2024-09-11 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 11 September 2024

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

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 1 09:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the Federation Chamber order of the day No. 1, government business, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, is returned to the House for further consideration. BILLS 1 BILLS Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 1

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

Second Reading 1 09:01 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth to the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney to the motion for the second reading of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth to the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.    

The House divided. [09:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 55 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Andrews, K. L. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Howarth, L. R. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Debate adjourned.

 BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 2 09:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) the following from occurring in relation to business in the House for Wednesday, 9 October 2024: (a) business being interrupted at 9.30 am and the Speaker calling on Members' statements; (b) at 10 am, the Speaker interrupting business before the House and calling on questions without notice; (c) immediately after question time, any documents being presented by the Speaker and by Ministers, and any ministerial statements, by leave, being made; (d) then, a definite matter of public importance being discussed, provided that: (i) a written statement of the matter to be discussed has been given to the Speaker by 9.30 am; and (ii) the matter being dealt with in all other respects in accordance with the standing orders and the practice of the House; and (e) government business continuing from the conclusion of the discussion of a definite matter of public importance until 7.30 pm, at which point the adjournment of the House being proposed in accordance with standing order 31; (2) on Wednesday, 9 October 2024, the Federation Chamber meeting from 11.30 am until no later than 7.30 pm and considering the following business; (a) Members' three minute constituency statements until 12 noon; and (b) government business and/or committee and delegation business; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. Yesterday, at the end of question time, the Prime Minister made clear that it had been agreed that question time on 9 October will happen at 10 am, and the MPI would then happen immediately after that. It also means 90-second statements would start at 9.30 on that day, so people can organise their diaries accordingly. This is moved in the exact terms that the Prime Minister described yesterday. Question agreed to. BILLS 3 BILLS Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 3 First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:10 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 implements long overdue major reforms to Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing, or AML/CTF, regime. 'Tranche 1' of these reforms was introduced in 2006, and this bill will finally deliver on vital 'tranche 2' reforms. These reforms are a key pillar of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to protect the community from serious and organised crime, and growing national security threats. Right now, Australia is an attractive destination to store, launder and legitimise proceeds of crime. That cannot continue—and this bill will put an end to it. Money laundering is not a victimless crime. Each year, billions of dollars of illicit funds are generated from criminal activity such as drug trafficking, cybercrime, child exploitation, tax evasion, and other illegal and corrupt practices. It's also used by authoritarian regimes to fuel corruption, and undermine the rule of law across the world. Money laundering diminishes tax revenue and diverts government resources that could otherwise be used to assist all Australians through greater investments in education and health services. Instead, it increases the burden on law enforcement. It also distorts markets. Hardworking Australians have to compete in the housing market against criminals with dirty cash or run their businesses against loss-making, criminally owned enterprises. AUSTRAC's national risk assessments on money laundering and terrorism financing, released on 9 July 2024, found that Australia's economy continues to be exploited by money launderers and risks financing terrorist organisations. Money launderers still prefer to conduct their operations via traditional methods using cash, banks, luxury goods, real estate and casinos. Lawful domestic financial channels are a significant pathway for money launderers to funnel their wealth and are also the preferred channels for moving funds for terrorism. For almost 18 years, government inaction has led to significant regulatory gaps leaving Australia vulnerable. The AML/CTF amendment bill delivers on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to protecting Australians by strengthening our AML/CTF regime. It means preventing criminals from enjoying the profits of their illegal activities and putting an end to funds falling into the hands of terrorists and authoritarian regimes. There are three overarching elements of these reforms. Regulating 'gatekeeper' professions First, we are regulating so-called tranche 2 entities—Australia's 'gatekeepers' against criminal activity and terrorism. They are entities who are internationally recognised as high risk for money laundering and corruption—including real estate agents, accountants, lawyers and precious stone dealers. 'Gatekeeper' businesses will be asked to assess their illicit financing risks and put in place controls to prevent the exploitation of their services. Information from these businesses will help law enforcement and national security agencies to protect the Australian community. Simplification and clarification Second, we are simplifying and clarifying parts of the legislation that can be complex for industry to comply with—while maintaining the integrity and strength of the regime. It means more guidance, less confusion, and better financial intelligence to support law enforcement investigations. Modernisation Third, this bill will modernise the AML/CTF regime to ensure it responds to the increasingly digital, instant nature of our global financial system. It will close the loopholes that we know increasingly sophisticated, professional criminal organisations can currently exploit. Regulating Australia's 'gatekeepers' Regulating 'gatekeeper' professions means partnering with more sectors to monitor suspicious and criminal activity, and it will make a world of difference. AUSTRAC's national risk assessments found that these professions and the products and services they deal with are often relied upon by criminal networks to facilitate money laundering, either wittingly or unwittingly. Given their roles as entry points to Australia's legitimate economy, these reforms will strengthen and protect these professions against criminal exploitation and reputational damage. When businesses implement measures, they will make it more difficult for criminals to launder the proceeds of their crimes—and help weed out the bad actors in those sectors. Law enforcement in Australia sees case after case of these professions creating structures and obfuscations to hide the proceeds of crime, and facilitating serious financial crimes. This bill puts them on notice. The bill also provides stronger, more tailored protections for information that may be subject to legal professional privilege. This includes clear exemptions and mechanisms for regulated entities to comply with their reporting and disclosure obligations without being required to disclose privileged information to AUSTRAC and other agencies. Simplification of existing obligation Expanding the sectors covered by the AML/CTF regime will have regulatory impacts. But we are minimising regulatory burden wherever possible, while maintaining the overall integrity of the regime. For instance, the AML/CTF program obligation will now focus on high-level outcomes to be achieved—identifying and assessing the risks of illicit financing, and then taking steps to mitigate and manage those risks. It means the reforms will provide businesses with the flexibility to achieve these outcomes in a way that works best for them, based on the risks of their particular business. This moves the regime further away from prescriptive, tick-box compliance. The bill will introduce simplified measures for AML/CTF programs, enabling business groups such as corporate groups, franchises and partnerships to implement single, group-wide AML/CTF risk management and compliance frameworks. This better reflects the reality of modern business structures. The bill will also streamline the ability of Australian businesses to provide services to customers engaged overseas, by clarifying AML/CTF requirements for their foreign branches and subsidiaries. Reforms to customer due diligence requirements will implement a simpler, risk based approach that reporting entities can more easily understand and comply with. This will support Australian businesses to better prevent financial crimes and result in higher quality reporting to AUSTRAC. This aspect of the reforms is intended to lower regulatory costs and support industry compliance, while also addressing a number of inefficiencies throughout the AML/CTF regime. The government will also be repealing the current Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988(FTR Act). When the AML/CTF Act was first introduced in 2006, parts of the FTR Act were repealed or became inoperative. However, other parts of the FTR Act continued to impose residual obligations on cash dealers and solicitors. This created two AML/CTF reporting regimes, which is inefficient and complicated. So, the FTR Act will be gone. Digital and virtual asset services These reforms will bring Australia's regime in line with current international standards by expanding the regulation of digital currency services so they are on a level playing field with the rest of the financial sector. Amendments to the AML/CTF regime in 2017 were intended to be the first legislative step in improving Australia's regime, and expanded it to cover exchange services involving digital currencies such as bitcoin. These amendments made our regime world leading at the time, but we have since fallen behind global partners in recent years. Currently, the AML/CTF regime only covers exchanges between virtual assets and fiat—or government backed—currencies by digital currency exchange providers. This will be expanded to also include exchanges between different forms of virtual assets, transfers on behalf of customers, administration of virtual assets, and related financial services. Technological advancements over the past decade have made it harder to detect and track innovative and ever-evolving illicit transactions. These amendments will assist AUSTRAC to generate actionable financial intelligence on how criminal networks are using these services to manage the proceeds of their crimes—and how to stop them. Updating value transfer regulation The bill will also help close gaps in AUSTRAC's financial intelligence holdings, which can hinder law enforcement investigations. The bill will update the 'travel rule', which is a FATF requirement about payer and payee information that helps to ensure end-to-end transparency of who is making and receiving payments. Amendments will also reform international funds transfer instruction reports, which are a critical source of financial intelligence. The bill will streamline value transfer services, which are currently unnecessarily complex and fail to cover the transfer of digital assets. Enhancing AUSTRAC's regulatory powers The bill makes a number of timely updates to AUSTRAC's regulatory and information-gathering powers to ensure AUSTRAC can effectively monitor, investigate and enforce compliance with the AML/CTF regime. These amendments will bring AUSTRAC in line with other regulatory agencies that conduct large numbers of complex investigations. The reforms are accompanied by safeguards and protections around AUSTRAC's use of these powers. Consultation and partnership with industry The Attorney-General's Department conducted two extensive rounds of public consultation with stakeholders between April 2023 and June 2024, with over 270 submissions received, and over 100 stakeholder meetings, including industry roundtables. The AML/CTF regime is a partnership with industry at the frontline of prevention. The government is committed to ensuring industry is supported to meet its obligations under the new AML/CTF regime. We demonstrated our commitment to this task with over $160 million invested to implement these overdue reforms, including comprehensive education and guidance to support newly regulated businesses on the requirements of the act and accompanying AML/CTF rules. AUSTRAC will commence engagement and consultation with industry on concepts and a draft of the AML/CTF rules in the coming months. This will ensure they are tailored and appropriate for different sectors, and will enable sufficient time for industry to transition to additional obligations. Grey Listing Critically, these reforms will bring Australia in line with the international standards for combatting money laundering and terrorism financing set by the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF, the global financial watchdog. In 2015, the FATF found that Australia had failed to comply with a number of vital standards. They singled out Australia's failure to extend our AML/CTF regime to 'gatekeeper' or 'tranche-two' professions. Australia was a founding member of FATF, yet today, we are one of only five jurisdictions that are non-compliant with the FATF standards on regulating 'gatekeeper' professions. Without these reforms, Australia risks being seen by the global community as a jurisdiction with a weak AML/CTF system—or being 'grey listed'. A grey listing would have significant economic impacts for all Australians as the global financial sector and other regulated professions around the world would be required to treat Australia as a high-risk jurisdiction. It would lead to increased costs for businesses, and damage to Australia's international reputation—and we can not let that happen. Conclusion Any further inaction on our AML/CTF regime will enable criminals to continue to exploit our systems and businesses—and launder the proceeds of their crime through the Australian economy. These reforms are a critical and long overdue step in ensuring Australia's compliance with international standards, so that Australia does not become an international 'back door' for illicit funds. We are acting now to prevent the criminal abuse of our economy—and the harm and suffering caused to our entire community. You cannot put a price on the need to fight against terrorism and child abuse. We must do everything we can to protect Australia from the dangers of money laundering—and we are. This is about protecting the interests of all Australians. It is about keeping us safe—and protecting the fair go. We are taking up the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing in Australia—and it is about time. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 6 First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:26 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Last year I sat down with a group of remarkable women here in this building, and they spoke to me about their experiences on university campuses. For most of us who have the chance to go to university it is a time of learning new skills and making new friends—an experience that changes our life for the better, that sets us up for life. But their stories weren't like that. These women were from the STOP campaign and from End Rape on Campus and from Fair Agenda. And their stories were of what had happened to them and to people they knew at university, people among the one in 20 who have reported being sexually assaulted since they started university, the one in six who have reported being sexually harassed, and stories of a confused and inadequate response process within our universities, of inconsistent complaints processes, of a lack of materials on how to even make a complaint to begin with, a lack of education on consent, a lack of feedback when a complaint had been made, a response process where one in two students felt like they weren't being heard when they made a complaint. In short, a protracted failure of the higher education sector, and of government, to do anything to properly address a situation summarised so poignantly—and so heartbreakingly—in the words of this student: I'm sick of my friends being assaulted, I'm sick of begging to feel safe, and I'm sick of feeling ignored. For the last 10 years, Sharna Bremner has been fighting for the rights of students like this. That's what her organisation, End Rape on Campus, does. She's here in the chamber today. And she's not alone. Camille Schloeffel and the team at The STOP Campaign, Renee Carr from Fair Agenda, and Dr Allison Henry are here as well. In truth, they have always been here, fighting for this day, alongside thousands of students and staff who want a better system, who want to be heard, who want to feel safe and who want actions, not just more words. Well today, we act. This bill amends the Ombudsman Act 1976 to establish a national student ombudsman as a new statutory function of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This is a first: a dedicated, national body to handle student complaints within our higher education system across campuses, across the country. The National Student Ombudsman will have the powers: to investigate complaints about a broad range of issues; to bring parties together to resolve those issues, including offering restorative engagement processes and alternative dispute resolution where appropriate; to make findings and recommendations on what actions universities should take; and to monitor the implementation of those recommendations. It will have strong investigative powers, similar to those of a royal commission, including: to require a person or university to provide information, documents or other records relevant to an investigation; to enter the premises of a university as part of an investigation; and to require a person to attend and answer questions before the ombudsman. The ombudsman is another recommendation of the Universities Accord which this government is turning into a reality. When I spoke to those students last year the Universities Accord panel was already looking at this issue. After that meeting it was clear to me that this work needed a dedicated process. And it was clear to the Universities Accord panel as well. In their interim report released in July 2023, they recommended as one of five priority actions to immediately engage with the state and territory governments on addressing this problem. My department convened a working group of Commonwealth, state and territory governments to make recommendations about how an ombudsman and other measures might be delivered. That working group was supported by Ms Patty Kinnersly, the Chief Executive Officer of Our Watch, a national leader in the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia. They developed a draft action plan that I presented to the meeting of education ministers last November. From November last year to the end of January this year, we conducted a broad consultation on that draft action plan, and one of the things that students and victims-survivors in particular strongly supported was a national student ombudsman. An ombudsman is not a new concept. It's something that advocates have been calling for, for many years—particularly after university student surveys in 2016 and again in 2021 that painted a shocking picture of safety on university campuses. Those calls were ignored by the previous government, but not by this one. In February this year, my fellow education ministers agreed to a final action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education and we got to work immediately on measures to implement it. The measures in this bill have been designed with the benefit of the collective expertise and wisdom of that working group. The National Student Ombudsman will provide a trauma informed complaints mechanism accessible to higher education students. This is particularly important in recognising the serious impacts these issues can have on students, and in making sure their concerns are handled with care and with respect. The ombudsman will be independent, impartial and will provide a vastly improved complaints mechanism. And it will go further than addressing gender based violence in universities. It will be able to consider and address a broad range of complaints made by students about the actions of their university. For example, complaints about a university's handling of a student safety and welfare matter, where a student is subjected to homophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism or discrimination on campus; or about whether a university is providing sufficient staffing to meet the student's educational and academic needs; or about disciplinary processes and procedures; or whether a university is making reasonable adjustments for students with a disability. The ombudsman will have a wide jurisdiction and one that is truly national. We've negotiated with the states and territories to ensure that matters that might have been reported to their state and territory ombudsmen are able to be referred to this dedicated national one. It means a single ombudsman can bring to bear a national perspective and experience of what is going on across our universities, and give students a consistent complaints process. The ombudsman will work proactively with the higher education sector to set up best practices in complaint handling and make sure that student welfare is at the centre. And it will work with regulators to share information and identify systemic issues. As an oversight body, the ombudsman will work cooperatively with TEQSA, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, and with my department. It will also work cooperatively with state and territory ombudsmen and other relevant bodies, such as human rights, antidiscrimination and equal opportunity bodies. There will be annual reporting to parliament on the numbers and types of complaints and the actions of universities. The ombudsman will also make an important contribution to the work to end gender based violence in one generation, which is being led by the Minister for Social Services. And it will be followed by other measures from the action plan agreed between education ministers. As part of that I intend to introduce a second piece of legislation, which will further support the work of the ombudsman by implementing a mandatory national code for universities to prevent and respond to gender based violence. The national code will set standards that higher education providers must meet to make our students and staff safer. It will be enforced and regulated by a new specialist unit at the Department of Education that will regulate the standards and support universities to achieve better outcomes for students. The consultation for that code is well underway. The national code will set standards that providers must meet across seven key areas. They are summarised in this document, which sets out how the code will work and gives some examples of the standards which will be set, which I table now for the House. These are standards like ensuring that vice-chancellors and CEOs are held responsible for compliance with the national code. Compelling providers to update their policies to specify that gender based violence is unacceptable, and identifying the potential consequences for perpetrators. Specifying procedures that providers must follow to ensure that students consistently receive a swift response to their reports of gender based violence. Requiring ongoing prevention and response education to staff and students. Creating a national dataset to monitor providers' performance. Setting strict requirements that university owned and/or operated student accommodation must meet to keep students safe in that setting. And—very importantly—requiring that universities implement the recommendations of the ombudsman. The code and the ombudsman will work together to improve responses to students and the accountability of all higher education providers. I will release more information on the national code when I introduce the bill which will give it effect. Our reforms to higher education are deliberately and unapologetically focused on supporting Australian students. That includes wiping $3 billion of student debt. For the first time ever providing financial support for students when they do their practical placement. And now this—another national first. A National Student Ombudsman. Can I thank my friend and colleague the Attorney-General, and our respective departments and offices, for their work in bringing this bill to the parliament today. I thank my colleagues in the government for their support in bringing this legislation before the parliament. Can also I thank the crossbenches here and in the Senate for their support. I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments in this chamber some months ago, pledging his support. I want to thank you too, Claudia. You demonstrate the power of journalism in this country to drive real reform that changes people's lives and can change people's live for the better. Most importantly, can I thank Sharna, Renee, Camille, Allison and all those who have fought for this, year after year after year. They should get the last word here. Shortly after we made the announcement, Sharna said: 'After 50 years of student-led advocacy, we've finally gotten reform.' It has taken too long, but that reform is now here because of Sharna and people like her. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 9

Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:40 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to allow the compressive and progressive agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership—which I'll refer to as the agreement—to enter into force between Australia and the United Kingdom. The agreement is one of the world's most comprehensive and ambitious trade agreements, eliminating 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone, which, including the United Kingdom, represents a combined GDP of US$14.6 trillion and a population of some 580 million people. Its membership currently comprises Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The agreement is open to accession by any state or separate customs territory that is committed to its high standards, rules and objectives. Since its entry into force, seven economies have formally applied for membership. Any economy seeking to accede must meet the high standards of the agreement, have a demonstrated track record of complying with international trade agreements and gain consensus support from the membership. United Kingdom was the first candidate to be considered beyond the initial 11 members. Formal negotiations commenced in June 2021 and culminated in the signing of the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—or, more simply, the protocol—in July 2023. The protocol provides specific provisions for the United Kingdom that, once it becomes a member, will be incorporated into the agreement. I'm pleased to say that the date on which the United Kingdom becomes a member is 15 December 2024, and the protocol will enter into force on that date between the United Kingdom and agreement members which have completed the relevant domestic process. The timely passage of this bill will enable Australian business to be among the first to benefit from the United Kingdom's accession to the agreement. If Australia is able to ratify before 15 December, the protocol will also enter into force in Australia on this date. As a close and trusted partner, the United Kingdom's formal membership of the agreement is welcomed by the Australian government. This marks a significant milestone for the agreement and will deepen the United Kingdom's engagement in the region. Expanding membership of the agreement creates an even larger common trade area with greater influence over trade rules and standards. The agreement's commonly agreed rules and high standards will facilitate the United Kingdom's integration into, and contribution to, resilient and prosperous regional trade. Compared to the strong market access outcomes contained in Australia's bilateral free trade agreement with the United Kingdom, the direct economic gains to Australia flowing from the United Kingdom's accession to the agreement will be modest. These include minor improvements for Australian service providers. That said, the United Kingdom's accession to the agreement brings significant supply chain benefits to Australia. This means that Australian manufacturers will be able to use United Kingdom made components in production processes and export the final goods to other agreement members at preferential tariff rates. This will give Australian manufacturers greater choice in their manufacturing processes and export opportunities. The amendments contained in the bill are necessary to finalise Australia's ratification of the protocol. The bill will insert into the Customs Tariff Act 1995 preferential customs duty rates that only apply to originating goods of the United Kingdom, a method for identifying such goods and, importantly, provisions to restore general rates of duty for certain goods when the United Kingdom has in place a safeguard provision applying to equivalent Australian goods. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has considered the protocol in detail and has recommended that binding treaty action be taken. I thank the committee for expediting the tabling of its report. This has enabled the bill to be considered and, I hope, passed in this sitting period, as swift passage of this bill will enable the protocol to enter into force sooner and unlock its benefits for the Australian economy. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 10

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

Report from Federation Chamber 10 Third Reading 10 09:45 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 10

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 10 Third Reading 10 09:46 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 10

Family Law Amendment Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 10 Third Reading 10 09:47 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 10

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

Second Reading 10 09:53 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.    

The House divided. [09:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 52 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

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

 Consideration in Detail 11 10:00 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent. (2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert: (1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must: (a) be made in writing; and (b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and (c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision. I support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. It is long overdue and sorely needed. The bill of course responds in part to the recommendations of the Set the standard report, which in turn was the product of the 2021 Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission and headed by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. As many in the community would remember, the Jenkins review was established with the support of both major parties and the crossbench in March 2021 following a litany of reports about the toxic, unsafe workplace culture in Parliament House, including most notably the allegation by former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins that she was raped in a ministerial office in 2019. As Commissioner Jenkins noted: The Commonwealth Parliament sits at the heart of Australia's representative democracy. As one of the country's most prominent workplaces, it should serve as a model for others and be something Australians look to with pride. In other words, it's imperative that the people who work in this building are safe and respected and feel they can speak up against bad behaviour. Regrettably, however, this has not been the case, which is why the review found that too often this workplace didn't provide a safe environment for many, largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and a lack of accountability. Indeed, the actions of some people in this building over many years has made a mockery of this institution and left the community with little trust in what goes on in here. This bill can help address the dreadful situation, because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, the IPSC, promises to operate as a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to handle complaints and make findings about misconduct and to make recommendations on sanctions for parliamentarians, staff and others who breach codes of conduct. I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour. I am on the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and I have great respect for my colleagues there. I'm the first to acknowledge that it's a highly respected committee with a reputation for being multipartisan, collegiate and collaborative. However, it's not a given that this collegiality will always exist, nor that the public will always have confidence that it exists, and if trust breaks down, especially between the committee and the community, and the idea takes hold that poor behaviour is not being dealt with by an independent expert body then at best we've failed the so-called pub test and at worst allowed this place to drift into lawless mediocrity. That's why my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so when reporting its decision. Only then could everyone, including the community, be confident that complaints investigation and processing within this workplace are fair, independent, confidential and transparent, as recommended by the Set the standard report. Importantly, my amendments respond to concerns which have been raised by a number of organisations focused on women's safety, on transparency and on good governance, including Fair Agenda, Transparency International Australia and the Australian Democracy Network. On that note, I thank Fair Agenda in particular for their engagement on this issue and I commend the amendments to the House. 10:05 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Clark, because I want to take a moment to stop and reflect on where we have gotten to and where we could go further. In the course of the last 24 hours, I've heard a number of people speak about the revolutionary nature of this legislation. I want to echo that, in that this is an incredibly important piece of reform. It's also a piece of reform that has been a long time coming. I would like to preface that by saying I also believe that, if this reform weren't delivered in this 47th parliament, there would be mass outrage across the Australian community. If the 2022 election told us nothing else, it told us that Australians are tired of seeing politicians throw abuse at each other across this chamber and treat each other with little to no respect. I want to thank the member for moving this consideration in detail amendment because ultimately I think it is infinitely sensible and it finds a very nice middle ground between what the Set the standard report actually recommended, what the joint parliamentary committee that looked into this recommended and where we've actually ended up with this legislation. At the heart of the recommendations from both the Set the standard report and the committee inquiry was the fact that whatever we establish from here and now must be transparent and must hold us to a higher level of accountability then we have had in this place to date. Unfortunately, what we see in this legislation at the moment—and I can only assume it's a political compromise—is that, in the case where the breach of behaviour is most egregious in its nature, where Australians arguably will have the most interest in what happens in the face of that incident, that decision is going to be taken out of the hands of the independent committee and handed over to the privileges committee, and at the moment there is no responsibility for the privileges committee to then articulate how they came to their decision. Quite frankly, the privileges committee will not have to take on board what the independent authority offers to them, and, in fact, in a worst-case scenario we may see quite an egregious event be referred from the IPSC to the privileges committee and the privileges committee may choose to take no action whatsoever. You don't have to be a rocket scientist, and, while I don't support gambling, this is a bet I would take any day: when it hits the public that that's what this place has done, people will see that as politicians looking out for themselves. As the member so eloquently just said, it fails the pub test. Australians told us they want politics done differently. They want it done with transparency, they want it done with integrity and they want it done with accountability. If we cannot have the courage to say that we are prepared to meet them in that space, then I think our parliament still has a lot of maturing to go. Before I sit down, I want to acknowledge—and I'm going to thank the minister for responding—there's also been a lot of talk about the fact that this legislation would not even have eventuated 11 years ago. I accept that; I get that. But, just because it wouldn't have happened 11 years ago, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it in today as strong as it can be. We are not the first parliament to make a move in this direction. The UK parliament went this way in 2015, and they have done it far more bravely than we have in this legislation, and they are the home of the Westminster system, which we were born from. I thank the member for moving this amendment. I commend it to the House. I really do appeal to the government today, who I know believe in this and have fought hard to get us to this point with this legislation: take us all the way, not just to the threshold. 10:10 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today in support of the member for Clark and his most excellent amendment to this very important, critical legislation. We are at a moment in our democracy that the people of Australia have been waiting a long time for—that is, to take responsibility for our actions. We come to this place with the hopes of so many people on our shoulders. We come to this place as potential—not actual but potential—role models for young people who may wish to aspire to public life, and we have let them down on so many occasions. That has been going on for a very long time. In my second reading speech yesterday I spoke to the long history of getting to this point in this parliament to implement this most important recommendation of the Jenkins report. What I'm seeing now, though, is that we are falling not at the first hurdle but at the last hurdle. I really commend the member for Clark for bringing forward an elegant, simple remedy to this last problem. This last issue is about ensuring that the commission that we're about to legislate for can actually have the repercussions of serious misconduct acted upon. What the member for Clark has done for us is lay out how we can do this and still maintain the primacy of the parliament. The member for Clark has highlighted that the privileges committee is a most respected committee—well, to be frank, if a committee is not respected in this place, that's a problem. The fact that we have to call out that some committees are more respected than others is actually a problem and speaks to the issue that we're trying to remedy. Notwithstanding, the member for Clark is a member of that committee and can speak with authority on this. But what we could achieve here through this amendment is to ensure that that most respected committee still has all its agency but also has the accountability that is missing right now in this legislation—that is, accountability to the transparency of a decision. The people of Australia are so tired of us making up our own rules and then hiding away when the rules are broken and making sure that nobody sees anything here. This amendment does not take away any power from the privileges committee. In fact, it embeds its power. What it adds is its responsibility to the parliament and the people of Australia. Should serious findings be made by the commission and sanctions put forward, those recommendations need to come to the privileges committee. What is the point of having an independent expert committee if their recommendations hold no water? It really does beggar belief for what it is we're trying to do here. I really commend the member for Clark for putting forward a way we can manage this. Sure, the privileges committee may take a different view to the commission. Fine: explain the reasoning, table the reasoning in the parliament and make it public. Because, if you are a respected member of any committee you should have no shame in what it is that you discuss and decide on your committee—no shame whatsoever. In fact, you should be proud of your reasoning and you should be able to lay that out in a way that explains to Australia why you have arrived at that decision. Where is the problem with that? I heard a very respected journalist give the Speaker's Lecture in this place only a couple of days ago. The take-home message for me was that Australia wants to have parliamentarians with a ticker. I say to every member of this House—whether you sit on the opposition, with the government or, indeed, on the crossbench: have a ticker, support this amendment, and restore transparency and accountability to this House. 10:14 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I want to thank all members again for their engagement, not just the engagement on this proposed amendment but the engagement in the preparation of this bill. I think it is important that people watching or reading this debate know that, while there has been a parliamentary debate over the last few days, the work that has been done here is the result of a lot of consultation across this building for a number of months. As I have in every speech I have given on this, I have always wanted to note not only the work done by parliamentarians but equally the work done by staff and people who have given so much evidence in the Set the Standard report and continued to assist us in putting together this legislation. Because the reality is we can all come in here and say our piece and have it on the record under the cover of parliamentary privilege. That is not something that is available to the people who work for members in this building. They have made a huge contribution but they do not get to make a contribution at the final stage. I want to say thanks again to all who have engaged in that consultation. I want to pick up on a point from the member for Indi, which is that I do want to say again, to anyone watching this debate or reading it in the future, that this bill is about encouraging people to make that choice, to stand for election or to be a parliamentary staff member or to join the Public Service. The reason we are doing this is not just to lift the standard for ourselves here and now but, as we all know, we are doing this to ensure that everyone who wants to make a contribution to this place has that opportunity and is not held back by some of the very inappropriate behaviours and practices that have been outlined in the Set the Standard report. Again, it is a great honour to be able to stand for election in the Australian democracy. It is an even greater honour to be chosen to represent a community in this place. I would encourage anyone who watches this as we work to do exactly that—set the standard and lift the standard. We are working hard to ensure that this is a workplace that welcomes people's contributions and enables people to make those contributions. I do want to note that the proposals in front of us from the government that we have consulted widely across the government on do indeed have substantial change. We are talking about the ability of this parliament, through the privileges committee and elsewhere, to impose substantial sanctions on members of parliament where there has been serious misconduct. Equally, we have substantial penalties in the form of an ability to fine a member a percentage of their remuneration—again, something that has not been done before. This is a big step and it is one I am proud our government is taking. I also want to address what the member for Clark said. I agree with him. The government does believe in the bill that is in front of us. He now serves on the privileges committee. I have previously served on the privileges committee. I was very fortunate and honoured to be the deputy chair of that committee for a period of time. I agree it is multipartisan. It does operate in a collegiate manner. It not only treats the items that come to it with respect but equally the people who might be being considered. I commend all members of the privileges committee for showing how you can in this place, which is a place where we have a contest of ideas, have committees that do work in a way that is actually about upholding the standards of parliament and indeed upholding the rights of parliamentarians, and the privileges committee has a very important role there too. I agree with the member for North Sydney: this parliament does have an obligation to act. That is what we have sought to do. We have not only sought to do that in the timeframes we have outlined for a number of years but also in a way that ensures we get the appropriate consultation, because the worst thing that could possibly happen would be that a bill such as this gets stalled in the parliament without actually taking action. That would break the trust of those who have very high expectations appropriately from the Set the Standard report. Just briefly to the amendments: the government's view is that these amendments are not necessary. We prefer not to limit the discretion of a privileges committee in deciding the appropriate sanction. We think that in order to make referral to the privileges committee, the decision panel—three members when it comes to a parliamentarian—needs to be satisfied that the relevant conduct is serious and it is appropriate for a parliamentary sanction to be imposed. There is accountability in the process of the bill as it currently stands, and, obviously, I think it's also worth noting to all members that, under the bill that is proposed without these amendments, the recommendations of the privileges committee will become public when that report is tabled in the House. 10:20 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark To make it absolutely clear, the amendments in no way limit the freedom of action of the privileges committee, so, through you, Deputy Speaker, I think the minister is mistaken when he says they would. All the amendments do is require the privileges committee to explain itself and to simply say, 'This is why we have not followed the recommendations of the IPSC.' It's very straightforward, and that would give the community much confidence that any deviation from the recommendation is for a good reason. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.    

The House divided. [10:25]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Goodenough)

 13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 48 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Bell, A. M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Entsch, W. G. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:28 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move the government amendment on sheet SE115 and government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SE116, as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr GORMAN 74519 I move government amendment (1) on sheet SE115 and government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SE116, as circulated, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (after line 20), after section 59C, insert: 59CA Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee (1) There must be a Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee, who must be a member of the Opposition elected by the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee from time to time. (2) The Deputy Chair holds office during the pleasure of the Parliamentary Joint Committee. (3) A person holding office as Deputy Chair ceases to hold the office if the person: (a) ceases to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee; or (b) resigns the office. (4) A person holding office as Deputy Chair may resign the office by giving a signed notice of resignation to a meeting of the Parliamentary Joint Committee. (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 14), after the definition of Parliamentary Joint Committee, insert: Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament means the committee of that House responsible for inquiring into matters of privilege. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 19), before "Senate", insert "Privileges Committee of the". (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 20), before "House of Representatives", insert "Privileges Committee of the". (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (after line 12), after paragraph 59E(2)(c), insert: (ca) the person ceases to be a member of the Privileges Committee of the House of the Parliament by which the person was appointed; or (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), omit "one of its members", substitute "a member of its Privileges Committee". (6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 18 (lines 14 to 16), omit the definition of Privileges Committee. Question agreed to. 10:29 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 36E(2)(a), add: (iii) included assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and (iv) included consideration by the panel of the need for diversity in the appointment of Commissioners of the IPSC; and (v) included shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (2) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 21), after subsection 36E(2), insert: (2A) The Minister may only recommend a person for appointment if the person is shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subparagraph (2)(a)(v). I also support this bill as it is long overdue and much needed in responding to the Jenkins review, which found that the workplace culture in this place was toxic and unsafe. The amendments I'm introducing today to this bill seek to do something specific and simple, something that I've been advocating for since I was elected to this place 2½ years ago. That's to ensure that significant public institutions are run by people who have been independently appointed to run them, not by people who have been appointed because they know someone who knows someone and not by people who will owe something to the minister who appointed them and who may therefore feel a sense of obligation to do that minister's bidding. At the last election the Australian public sent a very clear message to politicians of all stripes: they wanted integrity and they wanted transparency, not only in their elected representatives but, equally importantly, in our democratic infrastructure. Having heard that message in February 2023, I introduced a private member's bill, the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023, otherwise referred to as my 'Ending jobs for mates' bill. This bill aimed to transform the process of appointments to major Commonwealth positions. Underlying the bill was the critical and urgent need to restore the public's trust in our democratic processes and institutions after a decade of cronyism and party political appointments had eroded that trust. My 'Ending jobs for mates' bill was designed in collaboration with the Centre for Public Integrity to ensure that all major Commonwealth public appointments could be made within an independent and transparent framework. The bill would legislate a public appointments commissioner and departmental independent selection panels overseen by a parliamentary joint committee on appointments. The committee would not have a government led majority, guaranteeing independence from the government of the day. Under my bill, a degree of ministerial discretion would be maintained, an important element of our Westminster system of government, as the final decision regarding the successful candidate would remain with the relevant minister. However, the minister may only choose from a shortlist of candidates selected by the independent selection panel. Such a framework would ensure that key positions in our democratic institutions are filled through an independent, transparent and expertise based appointment process. Applying anything less to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission may cause the public to question whether it can truly fulfil its function to be an arbiter of bad behaviour in this place. What if the commissioners are asked to investigate bad behaviour by the minister who appointed them? In the absence of an overarching framework of the kind proposed in my bill, I am putting forward amendments to this bill which would ensure that an independent panel is established to appoint commissioners. The panel would be chaired by a former judge and require: a merit based selection process; advertising of the position with selection criteria; consideration of the diversity of the commissioners running the IPSC; and the minister to choose from a shortlist of three candidates determined by the panel to be qualified for the job. Since the last election, the crossbench has never shied away from putting the spotlight on some of the most egregious behaviour that is all too common in this place, behaviour which is not normal and which should not be accepted in any workplace. The establishment of the IPSC is a real step forward, and I congratulate and thank the government and all those staff who have worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation. The legislation will make the parliament a better and safer place to work. But my amendments would make a good institution even more robust, even more independent and even more trustworthy. I urge the government and all in this House to consider them. 10:34 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I just want to briefly respond to the member for Mackellar. In the discussion that we've had in this parliament and the work leading up to the bill in front of members today, there has been good, thoughtful engagement, even when there have been differences in views about how to get this done. As the member said in concluding her remarks, there has been a strong commitment to getting this done. Again, I want to pay tribute to everyone who has worked on this, especially those in Minister Gallagher's office, and Minister Gallagher herself, who has engaged very thoughtfully across the parliament to get us to this point. I would just note for members that the legislation already stipulates that the appointment of commissioners should be through a merit based and publicly advertised process. So that is already a requirement in this bill, which I hope will pass this House today. To be appointed, you have to have gone through that merit based process, and that is an important thing. I know the member for Mackellar is very passionate about seeing government do more in that space, but in this instance the reason that we're not moving an amendment on merit based or publicly advertised positions is that it is already in the bill. It's worth noting that, currently, under the bill as it's proposed, commissioners would be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the relevant minister at the time. But before the minister can make a recommendation to the Governor-General regarding a commissioner the minister must be satisfied that the person meets the selection and qualification requirements under the bill—that is, specifically, that the person to be appointed as a commissioner must be enrolled as a legal practitioner and enrolled for at least five years, or be a former Commonwealth judicial officer, or be a former judge of a Supreme Court of a state or territory, or have the skills, knowledge or experience investigating workplace misconduct. I note that we are appointing a range of commissioners, and having a range of different skills on that panel is very important. We don't want to unnecessarily limit the skill base available to the Commonwealth, but we also want to make sure that there is very clear guidance and requirements set out in the statutory books, for decade after decade, for the minister—not just the minister I referred to at the start of my remarks who has carriage of this and knows its intent—when they are making those decisions. We think that this bill in its current form gets that right. While I acknowledge the good intent of the amendments from the member for Mackellar, the government won't be supporting them. 10:37 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today in support of the member for Mackellar's considered amendments to this important legislation. There is no debate in this House about the need for an independent standards commission. We are all in furious agreement about that and welcome this legislation in most of its detail. But, as I spoke about on previous amendments, this is not the ideal piece of legislation, and, when we've taken this amount of time to finally establish such a commission, we should be working towards getting this right. Part of the getting it right is ensuring, again, that we have the guardrails, the safeguards and the transparency around who the important commissioners are on this commission. What the member for Mackellar has been trying to achieve throughout her term in this parliament is the eradication of this pernicious culture of jobs for mates. We've seen it play out time and time again across many, many decades, and, again, the people of Australia are asking us to do better. The minister quite rightly laid out the very detailed qualifications, the resumes that would be required in order for someone to be successful in applying for such a position on this commission. I've got no argument with that. What the member for Mackellar is adding to this debate is an arm's-length transparency mechanism to ensure that there are no political imperatives when it comes to who is appointed to such a commission, and that really matters. It really matters. Many people in this House have spoken to the importance of fairness, of ensuring that no member of parliament's reputation is besmirched unnecessarily. There has been an enormous consultation to try and get this legislation right, and we're nearly there. In my second reading speech I spoke of the gratitude I feel for the many people who have contributed to getting us to this point, but, again, I would say to this parliament: take the next step. Get it right while we have the chance to do so. The member for Mackellar is quite right in her argumentation about why these amendments matters, so I stand in support of her today on this one. We have the chance; we should get it completely right, and that amount of getting it right matters to the people who put us in this place. I commend her amendments and I encourage members of parliament to, likewise, support her in her endeavours. 10:40 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I'd like to respond. We are talking here about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The key is 'independent'. While I absolutely commend the steps that have been taken here with this legislation—that there will be merit based expertise criteria that must be met and that these will need to be advertised—I think the substantive piece of the amendments that I'm moving is the fact that people need to be appointed independently. This is an independent parliamentary standards commission. That is why we need an independent selection panel. It must be done at arm's length. This is an area we don't want to see exploited. We don't want to see a jobs-for-mates culture. It affects people's reputation in this House, so we don't want this to be exploited in any way. We want it to be as trustworthy and as robust as possible, and the absolute key part of the amendments I am moving today is the fact that commissioners should be appointed independently. That is the crux of what I'm calling for with these amendments today. 10:42 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Deputy Speaker Freelander, through you to the minister—and I have enormous respect for the minister, and I'm very grateful that he has no objection to be speaking back to the government amendments that went through the House minutes ago—I'm shocked that the government amendments went through the House minutes ago in the way that they did. There was no time to consider them and no time to debate them. The crossbench didn't even realise it had happened until after the fact. This is no way to be progressing and implementing reforms as important as this. These reforms go to cleaning up this place, holding parliamentarians to account for their misbehaviour in the future, to wipe the slate clean after the terrible events of recent years. It was no way for such significant amendments to be dealt with at all. And they are very significant amendments. For a start, that the deputy chair of the joint parliamentary committee overseeing the IPSC is quarantined as an opposition position is to completely ignore the crossbench—the, right now, 18 crossbenchers—and the millions of people that voted for those 18 crossbenchers. We now have a completely different political landscape than we had before the last federal election. At the last election, the government got I think it was 32.8 per cent of the primary vote. The polls since then are trending down even further. The fact is our country is changing. Now, a very significant proportion of the Australian electorate is voting for someone other than the Labor Party or the Liberal and National parties. That should be reflected in the way this parliament operates. Yes, there has been some progress, and I'm delighted to say I've been appointed to the Speaker's panel, and I'm delighted to say I'm on the privileges committee. I think that shows a very grown-up approach to the crossbench in those regards. But, in this case, for such an important parliamentary committee to be in the stranglehold of only the Labor Party or the Liberal and National parties is a betrayal of the electorate. It's not what the electorate wants. It's not where the electorate is going. This parliament is just fighting tooth and nail to keep their monopoly on power instead of waking up to what is changing and how this country is evolving. For the membership of the parliamentary joint committee overseeing the IPSC to be controlled by the privileges committee is bizarre. This is such a thumping conflict of interest. The joint committee overseeing the IPSC is selected by the privileges committee, and the IPSC can't make recommendations to the privileges committee, and the privileges committee doesn't even have to follow any recommendations that don't come anyway. What's going on here? We've lost our way at the last stage of this important process to clean up this place. We really, really have. If we're going to be overseeing the IPSC, surely it should not be done by people selected by the privileges committee. The privileges committee, in effect, is overseeing itself, and that's just nonsense. That's complete and utter nonsense. I'm very disappointed in the way that these amendments have been brought to the House and rammed through the House. I'm very disappointed with what they go to. I just don't know why the government is behaving this way. There's no good political reason for or public interest served by coming, at this late stage, to this point where the IPSC is effectively overseen by the privileges committee—that's the effect of it—where it can't make recommendations to the privileges committee and where the privileges committee doesn't have to pay any attention to what the IPSC does. This is a great case study in where the government is acting completely irrationally and at odds with the public interest, and it will feed into the continuing decline of popularity for the Labor Party at the next election, when this was a great opportunity to show the community that it's listening to the community, it's responding and it's doing good work. Instead, it does this, and I am just dismayed. 10:47 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I acknowledge and thank the minister for allowing some debate on those rapidly introduced amendments from the government, which arrived at the last minute. I would actually be very curious to know what consultation happened in deliberations around this bill about these particular amendments, which firstly define the privileges committee. I've got no argument with that. But they're now seeking—in fact, it's already gone through—to ensure that we have kind of the equivalent of a supermarket duopoly on the checks and balances when it comes to what is an esteemed reform on the IPSC. The checks and balances now are completely euchred. We're going to have the same people on the joint select committee as on the privileges committee, and the duopoly maintains its power and control by ensuring that no member of the crossbench can be a deputy chair. What a stitch-up! I'm really staggered by this. When that happened before, it happened so fast it didn't seem right. It actually isn't right. We should have fulsome debate about these amendments because they don't speak to the integrity of this legislation that we're voting on today. I'm completely amazed by this, really. If members of this House think that it is okay to now, I think, effectively compromise the privileges committee by doing this, then I'm very surprised and really disappointed in the government. They have rapidly brought these amendments to the House. They've now gone through, and I really feel that this has tarnished what is otherwise a significant and important piece of legislation that I was fulsomely supporting. I really wanted to put that on the record. 10:49 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark In the spirit of consideration in detail, I have a question for the minister. It's a very straightforward question, and I'm sure the crossbench and the community would be very grateful for a very straight answer: were the government's amendments discussed with the opposition before now? 10:50 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth The government amendments were circulated to all members at 5.16 pm yesterday. They are now available for all members to debate. Despite the fact that they have gone through, I stood up here and introduced the explanatory memorandum. I didn't introduce the amendments, because they had already been circulated to members yesterday. Every member received on the NoticePaper and on the 'blue' that this debate was happening this morning. That has been clear for all members, and every member, be they crossbench, government or opposition, has had access to those amendments since 5.16 pm yesterday. I have been available to have conversations with any member who wishes to discuss them. 10:51 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I thank the minister for that response. I'll sharpen my pencil and ask a narrower question. Were the government's amendments discussed with the opposition prior to the circulation of amendments? 10:51 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth There have been a range of contributions from members of the crossbench on the member for Mackellar's amendments, which are, as we know, in the order of amendments that we're working through. We go through them in order. The member for Clark's amendment was submitted first in the parliament, and the government's amendments were submitted at 5.16 pm yesterday—or circulated, I should say—and therefore are the second item that the parliament's dealing with in the third reading and consideration in detail stage. Then the member for Mackellar's amendments were in fact the last to be circulated to members, and that is why we are debating them last. For those reasons, I disagree with the characterisation by some members of the crossbench of the process. I have stood and introduced the explanatory memorandum and the supplementary explanatory memorandum and circulated the amendments in the same way that any member who wishes to engage would and as you would expect of a government minister. Equally, I really want to note that it has been very clear for all members of parliament that we were having this discussion this morning because indeed we had a deferred division last night. So we all knew we would be back discussing this again today. I think it's entirely reasonable for the crossbench to have a different view to the government about whether or not these amendments are the right path forward, and I respect that. But I do think that I'd rather have a debate about the substance of the nature of the change the government's putting forward in the amendments rather than just a debate which is a process debate. Again, the characterisation that this has somehow been done in any way other than the normal course of action is, frankly, wrong. I think we've had a very respectful debate about this, even where there are differences of opinion, and I hope we can conclude in that way. On the questions about the commissioners, I want to draw the attention of people in this House and the public, who may be following this debate closely, to the commissioners and the establishment and functions of the commissioners. Firstly, again, I note the commissioners are appointed by the Governor-General. They will be statutory officeholders. I think it's worth noting that, in the composition of the body of commissioners that will be appointed, the bill in front of members requires that at least four of those commissioners be women. That is a reflection of what we heard in the Set the standard report. It's a requirement, as we noted in the findings of that report. Women in the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces experience sexual harassment, bullying and actual or attempted sexual assault at a higher rate compared with men. So providing gender balance amongst IPSC commissioners will ensure that we can promote trauma informed investigations, and I welcome the support for that measure from all members. I also want to note that section 36D ensures the independence of the commissioners. It's explicitly there in the act that it provides for their independence to go about their duties. Further, that independence is strengthened by having their investigation functions functionally separate from the independent Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. On the qualification requirements, I note that the bill will ensure that a person must not be appointed as a commissioner unless the minister is satisfied that selection of the person was the result of a process that was merit based, which included public advertising of the position. This will ensure that they are merit based and transparent positions. I also think it will give us both independent and quality candidates. I hope that people who think that they might be able to make a contribution towards this important new function of the parliament may consider putting themselves forward. Section 36E(3) also requires that the minister refer the proposed recommendations to the parliamentary joint committee on parliamentary standards and get their approval of the recommendations prior to making the recommendations to the Governor-General. Again, it is a further check and balance. That committee will, I hope, operate in a way that is well above the day-to-day disagreements that might happen in this place. It will have a similar role to that of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Again, we're looking to model on good practices elsewhere. I also note that when it comes to the appointment of commissioners, they are statutory appointments of no more than five years. Further, section 36G outlines a range of mandatory training requirements for commissioners. They must complete specified courses of training as soon as practicable after being appointed as a commissioner. That is, again, to ensure very high standards of this very specialised work. 10:56 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar While I really am grateful for the steps in greater transparency around the merits based appointment process, the advertising and the fact that new commissioners will need to do the training, I think there's something we're missing the point on, and that is the fact that an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission must be independent. An absolute key part of that is that it must be independently appointed. While we talk about commissioners having the right merit and the right expertise, that doesn't stop them from all being a part of the Labor Party or whichever party. Just because you have the right expertise or the right merit does not mean that you are independent. Having an independent selection panel is absolutely required. If we are to call this the Independent Parliamentary Standards Committee, an independent selection process must be required. Otherwise, we can't call it independent—we can call it merit based or expertise based, but we can't call it independent. There must be an independent selection panel if we are to call this the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. I'd also like to talk about this being modelled on other appointments processes. A precedent has been set with the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal because amendments were taken on board for there to be independent selection panels. Prior to negotiations by the crossbench, an independent selection panel was not going to be mandated or legislated. It is now mandated and legislated, and I think that we should use that appointments process to the Administrative Review Tribunal as the precedent gold standard for an independent body. We know that the core and fundamental part of having an independent body is for it to be independently appointed, not only based on merit and expertise. Of course that is important, but it must be independently appointed. Otherwise, the board is not independent. How can we call it independent? 10:58 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I assure all members of the House that the commissioners will be able to act with independence. I want to note that the commissioners will be statutory office holders and therefore will be subject to the general duties of officials under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. I think that's an important item to note. They would also be bound by the APS Code of Conduct to the extent of the Public Service Regulations 2023. I want to note that that requires them to uphold APS values, amongst other things. I also note that commissioners will not have their salaries set by a minister. Their fees will be set by the independent Remuneration Tribunal. Again, it will not be a decision of the government of the day. Further, to assure all members that—we're talking a lot about appointment, but I think it's also of note, in this bill, that the process through which a commissioner would be terminated is not just at the discretion of a minister or the government of the day. I draw members' attention to what would be provided by clause 36L(1): The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a Commissioner if each House of the Parliament, in the same session of the Parliament, presents an address to the Governor-General praying for the removal of the Commissioner … Such a removal could be on the grounds of misbehaviour or that the commissioner is unable to perform their duties because of physical or mental incapacity. So there are grounds to remove a commissioner, if there are any of those conflicts that the member foreshadowed, which I do not see being a challenge. But I want to note that, should that necessitate the removal of a commissioner, there will be a procedure through which to do that as well, although I hope, for many reasons, that we don't get to that point. That will be my last contribution to this debate. 11:00 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Several minutes ago, I asked the minister a very, very straightforward question, and that was whether or not the government consulted with the opposition on today's third reading amendments before those amendments were circulated to all members, we now learn, late yesterday afternoon. I think it would be fair to say that the minister's answer was evasive. It certainly didn't answer the question of whether or not the government had consulted with the opposition on its two very important amendments today: (1) that the deputy chair of the joint parliamentary committee will be a position reserved for the opposition; and (2) that the privileges committee will select the membership of the joint committee. To be fair to the minister and to give him an opportunity to assure the community that this isn't another major-party stitch-up to maintain their stranglehold on power in this country, I'll ask the minister one more time: does he rule out that the government discussed these amendments with the opposition before the amendments were circulated—amendments that were not seen by any of the 18 crossbench members of this House until they were circulated? 11:02 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth While I've already answered the member for Clark's question, I just also want to advise the House that members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce were provided with the amendments prior to them being circulated. 11:02 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Whilst commissioners will have to abide by certain APS values and statutory values, I'd like us to be mindful of the precedent that we saw occur over the last decade with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which the government agreed had been stacked. People had not been independently appointed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and, as a result, the government themselves abolished the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—something which has cost taxpayers in this country tens of millions of dollars to do. In light of that precedent and in light of that example, why are we still neglecting that example—the fact that people were not appointed independently to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? The government felt the need to abolish that at a cost of millions and millions of dollars to our taxpayers. It eroded trust in that very important democratic institution. I would like to know why we are still not learning the lessons of that time and independently appointing people to such an important body as the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar be agreed to.    

