ABS on a path forward so that we can ensure everyone in the LGBTIQA+ community is counted. But the damage has, sadly, already been done. I've personally heard from numerous queer people in my electorate, from friends and from people across the country that their trust in the Labor Party has been shattered by this. It came at a time when so many people are already struggling—struggling with cost of living and housing stress—and then the general feeling from people was, 'You're not even going to give us this.' The protections for queer staff and students in schools were given up on, and now we couldn't even have something as simple as being counted in the census. Saying one thing in opposition and doing another thing in government is not how you win friends, and it creates an enormous sense of distrust in the community that can be impossible to recover from. We don't expect much from the coalition on LGBTIQA+ issues, but we and I expected a hell of a lot more from Labor, and the paternalistic language that we heard from the Prime Minister did not make me feel better. I found it condescending. The queer community is not weak. We do not always need to be protected. We can fight for ourselves. We've been campaigning for this census change for years. It was a fight we wanted and were willing to have. It was the job of a supposedly progressive government to have our backs in that fight. But I'm not even angry anymore—and I was very angry. I'm just disappointed. On top of being counted in the census and protections for queer students and teachers in schools, what we need now is a LGBTIQA+ human rights commissioner—someone working in the Australian Human Rights Commission to ensure that queer rights receive the full attention that they deserve. Right now, across the world, we see the rise of the far right and the demonisation of queer people. We need an LGBTIQA+ human rights commissioner to help us hold the government of this country to account so that, even when the major parties show their true colours, there are even more voices calling them out and holding them to account. I've been calling for such a commissioner since I first arrived in this place just a bit over two years ago, and the Greens will keep fighting for one. If the Labor Party are to have any hope of rebuilding trust with the queer community in this country, they should get on board and establish this commissioner. Pearce Electorate 103 18:38 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise today to assert the future of the northern coastal growth corridor within the Pearce electorate. As we know, Pearce is one of the largest and fastest-growing electorates in both Western Australia and the nation. The majority of this growth is concentrated in the northern coastal corridor stretching from Butler to Two Rocks, which is undergoing rapid expansion. Currently, this area represents 17 per cent of the Pearce electorate, but by 2041 we expect that figure to surge to 40 per cent. Right now, nearly 40,000 people call this northern coastal corridor home. However, by 2046, that number is projected to exceed 169,000 people, a staggering increase of over 300 per cent. This significant growth is not just a number on a page; it's a clear signal that we need immediate strategic planning, especially in developing community infrastructure focused on recreation, sport, surf and aquatic facilities. Given these projections, the need for an active regional open-space facility in the corridor is urgent. Over the next 20 years, we will require at least two more venues, and by 2070 we will need up to seven. Despite the rapid growth in the Alkimos area, there is no active regional open space between Tamala Park and Two Rocks. The only active regional open spaces in our north-west subregions are located in Kingsley and Joondalup, which already see over 1.5 million visitors annually, which equates to 4,100 visitors per day. If we do not develop additional facilities soon, that number is likely to soar to 6,300 visitors daily by 2036. Both venues are nearing maximum capacity and simply will not be able to accommodate this increase. We must ensure that our community infrastructure evolves alongside our growing population by engaging in long-term planning and project selection. We must look at the bigger picture and prioritise projects that will have the most positive impact on our communities. We also need to integrate housing and infrastructure development. It is essential as we build new homes that we also ensure that the necessary supporting infrastructure such as schools, parks and transport are developed simultaneously. Community engagement is also vital. We must listen to the voices of our residents. By incorporating their feedback into our planning processes, we can ensure that our developments truly reflect the community's needs. Flexibility and adaptability in design are crucial. Infrastructure should be built to accommodate future changes in community needs. Think about multipurpose facilities that can adapt to different uses over time. This way we can ensure that our infrastructure remains relevant and useful for years to come. Collaboration across all levels of government is essential. By working together at local, state and federal levels, we can pool our resources and expertise to tackle complex infrastructure challenges more effectively. The Albanese Labor government has been instrumental in driving this transformation. The extension of the railway to Yanchep and the expansion of the freeway to Eglinton are not just infrastructure upgrades; they are vital investments in our region's future. Plus the Albanese Labor government committed over $50 million to Pearce, and this significant financial support underscores the