The House divided. [11:08]
(The Deputy Speaker—Dr Freelander)

 13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 50 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 22 11:11 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 22

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

Report from Federation Chamber 22 11:12 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 23 11:13 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 23

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

Second Reading 23 11:14 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Paid parental leave is an avenue for, in particular, women to participate further in their opportunities to work, their families to have better opportunities and, as has been described in the legislation, women to have greater opportunities for a better retirement than they would otherwise have had. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is to be supported and is laudable. It brings in fairness and justice, which the government and this parliament has promoted through whatever parliament there has been before it. When injustice festers in a community, it ripples outward, affecting us all. Injustice doesn't just harm those directly involved; it compromises the entire fabric of society. We can't stand idly by when faced with discrimination, especially when it targets the most vulnerable among us—our children, particularly our Indigenous children. We share the burden of this injustice, and it is our collective duty to call it out and demand change. I don't claim to be an expert on the pros and cons of childhood vaccination. That's for those far more knowledgeable than I. However, what I do know and what has come to my attention through the voices of over 1,000 families is the deep harm caused by policies like no jab, no pay and no jab, no play. These measures, intended to protect public health, have instead punished families who choose not to vaccinate, by stripping them of essential support. Childcare subsidies, out-of-hours care, Centrelink payments and crucial family tax benefits have all been reduced or withheld entirely. Families, particularly single-parent households, are being driven to the brink, living hand to mouth, struggling under the weight of government policies that are, at best, indifferent; at worst, cruel. Kirsten is one of many who have reached out to me whose story is emblematic of the challenges faced by countless others. When Kirsten welcomed her first child into the world, it was a moment of pure joy. Her baby girl, perfect in every way, brought immense happiness to the family. Following the standard vaccination schedule, Kirsten believed she was doing what was right, but that trust was shattered when her daughter, after receiving her first vaccine, turned blue, was unconscious and stopped breathing. This was later described as a SIDS episode. Imagine the terror of that moment when she was told to 'smack the baby hard to bring her back' by emergency responders. Kirsten's world was turned upside down. At her daughter's 12-month vaccine, the same nightmare played out. Her child required resuscitation. When her son was born, he too needed CPR after his vaccination. Kirsten sought an exemption, understanding that vaccines were not safe for her children. Yet despite her harrowing experience, the exemption was denied. The system meant to protect her family failed her. She made the courageous decision to stop vaccinating, and her unvaccinated children have since thrived. There have been no more SIDS episodes and no health crises, and her premature child has been healthier than her vaccinated siblings. But Kirsten's decision came at a great cost. Her family benefits were cut, and her children are now excluded from educational and social opportunities essential for their development. This punishment prevents Kirsten from working, further exacerbating her family's struggles, and Kirsten is far from alone. Families who stand firm for their children's health are being pushed out of the workforce, penalised financially and denied the opportunity to fully participate in society. Of course, if you don't work, you don't get paid parental leave. Then there is Elizabeth's story, which is a testament to the broader impact of these policies on communities. Elizabeth is a mother who, with support of her GP, made the informed decision to delay vaccinations for her children and found herself unfairly disadvantaged by this choice. As a capable, community minded woman, Elizabeth had built a promising career and was actively contributing to her local and broader community through her work and civil involvement. However, the restrictive vaccination policies forced her to change jobs, reduce her hours and accept a significant pay cut to care for her unvaccinated children, placing her family at a substantial financial disadvantage. And her children were denied access to early learning and socialisation opportunities. Elizabeth spoke of the emotional toll these policies have taken on her family and community, describing the state sanctioned discrimination that left her feeling ostracised. She pointed out how these policies are not just punitive but also counterproductive. By sidelining her, they deprive the community of the contribution she can no longer make. Elizabeth's case is especially troubling because it highlights how these policies extend beyond individual families. They impact the broader community by preventing capable individuals like Elizabeth from fully participating in society. These policies rob communities of vital support and service. This exclusion has ripple effects that reach far beyond one family, undermining the collective good of the nation. For Indigenous families, the impact of current vaccination policies is amplified by a long history of assimilation into Western medical systems. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap outlines clear goals to ensure that Indigenous children thrive in early years and reach their full potential and that their families are supported in meaningful economic participation. However, these goals are hindered by policies that inadvertently deny access to early learning and reduce essential financial benefits for families with unvaccinated children. Excluding unvaccinated children from early learning opportunities compromises the principles of fairness and equity that we in this parliament seeks to uphold. Education is fundamental to a child's development, and yet Indigenous children, already amongst the most vulnerable, are being restricted from these critical opportunities. For single mothers, particularly Indigenous women, this creates difficult choices. They must either vaccinate their children against their cultural and spiritual beliefs or forfeit access to child care and their ability to work and provide for their families. The no jab, no pay policy deepens financial hardship, entrenches poverty and limits access to early education and employment for many First Nations women and their children. These policies risk isolating families from the very opportunities they need to thrive, contradicting the intentions of the National Agreement of Closing the Gap, which strives to provide equitable outcomes for all. Furthermore, the no jab, no pay, no play policy stands in contradiction to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 43 of the declaration affirms that it 'constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of the indigenous peoples of the world'. Any reduction in these standards, particularly in the context of self-determined medical autonomy, challenges the core of these human rights protections. We, as a parliament, must respect these rights. We, as a nation, must respect these rights and work towards policies that support rather than diminish the dignity, survival and wellbeing of Indigenous families, ensuring they have access to the same opportunities for growth and success as all Australians. Here's where the irony cuts deep. In some regions, wealthier families have found loopholes in these are very policies. If they can afford to pay full fees, their unvaccinated children are still able to attend child care and after-hours care. They are essentially buying their way out of the system. This blatant double standard defeats the very health argument these policies claim to uphold. How can it be that, for a price, unvaccinated children are allowed into the same social settings from which other unvaccinated children are excluded? What does this contradiction reveal about the true motivations behind these measures? Are they genuinely focused on public health or something else entirely? It gets worse: while unvaccinated children are excluded, health workers and parents are not required to be vaccinated to enter the same childcare settings. What does it say about our priorities when children are the ones singled out? How can we justify penalising the most vulnerable for decisions made by their parents while overlooking the inconsistencies that exist within the system? What steps can we take to address these contradictions and create a more just and equitable approach to these health policies? This paradox only reinforces the deeper injustice at play: policies designed to protect public health are instead creating new layers of inequity and exclusion, all while allowing those with financial means to sidestep the very restrictions others are forced to endure. A simple yet effective solution lies in reinstating the option for conscientious objection for parents who choose not to vaccinate. By making this process as straightforward as filling out a form at Centrelink, we can ensure that families continue to receive the benefits they need without unnecessary restrictions. This change would balance public health with respect for individual choice and cultural diversity. It is our collective responsibility, Deputy Speaker Freelander, yours and mine, to ensure that all families have the opportunity to protect, provide and prosper. This is more than just a slogan; it is a call to action to defend individual rights, provide access to essential services and ensure that every child, every family, can thrive no matter their personal medical decision. I commend this proposition to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the member for Monash. I would like to comment on some of his comments, but I can't. The question is that the amendments be agreed to, and I call the member for Blair. 11:27 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I pay respect to the member for Monash and his long service to the parliament, but his comments don't relate to the bill in any way at all. This is a bill about paid parental leave and adding superannuation. It's not about vaccination or a family's choice with respect to health. It's about superannuation being added onto paid parental leave, and nearly all of the member's speech didn't relate to the bill in any way at all. I am very honoured to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. Labor has a long and proud history of improving the lives of Australian families with critical nation-building reforms, and it's incredibly disappointing to hear that the opposition are trying to move amendments so that people can choose to receive a lump-sum payment rather than superannuation on their paid parental leave. This is the usual pointless negativity we hear those opposite, and we are seeing it more and more, in more and more pieces of legislation before the chamber. They said previously they were going to support superannuation being paid on paid parental leave, but they are now crab-walking away as fast as they can, according to media reports. This is a very important measure to close the gap on women's retirement incomes and ensure that government paid parental leave is treated just like any other government workplace entitlement that attracts superannuation. We know women are the predominant beneficiaries of this and often retire with superannuation accounts much lower than men, resulting in some cases of older women becoming homeless or facing income and housing insecurity. We know that on average women have 25.1 per cent less superannuation than men of the same age when approaching retirement. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave is really a very significant reform to ensure parents not only get the support they need at the time of their newborn baby but also don't miss out on their retirement savings in the form of superannuation. Those opposite need to do the right thing and stop standing in the way of paying superannuation on paid parental leave to help mums and dads across the country. During the time I've been in this place, I barely remember at any stage the Liberal and National parties supporting superannuation. They are constantly talking it down, constantly criticising, constantly—in government—deferring increases in the superannuation guarantee, constantly saying that they are going to have a different schemes to raid superannuation and—in government—doing so during COVID. We on this side support superannuation. It was a Labor government that first introduced maternity allowance back in 1912. It was a Labor government that created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Superannuation Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Labor governments reform; coalition governments oppose. Labor governments supported delivering no-fault divorce, the single mother's benefit and the child support system. It was a Labor government, the Gillard government, that introduced paid parental leave in this country. They were all big, bold structural reforms. When paid parental leave was introduced in 2011, it was a major milestone for Australian families. For many parents, the 18-week payment fully funded by the government was the first time they could access any form of parental leave. This was a material advancement in the workplace and in economic equality for women, whose disproportionate share of unpaid care has long-term consequences for their economic security or insecurity. Paid parental leave is critical for families, critical for women and critical for the economy. It ticked all the boxes in the so-called triple-P framework of population, participation and productivity and that is why it is not only good social policy but good economic reform as well. The Gillard government knew that; the Albanese government knows it as well. From day one the Albanese government has been working hard to improve and modernise paid parental leave for working families, the centrepiece of our first budget. We announced important reforms to modernise the scheme to meet the needs of Australian families. First, we passed legislation so that from 1 July 2023 more families could access the payment with more generous family income tests, making it easier for parents to share care. They can take leave flexibly with periods of work in between to support their transition back to work. Then earlier this year we passed legislation to increase the length of the scheme. From 1 July this year, we've added two more weeks of payment, expanding the scheme from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. The scheme will further expand by two weeks each year until it reaches 26 weeks or an equivalent of a full six months in 2026, the largest expansion of paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011. All of these changes combined mean that paid parental leave is now more accessible, more flexible and it encourages shared care. It supports parents to take a step back from paid work and it provides critical financial support at such an important time. Parents can now share over $20,000 to support them after the birth of a new baby. The bill we are debating today, the Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, is the third significant reform that the Albanese government has made to paid parental leave. Through paid parental leave, the government supports parents to take time off work after the birth or adoption of their child and, through this bill, we're supporting retirement as well—birth and retirement. This legislation builds on recent reforms that allow, I think, our policy in this country to be more flexible, accessible and gender equitable through an increase to the length of the scheme. It implements a budgetary measure this year which we first announced in March with the launch of Australia's national strategy for gender equality—Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality. Through this bill we are investing $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to pay superannuation and government funded paid parental leave from July 2025 by making an annual government funded superannuation contribution to a recipient's nominated superannuation fund. Subject to the passage of this bill, eligible parents or caregivers with babies born or adopted on or after 1 July 2025 and who receive government paid parental leave will receive an additional payment, based on the superannuation guarantee, of 12 per cent of their paid parental leave payment. The Australian Taxation Office will make a lump sum payment, following the end of each year where a recipient received paid parental leave, directly to their superannuation account—not out of it, as the coalition proposes. As the payment will be made following the end of each financial year, nominal interest will be paid to compensate for the interest which would have otherwise accumulated had the contribution been made on a pay-as-you-go basis. Most parents won't need to do anything further to receive superannuation payment, and the claims process for paid parental leave will not change. The bill makes some technical amendments allowing employees to access keeping-in-touch days after taking flexible leave. It rectifies an unintended outcome of the Fair Work legislation. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave will improve the economic security in retirement of 180,000 families each year. In my own electorate, more than 2,600 families will receive paid parental leave and stand to benefit from adding superannuation to their payment. The Paid Parental Leave scheme provides financial support for eligible working families to take time off work after the birth or adoption of a child. Again, this legislation builds on recent reforms, including the expansion of the Paid Parental Leave scheme to 26 weeks. The maximum amount a family will receive in 2026 in superannuation contributions will be about $3,000 per birth of a child. The reform has been subject to extensive consultation in recent times. Many stakeholders have called for superannuation to be added to government funded paid parental leave, including the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council of Australia and the superannuation sector—a broad range of stakeholders. It was a key recommendation of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and of a long campaign by women's groups, including trade unions and the women's movement generally, and I commend them for their advocacy. It is consistent with the findings of the report Working for women: a strategy for gender equality, which the government released on International Women's Day, 8 March, this year. As a result of these changes, which will be widely and warmly welcomed by stakeholders, women will achieve greater equality. This significant reform will benefit Australian families, and it's an investment in economic security in the broader economy. Taking time out of work to care for children is a normal part of working life for both parents these days. Paying superannuation on government paid parental leave will help normalise paid leave as a workplace entitlement like annual and sick leave and will reduce the impact of paid parental leave on retirement incomes. It builds on our changes that commenced from July last year to give more families access to the payment, including through a more generous $350,000 family income test, and it makes it much easier for both parents to share care. Labor committed to delivering for women and to driving gender equality before the last election. We are delivering on that in government, particularly with this commitment. This reform is in addition to significant investments we have made and actions we have taken to deliver for women since the May 2022 budget and election, demonstrating the Albanese government's deep commitment to working women. Alongside Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts and key investments in cheaper child care, women's safety and women's health, parenting payment single payments and workplace relations reform, the government continues to focus on women's economic security—a key feature of our economic plan. What this shows is that we are serious about making sure women are supported when they are balancing caring and working responsibilities. It is absolutely clear that women are worse off without superannuation being paid on paid parental leave. It's a key step in prioritising gender equality, better valuing care work and improving women's workforce participation. It's normalising a workplace entitlement—it makes it normal in the workplace. It's key. It demonstrates the reality of the workplace situations for families and what we see in our workplaces each and every day. It's critical that we do this. These reforms cement our Labor legacy yet again, with the scheme sitting largely untouched by the coalition for nearly a decade. We had nearly a decade of those opposite doing nothing to advance the cause of economic equality for women in this area. These reforms are part of our agenda to put greater economic inclusion for women at the centre of what we do as a government. They're about ensuring women earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more as well. It was Labor that established our modern superannuation scheme, and, in the long term, we know this is an important change, a more dignified and secure retirement for more Australian women. We've made clear, for some time, this is our priority, and we're making it a reality today. We know paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children, where investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy as well. Businesses, unions and experts all understand this, and it beggars belief that those opposite cannot grasp this. We know it's the right thing to do. Paying paid parental leave advances gender equality. For one, it would help to reduce the gender gaps we often see in the superannuation balances I referred to earlier. Research shows that fathers are more likely to use paid parental leave when it's well paid and flexible. Taking together all recent PPL reforms, including access, making it more flexible, introducing a 'use it or lose it' period, expanding it to 26 weeks, adding superannuation should encourage more fathers and partners to take time off work following the birth or adoption of a child, and that's important. This fosters more equality in caring roles and creates opportunities for women to participate more fully in paid employment. In closing, on this side of the House, we know how important it is to invest in Australian women. Investing in paid parental leave, investing in superannuation is modern policy for a modern society for modern families. Those opposite seem antiquated in their attitude to the responsibilities of men and women. It's good for families and it's good for the economy, and we're proud to legislate it. And we'll wait to see what those opposite do. We know that women continue to face difficult decisions and financial penalties when choosing to raise a family. These are long-overdue changes which will help offset these penalties and lessen the impact on women's retirement savings. By investing in these reforms, we're ensuring that families can get the best out of the Paid Parental Leave scheme and exercise more choice and flexibility, and that's good for women, good for families, good for fathers and good for the economy. 11:42 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong This Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 will add a superannuation contribution to the Commonwealth funded Paid Parental Leave scheme. It's a very welcome change. It's a change which is long overdue, and it's a change which has been called for repeatedly by peak bodies. Until this bill is passed by both houses, paid parental leave will be the only form of paid leave in this country which does not come with superannuation. This has, for a long time, been an injustice and an anomaly. I'm very proud to have pushed the government on this issue, even before I was elected to this place, and I'm very happy to see it executed at this time. At the last federal election, many Australians expressed their real frustration at the treatment of women in this country. They did that with their vote. I applaud and thank them for doing so. I ask them to continue to do so, and I assure them that, with this and with other similar legislation, I and my colleagues will continue to work towards greater gender equity in Australian workplaces and in Australian homes. This amendment will see paid parental leave recipients receive the paid parental leave superannuation contribution for children born on or after 1 July 2025. It includes both a core and a nominal interest component. It also makes a minor change to the Fair Work Act to enable parents to have flexibility over their parental leave periods, with an option for days back in the office in which they can keep in touch with their workplace. The payment of superannuation on Commonwealth funded paid parental leave recognises the incredibly important contribution that all parents make to society. It will reduce the impact of career breaks to care for young children on the superannuation balances of the carers. It will help to improve equity in the superannuation system, both between men and women and between those in differing workplaces. It is worth remembering that this bill applies only to Commonwealth workplaces, which have until now lagged significantly behind public industry. In 2022-23, according to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, 86 per cent of employers offered paid parental leave and also paid superannuation to parents while on paid leave. That included 13 per cent who continued to pay super even on unpaid leave. In contrast, more than 99 per cent of parents accessing the government's paid parental leave scheme are women, and they have not previously received the same level of support as that available to those in the private sector. Industry Super has reported that 1.5 million women have missed out on $1.6 billion in super over the last 10 years because super has not previously been included in the Commonwealth's paid parental leave scheme. Time out of the workforce to care for children, and gender pay gaps, cause cumulative inequity over adults' working lives. Women retire with about one-third less super—on average, $60,000 less—than men. They're overrepresented on the pension, and those aged over 55 represent the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in this country. In 2021-22, in Australia, the gap in superannuation balances between men and women approaching retirement was 25.2 per cent. KPMG found that the gendered impacts of years not working due to career interruptions, part-time employment, unpaid care and work together amounted to about 33 per cent of that gap. Hence, the Australian Public Service Commission made the recommendation that the employer component of superannuation be paid on all forms of paid and unpaid pregnancy and parental leave, regardless of superannuation scheme type or contribution method. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency recently reported on the many indirect forms of discrimination that limit women's earning capacity. These include conscious and unconscious discrimination and bias in hiring, pay decisions, career progression and promotion. Women in female dominated industries tend to have jobs attracting lower wages and a lack of workplace flexibility to accommodate caring and other responsibilities and also jobs associated with a higher rate of part-time work, which, together with the greater time out of the workplace for caring responsibilities, tends to impact career progression and opportunities. About 180,000 Australian families access paid parental leave every year, but our paid parental leave allowances are amongst the least generous in the world. The average length of paid parental leave in the OECD countries is 55 weeks. In Australia it's currently just 26 weeks. The WEET report recommended that PPL entitlements in this country be increased to 52 weeks, and the AIST noted that our leave entitlements are very limited compared to those in other OECD countries. Women remain at a significant disadvantage, as families will always restructure their work and household duties to favour the partner with the higher income, which is typically a man. Our current tax and childcare policies disincentivise full workforce participation. Australian women just want the same opportunities as Australian men. We want to be able to better utilise our education and our skills, and we don't want to be held back by having to take the burden of care, which is often unpaid or underpaid. We want the persistent barriers that hold women back removed such that we can get on with the job of building a fairer economy for all. I'd really like to acknowledge the important steps and the recent work in this direction undertaken by both this government and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. The WEET has recognised that we have to recognise the economic importance and value of the care sector in Australia. We have to help families to better share their caring responsibilities. Australian research has shown that increasing shared paid parental leave allowances won't just increase mothers' earnings across their lifetimes; it will also boost national productivity. This is a catch-up measure. It's not a groundbreaker, but it's an important indication of real commitment to an important cause, both by this government and by the crossbench, to address gender inequity. I have to say that this is a commitment which stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the opposition. As recently as June 2024, Senator Hume, the shadow minister for finance, who was, in the Morrison government, Australia's first minister for women's economic security, called measures like this one—measures which are, after all, designed to right a historical wrong—welfare policies. She further labelled them 'patronising in the extreme.' That sort of sentiment has been rejected by electorates like Kooyong, in which women and men have asked me repeatedly to advocate on their behalf for gender equity and to work towards a society in which our small boys and small girls see their parents as being equally able to look after them, physically, socially and financially. The financial impact of this bill will be $1.1 billion over the forward estimates. That's a very small price to pay. As the WEET Taskforce report said in 2023, if we completely eliminate negative gender bias from our economy we could unlock $128 billion lost annually to that gender inequity. We face many key economic challenges in the coming decade. These include the decarbonisation of our industries, adjustment to the economic impact of climate change, the challenge of managing an ageing workforce and an increase in intergenerational inequity. There are geopolitical challenges, the rise of AI and other technological advances. This is the absolutely ideal time to unlock the value of women's full economic participation and to work together towards a fairer and more equal Australia. So I commend this bill to the House and look forward to further similar progress in this really important area. 11:51 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I'm delighted to be speaking on this important legislation and I commend the comments that were made by the previous speaker, the member for Kooyong, while I was in the chamber. Can I just say this: there's a 25 per cent gap in the retirement savings of women and men. Because of superannuation, Australians are now retiring with around $200,000 in retirement savings. That's real money. I know when my parents retired they never had anything anywhere near that, but today, as a result of over 30 years of superannuation, retirement experiences are being transformed. On average a male is retiring with about $200,000 in retirement savings in superannuation. The situation has improved for women, but there is still a 25 per cent gap in the superannuation savings. As women approach retirement they have around $150,000 in superannuation. If you lift up and look under the bonnet at what's driving this gap between a woman's experience of retirement and a male's experience of retirement, you'll see that the superannuation gap is driven by two things: a wages gap and a career gap. We need to take action on both of these things to ensure that we close that gap, and we are. In the area of the wages gap, we've taken decisive action as a government, making pay equality an objective of our workplace relations laws. More than that, we're ensuring that in our own area of employment, but also where we are the significant funder of services, we are taking heed of those equity principles. Take an area like aged care, which has a workforce where women are engaged in doing the majority of the work. If you look at their wages they are significantly below the wages that would be paid for equivalent work being performed in male-dominated industries outside the aged-care sector. There was a problem there to be solved, and we solved it. In fact, the biggest line item in our first budget was funding for the aged-care sector so that they could pay their workers a decent wage. The workers benefited I think about $6 billion from that first budget. The workers benefited, the aged-care providers benefited, and so did all Australians, not just because inequity was dealt with but because people were attracted back into the sector because they could afford to live and work in an industry they cared about. We haven't stopped at aged care. We're currently looking at child care, which, again, has an overwhelmingly feminised workforce. There are significant gaps between what somebody can earn as a childcare worker and what somebody with equivalent skills and competence can earn working in a male dominated industry, which is why the government has taken action and we're funding 15 per cent wage increases. I just spent a bit of time talking about that because the superannuation gap that I've talked about is factored off a wage gap. Why is that? It's because, under our system, superannuation is paid as a percentage of wages. If there's a wage gap then there's going to be a superannuation gap because, if a woman is earning less in wages than a man, she's going to be taking home less and putting away less in her superannuation than an equivalent man. So an important lever in addressing that gap is dealing with wages. The second gap that the government has identified is the career gap. That is because overwhelmingly women will take time out of work not only to have the child but to care for the child, particularly in its first six months. This is something towards which concerted action has been taken across excessive Labor governments. I've got to say it was the Whitlam Labor government that first introduced paid maternity leave in 1974 for Commonwealth government employees, with the hope of extending that throughout the workforce. It did extend into the financial services industry over the next decade, but it stalled, and it took the Gillard Labor government and the Rudd Labor government to reinitiate that program back in 2007 through to 2012. I do remember a former leader of the opposition saying that he would introduce paid maternity leave as a universal condition over his dead body. Some unkind people said that that would be a win-win, but I was very pleased to see that it had become a bipartisan position, in part, over the next decade. Paid maternity leave, commenced by the Rudd government and introduced by the Gillard government and made a part of Australian law, was a great reform, again helping to close that career gap. So too was the provision of child care because, if families don't have access to child care, then they're not able to make decisions based on all of the economic factors available to them to return to work or not to return to work. If they're able to access child care, it makes returning to the workforce an option. I'm sure there will be other members in this place who have been talking to families in their electorates, and one of the concerns they'll have heard is getting access to a childcare place, which is stopping people returning to work. It's all the more reason why we need to put emphasis on that childcare wage increase, bringing more workers into that sector and ensuring there are more places available to Australians who want to return to work after a period of parental leave. So, in terms of the wage gap, we're working on it. There were changes to the law in the last Labor government and changes to the law in this Labor government. In terms of the career gap, we're working on it through extending paid parental leave. There were historic changes extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks under this government, which we're very proud to be a part of, making a meaningful difference. But, if you look at the way leave is treated as a workplace entitlement in this country and you look at the payments that are made in respect of leave, you'll notice that, if you're on long service leave, you get superannuation. If you're on annual leave, you get superannuation. If you're on sick leave or carers leave, you get superannuation. It strikes us as a huge anomaly that the only form of leave that is freely and lawfully available to every Australian worker as a right that does not accrue superannuation is paid parental leave, more commonly known outside of this place as paid maternity leave—and for a reason. So this is an equity issue. There is one form of leave overwhelmingly taken by women that doesn't attract superannuation, and that is maternity leave or parental leave. So I'm proud to be part of a government which is addressing that issue, including through the legislation before the House today. It has a cost—$1.1 billion over the forward estimates to introduce the entitlement by 1 July next year. We hope that it is augmented by private sector employers who agree to it as a staff attraction or retention element and who top up from the government funded PPL component with a privately funded PPL component so that we can extend and improve that benefit. Again, what is the objective here? The objective is to ensure that women retire with access to the same quantum of retirement income that men do. I thought that this was an issue that would, without controversy, obtain bipartisan support, and there were early indications that I was right. Can you imagine my surprise when I read overnight that the opposition has adopted a different policy? It's a policy which is aimed at undermining the very objective of the scheme, which is to close the superannuation retirement gap. It has been their objective, over many decades now, to undermine the role of superannuation in our economy and in our workplace. There is no doubt about it. There are many frontbench coalition MPs and senators who, from their first speech to their last in this place, have said that superannuation should not be a universal entitlement. We should not be surprised. But I have to say, when I first saw this reported on last night, I had to quickly grab the news report to see whether it was an announcement by Senator Bridget McKenzie and therefore one that would have the shelf life of an ice cream in the sun. It wasn't. It appeared to come out in the name of the official spokesperson. We hope they recant because they will face the same community backlash in relation to this thought bubble as they faced when Senator Jane Hume, when she was the government minister responsible for superannuation, proposed that women suffering and afflicted by the scourge and crime of domestic violence should pay for domestic violence services and relief from their own superannuation. Anyone who thought about that for about three seconds would understand what a diabolical proposition that is. Ms Ley 00AMN It was never our policy. Mr JONES A9B I hear the shadow minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, say, 'It was never our policy.' Ms Ley 00AMN . They make up stuff. You've misinterpreted, as usual. Mr JONES A9B It was announced by the minister responsible for superannuation and had the same duration as the shadow minister for transport's policy pronouncement on the aviation industry. So we are entitled to have some doubt about what the shelf life of this policy will be as well. I make the point that this is advanced as a policy to deal with a problem, and the problem is the superannuation pay gap. If we in this place try and make superannuation the solution to every public policy failure that we are confronted with, it will become the answer to nothing. Every time we have a public policy challenge in this country, it seems that some people say, 'Why don't we make superannuation pay for that?' It is as daft on this proposition as it is when it has been rolled out for every other policy challenge that we confront as a nation. This is not to say that there is not an issue that has been identified. Families who have got a newborn baby coming into the world are confronted with additional expenses. They are—having brought a few into the world myself, we acknowledge that families are confronted with additional expenses. There are other public policy challenges. We were speaking about the proposition to make women pay for domestic violence services through their own superannuation. We have made a historic investment in domestic violence services, which was announced in the last week. That is the proper way you deal with these issues. You don't try to make one policy and one solution—particularly superannuation—the answer to every other public policy failure that you are confronted with. If you treat superannuation like an ATM that you draw down on whenever you have a problem in any other area of public policy, you get the same sort of investment returns that you get at an ATM. You'll be getting one or two per cent on your superannuation balance per annum instead of the eight or 10 per cent in superannuation funds that you get at the moment. There's a basic structural region for that: if you invest over the long term, you get long-term returns and healthier returns over the long-term; but if you've got something in a cash-on-demand account, you get cash-on-demand sorts of returns. The policy is a bad one and it should be rejected. I congratulate the Minister for Women and the Minister for Social Services and the Treasurer for all the work they've done, and all those—women in particular, but not just those—in our party who have advanced this. In the 30 seconds I have available, I pay tribute to my dear friend and now deceased senator Linda White, who campaigned for this initiative for well over a decade. Were she in the Senate as this legislation is being passed, it would be one of the proudest days of her career. I commend her for the tremendous work that she did in advancing this great cause. 12:06 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer It's a real privilege to rise today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. I do so as a mother, as someone who has raised a family, as someone who faced the difficulties of running a family business, and as someone who was a mature-age student. I want to start today by sharing a story about one experience I had as a mother, why that moment mattered for where I am today, and how that shapes my thinking on this bill. Our family farm was struggling to stay afloat, so I decided to go to university as a mature-age student. I did this so I could help my money and make ends meet. I still remember the first day I walked in to enrol in a Bachelor of Economics at La Trobe University in Wodonga. I kept thinking, 'Can I really do this?' I had a baby in a baby capsule, and I felt so out of place. I had different clothes to everyone else, I was older—I felt like an outsider. I remember being suffocated by self-doubt. There I stood, the mature-age student with a baby in a capsule, knowing I didn't really fit in. I thought, 'This really isn't for me,' so I picked up the capsule and I went to leave. But then, as I was about to leave, Dr Julie Jackson, vice-chancellor, popped out of her office, looked at me, picked up the capsule and said: 'Do you need help with that? Come on in.' That gave me the confidence to stay on that path, and that path set me to where I am today. It is a story of women supporting women, yes, but it's also a story of barriers that stand in front of parents with young kids. If I didn't have that car or that capsule, I might never have even considered going back to university. To many Australians, these basic barriers stand in the way of important choices today—right here, right now. If you go into Baby Bunting today, you will see baby capsules that cost anywhere upwards of $500 or even $700. That's just one item. It's an important item, too; it gives mums and dads the capacity to travel safely with their little one. For many, that item means time with grandparents, but for others it's the difference between studying or working and finding needed support. For me, having that capsule meant that I was able to walk into that lecture theatre with Dr Julie Jackson. I use this example because, when we talk about supporting women, we have to face up to the fact that small barriers today can have big consequences for their futures. In the same way that those in big super like to argue, 'Super invested today will set you up for your retirement,' helping parents with their immediate cost-of-living pressures today helps them get set up for their lives. If I did not have the ability to travel with my baby to study as a working mum, I might've made different decisions. Today, under the cost-of-living crisis that we are seeing, Australian parents are confronting difficult decisions every day. The fact is it has never been more expensive to raise a baby than today. That is before you get into the broader cost-of-living pain that is all too present. Australian families are making decisions about what sorts of items they can afford to help them with their newborn. They're having to buy a cheaper pram or a cheaper car capsule. They're second-guessing medical options or they're paying for things on credit. It's really tough for too many parents out there. When we were presented with this bill, we saw an opportunity to give parents a choice. We saw an opportunity to help set them up today or save for tomorrow. The coalition supports the economic security of women and families, and we support this bill. But we call on the government and the crossbench to provide greater choice to families during this cost-of-living crisis. In line with that, we want families to have the choice to receive super on their government funded paid parental leave as this bill proposes, receive two-weeks additional paid parental leave of up to 26 weeks next financial year and 28 weeks the following financial year or receive a direct payment to eligible families to the value of the government's superannuation proposal to better help with the cost associated with their newborn child. In recognition of the fact that it has never been more expensive to raise a family than right now and in line with our commitment to support the choices of Australians, we are seeking to amend this bill to introduce more flexibility for paid parental leave. These are sound amendments that are good for parents and good for families. So I say to Labor and the teals: our amendments are a test for you. Will you trust Australian parents to make choices for their own families or will you make the decisions for them? Will you deny Australian parents access to cost-of-living relief when they need it most? Will you choose ideology over pragmatism? I cannot speak for the teals' own personal lives, as they may or may not have had the experience I had when I was a young mum facing barriers to my own aspirations. But I say to the teals: today Australian mums are facing those barriers, and we should help them if we can. This is about giving women choices, and, if the teals truly back women, they will back our amendments and give women and parents choice and agency on this policy. So this is a litmus test for the teals. Are they going to back Australians to make choices about their own money or are they going to back the government and the Greens? I hope the litmus test comes up blue, not green. Today, we remind the government that superannuation is not their money and it is not the superannuation industry's money; it is money that belongs to Australians. For young Australian families, they may need this money now more than ever. The coalition believes Australians should have that choice to use their superannuation entitlements to help them live their lives. Under the coalition's plan, should parents wish to direct their entitlements to super, they will be able to do so. Should they need immediate support with the costs of caring for their newborn baby, they have that choice too. Families are facing additional financial burdens due to this government's cost-of-living crisis, and the coalition will better support them to spend time with their newborns by providing choice. The opposition will support this bill. But we know that young families are struggling with rising costs and need more money in their pockets now, and we will support them in this endeavour. I ask everyone in this place, in fact, to support our amendments and help Australian parents get ahead. I thank the House. 12:14 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Labor has a proud history of enacting visionary reform that leaves a lasting legacy, a legacy that changes lives and strengthens our economic future. Labor introduced our country's first maternity allowance back in 1912. Labor created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and it was a Labor government, the Gillard government, that introduced paid parental leave in this country. The introduction of paid parental leave in 2011 was an absolute game changer for Australian families, who had waited decades for a national parental leave scheme, and, for many parents, the 18-week payment, fully funded by government, was the first time they could access any paid parental leave. This was a major milestone, and, after a decade of coalition indifference to the challenges faced by working families, Labor is once again doing the heavy lifting. From day one, the Albanese government has been working hard to build on the Labor legacy. We are modernising the scheme to meet the needs of Australian families who, right now, need greater support when it comes to getting the work-life balance right and, most importantly, giving children the best start in life. First, we passed legislation giving more families access to the paid parental payment with a more generous family income test so it's easier for parents to share care and making the scheme more flexible so that both parents can balance care for children and work. Then, earlier this year, we passed legislation to increase the length of the scheme, and, from 1 July, we have added two more weeks of payment, expanding the scheme from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. It's a significant increase that will see the scheme expand by two weeks every year until it reaches 26 weeks in 2026. All these changes mean paid parental leave is now more accessible and more flexible and better encourages shared care. It will support parents to take a step back from paid work, if necessary, and it provides critical financial support at such a crucial time. Parents can now share over $20,000 in support after the birth of a new baby. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill is the third significant improvement the Albanese government has made to paid parental leave. It will bring significant benefits for families. More paid leave will ease the cost-of-living pressures for young families and, importantly, create greater capacity for parents to share parenting, build careers and earn pay packets. For my electorate of Corangamite, with its rapid population growth—among the fastest in the nation—this will be life changing. In the latest census, the largest change in population in Greater Geelong was in the 30- to 39-year-old age group, with an almost 30 per cent population increase. The urban growth area of Armstrong Creek, where my electorate office is located, is now the youngest locality in Greater Geelong, with a median age of 30 years. There are similar growth areas in my electorate, with young families in Bannockburn, Ocean Grove and Torquay. These young families in my community and other communities across the nation will benefit directly from this bill's reforms. By adding super to paid parental leave payments, we're not just easing the cost-of-living pressures now but creating a framework to advance gender equality. Adding super to paid parental leave payments is such an important step. We know that women are often retiring with less super than men. Data shows the gap between men's and women's super at retirement is more than $50,000. That's a huge gap, and it's not acceptable that, as a result, women often do it harder in retirement. For some women, it means sleeping in their car, couch surfing or being exposed to family and domestic violence with few prospects for the future. It is time this changes, and that's what this bill and our range of reforms to strengthen paid parental leave are all about. The bill reflects the Albanese government's commitment to improve the lives of working families, support better outcomes for children and advance women's economic equality. We've listened to calls from the union movement, the women's movement, economists and employers: paying super on paid parental leave is a positive investment in the future of working women and the broader economy. For babies born or adopted from 1 July next year, this bill delivers all eligible parents with an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave as a contribution directly to their super fund. This super contribution will match the superannuation guarantee rate as at 1 July of the financial year the PPL is taken. It will rise with any future increases to the legislated superannuation guarantee. The contribution will be made annually by the Australian tax office after the end of each financial year. It will include an additional interest component to address any foregone superannuation fund earnings as a result of a payment not being made more regularly. More parents won't need to do anything further to receive their superannuation payment, and the claim process for paid parental leave will not change. Around 180,000 families will benefit from the changes, and once the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026, the maximum amount a family will receive in superannuation contributions is around $3,000. This bill and our two other paid parental leave laws before it send a clear message that the Albanese government is committed to a stronger parental leave system, and we want to see this reinforced throughout workplaces. To be clear, the government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer provided leave. We know that some employers are already paying super on paid parental leave, which is a great thing. Data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade, so businesses know this is the right thing to do. In 2023-24, 63 per cent of reported employers offered employer funded paid parental leave. This is up from 48 per cent in 2013-14. This positive trend demonstrates employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside government in providing paid parental leave. The government and employers should be working together to ensure that our Paid Parental Leave scheme is a strong and inclusive one. We know that, when businesses offer their employee funded paid parental leave entitlements, it's a major way to attract and retrain staff. While we encourage employees to do this, this bill is about strengthening the government scheme. All in all, this bill will make sure that we have an even playing field, and that's a great outcome for parents, particularly women, right across the nation. In addition to adding super to the government payment, this bill will ensure the parental leave framework in the Fair Work Act complements the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Unpaid parental leave in the Fair Work Act is an entitlement that supports parents to remain connected to paid employment while they care for their child. This bill includes a minor technical amendments to clarify drafting to ensure that parents can access keeping in touch days during a period of continuous unpaid parental leave to remain in contact with their workplace and help facilitate their return to work. This bill and our raft of reforms to strengthen paid parental leave will change lives. The reforms are recognition that families cannot always afford to access formal caregiving—child care, elder care or home care. For those families, women are often the ones to step up, and, when women step up, they usually reduce their working hours, leave the workforce or juggle multiple jobs both paid and unpaid. We know that women are less likely to be employed compared to men from young adult hood, reflecting that women are more likely than men to adjust their work to balance a career with caring responsibilities, particularly when children are young. That's why we've added super to paid parental leave. It is groundbreaking. Expanding the scheme to 26 weeks and boosting wages for feminised workforces is essential. As I said earlier in this speech, we know that women who do not have a level of super in retirement are vulnerable, and we should not accept the fact that women retire with far less super than men. This is one way to tackle this issue. In closing, I would like to recognise the amazing local advocates in my electorate of Corangamite who, for many years, have advocated for better outcomes for women in the workforce. They've called on government to lift wages for feminised workforces, for more funding to support women's health support and for paid parental leave to be stronger and more robust. The Albanese government hears their calls for reform, and we are acting in so many ways. It's not just about paid parental leave and super; it's about things like looking at women's health, the hidden things like endometriosis, which for years has not been considered as a disease—it is something that many women have to cope with—and miscarriage. These are things that women need support on, and we are delivering. We are acting. In relation to paid parental leave, we are making the scheme stronger to ensure that young families have more access to cost-of-living support today and to tackle the huge gender pay gap in retirement savings. Our government understands that, to build an economy that truly works for everyone, we must ensure it works for women today and into the future. Paid parental leave is at the centre of delivering that commitment. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and we will always work to strengthen it. It's good for parents, it's good for children, it's good for employers, and it is good for our economy. 12:26 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in favour of this amendment to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, and I hope that the government are deeply reflecting on the sensible proposal that we are putting forward to provide greater flexibility and greater choice to young parents with regard to how they structure their finances at a time that has got quite significant renewed financial pressures on them. We absolutely support superannuation being paid on paid parental leave, and that has been made abundantly clear by our lead speaker in the coalition and others that are contributing on this debate from our side of the chamber. It is an important reform and one that is very logical, makes a lot of sense and is overdue, as others have commented. As a parliament, we look forward to seeing this legislated. But we've obviously taken the opportunity to provide a very constructive and sensible suggestion to make this even better for young parents. It comes back to our fundamental position when it comes to superannuation. In the Liberal Party, in the coalition, we strongly support superannuation. In fact, we defend superannuation in this very parliament when certain policy positions are brought forward to punitively tax people's superannuation against what they believed and understood to be the policy settings when they were provisioning for their retirement and what they expected to be a reliable, consistent policy from all sides of politics. In my first campaign for this parliament in 2019, we again had to fight very passionately to defend superannuation from the greedy policy positions of the then Labor opposition to try and use superannuation as some kind of piggy bank to prop up exorbitant Labor government expenditure—taking the hard-saved retirement provisions from hardworking Australians to pump into recurrent government expenditure. That's not what superannuation is about. Superannuation is about people providing for their retirement and people being incentivised to put money away for when they reach retirement age, getting preferential tax treatment, which is absolutely appropriate for those retirement savings, as opposed to being taxed in the income year in which they've earned. It's obviously an extremely significant service to the Commonwealth government because everyone that provisions for their own retirement is taking an enormous burden off the taxpayer. Every time I speak on superannuation legislation, I say thank you to every self-funded superannuant out there who has saved for their retirement, who is self-funding, because we believe in a safety net. It's vitally important. There are people that need government support in their retirement, and they're entitled to it—absolutely entitled to it—but to every person that through their own savings does not therefore require the extent of support that others do in their retirement we are very grateful. We need to stop policy positions coming through this parliament—this isn't one of them, but we're talking about superannuation—changing the rules and moving the goalposts on people when it comes to superannuation. The other thing that's really important when it comes to superannuation is something that on this side of the House we understand instinctively but doesn't always seem to be something that's as appreciated by others: superannuation belongs to the people that have saved it. It's their money. It doesn't belong to the super funds or the lobby groups that think they've got these trillions of dollars that they can move around these battlefields and play games with. It belongs to each and every individual Australian that has a superannuation account, and they should get to decide what happens with their own money. The amendment that we've moved on the second reading, and the proposition that we're putting forward on this, is exactly in line with that fundamental value we have in the coalition, which is that superannuation should be available to support people in the best way possible for their retirement. That can include having access to it earlier to, for example, help buy a home or help offset costs when taking parental leave, because the costs that are offset at that stage in life put people in a position to be much more financially advanced when they reach retirement age. We've got this nonsensical insanity going on now where people are reaching retirement age and having to use a big chunk of their super to pay off the mortgage that they haven't finished paying off because they couldn't get into the housing market until they were their 40s. By allowing people more flexibility over their super, which is what we're proposing here, and letting people make their own decisions about their own money—which you wouldn't think was very controversial, but apparently some believe it is—we're empowering people to make their own decisions about their own economic circumstances and future economic security and also to make decisions that are specific to their particular circumstances. There should be nothing controversial about that, because we trust Australians to make their own decisions about their own financial futures in their best financial interests. That is human nature. Other than at a time when people are starting or expanding their family, they are never at such a heightened point of thinking about their family's future and the responsibility they've got to their family in raising their children and provisioning for their children's future and their own future as well. That's what parents think when they have children: 'I've got this additional responsibility, having had a child. As a parent I have to make sure I've got a plan to provide for them.' That is the most basic human instinct. What we're proposing is to let those parents, who we think know what's in the best interests of their family, their children and themselves, to have more flexibility about what to do and how to expend their own money. I implore the government to think very genuinely about this proposition. I think it's fair to say that it's a new idea that they would not have necessarily considered. There's an opportunity for us all to work together here, to come together and say, 'At its best, the point of this parliament—and the 151 people in this chamber from every corner of the nation, with different ideological hues, genders, ages, perspectives—is to, through debate, find a way to improve a piece of legislation.' That is in the greatest traditions of the Westminster system. What we're doing, by virtue of the amendment that the member for Deakin has put forward, is provide that great opportunity for this House to do exactly what we're here to do and improve legislation—a principle that we already support—enhance it and make it better for all the people that we represent. There's no harm in the government saying, 'Good idea—we hadn't thought of that.' That's the whole point of having these debates. That's why we have a legislature. The executive aren't the exclusive repository of the entirety of wisdom when it comes to public policy—neither is any one particular ideology or any one particular side of politics. There's no harm in them saying, 'We like your suggestion; let's work together on it, and let's make a decision that's in the best interests of the families that this policy position is designed to assist.' We absolutely support this bill. We would absolutely like to see sensible, enhanced flexibility around decisions people make about their own money. Do you know what? If this isn't a good idea, 100 per cent of people eligible for it will simply follow the path of having it paid into their super account. So, if it's not a good idea, it has no consequence whatsoever, because, if it's not a good idea, every single Australian that's given the option to make the choice will say, 'No, I want that exclusively going into my super fund'—no worries at all, and, in success, people have made a decision about their own money. My superannuation belongs to me. Everyone else's in this chamber belongs to them. Every Australian's super belongs to them, and it is their money. We've got to start remembering that. There's some pretty loose talk that comes from some members of the government about what they want to do with super and how they want to ratchet taxes up on it, referring to it as a 'honeypot'. That really frightens the average person that is perfectly entitled to think to themselves: 'My superannuation belongs to me. The tax treatment of it will not change. The goalposts won't be shifted. The rules won't be adjusted on me.' When you're talking about provisioning for your retirement, you're making decisions for decades ahead, not months or years ahead. When you leave the workforce and the government changes the policy settings on you and you don't have as much money as you thought you would because they ratcheted the taxes up on you, you can't really just re-enter the workforce a couple years later. It is not easy to do that. All the Australian people, particularly those approaching retirement age, want to know is that there is going to be consistency in and no change to the way in which their superannuation is treated by the government. On this side of the chamber, we will always defend that. We'll always stand up for self-funded retirees. We welcome the opportunity to support the principles of this bill before us, and we've got a very sensible suggestion to improve flexibility and empower individual Australians to make decisions about their own money. We implore the government to support us in that. 12:36 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. I often reflect, in this place, on my experiences working with women in the homelessness sector. It was an absolute honour and privilege to be a small part of their lives at a time of great distress, to hear their stories and to provide support and assistance to help them rebuild their lives. But, as with all issues, prevention is better than cure, and so it's important to understand how women come to be homeless, not just to pick up the pieces afterwards. It's cheaper, more effective and better for the humans involved to prevent crisis rather than to have to rebuild after the damage is done. When I spoke to women experiencing homelessness, it was clear that their current circumstances were the result of perfect storms of gender disadvantage throughout up our lives. They were often in low-paid jobs in casualised part-time employment, as is so common in the feminised industries. Recent pay rises in aged care and child care and the rise in the minimum wage, along with a groundbreaking IR legislation aimed at same job, same pay and closing loopholes to improve the rights of casual and gig economy workers, have made huge strides towards closing the gender pay gap, as can be seen by the record low gender pay gap of 11.5 per cent achieved by this government's deliberate policies and legislative agenda. These women also often had time off work for parenting, and these gaps in their employment—sometimes leading to the loss of a job—had huge financial impacts on their financial positions. When I had my children in 1999, there was only unpaid parental leave available. Women make up the majority of primary caregivers in this country, leading to what has been referred to as 'the motherhood penalty', where they face greater economic insecurity because of time out of the workforce to care for children. Women with children face an average 55 per cent drop in earnings in the first five years of parenthood. The effect of lower income compounds over time, increasing the gap between men's and women's superannuation balances at retirement. The data is clear: women retire with around 25 per cent less super than men, and we want to change this. We know inequality serves no-one. As adults, sometimes as older adults, these women are knocking on the doors of homelessness shelters, sleeping on the couches of friends and family or bouncing from one housesitting job to another, sleeping in their car in between. They're homeless, and, when you ask them about their financial resources, they have no savings and next to no superannuation. A $4,000 super balance was a pretty good balance in the homelessness sector. That's not going to help you in retirement. The campaign for paid parental leave and superannuation on paid parental leave has been a long one but an important one, and it takes a Labor government to undertake the groundbreaking reforms that make lives better for Australians. Labor has a long and proud history of improving the lives of Australian families with critical nation-building reforms. It was a Labor government who introduced our country's first maternity allowance back in 1912. It was a Labor government who created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It was Labor governments who delivered no-fault divorce, the single mothers' benefit and child support system, and it was a Labor government that introduced compulsory superannuation. It was a Labor government, the Gillard government, that introduced paid parental leave in this country. When paid parental leave was introduced, in 2011, it was a major milestone for Australian families. As the then minister for families, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, said in parliament at the time: This historic reform is a major win for working families who have been waiting decades for a national paid parental leave scheme. For many parents, the 18-week payment fully funded by the government was the first time they could access any paid parental leave, and this was a material advancement in workplace and economic equality for women, whose disproportionate share of unpaid care has long-term consequences for their economic security. Paid parental leave is critical for families, critical for women and critical for the economy. The Gillard government knew this, and the Albanese government knows it too. From day one, the Albanese government has been working hard to improve paid parental leave for working families. As a centrepiece of our first budget, we announced important reforms to modernise the scheme to meet the needs of Australian families. First we passed legislation so that, from 1 July 2023, more families have access to the payment with a more generous family income test, it's easier for parents to share care and they can take leave flexibly, with periods of work in between, to support them in the transition back to work. Then, earlier this year, we passed legislation to increase the length of the scheme. On 1 July 2024, we added two more weeks of payment, expanding the scheme from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. The scheme will further expand by two weeks each year, until it reaches 26 weeks in 2026. All these changes combined mean paid parental leave is now more accessible and flexible, and it encourages shared care. It supports parents to take a step back from paid work, and it provides critical financial support at such an important time. The Liberal and National parties have some weird ideological fixation against superannuation, against Australians being able to fund a comfortable retirement through superannuation. It's really short-term thinking to try and solve current societal problems by raiding the retirement savings of people in the future. It's a false choice, trading off your future against your present. Those opposite say they value superannuation and they value those who can provide for their own retirement, but they keep finding ways to encourage people to raid their super early in their career. Money that doesn't go into superannuation now or gets taken out of superannuation misses out on potentially decades of compound interest. People retire with tens of thousands of dollars less, and that is the story of women retiring with 25 per cent less superannuation. We need to have social policies that support people to have a better now and a better future. An example of this ideological fixation against superannuation is the coalition's much-disparaged plan to allow young people to fund a housing deposit through raiding their superannuation balance, which flies in the face of logic. Few young people have sufficient balance to be able to make any sort of significant difference to a housing deposit, but also adding additional money into the purchasing only increases demand and does nothing for supply and will, therefore, lead to higher housing prices, in addition to setting them up for a poorer retirement. Economists say it's bad policy and housing experts say it's bad policy, but those opposite still back it. Now I read in the media this morning, and I've just heard from a couple of speakers, that the Liberal and National parties think that parents should be able to take additional superannuation on paid parental leave as a cash lump sum rather than putting it into their super. This completely flies in the face of the actual purpose of superannuation on paid parental leave, which is about gender equity for women and addressing structural gender inequality. I was quite shocked by the words of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party a little earlier and of the previous speaker, the member for Sturt, daring this House to trade off the safe, secure retirement of Australian women. Their plan won't help women facing homelessness and poverty in the future, won't close the gender pay gap and won't change that superannuation difference between men and women retiring. The reason why the Albanese Labor government has achieved a record low gender pay gap is that we've addressed the actual structural issues that caused it. This bill is about resolving the issue of women retiring with 25 per cent less superannuation than men and of women retiring into poverty and homelessness. It's not okay. Paying super on paid parental leave is a positive investment in the future of working women and the broader economy. So I'm very disappointed at the words that I've heard from those opposite. This bill will mean so much for Australian families, for Australian women and for the economy. Women are 51 per cent of the community, and gender inequity is still an issue. Going back to the bill, how will it work? For babies born or adopted from 1 July 2025, this bill delivers all eligible parents with an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave as a contribution directly into their super fund. This super contribution will match the superannuation guarantee rate as at 1 July of the financial year that paid parental leave is taken. It will rise with any future increases to the legislated superannuation guarantee. The contribution will be made annually by the Australian Taxation Office after the end of each financial year. It will include an additional interest component to address any forgone superannuation fund earnings as a result of the payment not being made more regularly. Most parents won't need to do anything further to receive their superannuation payment, and the claim process for paid parental leave will not change. Around 180,000 Australian families will benefit from these changes. Once the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026 and based on a superannuation guarantee of 12 per cent, the maximum amount a family would receive in superannuation contributions is around $3,000. Having $3,000 in your hand now is a fair bit, but imagine what it will be with compound interest over the next three or four decades until your retirement. This bill and our two other paid parental leave laws before it send a clear message that the government is committed to a stronger parental leave system, and we want to see this reinforced through workplaces. The government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer provided leave. Paying super on government funded paid parental leave will continue to normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement like annual and sick leave. On this side of the House, we know investing in paid parental leave is an investment in families, in women's economic security and in the broader economy. The Albanese government's historic reforms cement paid parental leave as a Labor legacy. I mentioned earlier that I didn't get paid parental leave when I had my boys in 1999. One of the things that has driven me in my preparliamentary career working for the community, when I ran for parliament and in my work here in this place and in my electorate of Boothby is that I want better for those who follow behind me. I didn't get paid parental leave. I had that income gap and I have that gap in my superannuation. But I want better for those having families now and in the future. I want gender equity for the women who follow behind me, and superannuation on paid parental leave is an important part of that. It is not okay that women retire with 25 per cent less superannuation than men. Women are retiring into poverty. They're turning up in the homelessness sectors. The amendments being offered by those opposite do nothing to address this—nothing at all. It was Labor that first introduced paid parental leave in 2011. It's Labor that invests in a better future for Australian families. In our first term, we've made the most significant reforms to paid parental leave since it was introduced over a decade ago. Paid parental leave has changed the lives of millions of Australians. Our reforms make the scheme stronger and more suitable for the needs of modern families. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and we will always work to strengthen it. Super on paid parental leave is good for women, good for families, good for employees, good for business and good for the economy. We need to start getting those numbers of women ending up in homelessness down. This is a part of it. This helps with their superannuation balances. I commend the bill to the House. 12:50 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise today in full support of this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, as a critical gender equity measure that is desperately needed. There are long-term structural reasons why women who are over the age of 50 are the largest group now facing homelessness. This bill implements a straightforward and commonsense reform, paying superannuation at the usual rate of 12 per cent on top of Commonwealth government parental leave payments. Giving birth or adopting children and the months afterwards are among the most precious moments in our lives, moments that I think most people later look back on with rose tinted glasses, forgetting what it's like to be in the trenches in those early months and early years. But it is precisely because that time in people's lives really can feel like being in the trenches that they need all the support they can get. Paid parental leave is a critical part of that, and the additional payment of superannuation will be something that gives parents peace of mind about their future financial stability. I personally know women who went back to work earlier—sometimes far earlier—than they would have liked after having children because they were worried about the impact that so much time away from the workforce would have on their financial security, both at that time and in retirement. It's very clear that when it comes to having children it's generally women who still shoulder the majority of the burden, with 88 per cent of primary parental leave taken by women. It is a very significant disruption to a woman's career. The time away from work is long, It's often taken repeatedly and usually at a critical time in the development of a career. I've also spoken previously in this place of the multiple repeated and lifelong reasons women are often forced to take time out of the workforce. Many of the causes of women taking these breaks are unique to women—in other words, women are taking career breaks that men will never need to take. They include pregnancy and childbirth, maternity leave, and gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, heavy menstrual bleeding and menopause. That last one, menopause—a condition which afflicts 51 per cent of our population and has done since the dawn of time—is only now starting to be recognised and managed as the serious condition it can be for women. On average, women retire 7.4 years earlier than men at an age that often coincides with the onset of menopause. Leaving aside the significant impact this has on the economy and productivity, the hit to a woman's superannuation balance is also often immense. Other reasons women take breaks from the workforce more often and for longer periods than men include caring for children or caring for elderly, injured, unwell or disabled relatives. This time away from the workforce adds up. It leads to lower lifetime earnings; this is before taking into account the gender pay gap. It also leads to lower superannuation balances at retirement. In fact, in 2021-22, the gap between the median male and female superannuation balance approaching retirement was 25.2 per cent. It is this last issue that the government is addressing with this bill. This bill comes on top of other initiatives that I have supported to help women get back into and remain in the workforce. These initiatives and bills have included increasing the length of paid parental leave, making child care cheaper, introducing paid domestic violence leave, the establishment of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, ending pay secrecy clauses and requiring big businesses to publish their gender pay gaps. It is beyond time for the role that women play in all aspects of our society, as paid and unpaid workers, as paid and unpaid carers and, yes, as child bearers, to be properly recognised and properly compensated. The gap is big, but with measures like the payment of superannuation on paid parental leave it is incrementally decreasing. I commend the bill to the House. 12:55 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Paid parental leave is a fundamental support for working families. It is life changing for families to have that support at one of the most precious times of our lives—as the member for Mackellar said—to share that time with a new baby and to not have to worry about the fact that you don't have a wage or that you might not have a job to go back to if you don't have that time covered. Before the Labor Party introduced this scheme, so many people had access to nothing at all from their employers. That's why it is so important that we have this government scheme. It was a proud Labor achievement, pioneered by one of Labor's greatest reformers, the then social services minister, Jenny Macklin, under the Gillard government. Back then, in 2011, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a paid parental leave scheme. In 2009 the Productivity Commission released a report that was pivotal to the implementation of the scheme. The report laid bare the economic, productivity and social costs of not providing paid parental leave. It also explored employer provisions and assessed possible models for the scheme. As I said, apart from the United States, at the time, Australia was the only developed nation without a scheme, and, under the leadership of Julia Gillard and Jenny Macklin, Labor changed that. Jenny Macklin, in her speech introducing the bill which established the scheme, said, 'As a nation, we cannot continue to ignore the barriers to greater participation by women'. PPL removed one of the biggest of those barriers. In this term of parliament, the Albanese Labor government has proudly acted to improve that system that started over a decade ago. I am very proud at this moment to be standing in this place in support of this very important bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, just as I was in February last year when the House considered a bill to expand access to and the flexibility of, as well as fix equity issues, in the scheme and just as I was in November last year when this House considered our bill to extend government paid parental leave to 26 weeks, the most significant expansion of the scheme since its inception. The Prime Minister said, 'A parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for the economy.' But the reality is that without superannuation paid on PPL we send a message to women that the time they spend caring for their children is less valuable, that the time they spend recovering from birth is something less valuable, that the time they spend bonding with that baby is less valuable. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave is a matter of economic justice. Since Australia's compulsory superannuation scheme came into effect, women have been at a disadvantage when it comes to their retirement savings. Like the gender pay gap, the super gap is persistent and hard to close. This disparity is alarming when we look at the figures. Women on average retire with 28 per cent less superannuation than men. That's almost one-third less. On average, a man will have around $400,000 in his super account when he reaches the age of 60, whereas the figure for a woman of the same age is $318,000. This isn't just an academic statistic. This makes such a difference to people's lives in retirement and the outcomes for them. When the fastest growing cohort of Australians experiencing homelessness is women aged over 55, addressing the superannuation gap needs to be a priority. The superannuation gap is a direct reflection of the structural inequalities within our workforce and society, including the compounding effect of the gender pay gap. But one of the biggest factors, and I believe the biggest factor, is the time taken off work for caring responsibilities. Often the most significant period of this gender advantage is exacerbated when a baby is born. Women are overwhelmingly more likely to take on underpaid caregiving roles, often at the expense of their long-term financial security. In fact, according to WGEA, men currently only account for 12 per cent of all primary caregiver's leave taken. When women take time off to raise children their superannuation is effectively put on hold. I really do believe, as I say any time I talk about these things, that the greatest barrier to gender equality in the workplace is normalising the taking off of time to care for children for both men and women. This is such an important thing and that is why government schemes such as PPL are a key part of breaking down the barriers for that and normalising that and showing as a society we value people, men and women, taking time to raise the next generation. When women take time off to raise children, at the moment, their superannuation is effectively put on hold. While their income may continue as a result of PPL, the crucial contributions to their retirement savings are absent. This pause contributes directly to the widening of this superannuation gap. The current situation is quite unique to PPL. For almost all other types of leave taken from work, superannuation will be paid on it. Whether it is annual leave, sick leave, personal leave or long service leave, you can expect your employer to pay superannuation on that leave. It makes sense. Leave should be considered part of your ordinary earnings, a necessary part of your earnings, of your conditions at work with the payment of superannuation. Right now PPL is the exception to that rule and that is why the Albanese government with this bill is ensuring that superannuation will be paid on the government scheme of PPL. The decision to have children, to raise and nurture our next generation should not, the cost of financial security in retirement. By paying super on PPL we begin to correct this historic injustice. By setting this example with the government PPL, we hope the standard is being raised and that employers paying superannuation on their own parental leave schemes will follow. We saw when PPL was first introduced that employers that were not offering any leave for new parents began to and many also topped up the scheme to make it longer. It sends a powerful message that this is something that as a society we should value and support. This is a practical step towards gender equity in the workplace and in retirement, and it represents a significant investment of $1.1 billion over the forward estimates. This bill will implement a 2024-25 budget measure that was announced in March as part of Australia's national strategy for gender equality—Working for Women. It will introduce superannuation on government funded PPL for children born or adopted on or after 1 July next year. Parents or caregivers who receive government funded PPL will receive an additional payment based on the superannuation guarantee of 12 per cent as a contribution to their super fund. PPL has been life-changing for Australian families and Australian women and Australian babies, and we are making it even better. But it does not just benefit recipient families; PPL also benefits our economy and, when implemented right, it can advance gender equality. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families and more opportunity for women. The government has been working hard since we came to power to improve PPL for working families. We made changes from 1 July last year to give more families access to the payment, made it more flexible to support parents in the transition back to work, and made it much easier for parents to share care by creating a single payment that both parents can access. In July this year we delivered the largest expansion to PPL since it was established. By 2026, PPL will be expanded to a full six months, meaning families will receive an extra six weeks of paid leave following the birth of their child. This was in line with the original recommendations of that pivotal Productivity Commission report that recommended six months was the time that was best for health of the mother and baby. That was why they recommended that, and increasing it to the full 26 weeks has been something that we have wanted to be able to do for a long time, and many people have campaigned on that, as well as on the addition of superannuation. It has been something that many people have tirelessly advocated for. Again, I'm really proud that we are doing this now. Our work on PPL is just one part of a broader reform agenda. We've reformed our early childhood system to make sure that more Australians can affordably access that critically important early education for their newest family members. Just recently, we've ensured that early childhood educators are being properly remunerated for the work they do by fully funding a 15 per cent increase to the award wage. This is about ensuring that Australians get the best start to life, where families can take the time they need to welcome their little ones and, when they do decide to go back to work, are safe in the knowledge that their children are receiving the best care and education possible. This legislation is so important to close the superannuation gender gap. It's an issue of fairness and an issue of equality. It's an issue that the Albanese Labor government is addressing. Labor created our Paid Parental Leave scheme. We're improving it in this term of parliament, and we're making it even fairer here today. I want to briefly touch on the response that we saw yesterday to this legislation from those opposite. While waiting to give my speech, I had the pleasure to listen to the member for Sturt's contribution. The Liberal Party has once again decided to politicise superannuation. They will do anything to undermine the superannuation system, because it is one of their ideological obsessions. Just like the disgraceful thought bubble under the Morrison government when he decided that women fleeing domestic violence could raid their super to escape that violence, today the coalition would rather undermine the retirement incomes of women than pay super on paid parental leave. They pretend like it's a choice, and it's not. That was clear from listening to the member for Sturt earlier. He talked about letting people decide if they want to take a lump sum or have the superannuation paid on their PPL. This is where it becomes so clear that what they don't understand is when you have a lower income, you don't have the same choice. It's not the same choice to think about something that is off in the future when you're worrying about putting food on the table with a new baby and paying your rent and your bills. People who are on lower incomes dealing with the cost of living do not have the same choice about that at that time. They have to prioritise that time, and they rob themselves of their retirement savings—savings that would be growing and growing over the next 20 or 30 years that they would be working. It is the cruellest thing. For example, this week I met with a man called Lester, who came with ACOSS to talk about his life on the Austudy payment. Aside from that, he is a cancer survivor. He had to take some time out of work and study while he had his treatment, and he accessed his superannuation to help him through that time. He now will have basically no superannuation to live on in his retirement, and he is one of the people that needs that superannuation the most. People with low incomes and people who experience interruptions in their working life, like women, need this more than anyone. They need it to be growing. The coalition consistently thinks that people like that should make the choice to rob their future selves, because the coalition don't understand that it is not a choice for people who are just struggling to make ends meet, struggling to support their families or struggling with a health condition to raid their superannuation, which would be growing exponentially for them to live in their retirement and enjoy the comfortable retirement that they deserve. That is what this bill is about. It's about recognising the time that parents, particularly women, take off after the birth of a child. While we want to encourage men to take that time, and our changes to the scheme are doing that and making it easier for parents to share, it is the woman that gives birth, may breastfeed the baby, needs to recover from that birth and needs that time. It is not a decision for her to do the birth or not—that's part of the process—and therefore she is the one taking that time. Without paying superannuation, we are saying that that time is somehow less valuable than the sick leave, annual leave or long service leave that we pay our employees. So this is incredibly important, and I am incredibly proud. This is a great Labor scheme, a Labor reform, and we are building on it under this Albanese Labor government. 13:10 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak in favour of this legislation, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, which commits to superannuation being paid on government paid parental leave for children born or adopted after July 2025. I also commend the very sensible suggestions put forward by the member for Deakin, which provide those eligible women with choice as to how they take that financial contribution. I have been advocating for the government to commit to including superannuation on paid parental leave payments for the two-and-a-bit years that I have been privileged to be in this place. I am very glad that the government has now so committed. Having a baby, becoming a mum, is one of the most wonderful and precious experiences for women. However, it has traditionally come at a huge financial and professional cost. That financial cost can be in the short term and also in the longer term where superannuation has not been paid on parental leave payments. New babies are very lovable, but, especially for first-time parents, they can also be extremely stressful, and alleviating financial strain will remove some of that stress. In this place, we need to do as much as we can to improve the lives of Australian families and to make it far easier for Australians to have children. Paid parental leave, in that vein, changes lives. I was not able to get parental leave, back when Michael and I had our boys in 2006. I was very glad when the Paid Parental Leave scheme did come in in 2011, because, while we may all have differences in this place—we have come here from different backgrounds and with different ideologies and philosophies—and, as much as I disagree with some on the other side, I think that everybody I have met in this place is here genuinely to see that those who come after us have a better time of it than we did. This is certainly one area on which I am very committed, because numerous studies have shown that Paid Parental Leave schemes provide invaluable assistance to Australians—Australian parents, Australian workers, Australian employers and the Australian economy. Without doubt, paid parental leave is one of the most important economic measures that governments can adopt to support women, including Australian women. And when Australian women do well, their families do well, their communities do well, our economy does well and our country does well. Parental leave is currently the only income upon which superannuation is not paid. This legislation will correct that anomaly. While this will make life a little bit easier for Australian mums, particularly first-time mums, it is also important to note that this will provide invaluable assistance to dads as well, to enable them to spend some time, particularly in those early months, bonding with their new baby. Women should not be financially punished in retirement with lower superannuation because of their intrinsic role in childbearing. Despite many recent paid parental leave reforms, women primarily remain in the caregiving role and are faced with economic insecurity due to taking time away from the workforce to care for children. Women with children experience an average 55 per cent drop in their earnings in the first five years of being a parent. Having been a lawyer—I'm now a 'recovering lawyer', having been elected to this place—I know that many of my professional friends did have to make difficult choices as to whether, for example, they had additional children or whether they had a child in the first place. Often, they felt compelled to return to work to ensure their career progression and often at a time when they would have preferred to have had the choice to stay home looking after their children for a little bit longer. It is estimated approximately 180,000 families will benefit from the changes to this legislation when the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026. The legislation also has support from key stakeholders. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has recognised that addressing the superannuation gap is an important step in bridging the financial retirement gap many women face. It is important to note as well that this does only apply to women employed by the Commonwealth government, and, in that regard, the government sector has lagged behind the private sector. It's currently estimated that about 86 per cent of employers offer an employer funded paid parental leave scheme on the additional PPL. So employers overall in our country are to be congratulated for supporting their employees and Australian women and Australian families. I, and the coalition, support the economic security of women and families. However, at a time when the cost of living is so high, the member for Deakin has moved an amendment so that Australian parents who are eligible to get government funded paid parental leave will also have a choice as to how the proposed superannuation contribution is to be received. I'll just detail briefly the nature of that amendment. It is proposed that Australians entitled to this leave will have the choice to take that superannuation in one of three ways. It can be taken as a superannuation contribution and paid into their superannuation fund, or it can be taken as an additional two weeks of government funded parental leave, or it can be a one-off payment equal to the total value of the superannuation entitlement. In this way, women will have a choice as to how that financial contribution is paid. This reflects the overall philosophy of the coalition towards superannuation and towards people having the ability to have choice around the superannuation. Superannuation does not belong to the government. It does not belong to the superannuation funds. It belongs to the Australian who has earnt that superannuation. Therefore, they should have some choice as to how that superannuation is to be used. One of the major crises addressing our country at the moment is housing affordability, and that is why the coalition has proposed the very sensible policy that an element of superannuation can be withdrawn to enable first home buyers and also women who may need to start their lives again after a divorce or some other major life impact can utilise superannuation to purchase a home. We've put very careful caveats around the use of that to ensure that superannuation balances will be replenished. I think that's a very sensible alternative. I've been particularly interested to hear some of the comments from those on the other side in relation to the coalition's proposal, particularly the member for Canberra, who spoke passionately about people on low incomes—that they should really be compelled so that they in no way have any choice over the way this superannuation contribution is to be paid to them. She spoke about people on low incomes struggling to pay rent and to pay for food. I would say that is precisely the reason why the coalition have proposed this amendment. It may be now, at this time in a woman's life, that she may need the extra leave or she may need that extra financial payment, which will mean a lot more to her in the short term than invested in a super fund down the track. That does not mean that we do not support the underlying philosophy of superannuation and of ensuring that Australians can, as far as possible, be self-funded into retirement. What it does do is reflect the coalition's underlying philosophy that Australian adults are more than capable of making their own choices. I would say to the member for Canberra that Australian women on low incomes are very capable of making a choice around whether or not they want to put the money into superannuation, whether they need the leave, or whether they need the financial contribution now. For all of these reasons, I commend the philosophy and the underlying principles of this legislation. Superannuation should be paid on paid parental leave. I commend the fact that the government is now stepping up in line with a lot of the private sector employers; however, I do also commenced the very sensible amendments that have been put forward by the member for Deakin, in light of the fact that this will provide recipients with choice and flexibility. Choice and flexibility have been the two keywords we have heard over and over again from those on the other side about the importance of paid parental leave. This amendment will provide choice and flexibility to Australian women as to how the utilise that payment. For all those reasons, I do commend the bill with the amendment to the House. 13:22 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Improving paid parental leave is a crucial reform for this country. It's crucial for families, for women and for our economy. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 introduces a budget measure announced by the Treasurer earlier this year with the launch of the government's national strategy for gender equality, Working for Women. This bill introduces superannuation on government-funded paid parental leave for children born or adopted from 1 July 2025. We all know how vital paid parental leave is for the health and wellbeing of children and their parents. This legislation is supported by businesses, unions and economists who understand the importance of this reform for our economy and for gender equality. When gender equality is embedded within policy, Australia is the winner. Better systems of paid parental leave are essential for boosting productivity and participation. The Albanese Labor government understand that providing more choice and support for families—particularly women—is vital to our economy and our country. The legislation also builds on the reforms may last year by the Albanese Labor government. On 1 July 2023 the Albanese Labor government legislated changes to give more families access paid parental leave, made it more flexible to support parents in their transition back to work, and made it much easier for parents to share care by creating a single payment that both parents could access. This is in addition to the reform we are introducing from 1 July this year, which is the largest expansion to paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011. These reforms will make a big difference to the lives of constituents in my electorate of Wills. I was recently contacted by a young family in Hadfield in my electorate. The cost-of-living crisis has really been hurting people in this suburb, and right across my electorate. They told me about their struggles in juggling caring for their newborn son and trying to keep working at the same time. Ali works as a tradie while Nadia, his wife, works as a local small-business owner. Finding time off between those two jobs is incredibly difficult, as both work long hours in jobs that give them very little time off. Balancing this while caring for their newborn son is an immense obstacle to their livelihoods as well as the wellbeing of their family. Thankfully, on occasion Nadia's mother has been able to provide some assistance—we all know what a blessing it is when the grandparents step in. They have been able to provide some assistance so the pair can go to work to support the family. However, this is not always the case. This is not always possible. The result is an increased strain on the family and losing income because one parent has no option but to stay home and look after their young baby. I'm sure many in this place know stories that are similar. The Albanese Labor government recognises this, and that is why the reforms we are putting in place are targeted to ensuring that people in similar positions don't have to risk their livelihoods in order to care for their children. That should never be a choice. When people are left out of pocket because of the difficulties in finding carers or care for their children and having to take time off work, thanks to these reforms, families like these will be better off. It's going to make a huge difference to Ali and Nadia and many, many other parents. By expanding access so more families can access an extra six weeks of paid leave, the government is also ensuring that it doesn't affect people's retirements. Through this bill, the Albanese Labor government is investing $1.1 billion over the next four years to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from July next year. Taking time out of paid work to care for children is a normal part of working life for both parents. Paying super on government paid parental leave will help normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement and reduce the impact of parental leave on retirement incomes. The data is clear: when women take time out of the workforce to raise children, it impacts their retirement incomes. Women retire with, on average, about 25 per cent less super than men. Paying super on government parental leave is an important investment to help close the super gap and make decisions about balancing care and work easier for women. The Albanese government has made some historic reforms here. They cement paid parental leave as part of Labor's legacy in government. It was Labor that first introduced paid parental leave, and it's the Albanese Labor government that knows that paid parental leave is an investment in the future of our country. It's an investment in families and an investment in gender equality. Most of us know how difficult it is in that part of life, when you're having to raise young children while working full time. Both parents are working, trying to make ends meet, possibly trying to save for a home, trying to pay the rent, trying to put food on the table and trying to pay all the bills—the grocery bills as well as the utility bills and the energy bills. It's a difficult time in life. It's also a stressful time in life. Fundamentally, what we're doing here, with this bill and the bills like it, is providing cost-of-living relief. We talk about that. But, fundamentally, it's also about being in their corner and being there for the people that we represent in a way that actually makes a positive difference to their lives. We know how hard it is, and we know what the challenges are. Many of us have experienced them as well. We know what kind of support they need. Paid parental leave, super on paid parental leave and extending paid parental leave are going to be such a boon for those parents going through that period of life. I think it gives them another aspect to celebrate, which is more time with the baby. That emotional connection is so important for the emotional wellbeing of that family—our mental health and connecting with our kids and our families. You could say this social policy and these changes are, on one level, economic. Paid parental leave lifts the pressure on cost of living and doesn't force a parent to have to choose between staying at home to look after their child and going to work to put food on the table. That's certainly a big part of it. But the other part of it is deeply emotional, and that is the ability or the capacity and the opportunity for these young people, these parents, to spend that absolutely critical time with a young child, a baby. That's why this policy is so important. It's economic relief and it's cost-of-living relief, but it also goes to that fundamentally important part of life: the experience of being a new parent, bringing up the bub and spending that time with them, without the stress of having to choose—'Oh, gee, I've got to go to work; I can't spend that time, otherwise we won't be able to put food on the table.' This is the kind of policy that the Albanese Labor government is putting in place through this bill. It makes a difference to people's lives on multiple levels. That's why it is so important for us to support this bill in this place, to make that difference to those young parents going through these challenges and to send the message clearly to all of them that this government stands with them in their corner supporting them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 44 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Queensland Elections 44 13:30 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler It is time for a quick game of who am I. I am the youngest of six children born in Bundaberg to small-business owners. I went to Avondale state school and St Joey's in Bundaberg and Shalom Catholic College. I had a varied career, all the way from taking photographs of the 2000 Paralympic Games to owning clothing stores. I love the regions and love agriculture. I have a bachelor of environmental science in land management and a bachelor of science. I started working at the Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers in 2010, designing and leading research projects that increased productivity and profitability for the region's farmers. I was appointed the CEO of the Bundaberg Fruit And Vegetable Growers in 2016 and was the first female chair of the Queensland Horticultural Council. I have a proven track record of fighting for the regions. I was one of the loudest voices fighting for Paradise Dam, for the money needed for reconstructing the biggest infrastructure failure in this country's history, $600 million of which funding was cut by this Labor government. In fact, earlier this year, I received Australia's Woman in Horticulture Award 2024 at the AUSVEG Hort Connections gala dinner. Who am I? I am the Liberal-National Party's candidate for the state seat of Bundaberg. What does she want to do? She wants to show Labor the door in 2024, fix ambulance ramping, fix the problems with youth crime and advocate for Bundaberg. It is Bree Watson. Brown, Mrs Daisy May 44 13:31 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Daisy Brown—nee Cran—was a proud Kamilaroi woman—a sand goanna woman—born in 1935 in the scrub outside Walgett back at a time when Koori kids could be taken. Daisy's Kamilaroi culture and language were taught to her secretly by her uncles. Back then First Nations children's played in separate playgrounds and sat separately at school. Daisy's seamstress mother had to carry a certificate of exemption just to buy material in Walgett's white shops. It is no surprise that this apartheid environment saw Walgett deliver a no vote of 40 per cent in the 1967 referendum. Daisy was the first Aboriginal woman to work in the Walgett shops and to handle money. Daisy went on to have six children with Mick Brown—Marcia, Jenny, Patricia, Tracey, Peter and Michael. I pretended to be Mick and Daisy's seventh child and they let me. Daisy worked hard for her family as a cook, cleaner, after-school carer and teacher aid. She was the cleaner at St George State High School on the first day it opened when Peter and I were in grade 8. I left after year 12. Daisy was beloved by her many, many grandchildren, especially by the young Daisy Brown—Peter and Karen's daughter. Daisy passed away peacefully surrounded by her loving family yesterday morning. Thankfully, she was able to catch up with many of her grandchildren, who surprised her, and she passed away peacefully. As her son Peter said, 'The flame that never flickered is out.' Daisy Brown was a wonderful second mum to me. Vale, Daisy Brown. Live Animal Exports: Sheep 44 13:33 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to talk about the national ag rally yesterday, which was in support of the Keep the Sheep campaign. What a fantastic rally. Thank you to all those who attended the rally. People travelled right across Australia to attend the rally. A special mention goes to the West Australians who travelled far to be at this rally but an extra special mention to those truck drivers who travelled from Western Australia across the Nullarbor to be able to show that they care about WA farmers, so I give a special shout out to Benno and his fellow travellers. I wanted to make a special mention of the comments from Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition. With his comments, he has demonstrated very clearly that he understands that our WA farmers matter. In particular, our sheep producers matter, our transporters matter, our livestock agents matter and our stock feeders, well, they matter as well. We are going to fight to ensure that we end the ban on live exports for this generation, the next generation and the generation after. Thank you to our farmers and our pastoralists. Thank you for feeding us. Thank you for clothing us. Thank you for supporting our communities and making them sustainable. Let's keep the sheep. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm going to remind the member for Durack that, while I appreciate your passionate words, the wearing of a slogan on a scarf is highly inappropriate. Cunningham Electorate: Health Care 44 13:35 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham Last month I had the opportunity to speak with local residents in the community of Bellambi about the Medicare urgent care centre that opened just last year in Corrimal. I heard firsthand so many stories about what a great experience our local residents were having at the Medicare urgent care centre, and it was making it easier for them to see a doctor when their loved ones needed urgent care. I heard stories from local parents like Amy, whose daughter Lacy—who I gave a bit of a scare at the front door—had severe influenza, but, thanks to our Medicare urgent care centre, she was able to see a doctor immediately and get the antibiotics she needed rather than wait for hours at the emergency department. Local mum Stephanie told me that, thanks to the clinic, her son was able to get bulk-billed treatment for a sprained ankle using just her Medicare card, and they're looking forward to starting nippers at the Bellambi surf club. From these experiences it is clear that the Albanese Labor government are providing better health care for our local families after a decade of cuts and neglect from those opposite. It is very clear that these clinics are a great solution to long waiting times in our emergency departments, and they are providing better care options for patients that are faster and close to home. The Medicare urgent care clinic was a commitment that I made to my local community, and I will keep working as part of the Albanese Labor government to deliver stronger and more affordable healthcare service for all families in the Illawarra. Mackellar Electorate: Mental Health 45 13:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Last weekend I joined the 24 Hour Row for mental fitness. This event first took place seven years ago, and it was created by Mel and Nathan Wellings from the Avalon surf club in response to community tragedies. Last weekend, this event took place in 70 locations around the country. I recently hosted a roundtable in Mackellar on the topic of men's mental health, an issue that doesn't always get the attention it deserves. After all, 75 per cent of those who take their own life in Australia are men. It was attended by many local community groups from across the northern beaches of Sydney, groups that have stepped up in a remarkable way to provide tailored support to men in our community. These groups included Mongrels Men, which hosts regular catch-ups and activities to build connections and support for men and to encourage physical activity; Head Above Water, a charity which, since 2019, has raised over $760,000 for mental fitness programs; Man Anchor, which provides mental fitness programs to schools and businesses around Australia; Gotcha4Life, a group which also delivers preventive mental fitness programs Australia-wide; Saltwater Veterans, which seeks to connect and support veterans and their families through sailing; Men's Table, which holds get-togethers where men feel safe to talk about 'more than footy and shit'. I thank all these groups for supporting men and helping to build a healthier, better-connected community. Afghanistan 45 13:38 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt 'Every moment, you feel like you're in a prison.' 'If we can't speak, why even live?' 'We're like dead bodies moving around'—these are the haunting words of women living under the Taliban's brutal regime in Afghanistan. Since coming to power, the Taliban have erased women from society and taken their most basic rights from them: the right to speak, the right to education, the right to freedom. The new restrictions give the morality police the power to imprison women simply for speaking in public. It is a regime designed to silence and oppress. Three years ago, women in Afghanistan could run for president. Now they can't even decide when to buy groceries. Here in Australia, women have the right to speak. We have the right to run for parliament and to lead. I will not stop using my voice to stand up for the women and girls of Afghanistan. Their voices may be stolen, but their ideas and their dreams of freedom cannot be. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 45 13:39 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan This speech was written by Ryan local, Fleur, 12, for the Raise Our Voice program. I'll begin with one of Australia's most prominent problems; the high expense of university degrees. I was honestly baffled by the cost of degrees that are necessary for our community. In my vision of 2034, I want lower-to-no-cost teaching degrees, to make it more accessible for everyone. This means more teachers, and more children will be properly educated. My kids can enjoy the thrills of learning and be motivated to be the giver of knowledge, a teacher themselves. We also need more funding and awareness for mental health, more focus on the 'inside-stuff', as I would call it. Hospitals where no one is ashamed of their illness, and inclusivity is key. Maybe all citizens could contribute a fee to fund these hospitals, and that would total up to quite a few million. This solution can lower suicide rates, make families happier, save lives, and uplift everyone's spirits. My generation will inherit what the current government is making, and honestly, I want to inherit a good country. If we want change, we need to be the change, and the only way to do that is to try, try, try. With lower fees for any Uni degrees and more hospitals specifically for the 'inside issues' (mental health issues), we can move step by step to a Better Australia. Cancer Support Fundraising 46 13:41 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Every week 14 Australian families are given the heartbreaking news that their child has cancer. Last Thursday evening outside Parliament House I caught up with two Australians with big hearts on a big adventure, raising money for some of our youngest Australians living with cancer. Ed and Seb are now 2,100 kilometres through a more-than-2,700-kilometre walk from Brisbane to Melbourne to raise money for Camp Quality. The journey has taken them from Brisbane, down the coast, across the Blue Mountains, down to Nowra, up to Canberra and now up into the Snowy Mountains. Camp Quality is an amazing charity dedicated to improving the lives of children living with cancer. Ed and Seb's Big, Big, Big Walk for Little Kids has raised more than $70,000. They have done an amazing, selfless job and they are doing it memory of their mate Dave, who lost his battle with mental health. Ed and Seb and their mate Dave were all Camp Quality vollies, and saw firsthand how important the camps and fun days are for children on the long road of a cancer journey. What has filled their cup on this amazing journey has been the support of their families, the friends who have joined them for sections of this odyssey, and the communities across Australia who have greeted them. This September you can put your best foot forward by getting behind the efforts to bring positivity, fun and laughter back into the lives of kids facing cancer. Child Care 46 13:42 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey This morning, I attended a briefing on the proposal by Thrive By Five to legislate universal access to early childhood development. One of their aims is to legislate that childhood education and care, maternal and child health services, playgroups, child-focused community programs, paid parenting leave, and family tax benefits should be available to all. I applaud their aim, but I was driven to make the comment that in the two years or so since this government came to power they have invested more than $8 billion forward and beyond into child care, yet I am responsible—not personally responsible, but my electorate of Grey is listed as the worst childcare desert in Australia. All this extra money, this $8 billion, is not going to my centres that do not have child care. There are no extra places for the small communities that have populations under 3,000 to 5000. There are no extra places in communities that have 1,000 people. There has been a clampdown on regulations which has virtually shut down new entrants to the family day care system, where people are just scared off by the regulation and the rigmarole that surrounds it. All I'm asking is that they make it top of their aim to address the childcare deserts before we lavish more on the rest of Australia. (Time expired) Police Remembrance Day 46 13:44 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney When I was in the WA Police Force, I remember arriving early for my 12-hour shift. I would kit-up, complete the handover and hit the road straight. I would run from job to job, never knowing what would be coming next—domestic violence, assault, traffic crash or sudden death. Police officers must be observant and fully on high alert. We must make decisions, sometimes in a split second. It is so full on, and, when the shift was completed, we were mentally and physically exhausted. Like many police officers, I didn't get enough sleep, because different shifts mean a different sleeping pattern. I remember how difficult it was to switch my brain off from work. Many police officers are burnt out. The recent news of a WA police officer's death deeply saddened me. I send my heartfelt condolences to his family, to his brothers and sisters in the WA Police Force and to all who knew him. Later this month is National Police Remembrance Day, a day to honour our police officers who lost their lives performing their duties and through illnesses or other circumstances. Our police officers give our community so much, and they deserve our care, compassion and support. Sturt Electorate: Cedar Woods Properties Ltd 46 13:45 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to record my deep opposition to the appalling proposal to rezone land in Glenside to allow 20-storey towers to be built at the Cedar Woods development. There's a public meeting this Saturday that my colleague and friend the state member for Bragg, Jack Batty, has organised. I look forward to joining local residents, who are really deeply traumatised by this dangerous proposal that will cause significant destruction of property value. There are people who invested in that development, believing in good faith that the way in which it was presented by the Cedar Woods developers would be the way in which it panned out, and now they're seeking to rezone land to put 20-storey towers there. It will completely change the aspect and the atmosphere of that development, and I really call on the state Labor government to rule this out. They're undertaking consultation and saying they're going to consider allowing it to go ahead. That is absolutely appalling and absolutely disgraceful. Of course, as soon as they allow 20-storey towers in Glenside, we'll have them right through the eastern suburbs. The infrastructure of the eastern suburbs is not capable of dealing with that kind of dramatic scarring of our skyline and enormous uplift in population. Our schools are burgeoning as it is. The state government are failing to invest in the infrastructure we need for the existing population there. They need to rule this out, stand by residents and block that redevelopment. Australian Federal Police: United Nations Assistance Mission to East Timor 47 13:47 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Twenty-five years ago, unarmed Australian Federal Police were deployed to Timor-Leste as part of UNAMET, the United Nations Assistance Mission to East Timor. Over 1,400 Timorese people lost their lives, including 14 locally employed UN staff, due to the violence around this time. The AFP service contributed to the popular consultation, where 78.5 per cent of the Timorese population voted for independence. Last month, nine members of the Australian Federal Police's 1999 UNAMET unit returned to Timor-Leste to attend commemorations. President Jose Ramos-Horta presented the nine AFP members with the Timor-Leste Solidarity Medal in recognition of their contributions to the people of Timor and their bravery during the popular consultation. They deserve much praise for their work during the popular consultation, which was in extremely challenging circumstances, and I welcome the fact that the AFP has had a look at some of the individual conspicuous acts of bravery by our AFP personnel. I look forward to joining ADF, AFP, DFAT and other Timor veterans on 20 September in Darwin. Petition: Ambulance Services 47 13:48 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I have a petition here to the honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives and the members of the House of Representatives, calling on the Victorian state government to provide the resources to enable a second paramedic ambulance night shift in Hamilton. Currently, there is only one ambulance for the 13-hour night shift. Some paramedics came to my office a few months ago, raising this concern with me. They are deeply, deeply worried that, if they are called out, there is not an ambulance in the Southern Grampians, in Hamilton, that is able to go to another emergency. An ambulance has to be called from one of the surrounding towns. The time that it takes could mean the difference between life and death. They want to see funding for another ambulance so that that service can be provided for that 13-hour night shift in Hamilton for Hamilton and the Southern Grampians. They got a petition going. It's got over 1,200 signatures on it. You have to remember that Hamilton has a population of 8,000. Obviously, Southern Grampians is larger than that. It shows the concern around this. I seek leave to table the petition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon, you've been here a long time. Has the petition been approved by the Petitions Committee? Mr TEHAN 210911 The petition has not yet been approved by the Petitions Committee. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Are you seeking leave to table a document? Mr TEHAN 210911 I am seeking leave to table a document. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is leave granted? Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 I ask that the member table the petition with the Petitions Committee as per the practice. Child Protection Awareness Day 47 13:50 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter It's not okay to hurt a child. Every day it's not okay. Today is Child Protection Awareness Day. Children are the most important part of our society, and they should be able to live a safe and happy childhood that sets them up for the future. Astrid Hocking is an inspiring lady in my electorate. She has dedicated her entire life to looking out for children and has fostered more than 90 children over 24 years ranging from emergency stints to long-term stays. Astrid has been an integral part of the Hearts and Hands Community Development umbrella hearts project. Because of her hard work, today is the second Child Protection Awareness Day. I'm proud to be an ambassador for it. The statistics are confronting. In 2021 and 2022 alone, there were 72,900 cases of child abuse and neglect in Australia; that's a number that is not acceptable. Children are our future and it's our responsibility to make sure they grow up in an environment of love and support, safe from the dangers of abuse and neglect. If our young people thrive, we all thrive. So, let's join together on this Child Protection Awareness Day. Wear an umbrella ribbon, have an open conversation and share this simple but important message: it's not okay to hurt a child; every day it's not okay. Beenleigh State High School: Paddock to Plate 48 13:52 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise the efforts of the 105 students at Beenleigh State High School who recently took part in the annual Paddock to Plate luncheon. It truly is from the school paddock to the plate in the school hall. For over 10 years, the Paddock to Plate lunch at the Beenleigh State High School has been a central community event that is looked forward to widely by the community. At this event, the best of the agriculture and hospitality departments of the school come together. Not only is this a great initiative of the school and one that benefits participating students, it is also a terrific opportunity for the local business community to get involved. I'd like to thank some of the impressive business sponsors of this terrific day out for supporting not just today but also providing career pathways for the students. If it weren't for the likes of Gotzinger Smallgoods, De Bertoli Wines, Poppy's Chocolate and many others, these events would not exist. It's wonderful to see the students become involved and contribute positively to our community. The luncheon was prepared under the guidance of the executive chefs Dayan Hartill-Law and Grant Parry, and sourced from the school's farm and from local businesses. I want to commend Beenleigh State High School principal Matthew Morgan, along with the rest of the school leadership team, for a terrific job. May next year's be even bigger and better than this year's. Women in Parliament 48 13:53 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid In 2022, we saw something quite extraordinary in this country. We saw a record number of female independents elected to our federal parliament. We also saw the first majority female federal government that this country has ever seen. It did take a long time for us to get there—121 years, 31 prime ministers and 47 parliaments. Truth be told, it could only have been done by the Labor government. Only a Labor government could have elected the first majority female federal government. That is because 30 years ago this month courageous men and women stood up at our national conference and voted for affirmative action. It's because of that vote that I am here in this chamber. I say to those opposite, to the Liberals and the Nationals, who are languishing at just one-third female representation in their parties, that you too have the opportunity to have more female representatives. A federal takeover of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party is now being proposed. You could perhaps have chosen a female to be on that committee of three men, but sadly you didn't. But there is a real opportunity, and I hope you take it up. Farrer Electorate, Albanese Government 48 13:55 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to highlight the abject mess Labor is creating for my communities in my electorate of Farrer, not by what it is doing but more by what it is not doing. Farmers from my electorate took a six-hour bus trip to yesterday's national ag rally outside Parliament House. Among the issues they wanted those opposite to hear were huge concerns about too much water being removed from my irrigation communities. Did the water minister make the effort to listen? Did the minister for agriculture come out to meet them? They were too busy—unavailable. The minister for regional development is sitting on over $200 million for the Growing Regions Program. Successful applicants were finally announced in May. Four months on, not one cent has rolled out the door. The communications minister is responsible for the coalition's highly successful Mobile Black Spot Program—at least it was successful until this government got hold of it. Towers promised have been secretly abandoned since Labor came to office, with the funding apparently devoted elsewhere. A question sent to Minister Rowland's office on another tower in Farrer is now two months old—again, no response. The health minister has meeting requests in his in-tray relating to a state funding impasse on the new Albury-Wodonga hospital. What's the response? Nothing. We raise these issues a lot on this side of the House. When elected, the Prime Minister declared he would govern for all Australians. What we want to know is: when, Prime Minister, when? Vocational Education and Training 48 13:57 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Neglecting vocational training is a betrayal of Australia's young people and our nation's future, and the Liberals and Nationals did exactly that. They undermined the high quality of Australia's TAFE by cutting $3 billion and trying to privatise it by stealth. The Albanese government, though, has unlocked billions of dollars to build Australia's skills and prosperity. We've placed TAFE at the heart of the VET sector, supporting TAFE with baseline funding commitments—and 500,000 fee-free TAFE places, which the students up in the gallery are going to love. After almost a decade of neglect and mismanagement, Australia is again on track to equip young Australians with the skills we need and to provide pathways for all Australians. We're training Australians for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. This is the beginning of a future made in Australia. I was able to see this for myself just recently when I visited students at Midland TAFE in my electorate of Hasluck, with the Minister for Skills and Training, Andrew Giles. It's about to get a brand-new renewables trade training centre, where students will work on wind turbines to prepare for the jobs of a clean energy future. They're learning in a world-class training system that lets all Australians access affordable and free skills to propel our workforce, industries and economy forward. It's a clear choice: a Labor government that delivers on education and skills, or a Liberal-National coalition that only delivers neglect. (Time expired) Agriculture Industry 49 13:58 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Thousands of farmers made the long trip to Canberra yesterday to peacefully protest the Albanese Labor government's destructive anti-agriculture agenda. It is the first time in 40 years that farmers have united together to come to this place. As the member for Mallee and a proud member of the Nationals, I was proud to stand with my Nationals and Liberal colleagues out there with our farmers. But where was Labor? Where were the teals? I didn't see one of them—not one. The minister for agriculture wasn't there. The Prime Minister wasn't there. The farmers wanted to see the Labor government standing up for their interests. All of our electorates want to see that Labor are not anti-agriculture, but all we're seeing is policy after policy after policy that is anti-agriculture. On this side of the House, we will continue to stand with our agricultural farmers, from one side of this nation to the other. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 49 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games, Australian Paralympians 49 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This morning in Sydney we welcomed home Australia's Paralympians. They had some special carry-on baggage with them on the plane: 18 gold medals, 17 silver and 28 bronze. That all adds up to an outstanding games, and it's a credit to the entire Australian team, led by co-captains Angie Ballard and Curtis McGrath and the chef de mission, Kate McLoughlin. Seventeen of our athletes won multiple medals. Swimmers Alexa Leary, Callum Simpson and Timothy Hodge each won two golds and a silver, as did Lauren Parker in triathlon and cycling. I want to give a shout-out to Vanessa Low, who I caught up with today. She got an earlier plane there, so she was there when the other athletes arrived. And I had the opportunity to have a FaceTime with her from Paris. Vanessa broke her own world record, to win gold in the long jump in front of her husband, Scott, and two-year-old son, Matteo. Every Australian Paralympian brought such joy and pride to the coaches, support staff and their loved ones, whether they were on the ground with them there in Paris or cheering from home, and one of the comments that was made by many of the Paralympians who had also completed in Tokyo is what a difference it made having crowds there in Paris, including their loved ones and other athletes and friends being able to cheer them on. As we tuned in to watch our athletes over those 11 days, we also learned some of their stories: the adversity they had overcome, the challenges they had faced, the determination and commitment that took them to the very pinnacle of world sport. In the most intense moments, in the glare of the brightest spotlight, that strength of character shone through. Every Paralympian would have had a moment in their life when they set themselves the goal of representing Australia. Perhaps it was a junior coach who recognised their potential, or a parent or loved one who urged them to chase their dream and made sacrifices to see them realise it. Equally, they might have found inspiration in the deeds of other athletes in Sydney or Athens, Beijing, London or Rio. That is the tradition that their names indeed belong to now. That is the inspiration that they have given to the next generation of Australians. Together, there are girls and boys around our nation dreaming of wearing the green and gold at Brisbane in 2032 because of everyone who competed in Paris. The next generation of Paralympians have been given a great new sense of what they can achieve, a new goal to strive for and new heroes to follow. Today I was pleased to be joined by the Minister for Sport, the Minister for the NDIS, the Minister for Social Services, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and other shadow ministers. It was a great honour for all of us to be there. And it was a great way to spend the morning, I must say. To every member of the Australian team, I simply say: You've done yourself proud, you've done your families proud, but you've done our nation proud as well. Australia is so proud of you. Congratulations, and welcome home. 14:04 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the Prime Minister for his fine words and thank him for the opportunity to be there in Sydney today. On behalf of the Leader of the Nationals, as well as shadow ministers Sukkar and Ruston, who were with me this morning: it was an inspiration to be in the company of those Paralympians—and not just the Paralympians but the incredibly proud family members and supporters who were there in the hangar. Qantas do an amazing job in bringing back our Paralympians and Olympians and have done so since the end of the Second World War in the case of the Olympics and since 1968 in terms of the Paralympics. It is quite an amazing event. To look up at the screen and see the pride that the parents and the supporters there had in those athletes, whether they medalled or not, was quite phenomenal. Those young kids who are in the audience today and those who have been watching on their television screens over the 11 days have been inspired, themselves, to overcome their adversity, to deal with their disability and to put themselves into a training regime or to have the commitment to represent their country in Los Angeles or in 2032 in Brisbane. That is an amazing achievement in and of itself that our Paralympians should be so proud of. I want to thank very much the chefs de mission, the co-captains, Angie and Curtis. Curtis's own story is quite amazing, having served our country in uniform. To go on to achieve a gold medal at this Paralympics was quite a phenomenal story. I was incredibly proud, as I know every Australian was, to see the Paralympians performing on-screen. We medalled in nine different sports. I pay particular recognition to Brendan Hall, who I've watched grow up as a very young fellow. He first competed in 2008 in the Paralympics. He lived in my electorate and he lost his right leg to chickenpox. The work that he has done—his family supported him through a training regime in the pool, and the way that he has lived his life and the way that he has turned his opportunity as a Paralympian into an outstanding achievement is the story of many of those that we met today. As Australians, we should all be incredibly proud of the Paralympians, of the medical support staff, of all of those around them who provided support to allow them to represent our country in the best possible way. We pay true and full tribute to them today. MINISTRY 50 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 50 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be absent from question time for at least today. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 50 14:07 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Core inflation in Australia is higher than that of every major advanced economy. It is higher than in the US, the UK, Canada, the Euro area, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand. With falling disposable income and sticky high inflation hurting households, why is the Albanese Labor government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families go backwards? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page is warned. No-one is to interject before an answer begins. 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about international comparisons, and I can't do better than to quote Michele Bullock, the RBA governor, who said this on 6 August 2024: We didn't go as high as the Fed. Our interest rates are lower I would observe than the Bank of England, the US Fed, Bank of New Zealand, all have interest rates up above 5%. Bank of Canada did too. We don't. The peak headline hit on an annual basis at 7.8 per cent in Australia. That was before we came into government. It is now half. We have halved inflation from where it was in 2022. In the UK, it is 11.1 per cent; in New Zealand, 7.3; in Canada, 8.1; in the US, 9.9. The current cash rate here in Australia is 4.35 per cent. In the UK, it's five. In New Zealand, it's 5.25, and, in the United States, it is 5.5. The cash rate under the Leader of the Opposition as Assistant Treasurer was 6.75. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. The member for Moreton—order! Mr ALBANESE R36 The member for Deakin thinks it was funny that his leader was once Assistant Treasurer. The joke was on the Australian people— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 because the bizarre joke is that those people come in here when inflation was double what it is today when we came into office— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 when employment has seen some 980,000 jobs, when we see wages increasing rather than decreasing, which is what those opposite wanted to see, when we see the workforce participation rate at record levels, when we see the gender pay gap at a record low of 11.5 per cent, and when we see the economy, of course, under us, experiencing modest growth. It's modest growth but growth nonetheless. If those opposite had their way and implemented the more than $300 billion of cuts, we would've seen a devastation in our economy had we followed what they wanted to do. Cybersafety 51 14:10 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Communications. How will the Albanese Labor government's proposal to limit young people's access to social media help and support Australian families? 14:11 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question. Parents shouldn't have to go it alone when navigating the complex world of social media for their children, and that is why the Albanese government will introduce legislation this year to limit the age of access for social media. Now, our approach is not about telling parents how to raise their children. Their perspectives on this have been and will continue to be central to our approach. But parents have told me—and I'm sure they've told a lot of us—that they are overwhelmed trying to manage their children's social media access and they want cultural and legal change. The Albanese government will drive that change. Parents know that social media has many benefits, including a way to connect and communicate with friends and family and, even, as an important tool for neurodivergent children. However, it can be addictive. It can be an avenue for cyberbullying and algorithms that surface harmful or adult content that children shouldn't see. That is why we are considering the perspectives of young people in our decision to limit access to social media. Young people expect governments and the platforms to protect them from the harms that they experience. The Butterfly Foundation notes that, over the past 12 years, there has been a staggering 200 per cent increase in 10- to 14-year-olds with diagnosed eating disorders in Australia, and this has occurred at the same time that we have seen the growth and prevalence of social media use by young people and the influencers they are exposed to on these platforms. We know that social media has become a megaphone for the Andrew Tates of the world, who are cultivating narratives of misogyny and gender based violence. Limiting young people's access to social media is an important step in a comprehensive approach to online safety that is central to the Albanese government's agenda. Rarely is any government decision met with universal agreement. But so many parents are telling us that they need help, and our government will support them. We cannot eliminate every harm facing young people online, but we can take steps to make their world safer than it is now. Our government will do all we can to address the harms that social media companies are unable or unwilling to address themselves. Economy 51 14:13 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Treasurer. Last week, the Treasurer accused the RBA of smashing the economy. BlackRock's Head of Australia Fixed Income, Craig Vardy, has said it was because the Treasurer 'needs a diversion from the key part the government is playing by not reining in spending to help bring inflation down'. With falling disposable income and sticky high inflation hurting households, why is this government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families go backwards? The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for industry is warned. Rules apply to both sides of the chamber. The Treasurer has the call. 14:14 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin If the shadow Treasurer doesn't think that the combination of global economic uncertainty, persistent inflation and higher interest rates are slowing the economy, it's no wonder that nobody takes him seriously. Those are facts borne out in the national accounts. They are self-evident. As any objective observer of our economy knows, higher interest rates are slowing our economy. I don't think that is a particularly controversial point; it's a point I have been making since at least June this year. I'm asked whether I take responsibility for our part in the fight against inflation and I do. As the Prime Minister said a moment ago, in the year of our election, inflation was 7.8 per cent, and now it has a three in front of it. Inflation has halved on our watch, and, in that regard, I do take responsibility for the fact that we've turned two huge Liberal deficits into two big Labor surpluses. I do take responsibility for the way we've designed our cost-of-living help to take the edge off some of these price pressures in our economy. I take responsibility for banking almost all of the upward revision to revenue. I take responsibility for working with my great colleague in the other place Minister Gallagher to find almost $80 billion in savings. I take responsibility for the fact that Governor Bullock has said that our two surpluses are helping in the fight against inflation. I've made it very clear that we had a role to play in the fight against inflation, and that is one of the reasons why we are making welcome and encouraging progress. Because we're getting inflation down and because we're getting wages up, real wages are growing again in our economy after they were falling substantially when we came to office. I would really welcome the shadow Treasurer asking us again and again and again about our cost-of-living help, about what we're doing to keep wages again, about how we've turned his deficits into our surpluses. The worst thing that we could do in these circumstances, where people are doing it tough and growth in our economy is soft and subdued, is pull out $315 billion in spending, which is what those opposite are proposing to do. They're proposing to cut $315 billion in spending. That includes the pay rise for aged-care workers. It includes the indexation of the age pension, new medicines on the PBS, cheaper child care, veterans' compensation, natural disaster relief, strengthening Medicare, urgent care clinics, housing, defence spending, energy bill relief, rent assistance, women's safety, the parenting payment, border force, cheaper medicine, biosecurity, paid parental leave, fee-free TAFE, the prac payment and connectivity in regional and rural Australia. That's what's in their $315 billion in secret cuts. Is it any wonder that they won't come clean about them? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. We're not having a repeat of yesterday. I'm asking all members to show restraint today to improve the tone of the chamber, to cease interjections. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom was interjecting continuously through that answer. He'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Groom then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 There are consequences for actions in this place. There has been far too much noise all week. Today things will be quiet. Cybersafety 52 14:18 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Minister for Youth. What have young people told us about the impacts of social media? What is the Albanese Labor government doing to limit the negative impacts and to keep children and young people safe online? 14:18 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the wonderful member for Holt for her question. The member's question goes to the voices of young people with regard to how social media impacts them. Incorporating the views and experiences of young people is an important part of what the Albanese government does, and it's why we established the Office for Youth in 2022 and why we have a youth engagement program. Through that program we've heard from a range of young people about the effects of social media. It's important that I convey some of those responses here in this House. One young person said of their social media experience: 'I know personally in my life I've come across things that I probably couldn't even fathom. I think that parents really aren't aware of the extent of the things that their kids come across.' Another added: 'I have friends who have been cyberbullied. Everyone knows someone who's had bad experiences with social media, whether it's cyberbullying or body image issues.' Yet another one said, 'There are negative impacts of social media, such as mental health, body image and lack of attention span, which impacts study, schooling, education.' These quotes from young people demonstrate that children and young people are alive to the negative impacts of social media on their mental health and on their social and physical wellbeing. Everyone has a responsibility to keep children and young people safe. Children on social media are in terrifying proximity to some of the worst and most damaging things online. It's linked to poor mental health, low self-esteem, disordered eating, cyberbullying, anxiety and depression—just to name a few. Parents are concerned, teachers are concerned and youth workers, social workers, doctors, psychologists and young people themselves are concerned. That's why the government are taking steps to protect children and young people online, both through our education, which scaffolds digital literacy for children, and through appropriate regulation: our age verification trial and our plans to introduce legislation to set a minimum age for accessing social media and gaming platforms. Social media companies also have to own their responsibility for the safety of their young users, and we have a responsibility to make sure that they do it. I want to end by sharing the words of Lucia Frazzetto who wrote an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about her own experiences with social media. She says: Social media's influence extends beyond the screen, subtly but significantly changing how we live and perceive ourselves. A ban wouldn't be about taking something away but about giving the next generation a chance at a more authentic, balanced life. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 53 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Ballarat Future Shapers, Fairley Leadership Program, National School Chaplaincy Association 53 14:21 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House today that in the gallery are members of the Ballarat Future Shapers, a local leadership program hosted by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; members of the 2024 Fairley Leadership Program, hosted by the member for Nicholls; and members of the National School Chaplaincy Association, with chairman Tamsyn Cullingford. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Renewable Energy 53 14:22 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy () (): Minister for mines, is the bipartisan 2050 zero emissions target a lying hypocrisy, or is Australia's coal industry to be abolished, with 48,000 jobs and one-twentieth of the economy to vanish? Since solar and nuclear in India is as likely as the Bullamakanka Progress Association achieving a moon landing, doesn't the 2050 target condemn 600 million people, half of India, to continue to live without electricity? Surely HELE power stations, the Brazilian ethanol model and brilliant Minister Plibersek's kelp-diesel algae ponds avoid the reality of Clausewitz's chilling aphorism, 'When goods don't cross borders, then guns will'? (Time expired) 14:23 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I wouldn't want to limit the ambitions of the Bullamakanka Progress Association, but I do note India's really important commitment to lowering emissions. They are of course the world's most populous nation, and they do have important ambitions. I can assure the member for Kennedy that the coal industry will not be abolished. It absolutely will not be. As he says, it supports 48,000 jobs in this country and the industries associated with it. But the question does go to the challenge of meeting very important global net zero targets, given the global demand for reliable and affordable energy, which, as he says, so many people around the world want. Australia's net coal exports were worth $61 billion last year, and thermal coal was worth $37 billion, and that is royalties and taxation that go into the revenue of governments of coalmining states around the country and support infrastructure like hospitals and roads. What we do know is that demand for coal is changing around the world as the global economy seeks to decarbonise and reach net zero emissions, but the International Energy Agency's World energy outlook 2023 did confirm the role of Australian coal in the global energy mix. I have been really fortunate, before I was minister for resources but then since being minister as well, to be able to visit coalmines in New South Wales—I might add, not quite Queensland—such as the Bloomfield open cut mine in Maitland with my friend the member for Paterson—the daughter of a coalminer—a family company. There is a 80-year plus relationship with customers in Japan and that will continue for some time to come. I also experienced quite remarkable underground longwall mining at the Ashton mine with my friend the member for Hunter, who has been an actual coalminer as opposed to the cosplays that we see in some other places. It is very hard work and those people who work in those mines deserve every cent they get for the hard work they do. That is why this government is really proud to have same job, same pay so that those that work alongside one another with the same experience doing the same jobs do get treated equally for the hard work that they do keeping our economy going well into the future. Cybersafety 53 14:25 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government working to protect children from online harm? 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Robertson for his question. This is all about giving children and giving parents peace of mind and giving them support because they are concerned about their young ones and the impact that social media is having on their lives, on their mental health, on their physical health and on their capacity to engage in real experiences with real people rather than live their lives virtually. I want young Australians to grow up playing outside with their friends on footy fields, netball courts, swimming pools, wherever they like. Today we saw again a celebration of great athletes when we welcomed home the great Paralympians, who can inspire people to get out and really participate. Too often social media is not social at all. The internet, of course, connects us in ways that previous generations could never have imagined. But it has also created new harms which we as a government must address and which governments around the world are trying to address. The solutions aren't simple. That is why we need to have trials and make sure that we get these things right. Regulating technology is difficult. We are entering a new frontier but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. We must. This is a complex problem. Young people can find ways to get around rules. Because the occasional young person might get access to alcohol doesn't mean we say we won't worry about restricting alcohol to under-18s; we will just let it all rip. We actually regulate and we organise. As a society we make decisions about protecting people and that is what this is about. We have a comprehensive agenda for online safety that we've been implementing since the day we were elected: backing the eSafety Commissioner and quadrupling its funding; exploring a duty of care in the Online Safety Act review; tackling kids' access to pornography through new mandatory industry codes, passing legislation to ban the creation and distribution of deepfake pornography; establishing the Joint Select Committee on Social Media to hold platforms to account; and funding the age assurance trial in this year's budget in May. We are acting with purpose to get this right, getting on with the job of protecting Australian citizens. In particular, our focus here is protecting our youngest Australians during that period of life where their brain is developing, where they are developing as human beings and interacting with each other as well. It is a responsibility that we have and it is one we are taking seriously. Economy 54 14:29 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question as to the Treasurer. Last week the Treasurer accused the RBA of 'smashing' the economy. Former RBA board member Graham Kraehe said: For the treasurer to then be coming out and saying, 'Well, this is the Reserve Bank's fault.' I don't think another serious economist in the country … would agree with that …' With falling disposable income and sticky high inflation hurting households, why is this government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families are going backwards? 14:29 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks very much to the shadow Treasurer for a very similar question, that I answered comprehensively a moment ago. It usually takes the shadow Treasurer a bit longer than the rest of us, so let me go through it once again. First of all, any objective observer of the economy understands the combination of global economic uncertainty, persistent inflation and higher interest rates is slowing our economy—in our case, quite considerably. That's a point that I've been making since at least June of this year. That's the first point. The second point is that, when it comes to taking responsibility for our part in the fight against inflation, I do. I've said that not just earlier today but on a number of occasions, and I mean it. I take responsibility for the fact that, when we came to office and there were deficits as far as the eye could see, and there was a trillion dollars in Liberal debt and not enough to show for it— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume has asked his question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 we took important steps to try and clean up the mess that we inherited. We turned those two big Liberal deficits into two big Labor surpluses. We found almost $80 billion in savings. We showed spending restraint because we knew that, if we got the budget in better nick, we would help the governor and the Reserve Bank in their fight against inflation—our fight against inflation. Governor Bullock has acknowledged that our two surpluses are helping in the fight against inflation. So I make the same point again. I also repeat the point that I made earlier, which is that the worst thing for any responsible decision-maker in our economy to be contemplating right now is $315 billion in secret cuts. The reason why they haven't come clean on that is that it's a recipe for recession. Theirs is a recipe for recession. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Moreton is warned. The member for Hume on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 On relevance: the question did not mention alternative approaches, particularly alternative approaches that don't exist. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer was not asked about alternative policies or alternative approaches. He has allowed some contrast. For the remainder of the answer I'm going to ask him to return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The point I'm making is that, more than acknowledging that people are doing it tough, we're doing something about it. This side of the parliament is trying to help people doing it tough. That side of the parliament would harm people with $315 billion in secret cuts to Medicare, pensions and payments, and that would be a recipe for recession. If they had their way, Australia would be in recession, wages would be lower and there'd be no help with the cost of living. We make no apology for taking a different approach. We are maintaining a primary focus on the fight against inflation. That's one of the reasons why it's halved since the year that we were elected. It's why we've got the budget in better nick. It's why we're rolling out meaningful and substantial cost-of-living help in the most responsible way we can. The most irresponsible thing that we could be doing right now is pulling hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy, as those opposite want to do. They should come clean on their cuts so that people know the choice. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for McEwen. Workplace Relations 55 14:33 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, and are there any threats to Australians earning more? 14:33 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the honourable member for the question. Today is the day that the opposition finally gave up that, yes, they do want to cut people's pay. Today is the day that they finally decided to make the announcement. We've gone through a decade where wages were being kept deliberately low, and every time this government came forward with proposals that would get wages moving, we knew that they'd vote against them. But it wasn't until today, when we saw today's papers, that it was there, crystal clear, as to the fact that they intend to repeal the laws that have got wages moving. We've referred to them wanting people to work longer, and the Leader of the Opposition had committed, before today, that they were going to repeal the right to disconnect—for every worker to be on call 24/7, whether they're paid to be or not. But, when they say that they'll repeal the laws—and they're clearly talking today about same job, same pay—you need to realise the sorts of amounts of money that they are taking to the next election as the cuts to household income. When we exercise our right to disconnect on Thursday afternoon, a whole lot of us will fly home. When people fly home, are you going to tell the Qantas flight attendants what you're intending to do to their pay? For a long time, the labour hire loophole—and it was legal—was used by Qantas, and other companies used it as well, and the pay differences were not small. You had an enterprise agreement that had been negotiated, and then you could use a labour hire company, in this occasion that was also run by Qantas, and undercut the rates that were agreed to. For the flight attendants you might be seeing on Thursday afternoon, if they're employed directly, it's $68½ thousand a year that they're on. If they're employed through the labour hire company— Mr Caldwell 306489 You need a whiteboard. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fadden is warned. Mr BURKE DYW under labour hire loophole, it's not $68,000; it's $52,000—that's the award rate—a $16,000 pay cut. It's good enough for them to help you onto the plane. It's good enough for them to serve you a drink while you're on the plane. It should be good enough to say they won't get a pay cut, and yet, when you commit to abolishing same job, same pay, you commit to cut people's pay. At the exact time that people are under pressure, the answer is not for people to be paid less. We knew that he believed in cuts. We knew that when he was health minister when he cut Medicare. We knew, when they talked about their $315 billion of secret cuts, that they had more cuts in store, but now, as of today, we know the cut to workers' pay is not simply an instinct for them; it is a commitment. (Time expired) Economy 55 14:36 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Treasurer. Independent economist Chris Richardson says, 'Governments are throwing a lot of money at the symptoms of the cost-of-living crisis, but that worsens the cause of it.' With falling disposable income and sticky, high inflation hurting Australian households, why is this government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families are going backwards? 14:37 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin In terms of people doing it tough, I think it speaks volumes that, when the home affairs minister was talking about a $16,000 pay cut, those opposite were chuckling about it, and doesn't that just go to the core of their approach and the difference between their approach and our approach? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We do more than acknowledge, as he did in his question, that people are doing it tough. We are acting on it. We're helping with the cost of living, and we're getting wages moving again and we're getting real wages moving again as a consequence of our efforts. If the commentary that the shadow Treasurer read out is true now, imagine how much worse it would be if we were still running the huge deficits that we inherited from those opposite. They were running massive deficits when we came to office, and we turned two of those huge deficits into two substantial surpluses. The Reserve Bank governor has made it really clear that those surpluses are helping in the fight against inflation. When we came to office, the most recent budget from those opposite had zero savings in it. We found almost $80 billion in savings, and we put that in our three budgets. When those opposite were spending almost all of the upward revision to revenue from a stronger labour market and stronger commodity prices, we banked almost all of it. We did that deliberately. That's been an important part of our fiscal strategy which has helped us clean up a lot of the mess that we inherited from those opposite. And because of our efforts, we're saving tens of billions of dollars in interest repayments, which is also helping the budget and making room for us to provide cost-of-living help and invest in housing, energy and skills and in a future made in Australia, and those are important objectives. When I'm asked about government spending, we're in the third year, now, of a three-year parliamentary term. It is long past time. If those opposite think there is $315 billion too much spending in the budget then it's incumbent on them to come clean on their cuts and to tell us where those cuts will come from. He asked me about government spending. I'm allowed to talk about the implications— The SPEAKER 53517 No, the Treasurer can pause because the member for Hume is entitled, under the standing orders, to raise a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 My point of order is on relevance. The question did not ask about alternative approaches, particularly alternative approaches that exist in the Treasurer's imagination. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer was asked about government spending, so if he wants to do a compare and contrast, he'll need to make it relevant to government spending. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The point I'm making is that those opposite wouldn't know the first thing about responsible economic management. They said that they would deliver a surplus in their first year and every year after that, and they went none for nine. We've been here for two years and we've delivered two surpluses—two for two. None for nine and two for two—that's what I'm attempting to remind the shadow Treasurer of. As I've said multiple times already, the governor of the Reserve Bank has said that our surpluses are helping in the fight against inflation. Those surpluses wouldn't be possible without our responsible economic management and cleaning up the mess those opposite left behind. Economy 56 14:40 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government's responsible budget management right for the risks Australia faces and the pressures people are under? What approaches were rejected? 14:40 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I'm very grateful to the member for Higgins not only for the question but also for the way that she engages in the big economic questions that we confront as a government. As we know, the national accounts last week showed that growth is slow and subdued in our economy, and a big part of that is consumption going backwards and, especially, discretionary spending falling. This is another reminder of the pressures that people are under. But, as a government, we have decided and we are determined. We don't just acknowledge the pressures that people are under; we are actually doing something about it. That's why we're rolling out cost-of-living relief: a tax cut for every taxpayer, energy bill relief for every household, rent assistance, cheaper medicines, cheaper early childhood education, and getting real wages moving again. Our primary focus is on the cost of living and rolling out cost-of-living help. It's the major part of our efforts, but it's not the only part. We are doing this at the same time as we get the budget in better nick then we inherited. As I've said a couple of times, we inherited a couple of huge deficits and we turned them into substantial surpluses. Before the end of the month, Minister Gallagher and I will release the final budget outcome for the year that has just finished. The surplus for the year just finished will be in the mid teens in terms of billion dollars. That means a $170 billion turnaround in the budget in two years. That's a $170 billion turnaround from the mess that we inherited to the budget position that we've delivered in just two years in office. It wouldn't have happened without our responsible economic management and, as I've said a couple of times, the governor has made it clear that our surpluses are helping in the fight against inflation. The key here is that we've maintained the right balance between a primary focus on inflation and recognising the risks to jobs and growth in our economy. Because of the balance that we've struck, inflation has halved, we've avoided recession, there are a million new jobs, real wages are growing again, and every taxpayer is getting a tax cut. There are no shortages of risks to the economy, and one of them sits over there. That's because they want to slash $315 billion in spending without coming clean on where those cuts are coming from. They need to come clean on their cuts. That $315 billion includes cost-of-living relief, pension indexation, Medicare and funding for medicines and veterans— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is now warned. Dr CHALMERS 37998 If those opposite had their way, we'd be in recession right now. There would be lower wages and less help for people doing it tough. They want to sacrifice Australians and their jobs and their economy to their divisive politics, and their approach is a recipe for recession. Our approach is about managing the economy responsibly in a way that's right for the risks that we face and the pressures that people are under. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I remind the chamber that the members for Page and Barker, the Minister for Industry and Science, and the member for Moreton are all on warnings. Consequences for actions will occur. Reserve Bank of Australia 57 14:44 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Treasurer. The ABC's Jacob Greber has reported a senior Labor figure described RBA governor Michele Bullock as a 'nutter' and the RBA in general as 'barbarians' and 'weirdos'. Has the treasurer spoken to Wayne Swan or Paul Keating in relation to these matters? With falling disposable income and sticky high inflation hurting households, why is the Albanese Labor government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families go backwards? The SPEAKER 53517 The first part of the question probably was more of an opinion, but the last part of the question was definitely in order. The Treasurer has the call. 14:44 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I'm happy to answer all of it. First of all, I haven't spoken to those former treasurers for more than a couple of weeks now, and I know that those opposite are going around pretending and getting people to write that somehow there's been some element of coordination with the comments that former treasurers have made about these matters. I note that they're perfectly fine with former treasurer Howard, former treasurer Costello and former treasurer Frydenberg being out there in the public debate, but, if you're a former Labor treasurer, you've got no business being involved in it. I haven't spoken to either of those two guys about their commentary or their views in at least a couple of weeks. As regards the other part of her question, about the comments reported by Jacob Greber, who's up there in the gallery, I think I was asked this yesterday or the day before, and I said I completely disagreed with those comments. I completely and utterly disagree with the comments that were made to Jacob in this regard. I think I've already made that clear, and, if I haven't, I make it clear right now. I have a respectful working relationship with Governor Bullock and her colleagues. As Governor Bullock has made it clear a number of occasions, we work well together. We've got the same objective; we've got different responsibilities. Because of our combined efforts, we've seen inflation halved since the year we came to office, and that's important. That's the main game. The primary fight is against inflation at the same time as we roll out cost-of-living help, get the budget in better nick and invest in a future made in Australia, in housing, in energy and in skills. So I don't agree with those comments. I haven't discussed them with anyone. I've answered this question before, and I'm happy to answer it again. Early Childhood Education 57 14:46 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham ():  My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to boost wages of early childhood workers and keep prices down for families, and what has been the response? 14:47 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the cracking member for Cunningham for her question. Childcare workers and early educators are some of the most important workers in this country and some of the most underpaid. They deserve a pay rise. That's what this government is doing—a 15 per cent pay rise. That means more than 100 bucks extra each week from this December and a pay rise of about 150 bucks from next December. All up, that's a pay rise of about $7,800 a year for more than 200,000 Australian workers. Tomorrow, I'll introduce legislation to make that happen. That's on top of the tax cut that our early educators got a couple of months ago, a tax cut of more than $1,100. That's more money in the pockets of some of our lowest paid workers because of this Prime Minister and because of this government. They are pay rises and tax cuts that wouldn't have happened if the Liberal Party had their way. We're not only delivering pay rises and tax cuts but also putting in place a cap on childcare fees at 4.4 per cent to keep prices down for parents. Under the Liberals, childcare fees went up by a whopping 49 per cent—double the OECD average. The changes that we put into place last year have already cut the cost of child care for more than a million Australian families, and this is the next step: a pay rise for workers and a cap to keep prices down for more than a million Australian families. Here's just a sample of the reaction. Julie Price from the Community Child Care Association said this will be life changing. Georgie Dent from The Parenthood said this is historic. Lisa Bonza, an early educator who's been working in early education for more than 20 years, said this is monumental. From the Liberal Party there's been silence. But they can't be silent forever. The last time we introduced legislation to increase the wages of early educators, they didn't just oppose it, and they didn't just vote against it; they said in this place that they condemn it. And in the Senate they described it as—I'm telling the truth!—an absolute disgrace. Now, we know the Liberal Party was born in the 1940s. The problem is: they're still there, and their policies are still there. Every time we try to lift the wages or cut the taxes of people on low incomes, they stand against it. It's time the Liberal Party made their way to the 21st century and support people who do some of the most important work in this country and back this bill when I— (Time expired) Gambling Advertising 58 14:50 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. In your previous answer you talked of giving parents peace of mind and protecting children, yet you are being selective in which harm you address. Young Australians are being targeted and groomed to highly addictive, harmful gambling, through constant advertising. Are you ignoring the vast majority of Australians' call to fully ban gambling advertising as soon as possible? 14:50 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Warringah for her question, and the answer is: no, we are not. My government has done more to act against harmful gambling than any government in Australian history—more, in just two years, by undertaking action. We know, when we look at where the harmful gambling comes from, that almost 70 per cent of that harmful gambling is actually poker machines. More than or around 15 per cent, off the top of my head—it's about that figure—comes from lotteries and lotto and those tickets as well. I'm yet to see anyone stand up in this place and advocate banning, completely, all advertising of lottery and lotto tickets. We know that gambling advertising, when it comes to sport, is too prevalent. We know that it can be really annoying, apart from anything else, when you're watching sport. And we know that we want to take an approach which is responsible but makes a difference as well. That is why we've undertaken serious consultation with everyone: from Tim Costello; from the antigambling lobby, who don't want advertising stopped, many of them—they want gambling stopped, full stop. That is the truth of their position. That's a legitimate position for them to take, but it's not one that I have, in terms of stopping all racing, for example, or stopping all gambling right across the board, because I think that that would have an impact and be an intrusion into people's personal liberties which is not appropriate in my view. I respect that some people have a different view. I do not. I do not believe that the state has an absolute right to determine the behaviour of individuals across the board. What I do believe, though, is that we have a responsibility to restrict the damage that harmful advertising can do. I think we need to act, and part of what we are looking at—you go to age—is the impact of when ads are available; it's a major factor here. I don't think there should be any advertising aimed at children. I don't think there should be any advertising during G-rated programs and during children's programs. I think that we need to make sure that adults can be adults but children can be children. The connection as well between sport and gambling needs to be broken, because sport should be enjoyed for what it is—sport. And that is an important focus of why we are undertaking these reforms. Paid Parental Leave 58 14:53 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government providing equity for women in their retirement through paying superannuation on paid parental leave, and what threats are there to this support for parents? 14:54 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Tangney for his question. Of course, over the last two years, the Albanese Labor government has boosted and modernised our paid parental leave, after a decade of neglect and attacks from those opposite. We've made our paid parental leave more flexible, to meet the needs of modern families, we've improved means testing and of course we've extended it to 26 weeks. Additional weeks have already been rolling out, supporting families right now. Our government's next step is to legislate paying superannuation on paid parental leave to ensure that those taking paid parental leave get the support they need at the time of the birth of a baby but also don't lose out in retirement. We know that women on average retire with 25 per cent less superannuation than men of the same age. That's why we've introduced legislation to pay superannuation on paid parental leave to help close that gap. I was asked what could threaten the support for women in retirement. I thought, when we announced our plan for superannuation on paid parental leave, which was a key recommendation from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, that we would receive bipartisan support. Indeed I was very heartened when the member for Farrer in March in response to our proposal said she believed in closing the superannuation gap. I, of course, then thought there would be bipartisan support. However, just as the Leader of the Opposition has opposed every single cost-of-living measure that we have introduced, they've now decided to oppose our plan to pay superannuation on paid parental leave. This latest thought bubble from the member for Deakin to encourage parents to cash out that payment and not put it towards their retirement savings is just another idea straight from the IPA. This is the opposition's latest attack on superannuation, a system that ensures that people can retire in dignity. It's also, of course, those opposite's latest attack on paid parental leave. I don't need to remind the House that those opposite, when they were in government, called women who took paid parental leave from both the government and their employer double dippers. They demonised them on Mother's Day. What an insult to Australian women. It is only Labor that can be trusted with our superannuation system, and it is only Labor that can be trusted with paid parental leave. Economy 59 14:57 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls My question is to the Treasurer. Over the last two years, Australian households have experienced the largest fall in disposable incomes in the OECD. That's more than the UK, the US, Germany, France, Italy and Canada. With falling disposable income and sticky high inflation hurting households, why is the Albanese Labor government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families are going backwards? 14:57 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I say respectfully to the honourable member that, if we agree that Australians are doing it tough, and I think that we do, it's a bit bizarre that those opposite want people to earn less and they want them to get less help with the cost of living. They didn't want everyone to get a tax cut. They didn't want every household to get energy bill relief. They presided over a decade of deliberate wage stagnation and wage suppression. So those opposite have got to make up their mind. They've got to decide whether they agree that people are doing it tough—we understand that people are doing it especially tough—and they've got to decide whether they want to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Part of the problem would be if they swung the axe at Medicare and pensions and all of the things that they're contemplating in their $315 billion in cuts. That would make things worse rather than better. The Leader of the Opposition has jumped— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Spence is warned. Any member can take a point of order. The member for Hume is doing so. He has the call. Mr Taylor 231027 On relevance: there was no mention of alternative policies in the question, and the Treasurer's imagination is running wild as always. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume was given the courtesy for a point of order. He does not need to add extra commentary to every point of order. The Treasurer is entitled to some compare and contrast, but I'll just draw him back to the question to make sure he is being relevant. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The point that I'm making is that I believe that everyone in this parliament understands, as indeed I believe every Australian understands, that people are doing it tough right now. The choice that we have, as the people's representatives here in the House, is whether we want to work hard to try and help people who are doing it tough or whether we want to further harm people doing it tough. If you attacked Medicare, as they did last time they were in office, if they cut wages like the Leader of the Opposition is proposing today— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Treasurer just needs to make sure his answer—he wasn't asked about the opposition, he wasn't asked about alternative policies, and he wasn't asked to give an opinion. As much as the Treasurer is giving his answer about the opposition, he won't be able to do that for the remainder of his answer. He's done a compare and contrast. He needs to return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We acknowledge, as the questioner did, that people are under pressure. We're doing something about it. We're providing a tax cut for every taxpayer to help people. We're providing energy bill relief for every household to help people. We're getting wages moving again to help people. We're making medicines cheaper to help people. We're making early childhood education cheaper to help people. We've boosted rent assistance twice in a row because we want to help people, especially, in that instance, people doing it tough in the rental market. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume is going to cease interjecting for the remainder of this answer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The acknowledgement that people are doing it tough is important, and I think there's a consensus on that. The difference is: the choice that we have to make here is helping people or harming people, and we're helping people. We're doing that in the face of deeply irresponsible and deeply divisive opposition from the Liberal and National parties. We will continue to help people where we responsibly can, rather than acknowledge but then ignore the pressures that people are under. Vocational Education and Training 60 15:01 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australians to gain the skills that are in demand while easing cost-of-living pressures? What approach to skills has the government rejected? 15:01 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I acknowledge her long career working in education, skills and training on the South Coast, including as a TAFE teacher. I also anticipate a very long career for her in this place. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I can't hear what is being said, so now a general warning is issued, which means that, if people interject, they'll suffer the consequences. I can't hear the answer. The questioner was given the respect of being heard in silence. We're 10 seconds in, and this is a wall of noise. It's not on. It's not happening. The Minister for Skills and Training has the call. Mr GILES 243609 The member for Gilmore knows that a strong VET sector is critical to Australians getting secure and well-paid work and for businesses in her area and all of our areas getting the skills they need. Yesterday was National TAFE Day. Together with educators from right around the country on this side of the House, we celebrated the group of people who make so much possible for so many—Australia's TAFE teachers. Our teachers, in a real sense, are our TAFEs. Their passion, their leadership and their hard work is helping Australians get high-quality skills for today's workforce and for tomorrow too. TAFE changes lives and plays a vital role in giving people skills they need for secure and well-paid jobs. It's where so many of our nurses, early childhood educators and tradies begin their careers. After years of being systematically run down by those opposite, the Albanese government is committed to realising the potential of TAFE for the benefit of every Australian. With fee-free TAFE, we've now helped more than 500,000 Australians secure their place. That's half a million people learning in-demand skills to work in construction, housing, aged care and cybersecurity, easing cost-of-living pressures while helping businesses get the skilled workers they need. Last week the National Centre for Vocational Education Research released its latest report, and that revealed a substantial increase in the number of students undertaking VET last year—more than five million students taking part in some form of nationally recognised training, up by more than 10 per cent. The data also shows that more students are studying VET qualifications, with numbers increasing by 6.7 per cent to 2.1 million last year from the year before that. This is growth principally driven by domestic government funded students, including fee-free TAFE. The most popular qualifications included early childhood education and care, and that's not surprising because, together with fee-free TAFE, there has never been a better time to be an early childhood educator. We're making studying more affordable for future educators, and, by backing a 15 per cent pay rise, we are making sure, when they graduate, they'll be paid fairly for this important work. But, while we're investing in Australians and helping students with the cost of living, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition describes fee-free TAFE as 'wasteful'. She is wrong because there is nothing wasteful about training our future care workers and tradies. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN It's on relevance. I appreciate that this minister hasn't been on his feet for quite some time, but the question to him, from his own side, did not invite a compare and contrast nor did it invite him to consider the policies of the opposition. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I'll just raise two things: (1) that was a deliberate abuse of a point of order and (2) it was done after you'd given a general warning. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition didn't hear the question, because, in the question, it said, 'What approaches were rejected?' Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I don't need sound effects on my right either. I'm willing to give everyone a fair go when it comes to points of order, if anyone jumps up, but they're not to be taken advantage of. It's not appropriate. It's not how this parliament is going to work and it's not how this parliament has worked. So there are consequences for actions. The deputy leader will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Farrer then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister in continuation. Mr GILES 243609 As minister, I've been meeting students right around Australia for whom fee-free TAFE has given the opportunity to become nurses, early educators, bricklayers, locksmiths, fitters and turners. They've had the opportunity, thanks to fee-free TAFE, to learn the skills they need, and, when they begin their careers, they will be earning more and keeping more of what they earn thanks to the Albanese Labor government. Child Care 61 15:07 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. Out-of-school-hours care services at small rural schools across my electorate face imminent closure after sustainability funding was cut. If these services close, parents won't be able to work in a cost-of-living crisis. It is clear there is not enough money in the Community Child Care Fund. Will the minister stand by while vital childcare services close due to a lack of government funding? 15:07 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Indi for her question and for the constructive way in which she has engaged in relation to early childhood education in her electorate and, indeed, on issues on early childhood education right across Australia. The Community Child Care Fund that the member alluded to supports early childhood education and care services to open and to stay open. Just by way of background, it's a more than $600 million program currently supporting around 700 services across Australia, and 85 per cent of those services are in regional and remote areas. In the recently announced CCCF, or Community Child Care Fund round 4, more than 380 services received offers of sustainability support to help them remain open and 90 services received offers of capital support. That's to help them undertake important modification or expansion of their work, and that includes five services in the member's electorate that received sustainability funding and two services that received capital funding. The CCCF round 4 grant opportunity was a competitive grant. It's a competitive grant process run by the department, and decisions are made at arm's length from the minister. I make no apologies for that. In the interest of transparency, in the interest of accountability and in the interest of integrity, it is important that these competitive grants are run in a way in which selection is based on merit. The guidelines for the grant opportunity were published on GrantConnect. The assessment criteria remained broadly similar across all CCCF rounds for sustainability funding, but there were some changes in the grant guidelines reflecting lessons learned on reviews of previous grant rounds. Those lessons and the feedback that we got on those were that the round should be open to applications from priority areas as well as services that have been successful in previous rounds as well as vulnerable and disadvantaged cohorts. I appreciate that it can be disappointing for services when they're not successful in competitive grants. I can really appreciate that. I can appreciate the difficulty for families and communities, and I can appreciate the way in which we can continue to discuss this, particularly for your electorate as well, Member for Indi. I'd encourage the member to relay to those services that there is a CCCF special circumstances round that they may be eligible to apply for and to encourage them to see whether or not that is a viable option. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 61 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Sheridan, Mr David 61 15:10 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Bendigo, I'd like to acknowledge, in the gallery, a guest of the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Mr David Sheridan of Travancore. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resources Industry 61 15:10 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Resources and the Minister for Northern Australia. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting the Australian resources sector and delivering a future made in Australia? What approaches to the resources sector have been ruled out? 15:11 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I want to thank the member for Bendigo for her question. Last night, I was delighted to attend the Women in Resources National Awards alongside the member for Bendigo and other parliamentary colleagues. The member for Bendigo, in fact, is from a very proud mining region, and she had two finalists in these awards. It was a fantastic night, celebrating exceptional women in mining, an industry that, traditionally, does have a low participation rate. These awards went to women in mining trades as well as in technology and in the science behind a really very successful resources sector. The Albanese Labor government's last budget featured the most significant investment in the resources sector for a generation. The centrepiece of this government delivering a future made in Australia is the $17 billion production tax incentive for critical minerals and rare earth elements, which will drive processing onshore and create secure jobs right around this country. Also delivering a future made in Australia is the $3.4 billion Resourcing Australia's Prosperity program, which will allow Geoscience Australia to help find those resources and the likely locations of critical mineral deposits for many years to come. We've committed millions of dollars to supporting common-user processing facilities and boosting our trade partnerships for critical minerals. All of these budget measures, combined with our international partnerships, demonstrate just how this government will support the Australian resources sector, because we understand that the resources sector is the engine room of our economy. We have invested over $400 million to speed up environmental approvals, and our reforms will reduce red tape. We've doubled, through Minister Plibersek, the number of on-time approvals since the last government. We are doing much better than the former government in respect of approvals, and, in fact, we've approved 14 mining related projects under the EPBC Act alone. In addition to supporting the resources sector, we've boosted the Critical Minerals Facility to $4 billion and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to $7 billion. The NAIF has supported, in the past two years that I have been minister, seven resources projects to the tune of $1.4 billion, leveraging $13 billion in private capital in concert with export-import banks from around the world. That is 7,000 jobs across northern Australia. That's 7,000 jobs that back the resources sector. What have those opposite done? Of course, all they've always done is say no. They've taken the resources sector for granted for eternity, and they'll continue to do so, while this government will make sure those 7,000 jobs happen in the resources sector, right across the north, and that's because we will deliver a future made in Australia. (Time expired) Economy 62 15:14 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson My question is to the Treasurer. President of the Queensland Association of State School Principals, Patrick Murphy, has told the Senate's cost-of-living inquiry that parents are increasingly having to withdraw their kids from school opportunities because they are struggling to make ends meet. Mr Murphy said, 'We're seeing 60 per cent of kids not going on camps and excursions.' With falling disposable income and sticky high inflation hurting households, why is the Albanese Labor government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families are going backwards? 15:14 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin We're fighting for Australians doing it tough. We're fighting for people who deserve a tax cut. We're fighting for people who deserve a bit of help with their electricity bills. We're fighting for better wages and getting real wages growing again. We're fighting for cheaper medicines. We're fighting for cheaper early childhood education. We're fighting for more rent assistance. We're fighting to ensure that the people who need and deserve this parliament's help are getting it. I take the issues that Patrick has raised seriously; I take him seriously. Any decent local member worth their salt understands that people are under pressure right now, and that's why we're doing what we can to help people. That's why it beggars belief that those opposite oppose our cost-of-living measures. They called for an election over a tax cut for every taxpayer. They don't support cheaper energy. They don't support cheaper early childhood education. They don't support rent assistance. They don't support cheaper medicines. And they don't support getting wages moving again. Well, we do, because, more than acknowledging the pressures that people are under, we're doing something about it. Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games 62 15:16 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Sport. What impact have Australia's brilliant Paralympians had on our country, and what help is the government providing athletes for the games in Los Angeles in 2028 and Brisbane in 2032? 15:16 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Hunter for his question. He is a proud, five-time Olympian, a very talented sportsperson and a deadset legend, if I may express a personal opinion. This morning we welcomed our brilliant Paralympians home, following two weeks of transformative performances. All 160 athletes in Paris excelled, from the youngest, 15-year-old Holly Warn, to the oldest, 69-year-old table tennis whiz Jimmy Huo. The highlights were spellbinding: Alexa Leary dancing her way to two golds in the pool; Lauren Parker becoming the first Australian to win golds in multiple sports in 48 years. Our Paralympians won 18 gold and 63 medals total. The Paris Games may have deprived us of our sleep but have provided us with record-breaking moments of triumph over adversity, cementing sport as Australia's connective tissue. Paris 2024 was the spiritual arm squeeze between millions of people across thousands of kilometres, even at 4 am—and every coffee was worth it. As a society, we are increasingly isolated, increasingly siloed and increasingly lonely, but sport makes us hug strangers, and that's what it did, especially the Paralympics, which provides that rare combination of preventive, mental and physical health benefits—and the chance to both cheer and cry at the same time! But the Albanese government is doing more than cheering; we are committing. What people deserve from inclusion and equity is substance and structural change, to know barriers will not only be reported but also be acted upon. Our government has acted and made record-breaking investment into our Paralympians, doubling the funding over the next two years to almost $55 million. The Albanese government's commitment will shift the balance of sport funding in this country, from 85 per cent able-bodied and 50 per cent people with disability, to 75 and 25 per cent. This is part of a record government spend in sport overall of almost $500 million over the next two years. We also invested an additional $20 million to help our Olympic and Paralympic athletes qualify for Paris. We provided Australia's para-athletes with the same financial incentives for winning medals at the Paris Games as our Olympians. Our Paralympian gold medallists received $20,000, our silver medallists received $15,000 and our bronze medallists received $10,000, because we recognise that high-performance sport is exactly that, no matter which body you are performing high-performance sport in. From playground to podium, from junior pathways to Paris, and from backyards to Brisbane 2032, the Albanese government is backing our Australian athletes. Cost of Living 63 15:19 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman My question is to the Treasurer. Jess and Russell from Alexandra Hills have told me: 'Our interest rates skyrocketed. We now have to find an additional $500 every week. The government seems indifferent to whether we can put food on our table.' With falling disposable income and sticky high inflation hurting households, why is the Albanese Labor government fighting the Reserve Bank while Australian families are going backwards? 15:19 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I hope the honourable member told Jess and Russell that he didn't want them to get any help with their electricity bills. I hope he told Jess and Russell that he thought they should get a smaller tax cut. And I hope he told Jess and Russell that he thought medicines should be more expensive, that early childhood should be more expensive, that there should be less help with rent and that they should be paid less; they should work longer for less. I hope he explained all of that to his constituents. If he didn't, he's not being especially honest. He doesn't get to wander around his electorate, in that beautiful part of South-East Queensland, and pretend that he cares about the cost of living and then come here and not support cost-of-living help. You don't get to wander around the Redlands, that stunning part of South-East Queensland, and nod your head when people tell you they're doing it tough and then come here and vote against helping them. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman on a point of order. Mr Pike 300120 Just on relevance, I agree the Redlands is a wonderful part of South-East Queensland, but I wonder if the Treasurer might be interested in actually answering my question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer was mentioning the people's names in the answer. He's just got to make sure that it's directly relevant to what was asked about—the constituents. So far the Treasurer has been directly relevant. If he were talking about other people, he may not be so lucky. He has the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 He asked me about his constituents, and I'm talking about his constituents. Indeed, constituents right around Australia are under substantial financial pressure, and that's why we're helping them. That's why we're helping them with a tax cut for every taxpayer, energy bill relief, cheaper early childhood education, rent assistance, getting wages moving again and all of the ways we are helping people with the cost-of-living pressures that we're under right now. We're fighting inflation, and inflation has halved since the year that we were elected, as the Prime Minister said earlier on in question time. If those opposite, especially the honourable member, really cared about the cost-of-living pressures that our constituents are under, they would support our efforts to help with the cost of living. Instead, they oppose them. Renewable Energy 63 15:22 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How many renewables projects has the Albanese Labor government ticked off? How will these projects make energy cleaner and cheaper for all Australians? And how is the government's approach different to other proposals? 15:22 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thanks so much to the member for Macnamara for his question. I know that he is a huge supporter of renewable energy. I'm delighted to inform the House that I have now ticked off the 60th renewable energy project backed by this government. These 60 projects mean that we have now, on this side, ticked off enough renewable energy to power seven million Australian homes. That is the equivalent of powering every home in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, and it means that we are ticking off renewable energy projects at the rate of about one every two weeks. On Friday, I ticked off the huge 600-megawatt Birriwa Solar farm in New South Wales, which will see the construction of around a million solar panels as well as 6,000 megawatts of battery storage. That's enough for 229,000 New South Wales homes. It's also part of the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone, which recently received approval for a transmission line. Also recently, the Sun Cable project—six gigawatts of renewable energy, including four gigawatts to be used in Darwin. That's the equivalent of powering three million homes. That is 6,000— Ms PLIBERSEK 83M The Leader of the Opposition hasn't heard of batteries! It's so sad. He hasn't heard about wind power and that the wind blows at night. He hasn't worked out that hydroelectricity works at night. The energy transition is real. It's happening. We're also providing $300 worth of energy bill relief. We're putting cheaper power into the grid right now for households, right now for businesses. The alternative from those opposite is the most expensive form of energy maybe in 20 years time with no details about costs. What we had from those opposite was nine years of delay and denial. We had 22 separate energy policies. They didn't land a single one of them. They were told, when they were in government, that 24 coal-fired power stations were closing. They had no plan to replace that generation capacity—no plan for energy, no plan for workers, no plan to bring power prices down now. They're talking about something that might happen in 20 years time. They have no plan to help Australian households now. Just ask them. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 64 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games 64 15:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This morning in Sydney, a mum and their child handed me a handwritten note, and it goes to what the Minister for Sport has just said and what I and the Leader of the Opposition and other people were privileged to witness today. I think it's worthwhile, given the handwritten note, to read some of it into Hansard today. 'To the honourable Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: hi, my name is Rafferty Stevens, but you can call me Raff. I am 12 years old, and I play wheelchair basketball and tennis. I am ranked No. 43 in the world for tennis, and I am in the state performance program in wheelchair basketball. My wish is to represent Australia in wheelchair basketball at the Brisbane 2032 Paralympic Games. Thank you for putting money towards Paralympic sport. I promise I will try hard at school and basketball so I reach my goal. Kind regards, Rafferty Stevens.' So, to Raff and Alesia, your mum, we collectively are very confident that you'll get there in 2032. For those Paralympians who arrived home today, that is the sort of inspiration by which your conduct and your performance have changed lives. It has changed the life of this young man, and it's a great thing. STATEMENTS 64 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 64 15:27 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FLETCHER L6B I do. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr FLETCHER L6B Yesterday, the member for Warringah issued a social media post claiming that I had 'only moved amendments to four pieces of leg'. The facts are, in the 47th parliament: I've moved five second reading amendments, and the member for Warringah has moved one; I've moved 10 consideration in detail amendments, and the member for Warringah has moved 11; I've moved 16 motions to suspend standing orders, and the member for Warringah has moved two; I've asked 46 questions during question time, and the member for Warringah has asked 24. I trust that clarifies the matter. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Independent Auditor 65 Presentation 65 15:28 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor General's performance audit report No. 2 of 2024-25, entitled Defence's management of ICT systems security authorisations: Department of Defence. Document made a parliamentary paper. Presentation 65 15:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to the honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 65 BILLS Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 65

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

Explanatory Memorandum 65 15:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I also present the correction to the explanatory memorandum for the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 65 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Scams 65 15:28 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for the government to do more to protect Australians from scams, especially those that involve electronic transfer of funds. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:29 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Scams are everywhere. We get random phone calls claiming to be from Melbourne or somewhere in Queensland. We get text messages at 4 am in the morning saying we need to pay our tolls urgently at the link provided. Ninety-six per cent of Australians were exposed to scams in the five years up to 2021 alone, and that is increasing. In 2023, we lost some $2.74 billion to scammers. That's more than $5,200 per minute. In the UK, banks are now required to reimburse victims where they have been tricked—generally by masquerading as a legitimate business or person—to authorise a payment. Meanwhile in Australia, banks refuse and are not required to refund victims. It's vital for the government to force financial institutions to increase the friction between financial transfers to enable tracking and recovery of funds by victims. I regularly hear of those who have been scammed in Warringah. They get in contact with my office. They are distressed. They almost always have no way to seek redress or to get their money back. One constituent's son had his house deposit of just over $100,000 scammed by someone impersonating his lawyer. In an era where bank cheques are becoming a thing of the past and so many transactions are done electronically, it's absolutely vital that we increase friction and make financial institutions more responsible so that they take action to limit scams. I'm glad to say that some northern beaches seniors aren't taking scams lying down; they're fighting back. Too often we think scams are happening to older Australians, who may not be so familiar with electronic means, but they are happening to all age groups—to young people, in particular. Young professionals are getting scammed in relation to funds they simply cannot afford to lose. We had, locally, great coverage in the Manly Observerin the lead-up to last Christmas, showing how Manly Computer Pals ran tutorials for seniors to help them avoid possible scams and raise their own digital literacy. We need to do more of that. We need more information and education to make sure we protect Australians from scams. I know the government is responding. They have established the National Anti-Scam Centre and there is work to introduce the mandatory codes framework, but consumer groups are calling for the government to go further and make financial institutions liable for their customers' scammed losses, as the financial institutions are ultimately facilitating the money being transferred. They are the ones with visibility on who is receiving the funds. They have the capacity to increase friction and ensure recovery of funds. If they are made liable to reimburse funds, they will be motivated to put greater protections in place for consumers. Losses to scams are now so great and frequent that the government must act. We are seeing New Zealand and Singapore moving in the direction of the UK by introducing measures for greater liability of financial institutions. The government is moving on mandatory industry codes, and that's welcome. But alongside that and enforceable codes, consumer groups are calling for mandatory reimbursement of consumer losses by financial institutions. As I said, this will incentivise them to do better, to create that friction and better recovery, a fair and simple dispute resolution pathway for consumers and a mechanism for banks to recover the cost of scam losses from other bodies. Time is of the essence in this sector. In the meantime, I tell constituents that there are basic things they can all do to protect themselves and their loved ones from scams. There are three key steps to remember. Firstly, stop. Don't give money or personal information to anyone if you're unsure. Scammers will create a sense of urgency. Don't rush to act. Take your time and don't give money or personal information. Secondly, think. Ask yourself, 'Could the call or text be fake?' Scammers pretend to be organisations or people you know and trust. All too often for parents, that will be your children. Contact the organisation—using information you rely on and that you source independently through means that you trust—so that you can verify if the call is real or not. If you're not sure, hang up. Thirdly, protect. Act quickly if something feels wrong. Trust your gut. Contact your bank immediately if you have authorised a transfer or if you have lost money in a scam. If you have provided personal information, call IDCARE on 1800595160 to get some protections. It is vitally important that we protect Australians and their hard earned money from the scammers. 15:34 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this matter of public importance to the House today. A passion project of mine since before we formed government has been to ensure that the Commonwealth government do more to keep Australians' information and their money safe. I see, over there on the crossbench, a number of crossbench members—the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney, the member for Indi, the member for Mackellar, the member for Mayo, and all of the crossbench members. I've had a lot of engagement with them on the government's—I missed the member for Curtin. I've had a lot of engagement from crossbench members on this issue, and while I know every member in this place—on all sides—works hard, I don't think there's another member, apart from myself, who has spoken to more Australians on the issue of scams and scam losses and what the Commonwealth government needs to do to help protect Australians. Over the last two years I have probably held around 80-90 forums around the country—all of them well attended. I saw the member for Indi there, and we had a couple of great forums in their electorate a few months ago. Members of the coalition here have had a number of meetings in coalition member seats, including in Michael McCormack's seat a few weeks ago, as well. There's a lot of interest right across the parliament, and nothing I'm about to say takes anything away from that. It is simply a fact that the Albanese government is the first government to take this matter seriously. The fact of the matter is, before we came to power, the approach of the previous government was simply to dismiss people who had become victims of scams as mugs who had fallen for something. They had failed to take care, they were mugs, and it was their own fault, and if there was an obligation of government it was to whisper quietly, 'Just be careful, will you?' We look at the sophistication of scams and the fact that they have become industrialised over the last five years, and we say that is not good enough. They have moved to—literally—industrial-scale operations being run out of other countries, and Australia is one of the targets because we are a relatively wealthy nation that is well-connected around the world. Before we came into government, the result of that negligent approach was that scam losses were doubling every year. The year we came into government, scam losses were at $3 billion per annum, and they were set to hit $6 billion at the end of that calendar year. Thankfully, they didn't, and they didn't because we put some measures in place. We funded ASIC to pull down fake investment webpages. We established the telecommunications register to block malicious messages and calls. We're blocking about a million a day. Before you jump into it—I can hear many of you about to say, 'But I'm still getting them,'—phase 2 of our telecommunications register will move from a blacklist to a whitelist of numbers. Unless you're on the whitelist, you won't be able to send out a mass SMS in the name of a trusted brand—more action in that area. I'm pleased to hear the member for Warringah mention IDCARE—a great community organisation who help people who have been subject to a data breach, or to having their personal information stolen to, to repair their ID. We're funding them—we more than tripled their funding to ensure they can uplift the service that they provide to the Australian community. We stood up the National Anti-Scam Centre, a close to $90 million investment with more to come, to ensure that we have a centre which is the central control of information-sharing, interference, interruption and education throughout the community. That $90 million is actually in the $300 billion worth of 'wasteful spending' that those opposite refer to, so I look forward to a confirmation from members opposite as to whether they will cancel that funding and close it down. We think it's critical. We think it's a critical part of our economic infrastructure, keeping Australians' information and money safe. I am yet to hear a word from the coalition on whether they would maintain such a facility. We think it's critical. Can I say something about phase 2, which was alluded to by the member for Warringah? We know phase 1 has worked, because, for the first year in close to a decade, scam losses didn't double; in fact, they went backwards. Phase 1, we know, has worked because for the first year in close to a decade scam losses did not double. In fact, they went backwards. We are one of the only countries in the world where that happened, by the way. We are one of the only countries in the world where scam losses went backwards from $3 billion to $2.75 billion. I am not going to shout victory in our time because it is not; $2.75 billion is just way too much. The heavy lifting that needs to be done in phase 2 of our reforms is critical. I will have a lot more to say in the very near future about new legislation that will be out for consultation in a few days. It will put in a prevention framework. It will put in high-level obligations, create new statutory obligations, on designated businesses and sectors. It will create broad-reaching obligations. It will create legal rights for consumers and powers for regulators and, underneath all of that, there will be additional protections from mandatory industry codes of practice which will include the specific obligations that apply on the banks, on telecommunications companies and on social media platforms. In the time that I have left, can I say something about the latter? I listened carefully to the member for Warringah, a person who I respect. She comes to these debates in good faith. The first thing to say is a mandatory reimbursement mechanism which is ascribed to what is going on in the United Kingdom has been delayed twice. It is set to come into place in October. It is far from settled policy—okay? There is a voluntary system at the moment. It is far from settled policy. I think there needs to be a reimbursement scheme in Australia and that should be brought forward through phase 2 of our work. I want to caution anybody in this place to say the only people who should be in the frame are banks. Yes, they should be liable when they do the wrong thing. But frankly, it will take a lot of work to convince me that the Broken Hill credit union membership—less than 10,000—should be the ones on the hook after a member of the Broken Hill credit union pays $1,000 for a golden retriever that does not exist from a scam ad for a puppy on Facebook when they knew nothing about it yet Facebook took advertising revenue—made money—and is making millions out of posting these sorts of scam advertisements. So I say to every member of this place in good faith: yes, there needs to be liability not only for our banks but for our telecommunications companies and social media platforms as well. The business that would have the most to gain through making the banks always pay is Meta. The person who would be arguing most vociferously for making the banks pay is Mark Zuckerberg. I simply say to people in this place: let's not be Zucker's suckers. This is not a start-up business we are talking about. Meta are making up between $5 billion and $6 billion here every year in Australia. So let's not be Zucker's suckers. Let's ensure we have a robust framework that puts obligations in place on banks, on telecommunications companies, on social media platforms, and let's ensure that we do it in a way that stands up for our sovereignty. It is not too much to ask that if you are running a business in this country, making billions of dollars out of running business in this country, that you obey Australia's laws and you respect the sovereignty of the country in which you operate. You do not have to agree with our laws but you do have to agree with the fact that Australian governments, of whatever flavour, and the Australian parliament have the right to make laws which apply to any business which operates within our jurisdiction. Sure, disagree with our laws but you cannot disagree with the fact that this parliament is sovereign over this country and has a right and an obligation to keep Australians safe. 15:44 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein We've all had that moment: our phone rings, and the number is unknown to us. Many of us, sensing something isn't quite right, simply ignore the call or block the number. We know it could be a scam and we avoid it. But, for far too many Australians, these scam calls don't end with just a blocked number. For various reasons, whether it's confusion or vulnerability or they're simply caught off guard, they pick up that call or click on that link and engage with the scammer, and the consequences can be devastating. Scamming has become an international plague, a faceless, borderless threat that is preying on people around the globe. In 2023, a staggering $2.7 billion was stolen from Australians by scammers. That figure represents the hard-earned money of everyday people, money that was supposed to go towards building futures, supporting families and securing retirements. Instead, it's vanished into the hands of criminals. But, while the financial cost is shocking, the true damage can't be captured by numbers alone. Like my colleagues do in their electorates, in my electorate of Goldstein I hear stories all the time about scams. People recount close calls where they managed to bail out at the last second, narrowly avoiding disaster. But I also hear the heart-wrenching stories where the warnings came too late, and one of those stories weighs heavily on my mind. It's about an elderly man—a man who's become a friend—a proud immigrant who came to Australia over 50 years ago with almost nothing but hope. Like so many others, he worked hard, built a family and made a life for himself. He's the kind of person who bodies the Australian success story, someone who arrived with very little but, through determination and grit, created a future for his children and his grandchildren. But life changes. After losing his wife and seeing his children move away, this man found himself living alone. In his 70s, he was still strong, capable and determined to manage his own affairs. He'd always handled things on his own, so why would this stage of life be any different? Unfortunately, that's when the scammers found him at his most vulnerable. One day, he answered one of those calls. It wasn't pushy; it wasn't aggressive. The voice on the other end was young, confident and convincing. They spoke of an exciting investment in cryptocurrency, an opportunity that could yield enormous returns. The caller seemed to understand him. He spoke his language and built trust over several conversations, and eventually, after several reassurances, this man took the plunge and invested. At first it seemed like he'd made a great decision; the returns looked fantastic on paper. But, as we now know, those numbers were fake. When he tried to call in his profits, everything went silent. His money was gone. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was lost—vanished into thin air. Yet it didn't stop there. Out of shame and embarrassment, he didn't tell anyone. He tried to ignore the scam calls that kept coming, but over time he fell for another one, a romance scam. He trusted someone he met online, someone who told him they had a future together, but that future came with a price: another investment in yet another fraudulent scheme. He was promised a partnership, a shared life of wealth and happiness. Instead, he was robbed again. This man, now around 80 years old, lost almost $1 million. Everything he'd worked for, everything he'd saved for his children and grandchildren, was gone, and today, at almost 80, he contemplates finding a job because the retirement he'd carefully planned for has disappeared. His story is not unique. There are countless Australians right now who are suffering in silence because they've been scammed and they're too ashamed to admit it. This is why we must act. We can no longer afford to let this epidemic continue unchecked. Australia needs robust legislation that puts the onus on banks, financial institutions and social media platforms to strengthen their antiscam technology and safeguard people's finances, and we need nationwide education. The story I shared with you today is a tragedy, but it doesn't have to continue to be repeated. We can make a difference. We can protect our citizens from these criminals and ensure that future generations do not have to suffer this awful fate. 15:49 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak on this really important matter of public importance brought by the member for Warringah. It's something that is pressing for all Australians, and I'm proud of the action that our government, led by Assistant Treasurer, have taken to address scams and to stop this very destructive trend in our society. I was recently proud to host an antiscams forum with the Assistant Treasurer here in my electorate of Canberra. It was good to hear him talk about all the scam forums he's held all around the country. I do believe he said mine was the biggest—it doesn't really matter, but over 300 people attended this forum, which shows the level of concern in the community about scams. We've all got them; we've all had the text messages, the calls and the emails. It was a great opportunity to have the minister come and speak with my community about the prevalence of scams, give them advice around how they can protect themselves and tell them about what the government is doing to ensure that fewer Australians are being impacted by scams every day. The work this government has done to date has been transformative in this issue. In 2022 scammers stole $3.1 billion from Australians. In 2023 the government reduced that figure to $2.7 billion. Obviously, this number is still far too high, and there is more work to be done, but this trend is going in the right direction. Last year the government established the National Anti-Scam Centre to provide cross-sector engagement. The centre brings together industry participants from finance, telecommunications and digital platforms, and these participants are working together with government to expand policies and initiatives which drive down scam activity. Since coming to office the government has invested over $154 million in the fight against scammers. I was really concerned to hear the Assistant Treasurer say just now in his speech that the coalition are including some of this in their wasteful spending, so it will be interesting to see if they will commit to continuing this critically important work to protect Australians. Soon we'll be legislating mandatory industry codes to ensure that the banks, the telcos and the social media platforms are doing everything they can to address this issue. These codes will ensure that, if they are breached, the company responsible for the breach will be responsible for compensating the victim. In 2023 an ASIC report into scam prevention, detection and response by the four major banks found that the overall approach to scam strategy and governance was highly variable and, overall, less mature than expected. The report found they had inconsistent and narrow approaches to determining liability across their banks. It also found that victims are often not well supported and that their ability to detect and stop scam payments had significant gaps. A couple of weeks ago, as a member of the House economics committee, I had the opportunity to question the CEOs of the big 4 banks, and I focused my questions on scams and the responses of the banks to the significant losses of their customers, often as a result of their own institution's failings. Particularly, I wanted to raise the issue of two of my constituents who lost enormous sums of money to very sophisticated scams. One of these constituents lost around $1.6 million and the other lost over $5 million. In both cases, my constituents told me about the response of their bank, which was clearly completely inadequate, lacking the urgency and the empathy that one would expect for such a life-changing loss of money and devastating crime that has happened against these people. In one of the cases, Westpac informed the individual that they had been scammed and provided them with ways to protect themselves in the future. That is clearly a terrible response to someone who lost over $5 million. I believe that they deserve more from their bank, and I raised this and am pleased to say that Westpac have offered to contact both of those constituents individually. There is more we can do in this space. While the banks have a really important role to play, as the Assistant Treasurer has said, social media platforms also have a really important responsibility in this. The fact that they can take advertising money from scammers who are taking advantage of Australians is not the banks' fault. That is a responsibility that those social media platforms should take seriously. They really should take their role in these terrible crimes seriously and address that. 15:54 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi It feels like every day we hear another story of an Australian whose life has been upended by scammers—by criminals, because that's what they are. They aren't opportunists; they're organised criminal groups that make use of any and all technologies to steal money from Australians at every age, from every demographic. It is despicable stuff. We are all vulnerable to scams. Last year Australians lost more than $2.7 billion to scams, and that's just the scams that are reported, with many more going unreported. As we have heard in this chamber today, many people are embarrassed to report them. My office hears from so many people who have lost money to scams, many amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Take the story of Nola and Ray Holden, a couple living in Bonegilla in my electorate, who were victims of a horrendous scam in April this year. After scammers accessed the Holdens' bank details, they made 85 transactions of $990 each to foreign bank accounts over the next 24 hours. That added up to $120,000 stolen from their account in just one day. As the Holdens' family doctor has told me—he is assisting the Holdens in this matter—'at no point in time did Bendigo Bank alert the Holdens or put a freeze on their bank accounts.' Even though the scam put Ray and Nola's account tens of thousands of dollars into overdraft, the bank did nothing. What I find particularly shocking is that the bank, even after being alerted to the scam, began charging the Holdens $700 per month in interest because of the overdraft debts. While the bank has now paused interest payments after intervention from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, the Holdens tell me that the bank is now seeking to recover the funds from their estate when they die or sell the farm they have lived on for decades. That's almost as despicable as the scam itself. Thinking of the Holdens' story, it's hard to quantify the impacts beyond the financial loss. There are the mental impacts and the sense of shame that many victims of scams feel. Many experience ongoing trauma and a loss of trust that can impact many areas of their lives. Like so many other MPs in this place, I have met many families like the Holdens and I know that it could can happen to any one of us. So we must do more. This government must not be complacent, because the scammers certainly won't be. Fortunately, when I welcomed the Assistant Treasurer to Myrtleford and Benalla earlier this year, I sensed that he is well aware of the scale of this challenge. I commend the government for much of its work in this space. The creation of the National Anti-Scam Centre has made a difference. The creation of the SMS Sender ID Registry should help every Australian who is constantly receiving scam text messages purporting to be from anyone from the ATO, Australia Post or other trusted organisations. As an independent member of this place it's my job to keep pushing the government to keep going, to do everything it can in the fight against scams. That's why it's so essential that the government put in place a mandatory scams code before the next election. The proposed framework will create minimum, consistent obligations for businesses to prevent, detect, disrupt and respond to scams. The Holdens wouldn't have lost more than $100,000 if their bank had had better processes in place, and with no mandatory code there's no incentive to protect customers and no consequences when they fail to do so. I support a mandatory code, because this can't be a battle for individuals alone. Big businesses like the banks and tech giants must pull their weight in the fight against scams. If they won't come to the table then I support the government bringing them to the table and using their influence and heft to stop more scams at the source. The Assistant Treasurer has committed to introducing this legislation before the end of the year, and I intend to hold the government to that timeline, because the government must keep moving. The fight against scams is not done. You do not make one change and expect it to be fixed. Scammers will continue to adapt. They will shift and change with technology and exploit the vulnerabilities of our people. The explosion of freely available generative AI is a new frontier and shows us that we must be vigilant. It is a role for all of us in this place to ensure that the Commonwealth government fights to protect Australians from the scourge of scams. 15:59 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I'd like to thank the member for Warringah for bringing this motion to parliament. Scams and scam prevention is something I've personally taken a keen interest in since coming to this place and something I have raised not only in this chamber but a number of times in my role on the House Economics Committee. I'd like to thank the member for Indi for her contribution as well. I think everyone in this place wants to push the government to come up with solutions here, and thankfully we have. This is an area that needs immediate and ongoing attention. As members of the House Economics Committee, with my good friend the member for Hawke, we are working very closely with the Assistant Treasurer to make sure that that happens, because, when we came to office, Australians were losing over $3 billion a year to scams. Online, text message, phone and in-person scams were rampant, and losses doubled each year between 2019 and 2022. For too long, scams were put into the too-hard basket by the Liberals and Nationals. Under the previous government, Australians were abandoned in the face of this escalating threat. As they kept wages down, they allowed scams to skyrocket—wages down, scams up. We're a government that takes scamming and being scammed seriously. We've made critical investments in the fight against scammers, and the results are there for everyone to see. I've had the opportunity to engage with the big four banks on this issue, and, in 2023, I asked them directly about what they were doing to combat scams. At that time, it was clear that the individual banks were taking individual action, but the response across the sector was inconsistent. Each bank had its own approach—some were doing okay, while others were not—and the overall data showed that these efforts were falling well short of what was needed. In our most recent hearings, which the member for Canberra just referred to, it was pleasing to see a much more coordinated and focused approach from them. The banks know that this government has them on the hook, and they're responding. They're now working closely with the National Anti-Scam Centre, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to form a united front against scammers. They've strengthened controls around fund transfers, and they're implementing new technologies to detect suspicious transactions in real time. They should have done that sooner, but it took a coordinated approach from this government to make them do it. We need this coordinated sectorwide effort to protect consumers, and that's why we established the National Anti-Scam Centre. It started in July last year, and we've seen a remarkable turnaround in scam losses. For the first time since 2016, annual scam losses declined in 2023. This is proof that our scam strategy is working, but it also reminds us that the work is far from over. This matter of public importance specifically goes to electronic funds transfer, but we need to note that there are more than just banks at play in the scam ecosystem: telecommunications providers and, of course, our good friends in the social media platforms. The government has already taken decisive action in telecommunications with the SMS Sender ID Registry so that scammers can't spoof the banks, the ATO, LinkedIn or myGov in their text messages headers. This is simple but effective, and it took a Labor government to do it. But, for digital and social media platforms, progress hasn't been so great to date. These platforms facilitate communication, and they provide scammers with almost unlimited potential to reach and contact unsuspecting Australians. Just as we hold the banks and the telecommunications providers to account, we must ensure that digital social media platforms play their part in protecting consumers. How are we going to do that? We just heard from the Assistant Treasurer that the government will introduce new industry codes designed to hold these businesses—all of them—equally accountable for their role in preventing, detecting and responding to scams. They will cover banks, telcos and digital social media platforms as part of the coordinated approach that we need. Each sector will be required to have systems in place to detect, disrupt and prevent scams, and, importantly, if they fail to meet their obligations, they will be held accountable. If these companies don't comply with the new codes, they'll be liable to compensate victims. For too long, the burden of scams has fallen upon the individual, with Australians losing their hard-earned money. We're a government determined to address it. 16:04 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Not that long ago, the idea of a con artist or a scam was something many could claim to see coming a mile away. It was the dodgy guy who had a bridge to sell you in Sydney, or it was the kerbside charlatan who would encourage innocent pedestrians to 'just watch the shell', but, in 2024, scams are increasingly sophisticated and pervasive. I thank the member for Warringah for raising this important matter of public importance. The constantly evolving nature of modern scammers is a key issue for all of us, with over 160,000 scams costing hundreds of millions of dollars already reported to Scamwatch this year alone. Concerningly, over 95 per cent of people who are scammed don't get any money back, and this is just a measure of those who report them, with the true number of individuals scammed likely to be much higher. Everyone I know has received a scam phone call, email or text message. And as everyday aspects of our lives are increasingly moved online, whether that's shopping, banking or socialising, it has been too easy for scammers to get at us. My office literally hears from hundreds of people who have fallen victim to incredibly sophisticated scams every month, with one person recently contacting me because her elderly parents had lost $250,000 to an investment scam that was presented as an opportunity with two well-known financial institutions. Once discovered, neither financial institution accepted any responsibility, and the money was gone. Another person recently reported signing up to a fake dating site with a recurring monthly charge, and, shockingly, in this case the bank again refused to help recover the payments, because they argued the customer had given his details over freely. In almost all cases, the frustrating reality is people who are scammed are not clear on who they should contact or how, and overwhelmingly they are left feeling embarrassed and helpless. The data tells us scams disproportionately impact older and vulnerable Australians, and increasingly people are looking to the government to ensure adequate protections are legislated and enforced. As with any threat, disruption, detection and deterrence are fundamental, and key to those are awareness and education. In my electorate of North Sydney, with the help of Scamwatch, we've been hosting a series of community seminars designed to teach people how to recognise and respond to scams. Over two sessions to date, one of which was translated into Mandarin, attendees have been encouraged to stop, think and protect to ensure they do not fall foul of these fraudsters. But, as I've participated in these sessions, I've developed a belief that our government should be doing more to spread that education, be that via a mass public education campaign or partnering with the commercial sector to ensure widespread education is on the go or working with schools and other care environments to ensure people are alert but not alarmed. So I take this opportunity to call on the government today to invest in that education. At the same time, the truth is better detection of scams requires better information sharing. I note the whole-of-ecosystem approach was core to the government's recently proposed scams code framework. But, while we're encouraged to delete and report scam when we receive it, as a nation we need to do better to enable that data to be shared. While banks have made some inroads, and notwithstanding the work of the National Anti-Scam Centre and the Fusion Cell taskforce, information on the latest scams just doesn't get shared widely enough. As more and more services push consumers to transact entirely online, surely those services have a responsibility to foot the bill when scammers successfully hack their processes. I, again, take this opportunity to call on the government to establish a national scam compensation fund that can be a source of recompense when innocent individuals are scammed. We need to respond by ensuring risks are borne by those most able to mitigate scams' harm. For this reason, I believe the fund could be created by applying a levy across all institutions, whether it be banks, telcos, social media channels, that they need to input in, perhaps one specifically calculated based on the number of customer reports of being defrauded via them. These organisations can and should do more of the heavy lifting here, particularly when ASIC recently has reported a disturbing history of failing to act. The government has announced some welcome initiatives including the SMS registry and the proposed scams code framework, and early signs are that, despite the staggering absolute numbers, losses from scams are abating. But we can and should do more to bring regulators, industry and consumers together to continue this fight, as it's ultimately bigger than any one person or any one entity. 16:09 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Unfortunately, every Australian has either been the victim of a scam or knows someone who has. In all their iterations—SMS, emails, phone calls, door knockers and the like—scams are everywhere. And they cover every aspect of life—romance, investment, false billing, employment, classifieds and threats, just to name some. I acknowledge the member for Warringah for the opportunity to bring this matter not only to the parliament's attention but also to the public's attention. The Albanese Labor government knows that every successful scam causes distress, both financial and emotional. Last year, losses from scams were $2.74 billion. We all know this, but it only gets driven home when we experience it personally. Earlier this year, I learnt I was scammed. The exact mechanism by which I was scammed is still a bit of a mystery, which, of course, in itself is worrying, but thankfully I was alerted almost immediately because I'd opted into notifications from my bank about transactions. I was able to stop the transaction, and, after investigation, the money was returned by my bank. But many others are not so lucky, and the papers and the media regularly retell stories from individuals and businesses who have been victims. In fact, just in this debate, we've heard some very serious concerns about what has happened. A few months ago, I was grateful for a visit to my electorate by the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. He led a well-attended and extremely interesting scams forum. Everyone who attended the forum left better equipped to identify a scam and, if caught, to take the appropriate action. The take-home message for me from the minister still resonates—if it's too good to be true, it probably is. This is especially relevant to the investment scams that people find themselves experiencing. In 2023, Australians made more than 600,000 scam reports and lost upwards of $2.7 billion. In fact, in July 2024 alone, the National Anti-Scam Centre received reports of over 21,000 scams, with just over $20 million lost, and those are appalling statistics. The Albanese government takes scams seriously. In the most recent budget, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services delivered an additional $67.5 million as part of the government's second tranche of reforms to crack down on scammers. This is good news for all Australians and, hopefully, bad news for the scammers, but these scammers are clever and are always looking to be one step ahead. An excellent resource supported by the Albanese government is Scamwatch. On its website, there is sage advice regarding investment scams, which are particularly relevant to the matter before us today. Investment scams come in a variety of forms: Ponzi schemes, cryptoscams, impostor bond scams and super scams. On Scamwatch's website, I am especially drawn to the advice regarding online contact—that is, interacting online with a romantic interest or someone that you've never met in person who starts talking to you about investing. That is a really strong signal to be very, very careful. The other advice provided, which is especially important, is about scams which involve the pressure to make an investment decision now or you'll miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime. We all know this isn't true, but, in the flurry of the moment, it can sometimes be easy to be swept up. Scamwatch, the National Anti-Scam Centre, Moneysmart, Scams Awareness Week and the Australian Cyber Security Centre all demonstrate this government's commitment to addressing this important area of public policy, with an investment of $144 million already made to aid in the fight. This has resulted in losses from scams declining in 2023 for the first time since 2016. The second phase of our government's response will see legislation enacting code frameworks and mandatory industry codes. In his address in July this year, the Assistant Treasurer clearly stated that banks and financial institutions need to do better, including strengthening their controls around bank transfers. Protecting Australians from scams is a priority for this government, and I've seen firsthand how seriously the Assistant Treasurer deals with this. Of course, there's always more to do, but we are getting on with the job to do the best we can as soon as we can. 16:14 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Australian consumers and businesses face a growing risk from scams. Since being elected, I've had lots of reports from constituents of all demographics who have fallen victim to a range of scams. According to the National Anti-Scam Centre, there were 600,000 reports of scams last year and losses of $2.7 billion, and that's just the ones that were reported. We know that many people don't report scams. They feel like they shouldn't have been fooled, or they don't think there's any point in reporting it, or they don't even know how to report it. The challenge with scams is that they're often perpetrated by foreign criminals, out of reach of Australian law enforcement, so if we can't get them we need better controls in place to regulate the ways they reach Australia through three access points: banks, telecommunications companies and digital platforms. Now, while some sectors like the telecommunications sector have industry codes to reduce scams, other sectors in the scams ecosystem have no specific forcible antiscam requirements. The ACCC has identified that digital platforms do not take sufficient and consistent steps to protect consumers from scams, and ASIC has found that the overall approach to scams in Australia's major banks is variable and less mature than expected, with gaps and inconsistencies in scam detection, response and victim support. Banks, telecommunications companies and digital platforms must be incentivised to take all reasonable steps to prevent scammers from using their channels to target Australians. Getting this right requires a good understanding of what these companies can do and flexibility to cover new types of scams. Many of the steps that could be taken will add friction to our online transactions, making it a little bit more challenging to get some things done. These could include delays, or requirements to provide identity or confirm instructions. But there are also things that the sectors can do behind the scenes that would make a big difference. Liability for scams must be linked to whether or not banks, telecommunications companies and digital platforms are taking all reasonable steps, and remedies must be easy to navigate for scams victims so that they don't fall between the cracks of the complicated ecosystem of banks, telecommunications companies and digital platforms. I've been advocating for greater awareness and protection through speeches, meetings and events. I spoke in parliament last year about some stories of very sophisticated scams that had come through my office. I told Lisa's story. She lost $750,000 in a scam related to the setting up of an account with ING Bank. I told John's story. He's an experienced share trader who lost $2.7 million in a sophisticated international scam by worldwide brokers. I told Tim's story. His mother lost $800,000 in a scam that resulted in a capital gains tax liability, despite her having been scammed out of the assets. While waiting for stronger legislative protections, we held a Curtin scams awareness workshop with the ACCC to try to arm people against scams. Again, I heard so many stories from people about their experiences, and we gave them some tips for spotting scams. As well as meeting with affected constituents and experts like Choice and the consumer law action network, I met with the Assistant Treasurer last year to advocate for tighter banking regulations and enforceable industry codes of conduct, with appropriate pathways to compensation. The Assistant Treasurer assured me that codes of conduct were being developed and that legislation would be passed very soon to make them mandatory. We hope that happens soon. It hasn't happened yet. The proposed scams code framework has not been legislated, and as far as I know the codes have not been finalised. In February, I co-launched the Parliamentary Friends of Scams Protection with the member for Kooyong and Senator Walsh to draw parliament's attention to the urgency of this issue. While we wait, reports of those affected by scams keep coming in to my office. As a reminder that we're still waiting, like many Australians I get a scam text message or a call almost every day telling me that my package has arrived, that my account will be cancelled unless I update my credit card or that I haven't paid my toll fee. This problem is not going away. With time running out in this term of parliament I urge the government to legislate the mandatory codes of conduct for banks, telecommunications companies and digital platforms as soon as possible, with appropriate obligations on those in the scams ecosystem and clear remedies if those obligations are not met. We need to protect Australians from scams as soon as possible. 16:19 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Scams are a massive issue in my community, and I think all of us on this side of the House agree with the member for Warringah that protecting consumers from scams is a must-have, core economic policy. Our government have been doing an enormous amount of work to make sure that we do what we can to stop scammers from taking advantage of people in our communities. As a local member, in my electorate of Chisholm I've run many, many scam forums with hundreds and hundreds of people in attendance. In fact, every single time we run a scams forum we are oversubscribed almost as soon as we advertise the event, such is the interest in my community from my constituents. In every newsletter that I put out to constituents I advertise the fact that my office is very willing and able to send out The little black book of scams, which is a wonderful resource from the ACCC. It's available in a range of different languages, and we have sent out thousands of these in the time since I was elected. I will take the opportunity here to remind people of the steps that they can take to ensure they do not fall victim to a scam. I advise people to stop: if someone calls, someone texts or someone emails, don't feel obliged to respond; you should delete or hang up—don't engage and don't click the link. I advise people to check: verify that the person who is contacting you, whether they pretend to be from a bank or from another entity, is who they say they are. Independently verify this. And I advise people to report: if you think you've been victim to a scammer, please go through your bank and also make a report through Scamwatch. I do this all the time when I am contacted by scammers, which unfortunately does happen frequently. We know that behind every single dollar stolen by a criminal scammer is a story of financial and emotional distress, a very human story and a story of injustice. We have been prioritising action on scams since we came to government. When those opposite left office, Australians were losing over $3 billion a year to scams, and it looked like it would, over time, get higher had they remained in office. Those opposite had backward priorities, keeping wages down as a deliberate design feature of their economic strategy and abandoning consumers in the face of a growing global threat from scams—so wages were down, and scams were up. When we were elected, we made it a priority to not only grow wages, which of course is very important; support wage increases for our most vulnerable; and deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. We're also protecting the hard-earned money of all of our constituents in our communities from the threat of scammers. We've invested over $154 million in the fight against scammers. In the first phase of our fight, we established the really important National Anti-Scam Centre, a world-leading asset of consumer protection infrastructure, bringing together the expertise and capability of government agencies, law enforcement and the private sector. We're using data and information-sharing capabilities to detect scams and prevent them reaching potential victims. I'm really pleased to say that this strategy is working. Since we established the National Anti-Scam Centre, scam losses have been reducing. Annual scam losses declined in 2023 for the first time since 2016. The second phase of our response will involve legislating a scams code framework and new mandatory industry codes. Our key focus is on preventing criminals ever reaching their targets, not waiting for scams to occur in the first place. We're going to be working with a range of sectors including the banking sector and telecommunications sectors. We need to make sure this is a whole-of-government approach. We take the issue of scams and scammers in our community very seriously, just as the people in our community do. This is a very legitimate and a very significant worry for so many of the people that we represent in this place. I'm really pleased to be part of a government that is taking action to bring scams down and protect our communities. 16:24 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I'd also like to thank the member for Warringah for introducing this topic for debate because it truly is a matter of public importance. Scams are truly heinous crimes that cost our community in so many ways. They eat away at our trust in institutions and can not only lead to financial devastation but also seriously harm the mental health of victims. I think every member in this chamber would have experienced the anguish of a relative or friend who has been a victim of a scam. Only just a couple of weeks ago, I received communication from a very distressed friend whose aunt, a single woman on the pension with stage 4 cancer, was scammed out of her entire life savings. The bank did not respond, of course, until that story reached the media. It is a roller-coaster of emotions, not just for the victim but for their family—shock and shame and then perhaps disgust that fellow humans could do such a cruel thing, particularly if the victim is older or vulnerable. Then it is followed by fear: How much has been lost? Does the scammer still have control of my identity? How can I be safe again? Then comes the frustration of trying to get redress. The path to recovery is long and difficult. Consumers report difficulties even contacting their bank to report the scam and significant waits for the bank's fraud investigation outcome. Currently, according to the Community Action Law Centre, Australia is being heavily targeted by scammers as we have seen as easy prey, as we just don't have sufficient measures in place to protect our citizens. The CEO of the Consumer Action Law Centre, Stephanie Tonkin, also said: Australia's banks are failing, first for allowing scams to take place, and then failing their customers who seek financial redress causing them to turn to AFCA for help. Currently, Australia's major banks only reimburse between two to five per cent of their customers' scam losses. The federal government has promised to implement tough industry scam codes for the past 18 months. Scams cost Australians a total of $2.7 billion in 2023. That is why I am pleased to hear this week that the Assistant Treasurer will soon bring forward a second tranche of legislation to address the rapid rise of scams in this country, including mandatory codes of conduct for telcos, banks and social media platforms and that there will be significant fines of up to $50 million for these groups if they fail to act on fraudulent schemes that fleece their customers. That is a good start; however, I'm still concerned that the proposals will not go far enough in addressing liability for scam losses. Any solution to tackle the scourge of scams must be consumer-centric. It must ensure that it works in their interests and does not unfairly burden them with the cost of scams. Liability for reimbursement must rest with industry. Australians shouldn't be wearing the losses. It is the banks and the financial institutions that have the tools to protect the Australians from the scams. For example, some major banks have introduced functionality which checks the account details against the name before a transfer is executed. This should be compulsory for all financial institutions. The best way to prevent and disrupt scams is through incentivising real investment in prevention systems and through ensuring consumers can access redress where industry has failed to protect them. Second, consumers need a simplified single pathway for redress through their bank or their financial institution where their money was stolen from. It should not be left to the consumer to navigate the bank's internal systems and sometimes multiple banks to try and retrieve their hard-earned money. Where this pathway fails there needs to be a single door for consumers to access external dispute resolution. It is also important that we have strong codes that apply to telcos and social media platforms so that they rise to meet their responsibilities. Scammers use their services and platforms to commit their crimes. It is intolerable that, within an hour of placing an ad on Facebook Marketplace or a car site, a person is bombarded with scammers trying to trick them into transferring money. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 75 Report 75 16:29 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Inquiry into Compulsory Income Management Report incorporating dissenting reports; and the Human Rights Joint committee's Scrutiny Report 8 of 2024 incorporating a dissenting report. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—I rise to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into compulsory income management report, which was tabled out of session on 3 September 2024, and to table the committee's eighth scrutiny report of 2024. In September 2023, the committee was given a statutory function to examine part 3AA and part 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 so far as they relate to the compulsory enhanced income management scheme, or compulsory income management, for compatibility with human rights and report to the parliament. The first review was required to be completed by 4 September 2024. The committee received 30 submissions and held two public hearings, during which it heard evidence from a range of community groups, peak bodies, academics and the Department of Social Services. The committee heard substantial evidence challenging the extent to which compulsory income management has been effective to achieve its stated objectives and its proportionality in practice. The committee considers that there is a considerable risk that the compulsory income management constitutes an impermissible limitation on the rights to social security, privacy, equality and nondiscrimination. There also appears to be a risk that, in relation to some cohorts of participants, compulsory participation may not constitute a permissible limitation on the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to health and the rights of the child. In particular, the committee noted that compulsory income management continues to apply overwhelmingly to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and that these groups have been far less likely than non-Indigenous people to secure a temporary exemption from the scheme. The committee has made seven detailed recommendations, including that the government amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to make income management voluntary, including transitional provisions to facilitate a transition to voluntary income management over a period of time and to immediately establish more pathways out of compulsory income management. The committee welcomes the department's advice that it is consulting with affected communities with a view to making income management voluntary. Such an amendment would address the human rights concerns identified in the committee's report. The committee expects the government's response to this report should include information regarding the specific timeframes and implementation of plans to transition impacted persons off compulsory income management. The committee considers that this transition should be completed in no greater than 12 months. In relation to the committee's eighth scrutiny report, the committee considered 18 new bills and 141 new legislative instruments and substantively commented on three bills and concluded its consideration of one legislative instrument. In this report, the committee is seeking further information from the Minister for Education in relation to the Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024. This bill seeks to extend the Unique Student Identifier scheme to all Australian primary and secondary students by enabling the assignment of a school identifier to each student. The bill would authorise the verification, collection and use of disclosure of a child's school identifier and their school identity management information. In doing so, the bill would engage and limit the right to privacy and the rights of a child. If the bill were to have the effect of restricting access to primary or secondary education for students without a school identifier, the right to education may also be engaged. The committee considers further information is required to assess the compatibility of these measures with these rights and is therefore seeking the minister's advice in regard to these matters. I encourage all members to consider the committee's reports closely. I thank the secretariat for the significant work that they have done over this inquiry and over this latest scrutiny report. I want to thank the deputy chair for the way in which he has conducted himself in the inquiry—always in a respectful and professional way. I want to thank the other committee members for their participation in this inquiry, and I commend the inquiry report and the Human Rights Scrutiny Report:Report 8 of 2024 to the House. 16:33 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman by leave—I rise to speak on the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into compulsory income management, and specifically on the dissenting report presented by the coalition members of the committee and Senator Rennick. The majority report supports the elimination of all forms of compulsory income management. However, the dissenting members contend that compulsory income management is consistent with our human rights commitments and has positively impacted some of Australia's most vulnerable citizens. This view is informed by the comprehensive review of the University of Adelaide into the impact of the cessation of the cashless debit card. The report of this review outlines the benefits of the former program and the problems emerging following its cessation—evidence, through a depth of research, that reflects a wide range of perspectives. The review included interviews with 290 stakeholders and past CDC participants over the course of 12 months. It is the view of dissenting members of the committee that this report is the pivotal piece of evidence informing us on the effects of the cashless debit card's cessation in these Australian communities. Dissenting members hold that the majority report has cherry picked the aspects of the University of Adelaide report that fit an ideological narrative, rather than considering the full gravity of its astonishing findings. We also note that most of the evidence presented during this inquiry related to income management in the Northern Territory and other compulsory IM locations, which have historically operated using the older BasicsCard platform. Under this system, only 50 per cent of income support payments were subject to restrictions, and the use of the card for cardholders was limited to merchants that had signed onto the scheme. This contrasts with the cashless debit card trial sites in East Kimberley, the Goldfields, Ceduna and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay, which utilised a more modern and ubiquitous visa card platform, where up to 80 per cent of income support payments were restricted. Dissenting members acknowledge these critical differences and, based on the substantial evidence presented by the University of Adelaide report, conclude that the CDC should not have been removed from the trial sites, and they have recommended its prompt reinstatement. We hold that a fair reading of the University of Adelaide report would conclude that the rushed cessation of compulsory income management has led to a decline in wellbeing of individuals and communities within these regions, including evidence of increased alcohol and gambling abuse, declines in child welfare and an increase in violence. Members on this side don't have to just rely on University of Adelaide researchers. The members who represent these communities have seen these same results through their own first-hand experiences as they work with constituents from these areas. The committee also heard that the rushed nature of the cessation also ensured that many program participants were unaware that voluntary income management was an option for them. Additionally, this hurried transition may have created the circumstances for former program participants to be coerced into not subscribing to voluntary programs, often by intimate partners. As one stakeholder from Ceduna noted: There's a lot of families out there who get pressure from their partner. They might want to go on it, but they can't. Dissenting members contend that voluntary income management cannot be considered a viable alternative policy. The individuals that the policy seeks to support would self-evidently be largely unwilling to voluntarily subject themselves to this limitation. Where they may be willing, the risk of coercion to prevent their participation in a voluntary program is too great. We consider that the Commonwealth government's previous policy of compulsory income management was targeted to meet a legitimate objective, that had had a rational connection to this objective and that it was proportionate to the objective being sought. Dissenting members also contend that compulsory income management is entirely compatible with Australia's human rights obligations and that it had a beneficial impact on some of our most vulnerable Australians. The swift cessation of the program has led to negative outcomes for vulnerable Australians, as it has provided them with the means to inhibit their own wellbeing. On behalf of the dissenting members of the committee, I want to thank everyone who engaged with the committee's inquiry process and the committee secretariat for their tireless efforts in supporting our work. I conclude with the thoughts of Bundaberg-Hervey Bay CDC participant 21, who shared his views on compulsory income management with the University of Adelaide research team. He said: … for me it was a Godsend because I was able to pay my debts instead of just wasting money … It helps me save money so it taught me a life lesson being on it … not going to lie, the government, it's probably the best thing that they've brought out. I ask members to reflect on this man's human rights and how they have been impacted by the ideologically driven decisions of this government. BILLS 76 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 76