dedication to fostering growth and development in our rapidly expanding region. These transportation projects and financial commitments are crucial for enhancing connectivity, supporting growth and driving economic impact. Improved transportation infrastructure creates vital links between communities, fostering social interaction and ensuring access to essential services. The northern coastal growth corridor is home to a growing youthful demographic. This presents a clear need for multipurpose community centres in the emerging suburbs like Alkimos, Eglinton, Yanchep and Two Rocks. These centres will be vibrant hubs of activity offering a wide range of recreational activities and sports facilities, ensuring accessibility for all residents and fostering a sense of community cohesion. We also need to consider our ageing population. It is imperative to create accessible community spaces tailored to their needs, offering social and meeting spaces near essential services and public transport. Given our extensive shoreline, surf lifesaving clubs are critical. These facilities must be integrated into the coastal environment to provide safety services while enhancing the beach experience for residents and visitors alike. Our goal is to create spaces that are flexible, adaptable and inclusive. They will reflect the diverse needs of our growing population. Last week, we welcomed the federal Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, Minister Kristy McBain, to Pearce. She saw for herself the growth potential of Pearce. It is important that all levels of government, with community members and local businesses, work together to create a community that is accessible, inclusive and well equipped to handle the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. As we move forward, let us remember that the decisions we make today will shape the future of our communities for generations to come. By planning carefully, investing wisely and staying true to the needs and values of our residents, we can build a future that we can all be proud of. To ensure that new infrastructure projects are community driven, it is essential to adopt a comprehensive approach that emphasises engagement, collaboration and responsiveness to community needs. Effective community engagement starts at the earliest stages of an infrastructure project. Establishing clear and transparent communication channels with the community is critical. This means informing residents about the project's purpose and potential impacts and benefits right from the outset. Early engagement helps build trust, manage expectations and involve community members in the decision-making process. Listening to community members and stakeholders is a cornerstone of successful engagement. We know that meetings, focus groups and public consultations provide a platform for individuals to voice their concerns, opinions and ideas. Actively involving stakeholders fosters a sense of ownership and ensures that the project aligns with the community's needs and values. Engaging community organisations, local leaders and not-for-profits as partners in the infrastructure project is essential. Collaborative partnerships bring diverse perspectives, expertise and resources to the table. This approach helps not only identify potential challenges but also develop innovative solutions that address community concerns. Many infrastructure projects involve technical aspects that may not be easily understood by the general public. It is therefore important to provide educational resources and information in accessible formats that empower community members to participate meaningfully. Presenting project details in clear, non-technical language, utilising visual aids and conducting workshops can help demystify complex projects. Community engagement should not be limited to the planning and construction phases. Establishing mechanisms for ongoing dialogue and feedback throughout the project's life cycle is vital. Regular updates and progress reports should be in place to address concerns and adapt the project as necessary to reflect the evolving needs of the community. Listening and gathering community feedback is critical during both the planning and the evaluation phases of a project. This feedback allows leaders to better understand community priorities and ensures that the infrastructure development meets those needs. It also creates a more competitive application for funding, highlighting community support for the project. Community engagement can be enhanced through workforce development initiatives and project planning. By creating local job opportunities involving community members in the workforce, projects can foster a strong sense of involvement and investment among residents. Facilities should be adaptable to changing community needs and should incorporate green spaces to enhance the environment. This approach not only benefits the community but also promotes a strong sense of connection, pride and ownership among residents. Engaging residents from the outset, listening to their needs and fostering collaboration will lead to better outcomes. Ultimately this approach not only enhances the effectiveness of infrastructure projects but also provides local jobs, strengthens community ties and builds trust in the planning process. I conclude by saying how proud I am to be part of the Albanese Labor government that will ensure that they deliver a better future for all Australians, a future made in Australia that builds much more needed community infrastructure, which then creates economic opportunity and does indeed include a thriving community. Casey Electorate 105 18:48 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Casey is a wonderful