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

Second Reading 76 16:39 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney When I had my three children between 2003 and 2007, government-provided paid parental leave did not yet exist. I was, however, lucky enough to work for an employer who, of their own volition, provided paid parental leave for a period of 12 weeks, which you could take at half pay if you wished. The kicker in the program, however, was that you only received the six weeks of salary whilst on leave, and you needed to return to work to receive the balance, with an underwriting that if you then left their employment in the next 12 months, you would be required to pay the parental leave back. The program was groundbreaking. As an American firm, they saw their investment in this scheme as something that was not only good for the individual, as it encouraged loyalty, but also ultimately good for their business, as it boosted retention and job satisfaction. It's not an overstatement to say people jostled to be employed by the company I worked for. In this context, 24 years later, I'm really excited to be able to stand in this House today and welcome this bill, which ensures parents receive a superannuation contribution on top of their parental leave payments. This development comes on top of earlier measures to improve families' access to government paid parental leave, provide parents with more flexibility in how they take their leave and encourage families to share care. The legislation will see superannuation paid on government paid parental leave beginning 1 July next year. I wish it was sooner, but I understand why it is set at that date. Eligible parents with babies born or adopted on or after 1 July 2025 will receive an additional payment of 12 per cent of their parental leave payment as a contribution paid directly to their nominated superannuation fund. As we know, this legislation is part of a package of reforms to Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme delivered by this government. It follows legislation passed mid last year that changed the family income tests and made it easier for families to share care. It also follows legislation passed earlier this year that increased the number of weeks a birth parent would be eligible for paid leave under the scheme from 20 weeks to 22 weeks, further extending over time to 26 weeks in 2026 and including 'use it or lose it' provisions for the non-birth parent. The package of reforms is long overdue, and I thank all of those who have tirelessly advocated for these improvements over many years. The changes that are now being made to our paid parental leave system are a result of significant, consistent advocacy from various individuals and organisations, many of which have been calling for these changes since the introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2011. I am so grateful that this government has listened, at least partially, to the voices of women and families, to the women's movement, to the health, aged-care and community services sectors, and to unions, economists, businesses and employers. Including superannuation on top of maternity leave was a key recommendation of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, and it is a necessary step towards closing the gender super gap. Parental leave is the only form of leave that doesn't attract a super guarantee, leaving many rightly questioning why it has taken so long to rectify this perverse situation. In fact, when I surveyed my community of North Sydney for their views on parental leave reform, 100 per cent of the people who responded indicated they would like to see superannuation payments added onto paid parental leave payments. For most people, this reform seemed obvious. The reality is that parental leave policy settings have a significant and wideranging impact on families, children, women, the economy and, ultimately, our society as a whole. Right now Australian women retire with, on average, 47 per cent less super than men. A major contributing factor to that inequity is the lack of super on parental leave. This is then exacerbated by other factors, including the current Australian gender pay gap of 19 per cent on average, the fact that mothers usually return to work part time after having children, an inequitable labour market and household care dynamics. For a primary carer, usually a woman, the accumulation of superannuation savings is interrupted while on paid parental leave, and the leave itself is commonly extended by several months of unpaid leave. The effect is compounded over years, resulting in a large gender disparity in retirement balances, and is exacerbated on return to work, with women commonly rejoining the workforce on a part-time basis after their parental leave period has ended. The inequity that occurs during parental leave follows the primary carer throughout their career and into their retirement, creating significant inequalities in retirement incomes. Beyond boosting super balances, paying super on government funded paid parental leave will help normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement, reinforcing the understanding that paid parental leave is not a welfare payment but rather a workplace entitlement just like annual leave or sick leave. Additionally, it will address one of the financial barriers that discourages men from taking on their share of parental leave, encouraging families to more evenly distribute caring responsibilities. The bill before us will ensure the super contribution paid on top of the government parental leave will match the superannuation guarantee rate as of 1 July of the financial year the leave is taken and will rise with any future increases to the legislated superannuation guarantee. The contribution will be made annually by the ATO at the end of each financial year and will include an additional interest component to address any forgone superannuation fund earnings as a result of the payment not being made more regularly. This is a really sensible and welcome approach. Improving and driving gender equality is vital to both the wellbeing of our society and the success of our economy. As the Grattan Institute has noted, greater sharing of childcare is one of the best ways to improve women's economic security. From being caregivers, nurturers and educators to taking on professional roles in community leadership, women's essential contributions are often undervalued and unpaid, perpetuating economic inequality. Those outdated systems, policies and norms discount women from active participation in our society and our workforce. Indeed, the estimated value to the Australian economy that could be realised by purposefully removing the persistent barriers to women's full and equal participation in the economy is a staggering $128 billion. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce reported Australian women still face deep gender inequality and continue to shoulder a disproportionate burden of unpaid labour across all spheres of life. We can and must do better. I'm hugely supportive of an improved Paid Parental Leave scheme in Australia and I welcome these reforms, but I also firmly believe we can aim even higher. With so much evidence accumulating around the world to the benefits of adopting progressive policies to support shared care and gender balance in society, it's truly astounding that we're only just now debating legislative reform to parental leave that has been operating in some countries for multiple decades. Certainly, this bill is a vast improvement to Australia's Paid Parental Leave system, but let us not forget: Australia is actually far behind global best practice. When Australia's parental leave scheme was first introduced in 2011, it was not—as described then by the minister for families—historic reform or a major win for working families when you compared it to the schemes available in other jurisdictions. On average, families in the OECD are typically entitled to more than 50 weeks of paid leave—that's 2½ times more than what we offer in Australia. In Finland new parents each have access to seven months paid leave, and policies such as these have been directly linked with better development outcomes for children, and support a more balanced division of labour between a two-parent family. Ultimately, I believe our goal as a society should be to provide families with the full support they need to enable them to choose who they want the primary carer to be, and when, without a gender bias lens being brought to the discussion. While the addition of superannuation to the government's paid parental leave is an improvement, there is still far more that can be done to improve not only our parental leave system but also the other systems that play a pivotal role in shaping gender outcomes in this country and that support working parents, including the superannuation system more broadly and the early childhood education and care sector—specifically, providing universal access to early childhood education and care, and pursuing other measures to ensure a robust super system, including reforming the low-income super tax effect. Australia can and should go further in adopting international best practice not only in the payment of superannuation on paid parental leave but also in ensuring 26 weeks is the minimum leave entitlement for any family, phasing the scheme up to an eventual 52 weeks of paid leave while maintaining the principles of shared care and flexible arrangements, and furthering the 'use it or lose it' provisions to encourage greater shared care. ABS data from 2021- 22 showed 24.7 per cent of respondents cited caring for children as the main reason they were not available for work, with women of all ages spending nine hours more per week on average on unpaid care work than men. While 26 weeks of paid parental leave covers the child's first six months of life, there are indisputable benefits in introducing 52 weeks of paid parental leave, spread across two parents. An increase from 20 to 26 weeks of paid parental leave alone boosts GDP by $900 million a year thanks to the increased workforce participation by mothers, while also boosting the average mother's lifetime earnings by $30,000. We have an opportunity to increase these economic and social benefits even further by committing to expanding the Paid Parental Leave program to 52 weeks. When I surveyed my electorate of North Sydney, 75 per cent of respondents indicated to me that they felt the time they had off for paid parental leave was too short. We must also consider access to early childhood education and care, which, along with paid parental leave, is the other key policy to support employed parents with young children. Indeed, in many countries, these policies are coordinated in the sense that an entitlement to leave leads immediately into or coincides with an entitlement to early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care is a vital input for our entire economy, which cannot function to its potential unless parents are able to work. Along with paid parental leave improvements, we need to ensure families have access to quality and affordable care to allow those that either wish or need to return to work to do so. It's clear that families in my community face hardship when it comes to child care and returning to work. As one person said to me: I've been on a waiting list since my son was 4 months old for daycare. We've decided to use a nanny, family and have split days off. My son is nearly 1 and it's been financially challenging, especially trying to buy a house in Sydney. From my conversations with childcare operators, workers and parents, it's clear more federal government leadership, coordination and support are needed. Childcare centres are struggling with skills shortages while existing workers are overwhelmed and underpaid. Meanwhile, families cannot find space and affordability is a massive issue, with some facing fees of up to $200 a day. Finally, alongside these changes to ensure superannuation is paid on parental leave, we must pursue other measures to achieve equality in super. The low income super tax offset should be changed to reflect current tax and super settings so lower paid workers don't pay more tax on their super contributions than their wages. The tax offset gives eligible taxpayers of annual incomes of $37,000 or less a refund capped at $500 into their superannuation account to help them save for retirement. Low-paid workers, who are predominantly women, are ultimately paying more tax on their super than they would pay on their take-home pay, and this is ridiculous. We must also look for ways to reduce the impact of unpaid care on super balances. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce report found women spend over 30 hours per week on unpaid care and housework, while men do 22 hours. It's work that props up the economy, but it's not valued or well understood and it certainly doesn't attract super. Proposals such as carer credit to compensate parents for super lost due to unpaid parental leave should be seriously considered by our government and our nation, particularly as the need for care is growing and we know it's performed, unpaid, by women. In closing, this legislation is deserving of celebration. It is a modest step, but it is absolutely a step in the right direction. I truly thank this government for taking it. I'm not convinced that a government of another colour would have done so. However, in celebrating this progress, I urge us all not to lose sight of how much more work there is to do and there is to be done to elevate Australia's parental leave scheme and early childhood education and care schemes to ones that will truly allow women equal economic opportunities. This is instrumental in closing the gender pay gap, and it will mean all Australians, no matter their gender or financial situation, will be able to have families. Better parental leave and childcare policies not only could dramatically improve women's participation in the workforce but will also, importantly, shift our society forward. In that context, I encourage this government to see this development as a stepping stone on the road to a system that will rival even our Nordic counterparts. That's the kind of ambition we need to bring to Australian politics. 16:53 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is a really significant piece of legislation before the House. It brings together really important and vital areas that Labor has always championed, which are universal superannuation, delivering paid parental leave and gender equality. I note, too, that this month marks the 30th anniversary of affirmative action being placed in the Labor Party rules. This legislation, like so much legislation, is an example of what happens when you have women at the decision-making table and when you think about the kinds of communities all of us here represent. This is good for families; it is good for children; it is good for the economy; and I am so proud to be part of a government advancing this. It's really important, too, to reflect that many people have campaigned for a long time for superannuation to be paid on Commonwealth parental leave payments, to ensure that there are fairer retirement outcomes for women. That has been true since paid parental leave was legislated by a Labor government. That's a very long time of advocacy, and I want to pause and pay tribute to my friend—our friend, on this side of the House—the late Senator Linda White, who was passionate about this reform and fought tirelessly for this change. I am pleased that she was able to be part of a government that is now going to be delivering this significant and historic change, and I am really proud to have had the opportunity to work with her in the parliament and outside the parliament. More than 180,000 women receive parental leave payments each year, making up 99.5 per cent of Commonwealth parental leave payment recipients, which means the inequity of the loss of superannuation has been felt almost entirely by women. From 1 July next year, the government will pay 12 per cent superannuation on top of Commonwealth paid parental leave to those taking Commonwealth paid parental leave. We also know that Commonwealth paid parental leave is much more likely to be accessed by those on lower than average incomes, which means there is an enormous benefit in paid superannuation to those families on lower incomes. Analysis completed by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia shows that paying superannuation on paid parental leave, combined with the legislated increases to the super guarantee and the duration of paid parental leave to 26 weeks, will lead to an increase in superannuation balances at retirement of around $5,100. For a woman who received paid parental leave at age 28 for her first child and at age 30 for her second child—let's imagine that—the increase in her superannuation balance would be around $10,700. That is really significant, because we need to remember that superannuation leads to compound interest accumulating over time. That's why I am very troubled to hear of the amendments put forward by those opposite which effectively ask women to steal from their own futures, to steal from their retirement and to lose that compound interest which is really key to the success of a superannuation system, and which, therefore, will do nothing to address the gender inequity that we see in superannuation balances between men and women. That is of course a really key consideration. An objective of this bill is to promote gender equality in superannuation. That cannot be realised if we entertain the awful suggestions from those opposite. I really would invite them to reflect on the robbery they are suggesting women commit from their own futures and on the gender inequity they'd entrench through their terrible suggestions. We know that improving paid parental leave is critical reform. It's critical for families, critical for women and critical for the economy. Our government knows this well, and we know this well because that's what happens when you have 52 per cent of your party room comprising women. We know that paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children. We know that investing in paid parental leave benefits everyone in our communities across our economy. We know that, if the settings are right, paid parental leave can advance gender equality. Businesses, unions, researchers, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity—which I think we all, in the chamber, agree we like to do—and participation in the workforce is to provide more choice and more support for families and more opportunity for women. Ever since we were elected and indeed before, when we were in opposition and throughout the last election campaign, those of us on this side of the House have been working hard to work to improve gender equality and to close the gender pay gap. Central to this have been the efforts put into improving paid parental leave for working families. First, we made changes from 1 July 2023 to give more families access to the payment. We made it more flexible to support parents in the transition back to work and made it much easier for parents to share care by creating a single payment that both parents were able to access. Then, from 1 July this year, we delivered the largest expansion to paid parental leave since Labor established it in government in 2011. By expanding the scheme to a full six months by 2026, families will receive an important extra six weeks of paid leave following the birth or adoption of their child. And, importantly, while the government is supporting parents to take time off work after the birth or adoption of their child, we're also taking action here to ensure that this doesn't impact their retirement income. Through this bill, we are investing $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from 2025. This is significant. This has been hard fought. This is going to make an extraordinary difference to many people's lives. Taking time out of paid work to care for children is a normal part of working life for both parents. Paying super on government paid parental leave will help normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement, just like annual and sick leave, and reduce the impact of parental leave on retirement incomes. The data is clear. When women take time out of the workforce to raise children, it impacts their retirement incomes, with women retiring on average with about 25 per cent less superannuation than men. Unfortunately, we know that one of the cohorts at greatest risk of homelessness and poverty are women who are over 65, who may not be able to access an adequate retirement income. This measure works to address that inequity and to take a really meaningful step to ensure that in the future women will not find themselves in that position. Paying superannuation on government parental leave is an important investment, a vital investment, to help close the superannuation gap and make decisions, frankly, about balancing care and work easier for women—easier for families. For babies born or adopted from 1 July next year, all parents who receive paid parental leave will receive an additional 12 per cent paid directly to their superannuation fund. Importantly too, the contribution will be made annually by the Australian Taxation Office after the end of each financial year, and this will then include an additional interest component to address any forgone superannuation fund earnings—that compound interest I was talking about earlier—as a result of the payment not being made more regularly. Most parents won't need to do anything further to receive their superannuation payment, and the claim process for paid parental leave will not change. On this side of the House, we know investing in paid parental leave is an investment in families. It's an investment in women's economic security, both now and in the future. Given the way superannuation works, it is about people's future security. It is also an investment in the broader economy. Our government's historic reforms cement paid parental leave as a Labor legacy, and I think they make really clear, again, the importance of the contribution of superannuation to the experience of people in this country, which has been something that only Labor was able to deliver. It was Labor that first introduced paid parental leave and superannuation. Labor always invests in a better future for Australian families. I'm really pleased to commend this bill to the House. 17:05 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to provide my support for the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. Parental leave is not a holiday; parental leave is not sipping cocktails on a beach. It is also not some form of long-term illness. But when people take leave because they're sick or they're having a holiday, they don't return to the office with a lower superannuation balance than their colleagues. It's so important that we pay superannuation on paid parental leave so that we're not disadvantaging parents in their retirement. Many members of this House are lucky to have experienced parenthood and the challenges of their child's first year firsthand. Whilst new fathers are increasingly taking parental leave, it remains the case that women are still the primary caregivers in Australia more often, taking time out from their careers to do so. My personal experience lines up with this. I had a rewarding job before having kids. I took time off after having each of my three children. Even with a supportive husband, who is also a committed father, I subsequently returned to work part time instead of full time and sought out and accepted different types of jobs based on the need to balance my work responsibilities with the time I needed and wanted to spend with my kids. I worked part time for 17 years while my kids were young, and I fully understand the impact that caring for kids has on earning capacity and superannuation. Economists refer to the motherhood penalty, which is how much of their previous earnings levels the average mother gives up after having children. In Australia it's huge at about 55 per cent, which is much larger than in most OECD countries. The average loss on earnings lasts for at least 10 years. While I made my choices freely, this data rings true in my own experience. I was very aware of this motherhood penalty in my own earnings and life journey. We've seen statistics showing that women aged 60 to 65 retire with 25 per cent less superannuation than men of the same age. Much of this is attributed to the caring responsibilities women take on. While this bill will not completely fix this issue, it does start to rectify this gap. This bill will benefit about 180,000 families annually by providing an extra 12 per cent of their government funded paid parental leave as an annual lump sum payment of up to $3,000 to their super fund. The Parenthood has done financial analysis that shows that the compound interest on this contribution to superannuation could be as much as $30,000 extra in retirement savings per family per child. I'm supporting this bill because it goes some of the way to mitigating the motherhood penalty. Families in the current cost-of-living crisis are having to make difficult decisions every day about how they spend their money, whether to take on a mortgage, which parent returns to work and how much parental leave they can afford to take. Paying super on paid parental leave gives parents better financial security in the longer term, something that's not top of mind at the time but makes a big difference over a working life. Industries with a higher proportion of women in their workforce are particularly supportive of this bill. For example, it will greatly benefit nurses, midwives and assistants in nursing, who suffer inequity through loss of super while taking time out of the workforce to have children. An industry representative points out that women make up 89 per cent of the Australian nursing and midwifery workforce who, on average, retire with up to 40 per cent less super than men. That must change if working women are to have any chance of reaching a secure retirement with a comfortable standard of living. It has been suggested that this superannuation entitlement be restructured to give women the choice of a cash payment or additional leave instead of a super entitlement. While a cash payment or more leave would, no doubt, always be welcome, I wouldn't support such an amendment because the purpose here is to remove the disadvantages for women as they approach retirement. It would be too tempting to take the additional payout without a thought for the long term. If the intention of those amendments that I have heard proposed is to increase support for women, or indeed parents generally, I'm very happy to consider additional supports, but they should be as well as the super entitlement, not instead of it. I'm also supporting this bill in its current form because recognising the loss of superannuation during time taken off to look after children normalises paid parental leave as a workplace entitlement, the same as sick leave or annual leave. So, while there is more to do to address the motherhood penalty, I welcome this step to normalise paid parental leave and start to close the gap for women when they get to retirement age. I commend this bill to the House. 17:10 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. This bill is so vitally important for Australian families. In fact, it affects every parent, every child and every worker across our nation. It speaks to who we are as a society and what we value: fairness, equality, opportunity and the wellbeing of all Australians. This bill represents a fundamental reform that will strengthen families, advance gender equality and boost our economic prosperity. The Albanese Labor government knows this because Labor governments have always known this. We know that paid parental leave is essential for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children. It provides a crucial period of bonding and care in those very early formative months, setting the foundation for much healthier, happier families. But, beyond the immediate benefit to families, investing in paid parental leave is a huge investment in our economy and our economic growth. It has the potential to increase workforce participation, enhance productivity and create a more equitable society. When parents, particularly women, have the support they need to balance those work and family responsibilities, they're more likely to return to work, pursue their careers and be part of the contribution to our nation's economic growth. We're not alone in this view. In fact, many businesses, economists, unions and experts all recognise that one of the most effective ways to boost productivity and workforce participation is to provide families with more choices, more support and more opportunities. Of course, for so long many Australians, particularly women, have had to make difficult choices between career aspirations and opportunities and their caring responsibilities, and it is time for that to change, and that is what this government is doing. The Albanese Labor government has been committed to making paid parental leave more accessible, more equitable and more flexible for all working families, and that flexibility is key. Our journey to reform began with critical changes implemented on 1 July 2023. These changes expanded access to paid parental leave, making it more available to more families than ever before. We also introduced greater flexibility, allowing parents to structure their leave in ways that best suit their needs and support their transition back to work, acknowledging the varying differences between families and their working circumstances. We also simplified the system, creating a single payment that both parents can access, making it easier for parents to share that care. This reform was designed to remove barriers and encourage shared parenting responsibilities, again promoting gender equality at home and in the workplace. But these were just the first steps. We're now embarking on the largest expansion of paid parental leave since Labor first introduced it here in this House in 2011. From 1 July next year, we will begin extending paid parental leave to a full six months by 2026. This extension means families will have an extra six weeks of paid leave following the birth or adoption of their child, a vital period that allows parents time to bond with their children, establish important routines and support the emotional and physical development of their children. This expansion is, of course, so much more than just providing more time; it's about giving families more freedom to make choices that work for them. It's about recognising that every family is different and that our policies must be flexible enough to accommodate and incorporate all of those differences. By providing more leave, we empower parents to make decisions that best suit their specific family's needs, without sacrificing their financial security or their career progression, because taking time off work to care for a child should never come at the cost of a secure retirement. This government is determined to ensure that paid parental leave does not adversely impact retirement income. That's why we're taking a historic step to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from July 2025. We're investing $1.1 billion to ensure that every parent who takes leave to care for their child is also building on their retirement savings. This decision recognises that caring for children is a normal part of working life for both parents, and by paying superannuation on government paid parental leave we normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement, just like annual leave or sick leave. This reform will help reduce the financial impact on retirement incomes of taking parental leave, particularly for women, who have historically been most affected. The data is stark and cannot be ignored. When women take time out of the workforce to raise children it significantly impacts their retirement savings. On average, women retire with around 25 per cent less superannuation than men. This disparity is unacceptable, and it is a gap that we must close. By paying superannuation on government paid parental leave we take that crucial step towards closing the super gap and making it easier for women to make decisions about balancing care and work. This reform is not just about fairness; it's about economic justice as well. For babies born or adopted after 1 July 2025, all parents who receive paid parental leave will receive an additional 12 per cent contributed directly into their super fund. The contribution will be made annually by the ATO after the end of each financial year, and it will include an additional interest component to compensate for any lost earnings that would have accrued had the payment been made more regularly. Most parents won't need to take any additional steps to receive their superannuation payment, and the claim process for paid parental leave will remain unchanged. From 1 July 2026, when the Paid Parental Leave scheme is extended to 26 weeks, the maximum amount a family could receive in superannuation contributions will be approximately $3,000 per birth. This is a significant boost to retirement incomes, and it will make a real difference to the lives of so many Australian families. I know all across the country, and especially in my electorate, women I've spoken to have said what a big difference it will make to their families. This government understands that investing in paid parental leave is more than just a financial commitment; it's an investment in our collective future. It's an investment in the security and wellbeing of our families, and of course it's an investment in the economic independence of women and the overall prosperity of our nation. We know that when families are supported children thrive. We know that when women have the resources and opportunities to participate fully in the workforce our economy grows stronger. We know that when we close the superannuation gap we build a fairer society where all Australians—all of them—can retire with dignity and security. We understand how important that is. These reforms are part of a broader vision for Australia—a vision where families do not have to make that really hard choice between financial security and caring for their children. That's a terrible choice to have to make. This is a vision where both parents can contribute meaningfully to family life and the workforce without being penalised for doing so. This is a vision where women have equal opportunity to succeed in their careers and to enjoy a secure retirement. We know how important it is to have paid parental leave and to have superannuation paid on PPL. We've always been supportive of ensuring in particular women's economic prosperity and involvement. In contrast to this, we have the opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, who we know have spent decades trying to destroy the superannuation system. We've seen that over and over again. Of course, we now know they're walking away from their previous support for superannuation on paid parental leave. It is atrocious that it's actually happening. It's another stunt by the Liberals and the Nationals, and the usual negativity we hear from them. But the fact is that they have never supported superannuation. They fought it every step of the way—always—just like they've opposed our cost-of-living measures. In the past they've opposed so many superannuation measures. They opposed paid parental leave when we first brought it in, as we know. They said it was 'double dipping'. That's how they see it. Yet here we have another of their stunts, talking about changes to this historic reform that we want to bring in to assist Australian families. On this side of the House, we are very proud to be building on our Labor legacy when it comes to paid parental leave. I was here in the House in 2011 when Labor first introduced paid parental leave, a truly historic moment. It is Labor governments that do that. And I'm incredibly proud to be here now speaking on the next great Labor reform to a scheme that we created and that we are building on. The bill serves as yet another reminder that it is Labor that continues to build a better future for all Australian families. These historic reforms to paid parental leave are testament to our commitment to fairness, equality and opportunity for all. We strongly believe every child deserves the best start in life and every parent deserves the support they need to provide that start. We believe a fair society is one where everyone has that opportunity to thrive regardless of their gender or their family circumstances. And we believe so strongly that our economy is so much bigger and better and stronger when all Australians are empowered to contribute and be involved to their fullest potential. These paid parental leave reforms that we are enacting today are such a vital step towards realising this vision. They're a bold and necessary step forward, and we're incredibly proud to be introducing this bill and to be fighting for these important reforms. And I want to acknowledge all those who worked for decades towards this moment, the people who advocated for these really important changes—and for the initial reform we bought in all those years ago for paid parental leave. It is Labor, again, that is adding to that, especially for superannuation on paid parental leave. I know there are many people throughout the nation who raised this issue and fought for it for so many years. We are so proud, as a government and as the Labor Party, to be introducing today what is a historic reform when it comes to having superannuation for paid parental leave. I commend the bill to the House. 17:22 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill to get superannuation on paid parental leave. One of the reasons I entered politics was because I wanted to support the economic empowerment of women. It's something that, to be honest, I have grown up with. It's probably my mum's greatest legacy to me personally. If women don't fight for women, then it's not going to happen. We need to fight for women. This is about getting women to make their great contribution to this country, and the economic empowerment of women is absolutely critical to that. You are not going to get women with this economic empowerment if you don't have women in the room, and this is a lesson from this parliament. This is the first parliament to have over 45 per cent women in the room, compared with 36 per cent in the last parliament and around 30 per cent in the last three or four parliaments before this. Women are in the room, and this is making a huge difference to women's economic empowerment, including the bill that is here today in front of the House. Why is the bill important? Women retire with around 30 per cent less super, and we know one of the greatest risks to poverty in old age is that lack of super, that lack of security. Some of the people experiencing the fastest-growing economic distress, including homelessness, are older women without significant resources and with not enough super. So this bill is absolutely important. Frankly, when you're taking time off to have and look after your child—and we know that women still do the vast majority of that child rearing, particularly in those early days—it's absolutely critical that you're still contributing to your retirement so you have those resources. I want to briefly acknowledge the other changes that have happened in this parliament around women's economic empowerment, because they're absolutely critical. We have seen an increase in paid parental leave, which is important. What is particularly important about the increase in paid parental leave is that it includes more 'use it or lose it' for the second parent, which is typically a man in most families, so that we have more men taking part in raising their children. We're also seeing evidence of a closing wage gap between men and women. We've seen significant investments in child care to make it more accessible to more people in the country. Access to and the affordability of child care is still a real issue in my community, but we have made strides in this parliament. The final piece, I think, has been super on paid parental leave. These are all changes that I certainly welcome and that I think are really powerful. Other changes are things like increased leave for domestic violence and raising the age of children for which single parents—again, typically women—are supported when they are raising children on their own. These are all improvements for women in this parliament and that is because women are finally in the room. However, I want to acknowledge that there is so much more to do in relation to women's economic empowerment. Let's specifically talk to the bill, because the bill in itself will go some way to addressing women's economic empowerment. It means that superannuation contributions of 12 per cent will be paid on top of payments already made to parents under the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. This will bring the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme in line with most of the private sector schemes. This is important. However, by Treasury's own admission, superannuation contributions on paid parental leave will only marginally reduce the retirement income gender gap. Treasury modelling predicts that the median female earner will receive a 0.17 per cent increase in annual retirement income as a result of this scheme. It makes a difference but it doesn't close the gap that we know is there. While it is closing, it is still substantial. I'd like to come now to what will close the gap, to where we need to continue to fight and to some of the areas in which I will continue to fight now that this bill looks like it will go through the House and, hopefully, will get support in the Senate. I will continue to fight, particularly around the sharing of caring. That's because, when you look at the economic empowerment of women and why there is a continued gender gap, a significant part of it comes down to who does the caring. It's absolutely typical that women do more of the caring in so many situations. Eighty-eight per cent of primary care leave continues to be utilised by women, with only 12 per cent of primary carers leave taken up by men. This makes Australia unusual. Most other countries around the world—our compatriots in the OECD—do much better in terms of sharing the caring. We need to change the culture in this country around this. This is where I think paid parental leave needs further evolution and, honestly, in my mind, revolution. Back in 2021 the Grattan Institute modelled a 26-week paid parental leave scheme, which is similar to the length of the current ambition on paid parental leave, but with an even greater proportion of time allocated to both parents under a 'use it or lose it' system. The economic benefits, primarily from increased workforce participation, outweighed the costs 1½ times. We know that, if we continue to further tilt the balance so that caring is really shared, this will do even more for women's economic empowerment. However, there are also significant impacts both on men and on children. For men and male partners, if they take up more leave, there's evidence to suggest that they end up having stronger mental health and a better bond with their children. One of the issues that we face as a country is that men's suicide rates are three times those of female suicides. We know that men suffer from mental ill-health. Those strong connections with family are some of the factors that can help improve men's mental health. That is why this would be good for men. There's also evidence to show that this is better for kids. They're more likely to have strong and enduring relationships with both parents and also more likely to have a stronger sense of wellbeing from better sharing the caring. So this is—and has to be, in my mind—where we need to continue to push as a parliament. We need to better share the caring. This is about the economic empowerment of women, this is about the mental health and connection of our men, and this is about raising our kids better. To sum up, the introduction of super on paid parental leave today is a necessary and very positive step to achieving true gender economic equity in this country. It is an important step, it's one that I'm proud to have fought for, and I'm proud to be speaking on it. However, we as a parliament need to keep the pressure on, because the gaps are still there, and there's much more that we can do across this parliament to make real changes. 17:30 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I am so pleased to be speaking on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 today. Paid parental leave is good for parents, it's good for kids, and it's good for our economy. This reform that our Labor government is bringing into today to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave is a huge win for Australian families and a huge win for Australian women. This recognises that paid parental leave is a workplace payment, just like all the other types of leave that we have in our workplace, and that taking time out of the workforce to care for young children is a normal part of a working life. It builds on reforms that our government has already made to extend the length of paid parental leave and to make it more flexible for both parents to take time out for caring responsibilities. We know that at the moment women retire with a superannuation gap, on average, of about 25 per cent less than men. That is actually unacceptable and it is not a given—that is something we can fix, and that is something we are starting to fix through the work our government has been doing to promote gender equity and through the work that will happen as a result of putting superannuation onto paid parental leave. From day one our government has been working hard to improve paid parental leave for working families. We made changes from 1 July 2023 to give more families access to paid parental leave, we made it more flexible to support parents in the transition back to work, and we made it much easier for both parents to share care by creating a single payment that both parents can access—that is a significant change. Then, from 1 July, we will be delivering the largest expansion to paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011. By expanding the scheme to a full six months by 2026, we ensure families will receive an extra six weeks of paid parental leave following the birth or adoption of their child. We are now taking action to make sure that this expansion also supports parents' retirement income. We are building on the reforms we have already made to paid parental leave by paying superannuation on government paid parental leave from July next year. This is significant reform, and it is the reform that Labor governments do: supporting Australian families now, supporting Australian women now, and also setting them up for the best possible future. Through this bill, our government is investing $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave. In doing so, what we make sure is that parents can take time off to care for their children in those critical early years, when we know that so much of a child's life and a family's life is being established. Paying superannuation on government paid parental leave helps to normalise paid parental leave as a workplace entitlement, just like annual and sick leave, and it reduces that gap that we have on women's retirement incomes. This is something that I have been passionate about for many years, and it is one of the reasons I am so pleased to be standing here today. Paid parental leave is a proudly Labor reform. It was Labor, under the leadership of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and my predecessor as the member for Jagajaga Jenny Macklin who introduced Australia's national Paid Parental Leave Scheme on 1 January 2011. It is really important that we do not underestimate how crucial that leadership was to making paid parental leave a reality in this country. The reality at the time was that we were a laggard, and it took a Labor government and Labor women to make sure that Australia got its first national paid parental leave. All the data tells us that since that scheme was introduced it has made a massive difference in women's life, particularly for women who work in lower-paid or casual industries and who, in the past, didn't tend to receive any paid parental leave at all. At the time of paid parental leave's introduction in Australia, I worked with Jenny Macklin, and it was certainly a busy period of reform. Over the course of a few years, we introduced the NDIS, we made important changes to our social security system, we worked on First Nations policy and we introduced paid parental leave. At that time and since then I've had the opportunity to speak to women right across the country about the significance of this reform, about the change it has made and the security they feel in their working life and about the ability it has given them to start their journey right when it comes to being a family. In particular, this goes for women in areas like retail and women in hospitality and small businesses. These are all areas where, previously, women had no access to any form of paid leave. They are finally able to take the time they need to look after their baby without having that financial stress. As I said, this is something I have been passionate about for a long time and in fact it's something I spoke about in my first speech in this place, five years ago. I spoke of it then in the context of a coalition government which very clearly did not have any appetite for reform or improvements when it came to paid parental leave. You will excuse me for quoting myself, but at the time I said: Labor started making it easier for parents to juggle work and family when we introduced paid parental leave. It has made a huge difference in the lives of many Australians, but there is more work to be done. I am convinced that we need a culture shift in our workplaces so that they are no longer built on the premise that there's a wife at home who is the primary carer. We need to address the bias—conscious or not—that after a baby is born it is women who will work part time before the children start school, who will carry the mental load and who in some cases will leave the work force forever. Five years on, and two years into the life of this Labor government, I am so pleased at the substantial change we have made to so many of those points. Since the election of the Albanese Labor government, the reforms we have made to expand paid parental leave and make it easier for both parents, for women and men, to take leave and share the care are so important. This bill today is the next step in these reforms. It is a Labor government that is making this happen because we understand the reality of modern Australian families' lives. We understand that women want to be supported economically to take that time out to look after their children, but we also understand that Australian men want the flexibility to do that as well. They want to be able to share the care. So part of the reforms we have introduced include 'use it or lose it' provisions for the secondary carer, which is really important in terms of that uptake from men. The other part we've seen, alongside the reforms that the Labor government has brought in, is that the private sector is also improving their schemes and recognising that modern Australian families want to be able to take this time. They want the flexibility of being able to take paid leave for both men and women, and it is really heartening to see that change in culture in workplaces, normalising both parents taking leave and taking time to get their family on the best possible footing in those crucial early months of their child's life. I want to acknowledge that this is work the government has done not on its own but across the board with a lot of support from other organisations. We have had support from the Business Council of Australia, The Parenthood, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Australian Council of Social Service, Diversity Council Australia and Impact Economics and Policy—all doing important work. I want to say a particular thank you to the union movement, who I know have fought for this reform and for paid parental leave for a very long time, including unions such as the ASU, the SDA and others. Unions have been longtime advocates for expanding and reforming paid parental leave. They are at the coalface of recognising both the need for and the benefits of this. I want to highlight in particular the tireless advocacy on this issue from the late Senator Linda White. Linda's time as a senator in this parliament was short, but her decades as a leader with the ASU saw Linda work tirelessly to improve the lot of workers and women workers in particular. Seeing superannuation paid on parental leave was an issue that Linda championed for at least a decade alongside ASU members, particularly through the Not so super, for women report in 2017. This advocacy has really meant we are now where we are today. So, while I am very sad that Linda is not here to be able to see this bill pass through the parliament, I know she would be so proud to see that work resulting in this big win for Australian women and Australian families. While we know that our paid parental leave reforms are widely supported in the Australian community, unfortunately it seems that not everyone in this place is a fan. In fact, the track record of those opposite when it comes to paid parental leave and supporting paid parental leave is pretty poor. The Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister in previous Liberal governments that accused women of double-dipping when they were trying to access both the government scheme and their employer funded scheme. We do know at the moment there are members of the Liberal Party who see paid parental leave as a welfare payment rather than a workplace entitlement. Again, it does seem like every time this government puts up a positive plan for Australian women, a positive plan for Australian workers, those opposite want to quibble and walk away from it. There is a pattern here, and it is a pattern of saying no to things that advantage Australian women. Labor will of course always stand up for Australian women. We understand the realities of their lives, and we are working to make their lives better. Here are a few other moments that we might have forgotten from those opposite and their track record when it comes to paid parental leave. We had former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who, in opposition, promised a rolled gold scheme. Of course, he never delivered on that scheme—again, a tendency of drift, of a failure to support women in this country. Now, most recently, we have just seen the opposition start to engage with this bill, with the idea of putting superannuation on paid parental leave. I am sorry to say that it is not an intervention in support of Australian women. It is not an intervention in support of financial security for Australian women in retirement. It is not an intervention in support of that structural work to get the equality that we need in this country. No—those opposite once again are saying no. It is the usual negativity that we get from Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, and those opposite, who did seem to indicate earlier on that they were going to support this measure but now are walking away. What we know is that there are long-term benefits from paying superannuation on paid parental leave. It does go to those structural inequalities. It goes to the way we view women's participation in the workforce. It goes to the way we view taking time out to care for young children. By saying no to this, essentially what those opposite are saying is that they're not interested in fixing this problem. They are not interested in doing the work to make Australian women more equal, to support Australian women to have secure retirements. They would rather walk away from a bill that gives Australian women and men superannuation on their paid parental leave. I'm not often surprised by those opposite, but I am surprised that they could not bring themselves to support this proposal for women's equality, for Australian families, for our economy more broadly, to put superannuation on paid parental leave. Mums and dads across the country will benefit from this. Australian women will be able to see some movement in that 25 per cent superannuation gap that we have. So those opposite really do need to explain to working women and to working men now why they don't want them to have paid parental leave on their superannuation. They can look, at the moment, at older women in this country who are facing a more uncertain retirement than their male counterparts often are because they haven't had the benefit of this kind of reform. So, again, I am so pleased, so proud, to be standing here talking about this great Labor reform, so pleased for the very real difference it will make in the lives of Australian families, so pleased for the difference it will make to Australian workplaces, so pleased for the signals it will send right across our country about how we value the work of caring for our children, setting them up on the best possible path and setting our country up for the best possible future, making sure that we are supporting women to have a more secure retirement, recognising the contribution they make. This is a great Labor reform. It will make a significant difference. I commend the bill to the House. 17:44 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah In debating the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, we can't really start without acknowledging that we are still a long way from gender equality in Australia. Whilst this bill is a step in the right direction, we still have a long way to go. Women aren't paid as much, they don't have as much super by the time they retire and they are more likely to end up in poverty than men. Steps in the last few years to address areas of gender inequality and equality have been taken, and I very much welcome them. But we do need more action to narrow the gender pay gap, increase paid parental leave and close the super gap between men and women. Today, the government is acting to ensure that those on Commonwealth paid parental leave receive super. This is important progress. Time out of the workforce caring for children on paid parental leave should not come at a detrimental financial cost for, more often than not, women. We've seen the motherhood price, that cost which is ultimately the cost of parenthood where that cliff of earnings for women often occurs as soon as they start having children. It's deeply frustrating that we still have those systemic inequities in Australia in 2024. Research shows that in the years approaching retirement age, the gender superannuation gap can be anywhere, still, between 22 per cent and 35 per cent. This is still an enormous gender gap in superannuation wealth and it has consequences. Modelling from Laneway Analytics shows Australian mothers have missed out on some $3.3 billion in super since the introduction of government paid parental leave in 2011 because they have not received super on that leave. That is all because of taking time out of the workforce to have children. Individuals with low superannuation balances are more likely to rely on the age pension in retirement, so that's why it matters. It matters that women have sufficient superannuation at retirement age. Around 55 per cent of those collecting the full pension are women. The systemic inequities are holding women back economically. The gender pay gap is still contributing to long-term gender inequality. Financial insecurity in retirement contributes to poverty and housing insecurity in older women in Australia. A recent report from Super Members Council found that women today are expected to retire earlier and live longer than men but currently retire with one-third less super. The same report found that paying super on paid parental leave would leave a mother of two around $2,500 better off at retirement and therefore make a meaningful reduction in the gender super gap, which currently sits at around $50,000. We know this gender gap in superannuation is a problem. This bill helps address it, so it's very welcome. The government Paid Parental Leave scheme is something we should be proud of, with around 180,000 families accessing the scheme each year all around the country, including in Warringah. Established in 2011, it provided up to 18 weeks of pay at minimum wage to eligible working parents. There have been further tweaks and changes in subsequent years including dad and partner pay, providing two weeks at the same rate for the father or the partner of the paid parental leave recipient. From July 2020, families have had the option of taking the first 12 weeks of paid parental leave in a continuous block then using the final six weeks as flexible paid parental leave, including using it to return to work part time by using the leave on a part time basis or sharing the leave with someone else. Last year, the government legislated to increase the number of weeks of paid parental leave, expanding it in phases from 20 to 26 weeks by July 2026. While I welcome that, we are still way behind other countries in terms of the scale, scope and length of time of paid parental leave. We really do need to accelerate to catch up with other countries. Research by the Grattan Institute shows that shared paid parental leave boosts a mother's earnings and boosts our entire national GDP. We also need to see an increase in men or other parents taking paid parental leave. Too often, it is the mothers that are taking it and taking a hit to their careers and their earning capacity, so there really needs to be more work from the government to ensure an increase to the shared component or a use-it-or-lose-it proportion of the scheme to encourage and incentivise more partners to take up paid parental leave. Grattan modelling suggests that increasing the entitlement to 26 weeks shared between parents would cost the government some $600 million per year but would add $900 million to GDP, so there would be a positive outcome of $300 million as well as a boost of some $30,000 to a mother's lifetime earnings. I would like to see the expansion time shortened in relation to paid parental leave, but I was pleased to see at least a minimal expansion be passed through the parliament this term. As recommended in the final report from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, in 2023, we are legislating the payment of superannuation on paid parental leave, and it will come into effect from 1 July next year. So I welcome this, but I think there are still a few areas of focus for the government—in particular, coming up with some form of acknowledgement that older woman frequently take time out of the workforce to care for elderly parents. That is a time at which they lose earning capacity and superannuation, and there have been proposals put forward to start to remedy that. I welcome this bill and it's intent. But I should note that, while the coalition's second reading amendment has some elements that I support, I am concerned with an attempt to yet again undermine the superannuation system, through the third part of the amendment, which seeks to encourage early withdrawals for a variety of reasons, particularly for the collection of this paid parental leave component as a block to be used to meet the cost of the child. Whilst I appreciate the cost of having children is great—I certainly have been there and I know that is really hard—the point of super is to ensure a comfortable retirement. It's to ensure people aren't living in poverty in retirement. If we allow the amendment, as proposed by the opposition, for the receipt of the paid parental leave payment as a block and to be available now, then we undermine the very purpose of this, which is to ensure women do not have inequality at retirement when it comes to their super. I simply cannot support that. We've seen this happen before, during the COVID pandemic. Whilst it was maybe well intentioned to ensure that people struggling financially could access finance, we saw moves to be able to withdraw from superannuation two payments of up to $10,000. The difficulty with that was that overwhelmingly it was women, and overwhelmingly women are now finding themselves with significantly less super for their retirement. The Australia Institute found that, between April and December 2020, 1.5 million women drew down their super, and that is one-quarter of the entire female workforce. Some $14.9 billion was stripped from women's already small retirement savings, and some 345,000 women completely emptied their accounts. That is really concerning because that means a huge number of women will be exposed when they come to retirement age. What was even more dramatic was it overwhelmingly younger women. That means that, after withdrawing what little amounts were in super, they won't have as much opportunity to grow their super through their working life into something substantial at retirement age. All this undermining of the intent of super was really concerning, and it's really important to preserve that. At the moment, I believe this amendment is fundamentally undermining what the bill is trying to achieve, which is to close the gap in super between men and women at retirement age. So I have to ask the question: Is it the opposition's view that women should continue to be disadvantaged in retirement? Should they continue to have less super? Otherwise, I don't understand the intent of this amendment. If it's to better support families to meet the cost of children, then that should be a separate proposal; that's something that could be put to the budget. For example, is it a baby bonus like what used to happen in the Howard years? But it should not be via undermining superannuation. There's still more to do to achieve better economic outcomes for women and better economic outcomes for Australia. These policy suggestions, as outlined by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, are ones that I've supported and called for: increasing investment in childhood education and abolishing the activity test, which requires both parents to be working to access childcare subsidies; boosting the availability of high-quality, flexible work and strengthening the rights of employees to flexible work and family-friendly working arrangements; encouraging employers to set gender equality targets and strengthening reporting obligations to include meaningful benchmarks; and introducing a tax offset for people with caring responsibilities who are re-entering the workforce, to curb the motherhood penalty facing women which means they earn less. I want to repeat what I've said in the debate in relation to the Superannuation (Objective) Bill earlier this year, which is that many of our First Nations people in our communities never get to realise the benefit of superannuation. When we talk about superannuation, even in the context of this bill, there is a whole other level of disadvantage when it comes to First Nations Australians. Many First Nations people just don't get to realise the benefit of superannuation. There's a huge amount of policy work that needs to be done to improve the retirement outcomes and access to super for First Nations Australians. The 2020 Retirement Income Review found that many First Nations people were likely to have either no superannuation or low super balances at retirement way more often than non-Indigenous Australians. As of June 2022, $16 billion was sitting in the tax office lost or unclaimed, so that's an area of concern. Analysis shows that the issue of lost and unclaimed super disproportionately sits in postcodes with larger First Nations populations. It does beg the question: Is this an area that's being overlooked? Do First Nations Australians need some assistance? Do we need to focus on why there is so much unclaimed super sitting disproportionately in those postcodes? Worse yet, the full extent of the impact of lost super on First Nations communities isn't quantified. Why? Because super funds don't collect data that's specific to Indigenous people. Whilst I welcome these changes, I think First Nations women are in an even-worse situation than non-Indigenous women in Australia, so, whenever we are putting forward legislation that is seeking to address inequalities, we must make sure we have a specific lens and a specific focus on those that are at greater risk and are experiencing so much more inequality on top of the gender inequality. It's a good step, and I certainly commend the bill to the House and will be supporting it. It's positive, but, certainly, my call to the government is more can be done in this respect. I do call on the minister and the government to focus on how we're going to help First Nations Australians access super. 17:57 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The Albanese Labor government has made significant investments to improve the lives of Australian women, with a strong focus on economic equality, safety and health. For the first time in history, women make up over 50 per cent of our government, reflecting our commitment to ensuring women's voices are truly heard. In the latest budget, we invested more than $160 million to women's health initiatives, addressing critical needs such as targeted treatments for breast cancer and expanding support for breastfeeding services. We committed $1.9 billion to expand eligibility for the parenting payment single, allowing single principle carers, most of whom are women, to receive support until their youngest child turns 14, which is an increase from the previous cut-off age of eight. Our government is focused on ending the national crisis of gender based violence, including violence against children and young people. Just last week, National Cabinet agreed to a comprehensive $4.7 billion package that harnesses important opportunities to work together to prevent violence and support legal services. There has been $1 billion dedicated to providing social housing for women and children fleeing violence, ensuring they have a safe space to rebuild their lives with dignity and security. Under Labor, the gender pay gap has dropped to a historic low of 11.5 per cent, as of August 2024. We have a little way to go on this, but, at least, we have a historic low at the moment under our government. Our government made a commitment to close the gender pay gap, and we have seen that pay gap drop to an all-time low over four consecutive reporting cycles. It is an incredible achievement, but, as I said, there is still more work to be done to close this gap further. Since we have been in government, women are earning on average $173.80 more per week than under those opposite. We are also proud to have backed a 15 per cent wage increase for aged-care workers, over 85 per cent of whom are women. We have also announced that there will be a 15 per cent increase to wages for early childhood education and care workers. This wage increase will be tied to a commitment from childcare centres to cap fee increases, ensuring that workers are fairly paid without passing additional costs on to families. We recognise the essential care both aged-care and early childhood education and care workers provide and we want to ensure they are fairly paid for their work. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. From 1 July this year we delivered a tax cut for every Australian woman taxpayer, offering cost-of-living relief. This tax cut meant a bigger tax cut for 90 per cent of Australian women taxpayers. These cuts benefit workers in key sectors like child care, disability care and aged care, which have a predominantly female workforce with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers to receive a bigger tax cut. We have done so much since coming to government but there is still a lot of work to be done. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is another step forward for Australian women. We all here know it was a Labor government that introduced paid parental leave in Australia in 2011. The Gillard government introduced this groundbreaking reform that provided 18 weeks of paid parental leave to eligible parents. This was a significant step forward in supporting working families, ensuring that new parents, particularly mothers, were able to take time off to care for their newborns without the stress of losing income. While this was a huge relief for new parents and families and provided the much-needed financial support, it didn't address the long-term economic impacts on women. Women are more likely to take on the role of primary caregiver over men and this role often requires them to take extended periods of leave from paid work. This time out of the workforce, even if they are on paid parental leave, impacts on their financial security, particularly when it comes to retirement savings. The data is clear. When women take time out of the workforce to raise children, it impacts their retirement incomes, with women retiring on average with about 25 per cent less super than men. This disparity, which is often referred to as the 'motherhood penalty', is a result of the cumulative effect of lower wages, interrupted career progression and the absence of superannuation contribution during periods of unpaid care. This bill aims to address this inequality by introducing superannuation contributions on government funded paid parental leave beginning in July 2025. This is a significant step towards closing the gender gap in retirement savings and ensuring that women are not penalised for fulfilling their caregiving responsibilities and choices. The bill will see the government invest $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from July 2025, benefiting many Australian families each year. For babies born or adopted from 1 July next year, all parents who receive PPL will receive an additional 12 per cent paid directly to their super fund. The contribution will be made annually by the Australian tax office after the end of each financial year and will include an additional interest component to address any forgone superannuation fund earnings as a result of the payment not being made more regularly. Most parents won't need to do anything further to receive their superannuation payment and the claims process for paid parental leave will not change. By ensuring that superannuation is paid on paid parental leave we are sending a clear message that taking time out of the workforce to care for a child is not a career setback but an essential part of life that should be supported and valued. Paying super on government parental leave is an important investment to help close the super gap and make decisions about balancing care and work easier for women. This reform will also help to normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement, much like annual leave or sick leave, and it will help that both men and women will be able to take time off to care for their children without fear of economic disadvantage. The Albanese Labor government's commitment to expanding and improving paid parental leave is clear. We have already taken significant steps to modernise the scheme, to better meet the needs of Australian families. From July 2023 we introduced a more generous family income test, making it easier for more families to access the payment. We also made the leave more flexible, allowing parents to share the care and take leave in a way that suits their individual circumstances. In July this year we increased paid parental leave from 20 weeks to 22 weeks, marking an important step towards supporting new parents. In July next year, we will further extend it to 24 weeks, and, by 2026, we will expand paid parental leave to the full 26 weeks. This gradual expansion will provide families with the time they need to bond with their newborns, support their transition back to work and reduce the pressure on mothers to return to work before they are ready. This expansion is expected to benefit around 180 families each year, giving families the choice to use the scheme in the way that best works for them. This reform also aligns with the broader goals of our government's economic plan. Alongside tax cuts, investments in cheaper child care and workplace relations reform, the paid parental leave amendment is part of our strategy to enhance women's economic security. By ensuring that women earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more, we are working to build a more inclusive and equitable economy. It is important to recognise that this bill is not just about women; it is about families, children and our society as a whole. When we invest in the economic security of women, we invest in the wellbeing of families and the future of our children. On this side of the House, we know an investment in paid parental leave is an investment in families, in women's economic security and in the broader economy. We create a society where everyone, regardless of gender, has the opportunity to thrive and contribute to the community. The importance of this paid parental leave amendment cannot be overstated. It is a critical step towards gender equality, economic security and social justice. It builds on the legacy of past Labor governments, who have consistently fought for the rights of working families. From the introduction of maternity allowances in 1912 to the Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2011 and even the creation of Medicare and the NDIS scheme, Labor has always put Australian families first. Today we have the opportunity to continue this legacy by supporting this bill and ensuring that all parents, regardless of gender, have the financial security they need to care for their children and retire with dignity. This bill is a bold and necessary reform that will make a real difference in the lives of Australian families. It is a step towards a fairer, more equitable society and it is an investment in Australian families. Debate adjourned. Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 90

Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 90 18:07 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith One of the greatest hypocrisies in this place is that so many Labor and Liberal politicians went to university for free in the eighties and graduated without a student debt. Those same Labor and Liberal politicians have decided that they are going to oppose free university education today, forcing countless students to graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt just for going to university. Why is it that it's always one rule for wealthy politicians in this place and another rule for everyone else? What we know is that, right now, there are students across this country and people who have graduated from university with massive student debts. They are huge. They are $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 and sometimes $70,000. Even after Labor's pathetic changes, their debts will still go up every year. They will still be indexed every year, which means that, come tax time when they go to collect their tax, they will get an extra pay cut because they have to pay off a student debt they should not have incurred. The reality is that we have a bunch of Labor and Liberal politicians in this place who have decided that, for them, there are no sacrifices. Every politician in this place got a $4,500 tax cut passed by this House and supported by the Labor and Liberal parties. There's a $4,500 tax cut for them and a lot of them got to go to university for free, but, when it comes to students today, they have to cop massive student debts. Meanwhile, in Norway, university is free for students, because in that country they tax their resources industry fairly. They tax big multinational corporations. They make them pay their fair share in tax. As a result, every student in Norway gets to go to university for free. In Australia, it's the other way around. Labor and the Liberal Party will tax students and force them to pay massive student debts so that they can keep taxes on big multinational gas corporations low. That's the choice that they've made. This is a generation that is already copping low wages and skyrocketing rents and house prices, and is already looking down the barrel of a future much less prosperous than their parents' one was. Now they have to contemplate sitting on a $40,000 or $50,000 debt, which means that when they go to get a loan from the bank to buy a house they're less likely to be able to get that loan. It means that their pay will be less every year because they're having to pay off a student debt that they should not have incurred. The harsh reality is that, more often than not, young people are told that if they want to get a job in this economy they have to go to university. Well, now they're being told that not only do you have to go to university; you have to graduate with a $40,000 or $50,000 debt that goes up every year and is still indexed. The total student debt in this country is $78 billion. To put that into perspective, over the next 10 years property investors, including many property investors in this place, including the Prime Minister, will get $176 billion in tax handouts. What if we scrapped those tax handouts and used that money to forgive student debt and make university free again? To put that into perspective again, in one year some of the biggest oil and gas corporations in this country made $100 billion in revenue and paid zero dollars in tax. Just one year of revenue from the oil and gas corporations in this country could have wiped all student debt in this country—all of it. The reality is that over the next few years student debt is going to get bigger and bigger. It's going to keep going up as house prices keep going up and rents keep going up and corporate profits keep going up, and we're going to become a more and more unequal country. How is it fair that decades ago, when Australia was a much less wealthy country, so many people, including people in this place, went to university for free? Those people included my mum, who was the first one in her family to go to university. She grew up in Ipswich in a working-class family in the 1980s. The only reason she went university was that it was free. She was the first one in her family to go. Her parents were textile factory workers. She got that opportunity because university was free. Well, how many working people in this country right now are choosing not to go to university because they know that they will have to cop a massive $40,000 or $50,000 debt? Why is it that now the only people in this country who can go and get a higher education and go to university are those who are prepared to cop a massive debt that cripples them financially for decades to come? It's desperately unfair. The other part of this bill is about placement payments for nurses and social workers and teachers, who as part of their university degrees often have to go and do huge numbers of hours of unpaid work. They're effectively doing the job of a nurse or a teacher or a social worker. Now, the government are claiming a victory here because they're going to pay these people $8 an hour—$319 a week—while those people are also copping a massive student debt. To be clear, the average rent in this country is over $600, which means that, for someone who is being paid $319 a week, their pay is almost half of what the average rent in this country is. Politics is ultimately about choices, and the government could choose to tax multinational gas corporations fairly, to wipe student debt and to make university free again. They could choose to phase out tax handouts for property investors and to make university free again. Instead what they've chosen is desperate poverty for students, huge student debt, crippling debt for life, and a deeply unequal and unfair country. 18:13 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I am proud to support this bill, the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and I am so proud to be part of a government that is taking action to make higher education better and fairer and to create reliable pathways to higher education and give more people, including in communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales, the opportunity to get the education and training that they need for a steady job and a good career. We are introducing the Commonwealth prac payment for teaching students, nursing students, midwifery students and social work students. That will provide real help for students so that they can finish their placements and complete their degrees. We're expanding fee-free university-ready courses that will prepare students for university and give even more people the opportunity to undertake a degree. And we will wipe almost $3 billion of HELP debt for more than three million people. Labor has listened to students and people who want to go to university to undertake higher education, and we are making real changes that will make a practical difference. In hospitals, headspace centres and Medicare mental health centres right across the country, I've been hearing from nursing and social work students. I recently met with Chelsea at headspace Wagga. She is finishing her social work degree at the same time as supporting young people across the Riverina. Chelsea and other social work students have told me about the real financial pressure they face during their placements. I've heard from students who've had to give up their job and others who've had to move and travel far away from home. Others are supporting families whilst completing their placement. And, for some students, this has meant that, despite their very best efforts, they haven't been able to finish their degree. For social work students that includes completing 1,000 hours of professional practice, which is the equivalent of six months. The prac payments will provide eligible students with $319.50 each week while they're on placement, and I've heard directly from social work students about the real difference this will make to them. It will offer them the support they need to focus on their placement. As the education minister has said, the prac payment is practical support for practical support for practical placements. Teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students just like Chelsea are giving so much to local communities, and this bill will mean that they have the help they need to finish their training and complete their degrees to start their careers. In Newcastle on the Central Coast, I've heard from so many students who've had the opportunity to go to university because of free-free uni-ready courses, otherwise known as enabling courses and open foundation. The University of Newcastle's enabling foundation, as we will soon hear from the member for Newcastle, is one of the best examples in Australia and has supported more than 70,000 students since it was first introduced—70,000 students who otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity to have a higher education. The program enables students to select courses based on their areas of interest while learning important skills for study, including research, writing and communication. I've met with many students who have gone through enabling programs or whilst they're undertaking them. I also want to recognise the educators that provide these courses. They're really capable and dedicated people, giving students the wraparound support they need to be successful and to start their degrees. Importantly, as I've mentioned students receive wraparound support. A former classmate of mine Dr Christensen worked as an enabling educator for many years. She guided students through challenges and connected them to other supports that they might need. It really makes a significant difference in someone's life. At the University of Newcastle nearly one in five students who have graduated over the past 10 years started their courses as part of a free enabling program. Some of you who were in the previous parliament might remember that the former coalition government wanted to introduce fees for enabling programs. We're now expanding them, and I'm so proud of the people I know who started their study at a university-ready course, like my friend Renee, who I was in contact with today. She completed Open Foundation at the Ourimbah Campus and is now a level 6 NICU nurse working in a surgical NICU unit caring for the sickest babies in New South Wales. The difference that Open Foundation made to Renee—to her life, to her family and to the many babies and families that she's supported—is just remarkable. My former colleague Sam—we met when I was a newly registered pharmacist, and she was a pharmacy assistant. Sam is now a mum and a speech pathologist, and she has recently started working in private practice. Again, the real difference that fee-free uni-ready courses make to an individual, to a family and to a community is just remarkable. My brother Eddi checked in with me last night because he'd been following this legislation closely. He's a local plumber and is running his own business. He's had many apprentices over the years, and now he's finishing an MBA, and this started with him going through an open foundation program. This bill will uncap fee-free uni-ready courses across Australia, so that more people get the skills they need to start a degree—just like Renee and Sam and my brother Eddi, who all studied through the program at the University of Newcastle. This change is expected to increase the number of people undertaking a fee-free uni-ready course by about 40 per cent by the end of the decade—a significant boost in the number of people, particularly in communities like mine, in the outer suburbs and the regions, that haven't had the same chance to be able to have a crack, as the education minister says, at higher education and the real skills they need for the jobs of today and the future. This will make sure that even more people have the opportunity and support to begin university and get the skills and training that they need and deserve. In universities, I've also heard from students and graduates who are concerned about increases in student debt. We know a lot of people and families are feeling the pressure right now. It is tough. We've listened to those students, and, through this bill, we are responding. We are wiping around $3 billion in student debt from three million Australians—that's $3 billion in student debt from three million Australians. I know the real difference that that will make for many people holding student debt in my community on the Central Coast. Importantly, we are backdating this relief so that the unfair CPI indexation of 7.1 per cent last year will be replaced with the lower WPI of 3.2 per cent. As Minister Clare has said, someone with an average debt of around $26,500 will see a benefit of $1,200 of relief, someone with a debt of $45,000 will see their debt wiped by around $2,000 and someone with a debt of $60,000 will have their debt cut by almost $2,700—significant reductions. We're listening to students and making a real difference for them. This is real relief for people with a student debt, at a time when they're feeling the pressure. These are practical measures and they were all recommended in the final report of the Universities Accord. We're taking real action to make them happen now; to make higher education better and fairer, so that more people have the opportunity to get the training they need; and to make sure that those students who aspire to become the health professionals of the future have the support they need. In finishing, just after the budget and this policy were announced, I was with the Prime Minister and the member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid, and we visited Gosford Hospital, part of the Central Coast Local Health District, and we heard directly from nurses, as we went to a cardiac unit in Gosford Hospital, who spoke about the real difference that this will make for nurses and midwives. I'm so pleased to see this practical support for health practitioners in training, and graduates, because of the really important work they do in communities like mine and right across Australia. I'm pleased to support this bill. 18:22 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on this bill, the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Obviously, the coalition have made it clear that we want to see the Senate committee process progress. I think it's in early October that they're due to finalise their deliberations over this bill. On the face of it, it does some good things, but, equally, we want to properly engage with the sector and stakeholders and understand whether there are any unforeseen aspects to this bill, and we reserve our position on it until that process concludes. We have got goodwill towards certain measures in this bill. Clearly the measure that provides relief under the HECS-HELP scheme is one that, on the face of it, has merit, because people with student debt are no different to any other Australians at the moment who are suffering under this significant cost-of-living crisis, and, when you've got student debt, if you've also got a mortgage—and mortgage rates have been going up dramatically in the last few years—then of course it's putting a lot of pressure on household budgets. So, assuming anything unforeseen isn't raised through the committee process, that seems to have merit. But there is a regrettable aspect to this, because—if you unpack why there's a benefit to choosing the lower of inflation versus the wage price index, when you're elevating the balance of debt—it's only going to help people because of the fact that wages have been going backwards. For periods when wage growth is running behind inflation and, therefore, real wages are going down, this policy change provides a benefit. That's great for the balances of student debt but it underscores that those same people and many millions of others, through the period that this will provide a benefit, have been enduring a dramatic reduction in their real wages. This is something very significant that is happening in our economy. We know that people are making very difficult decisions around the kitchen table, trying to make the household budget balance. They're having to make sacrifices and find ways to trim their normal habits. There are pretty reasonable things—family holidays to a caravan park over a long weekend and other things that are quite reasonable for Australians to enjoy—that have to be sacrificed because mortgages are going up, rents are going up and utility prices are going up. In the case of people with student debt, their payments on the debt are going up. That element of the bill will, hopefully, see some relief. But I hope that this change isn't one that will provide a benefit very often into the future, because I want the wage price index to be running higher than the inflation rate all the time. That means that people's real wages are going up. This change that we make is only going to benefit people because their real wages are going backwards. We know the retrospectivity of this means that it will absolutely provide a benefit to people through its passage, because we know what the last two inflaters of student debt were. In both cases, the wage price index was lower. But, as I say, that underscores the fact that it's lower than inflation and, therefore, people's real rages are going down. The other element of the bill people might not be surprised to hear me reflect on with some suspicion is this mandate for the student services fee to go to student led organisations. Like a lot of people in my party room, I started out in student politics, and one of our great crusades on campus was always voluntary student unionism and student choice. Indeed, it was the Howard government who pursued voluntary student unionism when I was the Young Liberal president in the state of South Australia. I look very regretfully upon the behaviour of some of the student organisations on campus right now. Some of the most nasty, vile, disgusting things that I've ever seen in my lifetime are happening on Australian university campuses. Student groups are forming to glorify terrorism, to promote disgraceful antisemitic attitudes and to engage in conduct that is obstructing the very reason that people go to our great higher education institutions, which is to avail themselves—you would expect in an unfettered way—of the opportunity to expand their minds, to educate themselves and to leave with a valuable education that can equip them for the future, not only in their career but in their whole life well beyond what they do as a vocation. We see in this bill an interesting mandate of a minimum discharge of the student services fee to student led organisations. I note that some of the universities, to my understanding, have raised concerns about this. Universities themselves provide a lot of services directly financed through the student services fee, and what we're going to see through this legislation is a re-empowering and re-emboldening of the student organisations that are behaving—and, for their standards, this is saying something—in the most vile and disgraceful way on some campuses as we speak right now. Is this the right time to be sending a message to those groups engaging in that deplorable conduct that they're deserving of some mandated minimum allocation of the student services fee? As someone from a party that believes in the freedom of association—the right to join or not any organisation, whether that be a union or any other group in our society—I think what this effectively says is, 'Well, the union for students is getting a guaranteed, legislated stream of funding regardless of whether or not the students of that campus are happy to see them get their money'—it comes from students—'and have it spent that way,' when I would certainly predict and suspect that the way in which the universities themselves spend that funding will be of a much greater benefit to the student body than what these activists student groups do with it. We watch that with a great deal of interest, and I will be very surprised if the Senate committee process doesn't bring out some interesting evidence on that. That'll be something for our party room to consider on that element of the bill. The others are very open minded to the principles and look forward to exploring the detail through the committee process. With those comments, I say we are not standing in the way of the bill, necessarily, but are reserving our position for the outcome of the Senate inquiry process. I confine my comments to those. 18:30 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to support the government's Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 that is before the House this evening. The Albanese Labor government is committed to making life easier for all Australians, and that's why I am so pleased to support this bill being put forward this evening by the Minister for Education. It implements key measures, recommended in the final report from the Australian Universities Accord, led by Professor Mary O'Kane and supported by a host of other very esteemed Australians. The accord panel was established by this government, and we invested $2.7 million over two years to develop the 12-month review of Australia's higher education system. Its objective was to devise recommendations and performance targets to improve the quality, accessibility, affordability and sustainability of higher education to achieve long-term security and prosperity of the sector and the nation. These are important ambitions for any national government. The accord's final report has been informed by 787 public submissions and 150 meetings with stakeholders. The final report contained a number of recommendations, including reforming HECS-HELP repayment arrangements, funding nursing, care and teaching professions to undertake mandatory placements, and expanding the number of fee-free preparatory courses at university. This is exactly what this bill is doing tonight. I appreciate members opposite might be giving further consideration, but there are a lot of people who have been part of this process, and this bill has now been informed by a thorough process of consultation and an expert review of our higher education system. We all note that the big hike in the HECS-HELP debt last year hit a lot of Australians hard, particularly young people. I want to say to those young people: we have heard your feedback and we have taken it on board. The first big measure undertaken in this bill will see amendments to the HELP and VET student loans, the Australian apprenticeship support loans, and other student support loan accounts. We are amending the higher education loan program methodology to be based on the consumer price index or the wage price index, whichever is the lower, preventing growth in debt from outpacing wages into the future. In other words, it more than halve the unfair CPI indexation rate of 7.1 per cent from last year and replace it with the lower WPI rate of 3.2 per cent. This will see somebody with an average debt of $26,500 having around $1,200 wiped off their outstanding loan this year. Someone with a $45,000 debt will benefit by around $2,000, and someone with a $60,000 debt will have a benefit of $2,700. Around $3 billion is being wiped off the accounts of more than three million Australian students, and those who have finished their degrees with the debt in place. This will significantly ease pressure on workers, apprentices, trainees and students. Let's not forget, this is not just about university students. Those young apprentices, those people doing traineeships are all looking for this relief as well. Around 25,398 people in my electorate of Newcastle have a HELP debt and this bill will ensure relief is delivered to them while continuing to protect the integrity and the value of the HELP system, which has massively expanded higher education access for millions of Australians. The Albanese Labor government is also investing in students who have signed up to do some of the most important jobs in this country. While we recognise the importance of placements as part of qualifications in a whole range of professions, up until now students have been forced to undertake unpaid mandatory placements as part of their studies. But for the first time ever, the government will introduce a Commonwealth prac payment to support teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students to do their placements. The Albanese government understands the financial burden placements have on students and appreciates the challenges many face when having to juggle the cost of living while studying and completing their placements. With this bill, many students who have turned down work to do their prac placements will now have help in paying their bills. While the government also recognises other qualifications require mandatory placements, the University Accord recommended that the government focus now on the nursing, care and teaching professions. This is an important place to start due to the significant workforce shortages that need to be addressed in these areas. Almost every Australian will interact with a nurse, midwife, teacher and social worker sometime throughout their life. This measure will help up to 5,200 students who are enrolled in teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work at the University of Newcastle, and I look forward to ensuring that relief is directed to those students undertaking that very important work. Since entering parliament, I have been a very staunch supporter of equity to access into higher education. That is why I am so pleased that this bill will also massively expand fee-free uni-ready courses, which act as a bridge between school and uni and help more Australians to succeed when they get there. The University of Newcastle knows a thing or two about achieving equity of education. We have long demanded both excellence and equity as part of the core values of the University of Newcastle. More than half a century ago now the university launched its enabling programs, which I argue are indeed the best of this country has ever seen. The University of Newcastle has the oldest and the largest network of enabling programs in Australia. Open Foundation, a free open access enabling program at the University of Newcastle, has engaged more than 70,000 people. There are 70,000 people in my community, in my region, across this nation who have a quality university education now who would not have even got their foot in the door had it not been for the enabling programs provided at the University of Newcastle. That is what I mean about achieving equity in access to higher education. That is one in five students at the University of Newcastle. I acknowledge the member for Dobell, the assistant minister who spoke before me. She is from the Central Coast, where the University of Newcastle also has a campus. One in four students there came through an enabling program to be at university. So these are very, very powerful programs that open incredible doors for people who would have otherwise been excluded from a higher education. The critical part of these programs is that they are free access. I have stood in this parliament over the 11 years that I have been the member of Newcastle and have had to save these enabling programs on three separate occasions, so I speak with some authority when I say that if you were to provide a fee-for-entry point into these services, you would not reach the equity outcomes that you would desire or seek to see. We have surveyed students in recent years to see whether or not they would have entered into an enabling program had there been a fee in place, and almost universally they would have said no. More than 60 per cent of people doing these enabling programs are women, and they all said that they didn't have that level of confidence to invest that kind of money in themselves. They had other priorities of having to raise a family or look after a whole lot of household bills. I am firmly of the belief that universities are not just for the elite in our communities. I know the value of higher education as a first-in-family kid coming through. I want everyone to have access to that—everyone who wants to have access to it—whether it's a university or a TAFE education. We absolutely have to smash down the barriers that prevent kids who are otherwise marginalised from having access. There are people like Liam from Newcastle who was in his early 20s, struggling with addiction, when he tried to take his own life. He was saved by paramedics and nurses at the John Hunter Hospital. It was there that Liam decided he not only wanted to live but wanted to repay the debt and become a paramedic himself to help other people and to become a father for his young daughter. Liam enrolled in Open Foundation at the University of Newcastle, and I'm really pleased to tell the House that he is now well on his way to achieving that goal and is doing brilliantly. There are people like Zee, also in from Newcastle, who, in her late 40s, was on the carers pension looking after her husband, who had had a stroke. Zee completed Open Foundation and went on to study biosciences and now lectures in health sciences, coordinates courses in the Open Foundation program herself and is now looking to do a PhD next year. These are just two of the extraordinary stories I could relay to this House. But we know that of students doing these programs like Liam and Zee, 26 per cent came from low SES backgrounds, 66 per cent were women, 23 per cent of students had a disability, six per cent were First Nations students and 47 per cent were, just like me, the first in their family to enrol in a tertiary institution. These are the changes that are expected to increase the number of people doing these fee-free uni-ready courses. We expect these changes to provide a boost of about 40 per cent to the number of people getting into universities by the end of the decade. I cannot sing the praises of enabling programs highly enough. There are many other measures this government seeks to undertake in addition to the important work of this bill. We're providing an additional 20,000 Commonwealth supported places so we can train more Australians at university. We know that this is a life-changing moment. We're committed to establishing up to 14 new suburban university study hubs. That's on top of the establishment of the 20 regional university study hubs. We're also getting on with establishing a national student ombudsman. We'll have a lot more to say about that very shortly, but that is an important body of work—an independent body that's part of an action plan to address gender based violence in higher education, somewhere where independent investigations can take place and disputes can be resolved in an adequate manner. These are aspects that higher education students have been calling for for a long time. I'll be very pleased to see that bill before this House very soon. There is an urgent need to address sexual assault in university campuses. It's one of the five priority actions that came from the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report. The action plan and the ombudsman have been informed by consultation with staff, with students—most importantly—with victims-survivors advocates, with the higher education sector and with subject matter experts. So there is a lot of work to do in this sector. We are an ambitious government. We seek to see more and more Australians have a higher education. As I said—and I reiterate—that can be through TAFE and through university, but we need Australians to be ensured of access to a quality education. We are very much on the side of Australian students and education providers, and that's why I'm supporting this important legislation before the House. There is a lot at stake with these important reforms. These are not policy decisions that we take willy-nilly. We are informed by experts in the field and by all of the thorough consultation processes that have taken place. We have a good education system, but it can be better. This is an important first step in achieving that, and that's why I'm supporting this bill. I urge those opposite to do so without delay. 18:45 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It is with great pleasure that I join the debate and follow my friend and colleague the member for Newcastle. I acknowledge her contribution, particularly in relation to the challenges that we face as regional members of parliament in terms of equity of access and also in relation to her comment that there's more to be done. As much as there has been a significant amount of work done in terms of reforming the university sector and access for regional students, there is still a lot more to be done. The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to give effect to several measures from the Australian Universities Accord. I'll reflect on the accord in more detail in a few moments time. These measures, though, include changing the way the HELP indexation is calculated; introducing the Commonwealth prac payment for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students; providing fee-free uni-ready courses for students to undertake preparatory courses for university studies; and requiring universities to provide 40 per cent of the student services and amenities fees to student led organisations. Despite the exhortation of the member for Newcastle for the coalition to declare its position today, the coalition notes that the government itself has referred the bill to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for an inquiry. As is appropriate in those circumstances, the coalition will not pre-empt our final position on the bill until after we have heard from all the key stakeholders, and I understand the committee is due to report back to the Senate by 3 October this year. For those of us who have been around the issues regarding universities and further education for an extended period of time, I think there is a shared passion across the chamber to help young people right across Australia to achieve their full potential. Achieving their full potential doesn't necessarily mean every Australian student has to go to university. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Accessing improved trade training through the TAFE system, taking on entrepreneurialism or their own small business, or, indeed, pursuing a university course are all reasonable pathways for a young person in Australia today to pursue. But helping all young Australians achieve their full potential is, I think, a shared goal across the chamber. For those of us who represent regional seats, the issue of how we achieve equity and fairness has been a problem that governments have grappled with throughout my entire 16 years in this place. I actually want to commend the work of the Minister for Education with the Universities Accord process and also for the briefings he's provided to me and my office. I also want to note the very significant contribution to that work by the Regional Education Commissioner, former senator Fiona Nash, who, like me, is a fellow traveller on the path of trying to get fairness for regional students in the education system. Her contribution to this process was noted in the final report. The final report does provide ambitious targets for higher education participation. It's very clear—and the minister himself, in his own second reading speech, made this clear as well—there is much to do to achieve the goals set out in the accord, and no-one, including the minister, is suggesting for a second that this is anything other than the first stage of the implementation of the accord. There has been a major program of reform across the university sector over the whole time I have been in this place, and the minister himself has acknowledged that what we're looking at with this accord is a very significant program that will run across many budget cycles and will require goodwill across the chamber and a commitment to achieving those long-term goals of helping every young Australian achieve their full potential. I am one who would suggest that we do have a good education system here in Australia. It's not great. It's not without it's failings. But it is good. Unfortunately, it serves some people better than others. Sadly, the others are often those who live in regional, rural and remote communities. Often the others are those students who live two, three, four, five and many more hours away from a capital city or a university campus. One of our great challenges for the members in this place who represent the National Party is how we improve the participation rate for those students in our communities who want to go on to study at the tertiary level. Notwithstanding the fact that you can be very successful as a young person in Australia today as an entrepreneur starting your own business, working on your family farm, taking over the family farm or learning a trade and applying your skills in your community—they are all very reasonable pathways—for those who aspire to tertiary education and need a qualification to fulfil their dream, the participation rate in our regional communities is too low. It's recognised in the accord. It's been recognised now for a long period of time. The previous government, the coalition government, had Senator Fiona Nash, who was one of those who worked diligently on this issue. They sought to reduce some of the barriers to university participation for our regional students. I've spoken about those barriers before in this place and I will raise them again tonight. Some of those barriers are economic, but some of them are also aspirational barriers. The aspirational barriers are something we can deal with ourselves in our communities. It's up to us as leaders in our own communities to get into our schools and make it clear to young people in our community that they can be the first in their family to go to university—to talk to them about the pathways which exist. We can do that as people who care about our communities, so the aspirational barrier is something that we've got to deal with. The economic barrier is something that lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the federal government of Australia. During her presentation, the member for Newcastle quite rightly commented about equity of access. There is nothing equitable about a system of tertiary education which actively discriminates against regional students on the basis of cost of participation. And it's got worse. It's actually become harder in recent times, during this cost-of-living crisis, for students in my community of Gippsland to move to Melbourne and undertake a course of their choice. When I say it's become harder, I mean there are a number of factors here. The shortage of housing and the competition has made it harder for students to secure housing. The cost of living more generally, through the inflation rate, and in Melbourne through food and transport prices, have all added to the barrier. What we're seeing is that mums and dads in regional communities who have a son or daughter who has to move away from home to pursue their chosen course are up for at least at least $25,000 to $30,000 per year in out-of-pocket costs, and that's after tax. They've already paid tax on their income. They're doing money in cold blood to make sure that the young person in their family can move away from home, find accommodation and meet the cost of living such a long way from their family home. The previous government did some good work in this space by improving access to youth allowance and providing the tertiary access payment, but there is more to be done. The Universities Accord makes it clear that there is more to be done, and we have to do more. Unfortunately, the legislation before the House today, in terms of the question of economic barriers for regional students, really only tinkers around the edges. It is harder than ever, with this increased cost of living, for our young people in regional Australia to move away from home and achieve their full potential at a university course based in a metropolitan area. So we do need more holistic reforms than what we're seeing here tonight. I say to the Minister for Education in all sincerity: I'm up for the challenge if he's up for the challenge of working in a constructive way to ensure that the needs of regional people are properly represented as he rolls out the further program of reform required under the Universities Accord. One of the opportunities we have in this place, and one of the opportunities we have in our regional communities, is to reduce the need to move away from home in first place. So the more that we can do to support our regional university sector to provide a broader range of courses in those regional towns the less the need is for our students to move away to study in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth. Now, that's easier said than done, because, obviously, you need a critical mass of students to run a course in a regional location. The member for New England is right beside me, and his University of New England at Armidale is an impressive institution. We should be investing in our regional institutions, those regional campuses, so that those students who don't want the big city experience, who'd rather stay in their own regional towns and pocket the savings, quite honestly, have the opportunity to study in those communities. We know, particularly in the health fields, that, if a regional student undertakes a degree in nursing or midwifery or any other allied health course, or becomes a GP, that regional student is more likely to return to those regional communities and address the skilled workforce shortage we're facing. It's even better if they don't have to leave in the first place. If there are more opportunities for them to study in their own communities, they stay connected to their communities. They stay connected to their family life and their sporting clubs, and they don't incur those cost barriers which are making it harder and harder for our current regional students to excel in their chosen course. Put yourself in the shoes of a 17-, 18- or 19-year-old country person who, in one year, is expected to move many hours away from home; set up house or move into accommodation provided by the university; get their licence; be allowed to go to pubs and drink responsibly; study; and, because Mum and Dad aren't made of money, they've got to get a part-time job as well. They've got to do all that as a 17-, 18- or 19-year-old. Is it any wonder that many of those young people feel like they fail or can't absorb it all in one year? Some of them come back home broken; it's all been too much for them. We should not be allowing situations to develop where we set up young people to fail. We need to be making sure that we reduce the cost barriers, or we make to make it easier for them to stay in their home communities, in their regional communities, and stay the course that they're choosing. In the little bit of time I have left, in relation to the accord, I want to note a couple of things about the Group of Eight—or the sandstone universities—in this country. I suggest to them that they need to lift the game too, in terms of the way they deliver courses and in the way they accommodate regional students and their specific needs. I think the sector is in for a massive disruption. We saw the disruption that's occurred in a whole range of other industries in recent times through COVID, and you look at the media sector and a whole range of other industries that have changed dramatically. The Group of Eight are basically still delivering courses on their own terms to suit them, not to suit the needs of regional students. There is no reason whatsoever why some regional students could not have all their courses delivered to them—their time in front of tutors and in front of their classes—in a day or two, rather than spread out across a whole week. That would allow some of our regional students to keep connected to their own communities. They wouldn't have to be there all week; they wouldn't have to incur the cost of $25,000 or $30,000 a year that I mentioned earlier. I believe the Group of Eight could do a lot better in terms of outreach to regional students in their own communities, using telecommunications and using the new regional study hubs better to allow more of those students to study in their home towns. As I said at the outset, this is a piece of work that will help young people achieve their full potential right across our nation. I congratulate the minister for his work on the accord. I encourage him to keep going further and to work with members on this side of the House who have been passionate about this issue for more than a decade and who are willing to work in a constructive way to ensure that the needs of rural and regional students are properly respected in the debate and that the needs of rural and regional students are addressed in a manner which helps us overcome those barriers I spoke about earlier. We have a good education system in this nation, as I said. Unfortunately, it continues to serve some people better than others, and, too many times, the 'others' are our regional students, and we are letting them down. We're letting them down in this place. We can do better. We must do better. And I look forward to working with the minister in a constructive manner for the remainder of this term of parliament. 19:00 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to discuss a pivotal piece of legislation set to reshape the landscape of higher education in Australia, the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This bill is not merely a collection of amendments; it represents the albanese Labor government's unwavering commitment to creating a more equitable, accessible and responsive higher education system for all Australians. As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, it is essential to recognise that education is not just a pathway to employment; it is a fundamental human right. It empowers individuals, strengthens communities and drives our economy forward. The Universities Accord is a significant step towards ensuring that every Australian, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to pursue higher education and reach their full potential. Before examining the specifics of the bill, we need to consider the current state of higher education in Australia. Over the past few decades we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of students pursuing tertiary education. However, this growth has not come without challenges. Many students are burdened by significant debt, with the average HELP loan exceeding $30,000. The financial strain can deter potential students from pursuing higher education, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Additionally, the rising cost of living and tuition fees have made it increasingly difficult for students to focus on their studies without the worry of financial instability. The Albanese Labor government recognises these challenges and is committed to addressing them head-on through the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. One of the most critical reforms in this bill is the amendment to the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP. By changing the indexation calculation, we aim to alleviate the financial pressure on over three million Australians with outstanding HELP debts. Imagine a student who graduates with a degree but is immediately faced with a mountain of debt that continues to grow at an unsustainable rate. This reform will significantly reduce the rate at which student debts accumulate, providing much-needed relief to borrowers and allowing them to focus on their careers and contribution to society rather than being weighed down by financial burdens. This bill also introduces a Commonwealth prac payment for students in critical fields such as teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. These students often face significant costs associated with their practical placements, which can include travel, accommodation and other expenses. By providing financial support for these practical placements, we are not only easing the financial burden on students but also encouraging more individuals to enter these essential professions. This initiative will help ensure that we have a well-trained workforce ready to meet the needs of our communities, particularly in areas where there are significant shortages of qualified professionals. Another vital aspect of the Universities Accord is the expansion of fee-free uni-ready courses. These programs are designed for students who may not have completed traditional pathways into universities, such as those in disadvantaged backgrounds or those who have faced personal challenges. By 2030, we aim for a 40 per cent increase in enrolments in these fee-free courses. This initiative will open doors for many Australians who previously thought higher education was out of reach. We want to create a system where every individual, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to succeed in higher education and ultimately in life. The Albanese Labor government believes students have a voice in the service and support that they receive during their university experience. Therefore, the bill mandates that at least 40 per cent of the student services and amenities fee be allocated to student led organisations. This funding will empower students to take charge of their university experience, ensuring that their needs and concerns are addressed. By fostering a more inclusive and responsive university environment, we can create a culture of collaboration and engagement that benefits everyone. At the heart of the Universities Accord is a commitment to equity and access. The Albanese Labor government understands that higher education should be accessible to all Australians, particularly those from underrepresented groups. By focusing on increasing participation from outer suburbs and regional areas, we are working towards a future where tertiary education is not a privilege for the few but a right for all. We have set an ambitious target of having 80 per cent of our workforce with a tertiary qualification by 2050. This goal is not just about numbers; it is about creating a more skilled, diverse and innovative workforce that reflects the diversity of our society. We must also consider the real-world impacts of these reforms. Imagine a young woman from a rural community who dreams of becoming a nurse. With the introduction of the Commonwealth prac payment, she can pursue her studies without the constant worry of financial strain during her practical placement. With access to fee-free uni-ready courses, she can build her academic foundation and gain the confidence that she needs to succeed. This is not just a hypothetical scenario; it is a reality we are striving to create with the Universities Accord. By investing in our students, we are investing in the future of our nation. I believe the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a testament to the Albanese Labor government's commitment to transforming the higher education sector by addressing the pressing issues of student debt, financial support for practical placements, access to preliminary courses and student agency. This bill lays the foundation for a more equitable and inclusive education system. This legislation is not merely a response to current challenges. It is a proactive step forward, building a fairer and more inclusive education system that empowers every individual to achieve their full potential. I support this bill as it represents a commitment to the future of our students and to the broader Australian community. Together, we can create an education system that empowers every individual to achieve their potential, ensuring that higher education is a pathway to success for all Australians. The Universities Accord is not just a legislative document; it is a vision for the future of higher education in Australia. It embodies the principles of equity, accessibility and support that are essential for fostering a thriving educational environment. As we move forward it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritise the needs of students and ensure that higher education remains a viable and attainable option for all Australians. In the coming years we must remain vigilant and committed to monitoring the implementation of this bill, ensuring that it meets its objectives and delivers on its promises. We must engage with stakeholders, including students, educators and communities, to gather feedback and make necessary adjustments to enhance the effectiveness of these reforms. Also, it is essential to recognise that the success of the Universities Accord will depend on ongoing collaboration between the government, universities and the broader community. By working together we can create a higher education system that not only meets the demands of the modern workforce but also nurtures the potential of every individual, regardless of their circumstances. As we propose a new chapter in Australian higher education, we must embrace the opportunities that lie ahead. We must commit ourselves to a future where education is not a privilege but a right and where every Australian has the chance to pursue their dreams and contribute to the prosperity of our nation. The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a landmark piece of legislation that has the potential to transform the lives of countless Australians. It is a bold and necessary step towards creating a more equitable and inclusive higher education system. It is not only an investment in our students but an investment in the future of Australia, and I commend this bill to the House. 19:10 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Today, I will focus mainly on two aspects of the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024: the Albanese Labor government policy proposals for paid practical placement and for channelling more money into student unions. Labor proposes paying students on practical placements in select industries just one-third of the minimum wage, an inadequate measure during this cost-of-living crisis that fails to address the real challenges faced by these students. Under Labor's plan, students undertaking practical placements in teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work will receive the equivalent of around $8.40 per hour, compared to the national minimum wage of $24.10 per hour—about one-third. And the money is not paid directly to the student; it's paid to the university. What could go wrong? $8.40 per hour is not a living wage; it is barely pocket money. Our settings for our future nurses, social workers, midwives and teachers have not shown how much we value them, and many of them literally hold our future in their hands. $8.40 an hour will not make a significant difference in their lives. It actually insults their efforts and sacrifices. This proposal will not adequately support students juggling the demands of their studies, unpaid placements, family duties and paid employment, often at the expense of their health and wellbeing. Placement poverty is the elephant in the room for students in Australia. Students, particularly those studying in regional areas like my electorate of Mallee, face significant barriers when it comes to completing mandatory practical placements. In many cases, these placements are unpaid and can last for weeks or even months, forcing students to take time off from their paid jobs to fulfil their academic requirements. In my electorate of Mallee, universities such as La Trobe University and Monash University play a critical role in providing higher education opportunities to students in regional areas. These institutions offer essential programs in fields such as education, nursing, midwifery and social work—professions that are vital to the wellbeing and development of our rural communities. For students who are parents or primary caregivers, this situation is even more dire. Labor's cost-of-living crisis has exacerbated this problem. The cost of housing; groceries; utilities; child care, if it's available; and transportation have skyrocketed under this government. I remind the House that my electorate of Mallee not only is regional but has a larger lower-socioeconomic demographic. Many students, particularly those from low-income families or those supporting dependents, simply cannot afford to stop working and take on unpaid placements. Will $8.40 make a difference for them? Perhaps, perhaps not. According to the 2022 Universities Australia student finances survey, around 58 per cent of full-time domestic undergraduate students were concerned about their finances, and over 15 per cent reported frequently going without food or other necessities because they could not afford them. With Labor's cost-of-living crisis making everyday life more expensive, how can we possibly expect students to continue their studies and fulfil their placement requirements without adequate financial support? This is not just about fairness; it's about ensuring we have a pipeline of skilled workers ready to meet the demands of our growing population. While paid practical placements for students is a step in the right direction, we have questions about how this bill will be implemented. Will these payments be means tested? Will all students undertaking practical placements receive financial support, or will there be eligibility criteria that could potentially exclude those who still face significant financial hardship but fall just outside the defined thresholds? This is particularly important for students in regional areas like my electorate of Mallee who often face higher costs associated with travel, accommodation and other expenses during their placements. More questions are raised when it comes to how the funding will be distributed and managed. If the funding for these paid placements is being allocated to universities, how will universities ensure that this funding is directly passed on to the students who need it most? We need clear guidelines and accountability mechanisms to guarantee that the intended financial support reaches the students rather than being absorbed into university administrative costs or somewhere else. Without a robust framework for distribution, there is also a risk that benefits of paid placements could be unevenly applied, creating disparities between institutions, students and, indeed, regions. Universities in major cities with better resources and funding management systems may be able to offer more substantial support compared to those in regional areas, further widening the gap between urban and rural. Most urban universities have accommodation onsite or within very close distance to their universities—that is absolutely not the case in regional areas, and that needs to be considered. I'm also concerned that this bill mandates that at least 40 per cent of student services and amenities fee revenue be directed to student-led organisations—effectively, one can only read, student unions. Starting from 1 January 2025, this initiative appears to be a thinly veiled attempt by Labor to redirect funding towards student unions, a move that raises serious concerns given the history and nature of student unionism in this country. The Howard government abolished compulsory student union membership in 2006 and replaced it with voluntary student unionism, liberating students from being forced to pay for union memberships that they may not support or benefit from. We see, wherever they can, Labor trying to repay their union masters by channelling people into union membership, channelling public funds to unions, and handing sectors of the economy over to unions. When Labor introduced the student services and amenities fee in 2012, students paid fees directly to universities, which were given discretion over how to allocate these funds. This was a balanced approach that ensured funding could be used for a range of services such as mental health support, career development and child care, benefiting a broad spectrum of students, particularly in an era when many students studied remotely and accessed campus services less frequently. Now, with this bill, Labor is attempting to reintroduce a form of compulsory funding for student unions under the guise of supporting student services. The mandated 40 per cent allocation of SSAF revenue to student-led organisations risks becoming a subsidy for hard-left activism. Considering that student unions tend to be dominated by Green-left ideologies rather than reflecting the diverse political views of the broader student body, it appears to be a payoff to a historical recruiting ground for Labor and the Greens. Can the minister guarantee that the 40 per cent SSAF won't go towards supporting protests against Israel? Protesting alongside supporters of terror is neither a student service nor an amenity. How much of the 40 per cent SSAF will be channelled into promoting identity politics and prioritising spending on a minority of students instead of welfare for all students? With the student unions in charge of 40 per cent of the funding, the hard-left agenda will get a funding boost from a majority of students that don't support it. Students should not be compelled to fund organisations they do not wish to support, especially when many of these funds could be better allocated to vital services that directly improve student wellbeing and academic success. In the current landscape, where remote learning is prevalent, mandating this allocation is akin to imposing a tax on students who may never access those particular services. The SSAF measure not only undermines the principle of voluntary association but also prioritises funding for partisan student activism over essential support services that benefit all students. This bill is a missed opportunity to grow our regional health workforce. In communities like Mallee, GP waiting times are unacceptably long, and the lack of nurses and midwives only adds to the strain on our healthcare system. These sorters are exacerbated by the current distribution priority area classifications, which Labor undermined when they came to government. They now deprive the regions of GPs where they are needed most. To address these workforce shortages, we must also focus on the practical training requirements that are essential for building a skilled healthcare workforce. Currently, nursing students in Australia are required to complete 800 hours of practical placements to gain their qualifications. However, some in the healthcare sector want to reduce those hours to 450, the level they have in the United Kingdom currently. Why sacrifice valuable hands-on experience that is crucial to preparing nurses to enter the workforce, particularly in high-need regional areas? We should be moving in the opposite direction, towards maintaining or even increasing the number of practical placement hours. To support this, paid practical placements become essential. Providing adequate financial support would allow nursing and midwifery students to afford the hours required to develop the practical skills that are indispensable in healthcare settings. In short, aligning paid placements with regional workforce needs could be a game changer in addressing not only student financial hardship but also the chronic shortages of healthcare workers in regional Australia. If we want to see real change we must rethink how we support and incentivise our future healthcare workforce from the very beginning of their training. The link between fair pay for placements and the solution to regional workforce shortages is clear, yet Labor has missed the mark. It is worth noting that paid placements are not a new concept. In fact, they were once a standard part of medical training in Australia. My own husband, who trained as a doctor about 46 years ago, was paid during his placements. Now, here we are decades later trying to reinstate something that was abandoned long ago. One must ask, what happened? Why have we gone backwards? Labor's turn toward paid placements recognises the dire current shortages we are grappling with and highlights the need for continuous and targeted investment in our education and training systems to build a stronger, more resilient workforce for the future. Instead of addressing the root causes of these shortages, Labor is offering the bandaid solution in this bill that is too little too late for regional Australians. We need real solutions. If we are serious about addressing workforce shortages in critical sectors we need to start by ensuring that students have access to adequate financial support during their studies. This means offering meaningful support for practical placements—support that reflects the value of the work being done, the impact on those undertaking them and on their families and the cost associated with completing these placements. We must also rethink the way we structure education and training in fields like nursing, midwifery and social work. We need students to be learning on the job, gaining the skills and confidence they need to hit the ground running when they graduate—being job ready. And we need to ensure that they are not forced to choose between their education and their livelihoods. Labor's paid prac proposal is a step in the right direction but does not address how desperately students are struggling, especially in regional Australia. 19:23 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I want to start with some acknowledgements of the work that was done in the final report of the Australian Universities Accord review. They talked about the value of our universities and what they bring not just to our people but to our nation. They started that report with this simple statement: Higher education is vital to Australia's future: the knowledge, skills and research it produces enable us to be an economically prosperous, socially equitable and environmentally sustainable nation. They highlighted that universities are key to uplifting the quality of life here in Australia. They noted the important role that universities have in promoting democracy and civic values. And the accord's work highlighted the importance of employment—that we have better jobs and higher paid jobs because of our university sector. But, right up front, the accord review also noted that there was not enough integration in our education system. They said very plainly to everyone in this place, to our nation and to the vice-chancellors across the nation that every part of Australia's education system needs to work together. That's the only way we're going to meet the skills challenges that Australia faces. Thankfully, in meeting those challenges we start from a good place. We start with a high-quality tertiary education system. We start with a system that performs above the OECD average. But it's a system that is under pressure, and some of that pressure we will relieve with the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 today. Supporting our universities is not just about making sure that the next generation can get a great education and a great job; our universities also contribute to solving some of the other challenges that we deal with in this place day in, day out. In terms of the threats to our social cohesion, a large part of the solution to that challenge is tertiary education, and that's clearly in the report. I want to share a story I've shared in this place before about the change that's already happened in our universities. I'm going to take you, those who are choosing to listen, back to 1957, to the start of a new semester at the University of Western Australia. You had a new cohort of enthusiastic students, sweating in the February sun on the edges of the Swan River. Probably the student amongst that cohort in 1957 who was most nervous and most unsure about what this experience of university was going to be like was Irwin Lewis. Irwin Lewis was the first Aboriginal student to attend university in Western Australia, in 1957. He was attending university just three years after what had been known as the 'native pass' system was finally abolished in Perth. He came from Morawa and went on to be dux at Christ Church Grammar School, a renowned school in Western Australia. Not content with just getting a degree from the great University of Western Australia, he then went on to play for the Claremont Football Club in their 1964 grand final win and on to an excellent career as a public servant. The story of Irwin Lewis's life is a story about the power of what happens when we open the doors of opportunity and welcome more into our higher education system. I had correspondence with a woman called Pat Pearce, who was working at the university bookshop back in the 1950s. Pat's a wonderful person and a supporter of this side of the House, but she often gives advice to me and my staff about things that I could maybe do more effectively. These were her words about that day back in 1957: 'I was on the UWA campus the day Irwin Lewis started at uni. The buzz was everywhere.' That again just shows that people in our higher education system are excited to welcome more people into these excellent institutions. I've been very fortunate in my life to have attended Curtin University and the University of Western Australia. I had not just an excellent education but the opportunity to experience those great things that happen above and beyond just paying for the courses that allow you to get the qualifications you want. You make lifelong friends, and that's not just with fellow students. I was really fortunate to serve on the Curtin University Council alongside Dr Eric Tan, a really excellent leader in Western Australia. I saw amazing university administrators who really had passion in their hearts for both their students and their academics. They were people like Lance Twomey, Jane den Hollander and Val Raubenheimer. They were people who gave so much to education and to academia in Western Australia. Unashamedly I made lifelong friends at university. When we open the doors of university to more and ensure that people can have a quality experience when they're at university, then we do so much of what it is that I think we all aspire to do in this place, which is to allow every Australian to reach their full potential. This bill is about taking a good education system and making it fairer. It's about wiping HECS debt. For my electorate alone, some 25,000 people will have their HECS debt wiped as a result. It's about bringing in, for the first time, a Commonwealth prac payment, making sure we support people who are in the final stages of their study. It's about expanding Fee-Free Uni Ready courses so that more people can go into our universities and be welcomed in without having that big upfront fear of fees. They might be the first in their family to go to university. It's also about a down payment on our goal of having 80 per cent of the Australian population have a university, TAFE or trade qualification, recognising that, when we invest in our people, we invest in our society and everyone benefits. It's not just the people who go to university who benefit from a quality education. The people around them and the society in which they live will benefit as well. With that, Deputy Speaker Vasta, I commend this bill to you and to this parliament. I know that it will be a significant downpayment on our investment, from this place, in the future generations who will lead Australia in the decades and centuries to come. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Energy 104 19:30 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Tonight I would like to address the subject of hydrogen and green steel, and the government's $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program and what that means for the people of Gladstone in my electorate of Flynn, and to pose some questions to the government, to those people opposite who are listening. As we all know, the government is relentlessly pursuing this argument of net zero by 2050. As I said, the production of green hydrogen, green steel and those sorts of things are all relevant to my electorate of Flynn, because Gladstone has been nominated as a hydrogen hub—and we know that there are pilot projects there. The Stanwell Corporation are proposing to produce 5,000 tonnes of ammonia, which is 882 tonnes of hydrogen, and they have said in their proposal that this will require three gigawatts of renewable energy—wind turbines and solar panels. So what does this actually mean? The Gladstone coal-fired power station is capable of producing 1.6 gigawatts of energy. So the reality is that this small pilot project will require approximately double the generating capacity of the Gladstone power station in solar panels and wind turbines to happen. The Gladstone Ports Corporation have proposed a four-million-tonne hydrogen precinct in Gladstone. They said in their presentation a year ago that that will require 110 gigawatts of renewable energy. To put that into perspective, 110 gigawatts of renewable energy is approximately double the entire generating capacity of the Australian grid. They said in their presentation that it will require 10,000 wind turbines, 2½ thousand solar panels and 45,000 megalitres of fresh water every year to achieve this. Before me I have the World Steel Association's fact sheet on hydrogen and green steel, and the hydrogen that might be required to convert the world's steel industry away from coal. It says here: Around 70 Mt of dedicated hydrogen are produced today, 76% from natural gas and almost all the rest (23%) from coal. Less than 0.1% of global dedicated hydrogen production today comes from water electrolysis. If all current dedicated hydrogen production were produced through water electrolysis (using water and electricity to create hydrogen), this would result in an annual electricity demand of 3,600 TWh—more than the annual electricity generation of the European Union. This proposal is insane, because, of the hydrogen that is used in the world today, very little of it is used in the production of green steel. The fact is that the steel industry uses 1.1 billion tonnes of coal, and if we were to replace that with hydrogen we would have to multiply that electricity generation requirement—from wind turbines, solar panels and so forth—by a factor of 100. The question I pose to the government and to those opposite is: how is this possibly economically responsible management in Australia, when we've got people who are living in cars, people who are living in tents and people who can't afford to send their children to football practice and netball practice because of the cost of living? It is all related to the cost of energy. Freeman, Mrs Colleen Margaret 104 19:35 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Ipswich is mourning the end of an era with the passing of trailblazing Labor activist, community champion and matriarch Colleen Freeman. Colleen was a dedicated, caring, driven woman who worked tirelessly for a better community. She was born in 1933 and died recently in Ipswich in 2024. I was honoured to be at her funeral service last month. Colleen was born in Rosewood to a father who was a railway fettler and the life and blood of the local Labor Party. Her mother was a tailoress who used her skill to produce cloth for the local Catholic church and to give to the needy. After leaving school Colleen first worked as a bookkeeper for a short time before taking up a position as a nurse assistant at St Andrew's hospital in Ipswich. This was followed by her dream job, training and working as a midwife in Gympie. On her way back to Rosewood she met a local coalminer, Des Freeman, at a local dance. In 1955 they were married and started a partnership that would last for 65 years. Colleen's grandparents were founding members of the Labor Party in North Queensland. Colleen joined the Labor Party because it was the party that stood up for people. Colleen and Des both joined the local Labor Party branch at North Booval and were active in the 1950s and 1960s, at a time when it was unusual for a woman to be actively involved in politics. In 1973 Colleen was elected the state president of the Labor women's network in Queensland and held the position for five years. On taking up the role, Colleen was helpfully advised by a senior male Labor figure that the role wouldn't be too onerous because all the woman had to do was make sandwiches and cups of tea. In her very direct manner, she told him where to stick the sandwiches and that Labor women would be developing policies around health, education and families. Colleen's role as president of the Queensland Labor women's network had two firsts. In 1975 she had the distinction of being the first woman to stand as a Senate candidate for Labor in Queensland—not a good year for the party. Unfortunately, the Labor Party preselected Mal Colston one above her in the Senate, so she was unsuccessful. But a trailblazer she was. She laid the path for Margaret Reynolds, who was successful a couple of elections later. In 1978 Colleen became the first woman ever elected to the Labor Party's Queensland state administrative committee. She was a central figure in the Labor women's movement and provided strong support to women in the party, including Rachel Nolan, who became the first female state member for Ipswich. Later, Colleen became the mayoress of Ipswich, when Des was elected as the mayor for Ipswich in 1979. He served for 12 years with distinction. Colleen's Labor values came to the fore in her role during this time, when she quickly established the mayoress's welfare committee, which distributed funds to assist disadvantaged children—a first in Queensland and possibly Australia. She'd go on to be actively involved as patron, president, secretary, treasurer and board member in dozens of community organisations—Ipswich Junior Eisteddfod Society, Meals on Wheels, the Ipswich Art Gallery, West Moreton Orchid Group, Ipswich Women's Health Centre and Ipswich Hospice Care, just to name a few. The Special Branch of the Queensland police, under Bjelke-Petersen, kept tabs on Colleen during these activities. Colleen was heavily involved in issues such as the right to gather in street marches and peaceful protests, family planning and women's issues. She was very proud of her Special Branch file. These were issues she was agitating for for a long time. In her latter years in Ipswich, Colleen went on to form the True Believers group to provide a forum for older Labor Party members who would give up going to meetings for various reasons to come together and discuss politics and solve the problems of the world. She was involved in SeniorNet Ipswich, which helped older people connect online and taught them IT skills. At one meeting in 2016, I was honoured to present Colleen with an award in recognition of her 50 years of service in the ALP, along with several other Labor stalwarts. One of these was her husband, Des, a local legend. Des and Colleen were like mentors to me, and I pay tribute to Des in my first speech. Des was the first person I ever voted for when he stood for election as mayor. Colleen and Des helped Bill Hayden win in 1961. In the years thereafter, Colleen served as a Lifeline counsellor for many years and was awarded life membership of Lifeline for her service. Similarly, she was also awarded life memberships of the Blue Nurses and of course the Labor Party. She fought for social justice, for a more fair and equitable society. But for her now, the fight is over, and she can rest in peace, knowing she made a significant contribution to her family and to the Ipswich community. My sincere condolences go to her extended family. Vale Colleen Freeman, and thank you for your service to the party, to Ipswich and to the nation. Child Care 105 19:40 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Today I rise on behalf of families in my community who are facing an urgent crisis, one that threatens not only their financial stability but also their ability to participate fully in the workforce. It is a crisis that is having a profound effect on their wellbeing, on the development of their children and on the future of our community—that is, the lack of affordable childcare services. My team have been contacted by families right across Mayo, from Kersbrook to Yankalilla, and they have shared their stories. Some of them are dual-income households and many more are mothers who are seeking to re-enter the workforce. They are losing the battle against ever-rising childcare fees—that is, if they can get a place, and that is the big key in regional Australia. Families in my electorate did welcome the government's 2023 increase in the childcare subsidy as a necessary step towards addressing the affordability of child care in this country. However, what we have seen in practice is that many childcare providers have raised their fees to match the subsidy, leaving many families no better off. One mother shared with me and my team that the fees were raised by $15 a day, almost exactly the amount by which the childcare subsidy increased. Another parent on the Fleurieu explained that due to excessive childcare hikes at her centre, she now pays more in out-of-pocket expenses despite the increase in the subsidy. These are real people; these are not numbers on a page. Families are being forced to make cost choices in returning to work. They are cutting back their hours to accommodate archaic income tests associated with accessing the subsidy. In most circumstances, it is mothers who bear the brunt of these decisions. That same group, not that long ago, the government were encouraging to participate more actively in the workforce. But these financial challenges do not occur in isolation. They are compounded by obstacles in accessibility. Speaking to centres across Mayo, their waitlists are ever-growing. A family in Yankalila waited over 18 months for a placement only to be told they will need to wait another year. Another from Strathalbyn shared that a reduction in work hours was the only way they could secure a place at their local centre. This is a crisis and it is not unique to Mayo. Across the country in regional areas like ours, the lack of childcare availability is hitting families very hard, as with the rising fees. We are known as childcare deserts, where we effectively have two children waiting for every one place and the research supports this. We know that we need to do better, so what can be done? What must be done? Firstly, we need to see strict measures to prevent childcare centres hiking their fees in line with subsidies. The government must ensure that when the childcare subsidy is raised that the benefit is passed on to families, not swallowed up by instant excessive fee increases. We need to have a regional policy for child care because so many of the new childcare centres that are built—in fact, I would say nearly all of them—are for-profit. They look to where they can make the most money. They are not making the money in regional centres where we have small centres, so they are not getting built. We need to have a policy system that works better for regional Australia. We need to ensure there is greater flexibility. We no longer have family day care. My oldest boy went to family day care when he was little and I returned to the workforce. It was incredibly flexible. It was fantastic. His family day care provided a nurturing, kind and wonderful environment just for him, like home. But now, changes in policies have made it near impossible for family daycare providers to exist, so many have left the system. We must bolster the early education, early childhood workforce. We need more educators, particularly in regional areas and we need to see this as a profession. This issue strikes at the heart of fairness, and we need to ensure that we're providing a safeguard so that young people today can get access to quality early childhood education. I call on the government to take immediate action. Families in Mayo and regional Australians need to have better access to child care. We can't continue to be a desert. Tasmania: Storms, Emergency Management 106 19:45 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons There's no argument: Tasmania is one of the most beautiful places in the world, known for stunning landscapes—everything from white sand beaches to majestic mountains and, of course, our coursing rivers. Some of the most picturesque and iconic rivers are in my electorate: the Derwent, the Elizabeth, the Mersey, the South Esk and many others. However, over the past couple of weeks, Tasmania has been battered by destructive winds and torrential rain, with many of those rivers breaking their banks and causing some of the worst flooding that Tasmania has seen in years. People have evacuated homes, schools have been closed and there have been widespread, lengthy power outages. As the clean-up and repairs get underway, I want to acknowledge the communities in my electorate impacted by the wild weather and dealing with the aftermath. First I give a huge shout-out to our emergency service workers and the dedicated volunteer crews from Tasmania SES. They have worked tirelessly to respond to more than 800 requests for assistance from across the state. In particular, well done to the Meander Valley and Derwent Valley SES units for assisting residents in their areas to activate their flood emergency plans and move to evacuation centres. Some of these amazing volunteers have featured on the front pages of the local newspapers, including the New Norfolkand Derwent Valley News. I say thank you also to the employers and businesses who have released volunteers and to the volunteers who are self-employed for supporting the work of the SES in this way. And, of course, as well as the SES there are all those fire brigades, many of them volunteers, who have done the same sort of work. I've said it in this place many times before: Tasmanians are resilient and in times of crisis Tasmanians come together. In New Norfolk, a group called It's Our Community - Pantry has put together food hampers with all the essentials—milk, bread, cereal and fruit—for affected residents and distributed pet welfare packs to evacuation centres. The Lions Club of New Norfolk also put together food hampers and other supplies, working with Your Community Food Hub to support families in Maydena, Westerway and Glenfern. The Quilted Teapot, a cafe and quilting shop, made sure that SES and fire brigade volunteers were looked after, offering free hot drinks to the crews working in the Derwent Valley. Liz Virtue at Glenn Derwent estate baked scones and sweet treats to thank crews working out in the wild weather. In the Meander Valley, the Deloraine Community Complex was opened and remains open so those without power have a place to recharge devices, take a shower, make a much-needed cup of coffee or tea and gather with other people going through the same experience. I must acknowledge Jill Cunningham here, who opened the Carrick hall and worked day and night so that residents had a place to go and access to facilities, warmth and food. Further north, Di and the team at the Railton Neighbourhood Centre were on hand to support the Railton and Sheffield communities, providing a place to cook a hot meal, store frozen food, access the internet or, again, have a cuppa and watch TV. Likewise, locals without power across the Fingal Valley were able to visit the local Neighbourhood House to charge devices, access the internet, use facilities they couldn't access at home and grab that essential hot cuppa, bottled water and other essentials. We'd be here all night if I were to name each and every person and organisation that has gone above and beyond for their community in this week of wild weather that we've had. But, to each and every Tasmanian who's put their hand up to assist others in need: thank you for your compassion, generosity and goodwill. The Albanese government is supporting the Tasmanian government financially to make grants available to those affected under the DRF arrangements, with food assistance and funding to people facing long power outages. Temporary living support grants and food grants are available, and, earlier today, I was with the Minister for Emergency Management when she announced that there would be recovery and restoration grants for low-income Tasmanians whose homes have been damaged. For more information, Tasmanians can access the TasALERT app or the website, and can reach out to my office for any support that may be needed. I put a call out to every Tasmanian: the TasALERT app is available to download from your local app store. Get it on your device; it's full of really important and helpful information. Fadden Electorate: Cost of Living 107 19:50 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden The cost of living is through the roof, and families right across the Gold Coast are suffering. We often come into this place and make this point, and those opposite—particularly the Treasurer—swear black and blue that they have everything under control, that they are taming inflation, blah, blah, blah. Yesterday morning I was reading the Gold Coast Bulletin, as I always do, and I find an article the heading, 'Struggling to survive'. I will read a quote from that article: A staggering two-thirds of Queenslanders are still struggling to pay their bills, put food on the table or send their children to school due to relentless cost-of-living pressures, with poverty rates expected to skyrocket across the state once government rebates run dry. A new survey by the Queensland Council of Social Service has found 94 per cent of the state is worried about cost of living, with weekly budgets blowing out for nearly all types of households due to unaffordable housing, grocery, energy and petrol costs. What is causing this pain? An indicator is that our inflation is higher than all comparable economies. It's higher than the US, the UK, Canada, Japan and New Zealand. The economy is in the worst shape it has been in since the 1990s, excluding the pandemic years. This is a consequence of a Labor government that has spent its entire term in office fighting everything but inflation. They fought everyone on the Voice, they fight our farmers, who are just trying to give us food, and they fight the Reserve Bank, who have a job to do. They are not fighting for you. Just today in question time we got the passive-aggressive Treasurer leaning casually over the despatch box, reading the talking points on what they've done to make everyone's lives better, like the stage 3 tax cuts—although, they don't want to call them the stage 3 tax cuts anymore because that would acknowledge that there was a stage 1 and 2 that were delivered by the coalition government. The stage 3 tax cuts—at most, $15.46 per week more in your pay packet. This is the kicker, though: the average household with a mortgage of $750,000 is now $35,000 worse off than when Labor first took office—that's $673 per week. The Treasurer needs to get real, get his calculator out and do the maths. People are worse off under this Labor government. They have suffered through 12 interest rate rises and they know that there's no relief in sight because the arrogant and out-of-touch Treasurer wants to play chicken with the Reserve Bank. The government have many levers it can use to bring down inflation, and the interest rates would then follow, but they've failed on that front. They continue to fail. Local families that I talk to know that inflation is staying too high for too long because of this government, and the thing with inflation is it goes up and it stays up. They can see their grocery bills and power bills going up, despite the Prime Minister promising before the election that they would be going down. The middle-class families in suburbs across my electorate—like Helensvale, Coomera or Pacific Pines—are running a distant last as the priority of this government to bureaucrats in Canberra and Labor's union mates. What else is an indicator of this is the government's antibusiness approach, which is hurting the economy rather than supporting ambition. I take pride in the fact that the Gold Coast is the small-business capital of Australia, but we know business insolvencies are at an all-time high. We've been breaking records that, quite frankly, should not be broken. Last year 2,036 businesses went insolvent in Queensland. The evidence is there. The government is ruining livelihoods, and it's ruining lives. We know that there are small businesses that are out there suffering at the hands of terrible policy, increases in inflation, increases in interest rates that are making it more expensive to do business. So, at the next federal election, Australians will have a clear choice. If you're worse off now than you were two years ago, show Labor the door. (Time expired) Small Business 108 19:55 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Australia's millions of small businesses are the engine room of our nation's economy. They're at the heart of local communities across the country and employ millions of Australians. Small businesses employ more than five million people and contribute more than $500 billion to our nation's economy every year. That's why we are delivering for small business, helping them to bounce back from the challenges and improve their long-term resilience. Our most recent budget is helping to ease the pressure on Australia's 2.5 million small businesses by providing more than $640 million in practical and targeted support. Our support also focuses on saving small businesses time and money, reducing administrative burdens and making it easier for small businesses to comply with their obligations. We're giving small businesses a tax cut through the $20,000 instant asset write-off, and we're extending this for a further year, until June 2025, to provide small businesses with the confidence and certainty to invest. This is equivalent to an estimated $290 million of support each year for two years. We are abolishing 457 nuisance tariffs that existed under those opposite in the largest unilateral tariff reform in two decades. This will cut compliance costs for small business. We've updated the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, and small businesses are getting a big slice of the $70 billion in contracts the Australian government spends every year, with a 25 per cent target. We're providing $25.3 million over four years to improve payment times for small businesses, helping improve cash flow and boosting productivity, because I hear from small businesses that government and large businesses are choking them by being slow payers. We have announced a $23.3 million investment to help small businesses adopt e-invoicing, reducing invoice scams and improving cash flow, as part of broader support measures outlined in the recent small-business statement. We're providing $20 million in extra support for small-business innovation, up to 750 small and medium businesses will have access to extra support to help them turn great Australian ideas into thriving new businesses. We're delivering training opportunities for small businesses. The Albanese Labor government is committing to supporting small businesses, with new tailored training opportunities now available to help businesses with tax and super, and the first round of grants from the $392 million Industry Growth Program, supporting small and medium businesses in sectors like battery manufacturing and agriculture, have been distributed. We're protecting small businesses and consumers by outlawing unfair contract terms to help level the playing field in negotiations between big corporations and both small businesses and consumers. And we're responding to the review of the Franchising Code of Conduct with a range of new initiatives, making franchising fairer for small businesses operating in the sector. Our government is investing more than $60 million to help small businesses uplift their cybersecurity and digital capabilities, and, as part of this, $7.2 million will go to establishing a voluntary cyber health check program, which will allow businesses to undertake a free, tailored self-assessment of their cybersecurity maturity. This government is providing funding to the Fair Work Commission to support the uptake of enterprise bargaining for small businesses and ongoing funding for the Fair Work Ombudsman's Employer Advisory Service to assist small-business employers to meet their obligations. We're providing $3.5 billion of energy bill relief to households and small businesses through the Energy Bill Relief Fund, which will deliver rebates of $325 to around one million small businesses. And we've just had round 2 of the Energy Efficiency Grants for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises program. This program has delivered $62 million which enabled small businesses to upgrade electrical equipment such as refrigeration, coldrooms and the like or to invest in panels and batteries to bring their energy bills down. Small businesses can continue to count on the Albanese Labor government to back them every step of the way with practical and targeted support. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 109 NOTICES Presentation 109