community. It's a strong community that has had a history of working together. Like all communities, we face challenges, but we're going to work together to solve those challenges. I've been so fortunate to work with many in the community to look after some of the needs that we have. I'm going to talk about those today, starting with roads and transport. Anyone who drives through Casey knows that our roads are suffering from significant neglect and disrepair. Whether you're in our suburbs or you're heading out to Powelltown—which I had the opportunity to do on Saturday night to celebrate the end of the season with the Powelltown Football Club—whether you're up in the Dandenongs or you're driving the Warburton Highway or you're dodging potholes on the Melba Highway, so many of our roads pose significant hazards. So it's no surprise that the RACV's My Country Road survey's most reported roads is the Melba Highway, between Coldstream and Yea. It's a terrible stretch of road that has suffered neglect from the Victorian state Labor government. This was closely followed by the Warburton Highway, the road between Seville and Woori Yallock, which is renowned for potholes, dangerous driving, dangerous roads and unsafe intersections. When I'm out doorknocking and talking to my community, one of the biggest issues raised is the poor state of our local road network. And when I'm doorknocking in Mooroolbark, Lilydale or Mount Evelyn, residents are talking to me about the Mooroolbark Road and Hull Road underpass, the single lane under the train line. The underpass has been a bottleneck since I was a kid, and it's time it was upgraded so that our community can get home sooner and safer. I will continue fighting to upgrade the underpass, and I thank those in the community who have added their voice to my petition and my campaign to get that upgrade, which is sorely needed. Together, we can get that done. My community is periurban, so we have suburban areas, highways and dirt roads. Dirt roads are a large part of our community. In fact, we're one of the largest areas across the country for dirt roads because of that periurban nature. It would have taken 70 years to seal all the roads in our community if it weren't for the roads for communities program that the coalition government announced in 2019. That was $150 million to seal roads across my community. Unfortunately, one of the first acts of the Albanese Labor government was to rip up that funding. That was $100 million pulled out of my community. Despite the project being delivered on time and on budget, despite the budget confirming in Senate estimates that it was delivering safety benefits for the community and despite the Prime Minister, who was the shadow minister for infrastructure at the time, committing Labor to the 10-year program to—and I quote—'build the safe roads our community needs,' Labor backflipped. They broke their promise; they broke their word to our community. When I'm in the hills or in the Upper Yarra hills, in those areas that have dirt roads, it's something people continually raise with me. My commitment to them is that I will continue to fight to get this funding reinstated. I will hold this government to account for their broken promise. I will make sure that we get the roads that we deserve so that we can drive safely and so that our brilliant agricultural products can get taken to market and the quality can be protected. While we have frustrations we're fighting, we have had some significant wins when it comes to roads. This government put every infrastructure project in the country on the chopping block when it was elected, including Killara Road and the Montrose Canterbury Road roundabout upgrade. But, as a community, we stood together and said we wouldn't accept it. I want to thank all those who attended my community forums and added their voice to the petition to ensure funding was not cut. We were successful in those campaigns. And the  Montrose upgrade is going ahead right now. However, I want to acknowledge that that upgrade is causing significant challenges for the small businesses and the residents in those communities. We know that's part of the challenges of a significant infrastructure project, so I want to urge locals to support those shops in Montrose and continue to urge the state Labor government, as I have since the project started, to get the project completed as soon as possible so that those businesses can get back to normal. Killara Road is in Coldstream. It's a significant and dangerous road and intersection. The state government committed that the pre-works and consultation would be completed by 2024. We're now three to four months from the end of 2024, and no pre-works have started and there's been no consultation with the community. This funding was given to state Labor in 2019. At the start of this year, they committed to completing the pre-works and consultation by the end of this year for the works to start in 2025. It's about time Labor got on with it and delivered it. We deserve safer roads. That funding is with the government in Victoria. They have to get it done. Roads are a crucial issue, but another significant issue in my community is health services and access to health. I thank those who have engaged with me about their challenges in accessing GPs and the increased cost and availability, particularly in a semi-rural, periurban area. The coalition has a plan to increase GPs in rural and regional areas by working with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners to provide incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements and support for prevocational training. It's so crucial we get access to the GPs that we deserve. An area that I'm passionate about, and something that I've spoken about since coming to this House, is mental health and mental health support. This Thursday is R U OK? Day. It's a national day of action dedicated to reminding everyone that every day is the day to ask, 'Are you okay?' The reality is that many people aren't okay, whether it's because of the cost of living or because of other pressures and challenges they face. In my community, mental health is a significant issue. In the last census, 16,047 people from the Yarra Ranges, which mirrors the seat of Casey, reported experiencing a mental health challenge. For context, that's almost 20 per cent higher than the national average. At my recent community leaders forum, with over 60 local community leaders, they identified mental health challenges as one of our key issues and noted, 'People are slipping through the cracks, and it is expensive to see a mental health practitioner.' I'm proud to be part of a coalition that is committed to increasing the Medicare subsidised mental health sessions from 10 back to 20, after the Albanese government ignored a report that said it should stay at 20 and cut it from 20 back to 10. I was talking to a resident at the Kallista Market just this Saturday, and she was sharing the heartbreaking story of her son, who got those 10 sessions. They're now having to find the money, because he has significant challenges, and she spoke about the financial pressure that the $280 a session is putting on them. That's why everyone deserves mental health services regardless of their financial situation. It is a shame that this Prime Minister cut that funding and, again, has left the Australian people without the support that they need. At that market at Kallista Village on Saturday and at the recent Upwey Community Market, when I was talking to Hills locals, the other issue that consistently came up, in addition to roads and mental health support, was telecommunications. It's an ongoing issue for our community, particularly in times of storms but also every day. The former Liberal government funded nine towers all across our community, and in the lead-up to the election I was proud to commit to towers at Menzies Creek and Silvan, which are being developed. But more needs to be done. With the last round of PUMP funding my community, despite being regional and rural, was not included in that program or in that definition. I've written to the Minister for Communications; I've engaged with her about it. I urge her to make sure that eligibility for future funding rounds ensures that our community is considered as the regional and rural community that it is and that it gets the telecommunications that it deserves, every day and in emergencies. I thank everyone in my community who has reached out to me, shared their concerns and shared their thoughts. It's been a pleasure, over 2½ years, to work with them to proactively solve the challenges we face as a community. Lingiari Electorate: Tourism 107 18:58 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I take this opportunity today to speak on a matter of particular interest and significance to constituents in my electorate of Lingiari, concerning the state of tourism in the Northern Territory. In 2017-18, the Northern Territory welcomed 1.7 million visitors, of whom approximately 16 per cent came from overseas, with the remainder travelling from interstate or from within the Northern Territory. Tourism is one of our important sectors, contributing $2.6 billion to the Northern Territory economy and delivering huge financial and lifestyle benefits. Around 6,900 people are directly employed across the Northern Territory in tourism and hospitality, with a further 12,500 people indirectly employed. Aboriginal cultural tourism is a key driver for this thriving industry, contributing around $383 million to the Territory economy and employing over 1,400 workers. Just on 80 per cent of tourist visitors believe the Northern Territory is the destination of choice to connect with Aboriginal culture. Tourism is one of five core growth sectors to propel the Northern Territory's economy in the long term, but since 2020 COVID travel restrictions, tourist visitation numbers and expenditure have dropped markedly in key regions across the Northern Territory, particularly in my electorate of Lingiari. The Alice Springs and MacDonnell Ranges and the Barkly regions recorded the highest drops in June 2022, with visitation numbers falling just under 50 per cent and tourism expenditure reducing by between 45 and 80 per cent across the region. This trend is similar for the same period in the Katherine and Big Rivers region, which recorded a drop of 24 per cent in visitor numbers and 30 per cent in tourism expenditure. The greater Darwin region recorded the smallest drop, reducing by 16 per cent in visitation numbers and 18 per cent in expenditure. Only the Lasseter region recorded an increase in tourist visitor numbers and expenditure, reporting a 25 per cent and 28 per cent increase, respectively. There are many factors contributing to these significant drops in current demand in the visitor market across tourism in the Northern Territory. The COVID travel restrictions and local labour shortages have hindered many operators' ability to take full advantage of this growth in demand. More work is required to train a local tourism workforce, particularly Aboriginal people who can engage directly with overseas visitors on culture and country. Aviation is another hot topic impacting the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. A key priority for the Territory is ensuring sustainable and affordable aviation services that connect Territorians with both the rest of Australia and the world and make the Territory accessible to visitors. Recent law and order and community safety issues that led to two curfews in Alice Springs were deeply disturbing and totally unacceptable. The negative media resulting from this violence has been extremely damaging to the local tourism industry and its workforce, causing immeasurable brand damage. Tourism Central Australia estimates that the ongoing law and order issues and the resulting negative media have had a sustained impact on the financial viability of many tourist operators in Alice Springs, Central Australia and the Barkly region, leading to increased booking cancellations and substantially reduced profit margins. There have been a number of closures, but, as the federal member, I have certainly said to Tourism Central Australia that I will continue to provide my strong support and advocacy to help this sector recover and rebuild its brand. While the outlook for tourism in the Northern Territory remains uncertain, I'm impressed by the resilience of local operators as they take every opportunity to stay competitive. I congratulate the Minister for Trade and Tourism, the Hon. Don Farrell, for taking the time during his recent visit to Yulara to meet with the delegation of Central Australian tourism operators and to hear firsthand the issues and challenges they are facing. This group greatly appreciated the time and understanding shown by Minister Farrell for their situation. I will continue to work with Minister Farrell's office in advocating for immediate relief to enable this immensely important industry sector for the Northern Territory economy to remain afloat. I also look forward to meeting with the new Northern Territory Minister for Tourism and Hospitality, Marie-Clare Boothby MLA, to see what strategies, funding and solutions we can work together with the new CLP government on to address the current problems confronting tourism in the Northern Territory and aid its important recovery. Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 107 19:04 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise tonight to raise my ongoing concern about the treatment of family, domestic and sexual violence against women and children in Australia by governments, and the lack of what I would regard as legislative reform responses that are adequate and urgent enough to meet the challenges we all know, in this Chamber and in this House, that we face. I do want to recognise the government for its 6 September release, following National Cabinet, in relation to the $4.4 billion in further commitments to the National Access to Justice Partnership and the shared goals under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. I do recognise the value that additional money for services can have and the important role that it will play in all of the different facets that the National Cabinet signs on, including the five-year national partnership agreement and enhancing and expanding child centred trauma centres and the development of national evidence based centres and men's behaviour change programs. These are all worthy initiatives and all very good initiatives. What is also needed, in my opinion—and in the opinion of very many—is reform of all of the different facets of Commonwealth and state legislation that enable much of the family, domestic and sexual violence against women, including in the area of financial services. Financial abuse is one of the most prevalent kinds of domestic and family abuse. It gets too little attention in much of the headline funding for necessary things that need to be done. I want to speak briefly on Catherine Fitzpatrick, the founder and director of Flequity Ventures, and the important work that she has been doing in relation to financial abuse and a regulatory reform framework, something that is the domain of government to do—not just funding or service provision, which are very important and will certainly make a difference, but also actual reform of the laws and the financial system that will prevent many of the people who want to perpetrate these things and stop it from even occurring in the first place and give women recourse to safety and allow them to go somewhere and deal with it rather than face roadblocks when they come to their banks and other financial institutions and the treatment that happens in family and domestic violence. Taking up some of the recommendations that she has made, I will also endorse the government in the role of Commonwealth legislative change in relation to financial services and financial sectors. The first thing would be treating financial abuse as a financial crime. It sounds simple but financial abuse of women is not treated as a financial crime. That is a fundamental legal reform that parliament should do first. If you treat it as a crime under the Crimes Act, you completely invert the treatment of behaviour by all of our agencies, whether it be police, investigative agencies or all of our ombudsmen in other sectors. That is a fundamental historic flaw in the construction of our laws and legislation. At the moment, as we know, the tactics and impact of financial abuse is consistent with other financial crimes. The government has done a lot of work recently on awareness of scams, frauds and theft, but domestic and family financial abuse isn't treated in the same way. This seems simple, but this is 2024 and we still haven't treated financial abuse as financial crime in a domestic and family violence context. Establishing things like a financial abuse accord, similar to the cross-sector public-private partnerships for scams and responses to protect customers from financial abuse and mechanisms for applying similar criminal penalties as we do to scams and other things would be simple measures that would actually prevent physical violence from occurring because we know the steps and the stages of abuse centre around things like financial abuse for many years before physical abuse might happen. Sometimes they will happen in a complementary way or together. Sometimes we see, as in a more serious example recently with Molly Ticehurst, a pattern of behaviour where a partner's pet or cherished animal is killed in advance as a warning that is ignored by agencies as well. One of those warning signs is financial abuse. Financial abuse can happen for many years and it still isn't treated as a crime even to this day. So that's something very simple that the government can take up and reform. Another recommendation that the Flequity report has come up with which again makes absolute sense is to apply financial 'safety by design' principles to products and services. That's financial products and services we are talking about here and safety by design. We still know today that when women try to engage, if they are the joint holder of an account, once one partner has locked them out of the account, the financial services provider can't do anything about it. We don't have safety by design built in. So we don't have a way of enabling and empowering our financial services institutions in dealing with those things. Safety by design—and there are plenty of bodies of work being done on this—can be done by reimagining all of our financial services products to understand reality and what goes on with financial abuse in these situations. Again, these are not things that government necessarily has to fund or do but work that can be done through legal and fiscal reforms that will actually make a practical difference. I commend this work very much to the government in lifting the bar on customer service. We have heard recently from many banks about how they do monitor, for example, messages in transfers between parties. They actually can monitor abusive keywords. The only problem is that, as they identify abusive words and texts that are sent between partners as they transfer money, they can only send them a warning message saying, 'Hey, you shouldn't be abusing that other person in this way, and we note your behaviour.' But, when we've asked, for example, 'How many customers have you kicked out of the bank?' the numbers are one or two. But we know that we can detect through technology abuse occurring, and banks are unable to do anything about that. Again, it is financial abuse, in many cases a precursor or a continuation of ongoing family and domestic violence. We're talking here about a comprehensive financial safety review of the regulatory framework around fiscal services, and that includes the regulatory framework to specifically include domestic financial abuse and recognise the risks of misuse of the financial system. I think this has some areas with relevant laws, as we might include for our members to note, including the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and the Privacy Act. I am an advocate for privacy and always have been, but the Privacy Act ought not to act as the barrier it does in family and domestic violence. You treat it as a crime upfront, you reform the financial services system and then you look at all these acts, including the Privacy Act, to take out the nonsense that we should consider perpetrators' privacy—for example, like the banks, where they can detect abuse happening in writing through their technology but then privacy laws prevent them from dealing with these things in a way that might be sufficient. Given that we know that these people are particularly violent and abusive—we're talking about a small percentage, but still the Privacy Act prevents things. We haven't seen sensible amendments to the Privacy Act in this regard for a very long time. There are the ASIC Act, obviously; the Insurance Contracts Act; legislation of statutory instruments for superannuation; and state and territory regulations, but for our jurisdiction there are plenty of acts that we can be looking into, including the ASIC Act. We know how abusers will abuse company directorships, especially within relationships, to abuse women in particular. It's a common occurrence for all members here when they've come across this, and yet we still don't have from any government a set of comprehensive reforms of the ASIC Act and of company directorships in a way that would take into account the realities of modern financial abuse. I commend the government and have no criticism of the government's funding announcement or of National Cabinet for doing its work, but funding is one part of the important arrangements that we need to make to do our best against the ongoing scourge of family and domestic violence. One of the critical components that we must consider in this parliament and in the future will be financial abuse reforms. It will do a lot for a lot of women and a lot of children who are faced with regular financial abuse. Financial abuse is as horrific as any other form of abuse in a domestic and family violence setting. We have laws that can be amended. We have a complete retreatment of these crimes in 2024. These ideas are sound. There is plenty of solid advice already, and I think the reforms, the will, the drive and the bipartisanship all exist for us to pursue this at this time. I raise that tonight with the best of intentions to say to the government, in the open spirit of cooperation, that here I think there would be a real willingness to make urgent reforms to the treatment of financial abuse of women and children in a way that would make progress in this very difficult area. 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 19:14