Wednesday, 11 September 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Archer ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 110 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Carillon Business Awards 2024 110 09:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare On Saturday, I had the honour of attending Bathurst Business Chamber's Carillon Business Awards. The awards celebrate the remarkable achievements of our local businesses and the outstanding men and women behind them who contribute so much to the life of our communities. It was truly a night to remember. Today, I pay tribute to this year's exceptional winners. Apprentice and Trainee of the Year went to Daisy Jones from the Bathurst Little Learning Centre. Excellence in Customer Service went to Dancin' Divas Pole Studio. Excellence in Diversity and Inclusion went to Colton Computer Technologies. Excellence in Innovation went to Be Active Physiotherapy. Excellence in Large Business went to Skillset Limited. Excellence in Small Business, five to 20 employees, went to Precision Martial Arts & Fit. Outstanding Community Organisation went to Central West Women's Health Centre. Outstanding Employee went to Dylan Donahue from Vivability. Outstanding Employer of Choice went to Glenray. Outstanding New Business went to Ayme Staffing. Outstanding Young Business Leader, 35 years or under, went to Kevin Walker of Vivability. Well done, Kevin! Outstanding Business Leader, 36 years plus, went to Warren Hickey of Precision Martial Arts & Fit. The People's Choice Award for Bathurst's Favourite Business went to Studio Duchess. The People's Choice Award for Bathurst's Favourite Tradie went to Riley Robinson from Devro. The People's Choice Award for Bathurst's Favourite Health, Fitness and Wellbeing Employee went to Matty Power from Cityfit. Well done, Matty! The People's Choice Award for Favourite Hospitality Organisation went to Cafe Viva. And Bathurst's most Outstanding Business went to Precision Martial Arts & Fit. Well done to Warren Hickey and his family. Congratulations to all of the winners. I want to acknowledge and thank this year's event sponsors. The 2024 major sponsor was Kelso Electrical and Brad Schumacher. Brad was one of the MCs for the evening, and he did a sterling job. I also want to acknowledge Accumen Accountants and Business Advisors, Air Works Group, Bathurst RSL Club, Business NSW, Bathurst Regional Council and Charles Sturt University. CSU's Jac Underwood was also an MC and did an outstanding job. I also want to acknowledge GT Digital Solutions, Kenny Spring Solicitors, Inland Digital, Reliance Bank, Skillset, Vanessa Pringle Floral Designs, VERTO, Vivability, Cafe VIVA, 2BS 95.1 FM, 99.3 B-Rock FM and the Western Advocate. I also want to acknowledge the hardworking members of the Bathurst Business Chamber, including President Paul Jones, Graeme Burke, Secretary Sam Forbutt, Kate Gullifer, Sharn McIntosh and Isabel Fox. It takes a lot to put on an awards ceremony of this scale, and the Bathurst Business Chamber did an outstanding job. You can see why they won the 2024 Western New South Wales Business Awards Outstanding Local Chamber. Well done to the Bathurst Business Chamber, and congratulations to all the nominees, winners, sponsors, the Bathurst Business Chamber and everyone who contributed to making the 2024 Carillion Business Awards such a success. (Time expired) Spence Electorate: Welcoming the Babies 110 09:33 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Having a child offers two very different extremes for a parent. On the one hand, it is the most exciting and rewarding time of a parent's life. There is genuinely nothing like it. But, on the other hand, at the same time, having a baby can be extremely stressful and isolating for families with young children. In my electorate of Spence, these challenges are often made harder by the existing disadvantages for families in the north. For parents in our community, who are perhaps already going through hardship from just having a child, often in finance, health care and even in their personal relationships, these challenges are made even more difficult by services that can be harder to access up north. Generational disadvantage informs a mistrust of intervention services. Those issues strike at the root of what the Labor government and I seek to address wherever we can: the socioeconomic and sometimes psychological gap in communities to connect families into society so they can thrive. That is why I sought to host a Welcoming the Babies event in my electorate of Spence. I was privileged to be able to do so on Thursday last week in Elizabeth. It was incredible. We saw 80 families register with their babies and over two dozen organisations host stalls, with some incredible prizes for families donated by those organisations as well. It was a space where families could be welcomed into our community and where support services from all three tiers of government, non-government providers and non-profits could assist them with their needs. We had an incredible time doing it, with some fantastic activities and play areas set up by the amazing organisations involved. I'd like to thank the two special guests for their attendance on the day: firstly, the honourable member Emily Bourke MLC, state Assistant Minister for Autism in South Australia, whose trailblazing work in the autism space cannot be understated; and, of course, our very own Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth, whose enthusiasm on the day was absolutely infectious. Thank you so much for coming to our community. I would also like to note the hard work that went into the organising of this event by the City of Playford, the Playford Early Childhood Alliance and, in particular, the working group for this event: Susan Petrie, Lisa Jenkin, Jo Saunders, Samantha Mullins and Tracey Alexander. Thank you all very much for your support and hard work in helping me and my office put this together. You've helped deliver a significant precedent-setting outcome for families in the north. These events are circuit breakers for families. Your work has meant that every child who went through the civic centre's doors last week will now be that much more connected to our community and essential services in an area that needs a helping hand the most. Thank you so much. Organ and Tissue Donation 111 09:36 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I am delighted to get up this morning and discuss the Parliamentary Friends of Organ Donation. I have just finished a particular event with my very good friend Dr Mike Freelander to have people who have received organ donations standing amongst us this morning and those who have donated organs. It is possible to be a living donor, to donate a kidney and still live. We met with a couple this morning where the husband had provided a kidney for his wife, who has also had to have a liver transplant. She was a very bubbly, wonderful woman, and it was delightful to meet her. Mike and I started the Parliamentary Friends of Organ Donation back in 2019, and that was the first event where I brought my granddaughter, who has received a liver transplant. She's now 11 years old and thriving and doing very well, but it was a traumatic period of time. I'm fully immersed in how hard that journey is. I want to give a shout-out to every family who has lost a family member and who has donated organs to others so that they might live. In fact, I have a staff member who is in that position, whose child very sadly died and has donated organs so that others could live. That is an incredibly courageous and brave thing to do. This morning we stood in the courtyard of the Speaker and discussed how wonderful humanity can be. That we can reach out and provide and give and share so that others can live is just mind-blowing and extraordinary, and it makes me very proud to be part of the human race. It's not often we can say that these days. There are so many challenges that we face, but I think organ donation is just one of those things. The Australian Transplant Games will be held here in Canberra from 1 October to 6 October. I had the privilege of being at the World Transplant Games in Perth in March last year, and it was a significant and wonderful event to see a pool of swimmers who all had experienced organ transplants and were competing in events. It's not an easy journey. There are so many challenges that people with organ transplants have to live with to manage their lives, and here they are on the world stage, coming from all over the world to compete together. It was incredibly encouraging to see that human spirit that we share together. So I just want to give a shout-out to that. I am in my—no, I'm going to have to leave it to another speech, but I will be back. Canterbury Bankstown Torch, Eve's Apple 111 09:39 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton There was a time when the local newspaper was the fixture of front lawns across our suburbs. Often they'd fly out the window of a station wagon with varying degrees of accuracy. Local media has been there to cover the issues that matter to our communities, the ones bigger outlets weren't interested in. Sadly, times have changed. After 104 years service to our community. The CanterburyBankstown Torch has printed its last newspaper. Both in my time in this place and as the member for Canterbury, the Torch gave me the platform to speak to constituents. More importantly it was a way for them to speak to me too. It was accessible and free. My team and I would like to thank the diligent editors, journalists and staff who have worked there over the years. Our community will miss you. I would also like to acknowledge another fixture of my time as member for Barton. Eve Issa and her father, George, bought her brother's fruit shop under the Kogarah railway station 33 years ago. Like many successful small businesses, Eve's Apple quickly became central to the Kogarah community. Many stopped to buy fruit and veg fresh from the Sydney markets. Her four children more or less grew up in the shop. They helped Mum behind the till and setting up for the day. In sad news for the community, last week Eve sold the shop and has retired to her son's home in Greenacre. I can assure you it's a retirement she has absolutely earned along with her family. I appreciate her support during my time as local member and wish her a well-earned rest and a happy retirement. Longman Electorate: Homelessness 111 09:41 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Recently, I had a community forum in the Longman electorate around homelessness and housing affordability, which is as bad as I've ever seen it. Like many communities around the country, there are so many people sleeping in parks, on benches and in tent cities that have sprung up, plus there has been a massive uplift in couch surfing, which is certainly not as visible as the other cohorts I've already mentioned. The forum was attended by concerned community members and organisations that either have empathy for or are physically involved in assisting people who are experiencing difficulty when it comes to housing. The format was a panel that included a local real estate agent, Karen George from Richardson & Wrench; an organisation called Eats 4 the Streets, which provides meals and groceries to the homeless and others doing it tough, represented by founder Michael Cox; and City of Moreton Bay councillor Adam Hain. Here are some quick statistics on City of Moreton Bay homeless. The number of clients financially assisted with payments for short-term and emergency accommodation grew by almost 280 per cent from 2018 to 2023. There are 2,517 people on the public housing waitlist in just this one local government area in Queensland. I suspected the 1½ hours allotted for this forum would not be enough, and, unfortunately, I was correct. We had managed only to discuss the issues and barely touched on solutions, which was the main objective, so I will be holding a second event in November that will focus on solutions to the problems that we raised at this first forum. We heard from Janice, a local 74-year-old who shared her story. For many years, she had been renting a granny flat from a couple at the back of their property. The couple have now sold, and the new owners can't rent it to her. Janice is a single woman on a pension. She doesn't even own a car. She approached the State Housing department and was told, 'Sorry; we have nothing available.' I asked the real estate agent how the private rental market was, and she said they have over 1,000 properties on their rent roll and there are, at the moment, three up for rent. At the inspections for these properties, over 40 families are turning up. Not one of them is under $700 per week rent. Janice said she was now looking for a street corner or a tree to sleep under. Landlords often bear the brunt of the blame for increasing rents, but they have been forced to raise rents due to the massive increase in the average price of homes. In Caboolture South, the average price has risen from $411,000 in 2019 to $645,000 in 2024. That, along with the 12 interest rate rises that we've had in the last couple of years, has just made the mortgage repayments so high that they are forced to increase their rents. The only good news that came out of it was that there was someone who was at the forum who was actually able to find Janice a home, so I'm pleased to say that Janice won't be sleeping under a tree. She'll be sleeping in a bed—and rightly so. Genetic Testing and Life Insurance 112 09:44 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Last year I held a roundtable in my office with Assistant Minister Stephen Jones, Dr Jane Tiller, advocates and members of our community who were confronting potential discrimination by life insurance companies due to genetic predispositions. This morning I once again joined with Dr Jane Tiller and the minister to announce that the Albanese Labor government will implement a total ban on the use of genetic testing results in life insurance. This will save lives, and it will mean that people can get the health care that they so desperately need. We will end the ability to discriminate based on genetic test results by banning their use in life insurance underwriting. We know genetic testing can save lives and we know that the technology is evolving each and every day. We know that the technology can change the way medical practitioners prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor a range of conditions, including cancer and so many others. However, for too long Australians have not been getting potentially life-saving genetic testing, because they were scared of being discriminated against with life insurance products. This has prevented them from making decisions about their own health for fear of missing out on the life insurance that they potentially needed. Today, we announce that we are fixing this. No Australian should be discouraged from undertaking critical and vital testing out of fear that it could impact their ability to get life insurance. This morning's announcement was led by wonderful and passionate advocates in our community, and the decision makes us a world leader in removing barriers to genetic testing. Throughout the process, the minister consulted academics, community members, health professionals and those with lived experience. There was also an inquiry, which received over 1,000 submissions, 97 per cent of which were supportive of the total ban we announced this morning. A mutation of the BRCA gene, which is especially prevalent among women in the Jewish community of Macnamara, can lead to a higher risk of cancers, especially breast cancer. We heard this morning from a most inspiring person named Kara. She spoke about her own experience with the BRCA gene. I want to pay tribute to her for her courage and her bravery in leading this reform, because it will help to save others in her position. I also want to acknowledge the Council of Australian Life Insurers, who have fully supported our policy to ban the use of genetic testing. But the real tribute of this speech goes to Dr Jane Tiller, a professional in genetic testing at Monash University and a tireless advocate who has fought and won this important reform for Australia. O'Connor Electorate: Migration 113 09:47 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to inform the parliament of the coordinated approach to migration taken by 10 shires and a regional city in my electorate and how federal and WA Labor are strangling their initiative. This week, I wrote to the Assistant Minister for Immigration, Matt Thistlethwaite, expressing grave concerns about his recent response to me regarding an application by Regional Development Australia Great Southern on behalf of the 11 municipalities for a designated area migration agreement, or DAMA Mr Thistlethwaite has only been in the job for two weeks, after Mr Albanese demoted his previous immigration dream team—Andrew Giles and Clare O'Neil—so I do not blame him for the tardy response to my letter, which came almost six months after I wrote to urge Mr Giles to expedite the approval of a DAMA for WA's Great Southern region. My six months on hold to Australia's immigration hierarchy pales in comparison to the 16 months that the Great Southern has been waiting for a decision on its much-needed DAMA. My main concern, from the tenor of Assistant Minister Thistlethwaite's reply to me, is that a DAMA for the Great Southern may be dead in the water. If that's the case, it would be a savage blow to a region that has long been a primary industries powerhouse but is now struggling to attract workers. Great Southern is one of the two regions, nationally, to be hit hardest by Labor's looming ban on live exports. It was heartening to see hundreds of farmers out the front of Parliament House yesterday demanding that Mr Albanese can the ban and keep the sheep. Minister Thistlethwaite's letter extolled the virtues of a statewide DAMA, which was recently settled between WA and the federal Labor government, but the new, statewide DAMA is not a regional agreement. WA has nine regions, each with unique industry and development needs. A stark illustration of this is that 126— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 09:49 to 10:02 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 A stark illustration of this is that 126 occupations proposed under the Great Southern DAMA are not on the WA DAMA occupation list. The WA DAMA will best serve the state's great mining regions, while the Great Southern has an agriculture and tourism based economy. Labor's bull-at-a-gate advocacy for a statewide DAMA ignores this basic fact of regional economics. As DAMAs were introduced to reflect regional diversity, any move by Labor to block existing applications for regional DAMAs, in favour of a statewide one, would be a very bad move. I've called Mr Thistlethwaite to confirm that the Great Southern DAMA application is still under active consideration. Continued delays or refusal in favour of a top-down statewide DAMA would disadvantage the 11 regional shires that have come together to finalise a bespoke regional agreement tailored to the requirements of the employers in the Great Southern. Such initiatives should be nurtured, not left to wither on the vine. I've urged Mr Thistlethwaite to ensure that, after significant delays on the watch of Mr Giles, the Great Southern DAMA is approved forthwith. Swan Electorate: Young Changemakers Conference 113 10:03 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Are you a young changemaker? What change do you want to see? These are two questions I asked young people aged 16 to 17 years in Swan, and I received some amazing replies. One said: A change in less screen time and being able to feel safe online. Another said: I would like Australia to become a place where we are not separated by labels given to them, where everyone is celebrated for their individuality. We also had: I would like to see changes that make housing in Australia more affordable so people can live fulfilling lives. And how about this one: One of things I'd like to see in Australia is more equitable access to healthcare services, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Growing up in an urban area, I was fortunate to have easy access to decent healthcare. However, I'm well aware that this is not true for many Australians who live in rural and distant areas. For such communities, receiving necessary healthcare services frequently requires long distance travel, which may be both time-consuming and costly. This difference can result in delayed treatments, poorer health outcomes, and a decreased quality of life. I believe that every Australian, regardless of geographical location, has the right to timely and effective healthcare. These are powerful quotes from young people in the electorate of Swan. What it shows is that young people care about their future and their community. They care about a future that we are creating for everyone, not just a few. I'm excited to be hosting the first ever Swan Young Changemakers Conference in partnership with Pawsey, a supercomputer facility in the tech park in Swan. What's best is that this will not be death by PowerPoint or a lecture by politicians. These will be conversations facilitated by young leaders like Jemima Williamson-Wong, a councillor at the City of Fremantle; Maisara Muzaffar, Youth Citizen of the Year; and Denzel Jackson from the Perth Redbacks Basketball Club. Also involved are Molly Collard and Emily Williams, who are working with young people to generate ideas and create environments that young people want to participate in. These are the young leaders of today and the future leaders of tomorrow. These are young changemakers who will shape the future of our nation and inspire young people to follow in their footsteps. I'm listening to them and working with them. Menzies Electorate: Manningham Civic Awards 114 10:06 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies We have the great honour, in this Chamber and in the other one, of rising to acknowledge the work of volunteers. It was Winston Churchill who said, 'We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.' I would like to single out some volunteers in my community who were recently recognised in the Manningham Civic Awards. The award for 2024 Citizen of the Year went to Brian Tyedin. I know Brian very well, and many of you might know his voice. He is the president and a presenter on 96.5 Inner FM. He's a volunteer. He works tirelessly and constantly for ways to support and serve the community in a variety of different ways. He has the time and the energy to go above and beyond. When I meet Brian at events, he's smiling, and I smile. It's infectious. I'm so proud to see him given this award. In particular, they singled out him being a champion of the Rotary movement, particularly the Rotary Manningham City branch. I just want to say how proud I am of you, Brian. I'd also like to acknowledge two winners of the Doreen Stoves Volunteer of the Year Award, Luke Bastian and Kate Gniel. Luke has played a crucial role in the scouting community for more than two decades, as well as Rotary and Doncaster Baseball Club. He is a dedicated member of the Manningham community. As you can see, volunteers who give in one area, more often than not, give in many others. The other award winner, Kate, is an outstanding individual who consistently makes a remarkable impact in the community through her volunteering efforts. Over the past few years Kate has dedicated her time and energy to enhancing and enriching the lives of others, including the Sharks Junior Football Club. Thank you, Kate. I'd also like to acknowledge the Community Organisation of the Year Award, which went to the Rotary Club of Manningham City. There are so many dedicated volunteers in that Rotary club who consistently turn up and give their most precious asset: their time. They're busy people; they have lives and other jobs, but they give their time to the service of others, and I thank them for it. Finally, I go to the Sports Volunteer of the Year, Anthony Milicia. Anthony dedicates himself to volunteering with the Manningham Juventus Football Club as if it were a second job. He sets a positive example for motivating others, and his actions are a source of inspiration for the whole team. So congratulations to all of the winners. I am extremely proud of you, and I'm proud to have recognised you here. Marne, Uncle Wes, AM 114 10:10 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley On the morning of 31 August, our Chifley community and, I would say, the country lost an incredible person in 102-year-old Uncle Wes Marne. Bigambul man Uncle Wes lived on the lands of the Dharug for over 50 years and was well known and much loved across Western Sydney, strongly advocating for bringing different worlds together and working tirelessly to share culture and build understanding. He grew up in the 1920s in South-West Queensland, where his grandad taught him how to hunt and told him the Dreaming stories he later passed on to future generations. When he was nine, his family were forcibly removed from country and taken to the Deadbird Mission in New South Wales. Uncle Wes lived through World War II. He lived through the stolen generations. He served in the Royal Australian Navy during the Korean War. In the 1960s, he moved to Mount Druitt, and he called it home ever since. He was one of the first Indigenous people in Sydney to tell his stories in schools. Many people in Mount Druitt know him for this. Parents remember him from school assemblies, and students, even those who are now adults, remember Uncle Wes from the time he came to speak at their school. He touched the hearts of school students, teachers and community organisations in 2770 and beyond. He was a founding member of the Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group. For the past 27 years, they've held a reconciliation walk every year, bringing our community together. One of my fond memories of those walks is seeing Uncle Wes conduct the smoking ceremony. I encourage everyone to take part. In 2022, when Uncle Wes turned 100, I was proud to be present when the mayor of our city, the late Tony Bleasdale, presented him with the keys to the city. He was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for his longstanding service to the Indigenous community of Western Sydney. He published a book of poems, Through Old Eyes, in 2022, and he toured across the country with his show, Fire Bucket. He was invited by Stan Grant to appear on a Q+A episode to talk about his book. And what I've mentioned is just a drop of water in the bucket of what Uncle Wes has done in a life spanning 102 years. Our hearts go to his family and loved ones during this time. He was a great-great-great-grandfather, a storyteller, and someone who loved helping our community, building understanding and dedicating himself to ensuring Indigenous culture passed to the next generation, particularly in our local Mount Druitt community. There's so much to say about this person's life, but I'll finish by saying this: the world is better because of Uncle Wes Marne's commitment. I would like Hansard to note the footsteps of a great Australian. May he rest in peace. Thank you, Uncle Wes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 115 BILLS Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 115

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

Second Reading 115 10:13 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024. The bill will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions in 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. These amendments are required to support the proper administration of regulatory, law enforcement and oversight processes. The amendments to the Crimes Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act and consequential amendments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act in schedule 1 of the bill will modernise law enforcement search and seizure powers for cryptocurrency and other digital assets. Similarly, the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act in schedule 2 of the bill will modernise law enforcement powers in relation to information-gathering powers and freezing orders to apply to cryptocurrency exchanges and the accounts they administer. The amendments to the Crimes Act in schedule 3 of the bill will increase the value of the Commonwealth penalty unit to ensure that the financial penalties for Commonwealth offences remain an effective deterrent to unlawful behaviour. The amendments to the Telecommunications Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act in schedule 4 of the bill will provide certainty that the Attorney-General's Department is responsible for carrying out the telecommunications access functions through the Communications Access Coordinator, and the Department of Home Affairs is responsible for carrying out certain telecommunications security functions through the Communications Security Coordinator. The amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act in schedule 5 of the bill will support improved oversight in state and territory integrity agencies in their use of interception powers. Amendments to the Criminal Code in schedule 6 will extend the sunsetting date of the secrecy offence in section 122.4 to 29 June 2026 to ensure that sensitive Commonwealth information continues to be protected while government considers and implements two recent reviews of Commonwealth secrecy provisions. Amendments to the Criminal Code in schedule 7 will retrospectively amend the definition of 'hors de combat' in the dictionary of the Criminal Code to correct a drafting error and confirm consistency between Australian domestic law and international law in relation to war crimes obligations, reflecting the original legislative intent when the provision was introduced in 2002. In conclusion, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 will support the proper administration of regulatory and oversight processes, assist law enforcement agencies to deter criminal behaviour to enhance the protection of the Australian community and ensure Australia is able to uphold its international obligations. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 115 10:17 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I present a supplementary memorandum to the bill. By leave—I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5, column 1), omit "and 5", substitute "to 6". (3) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (4) Schedule 4, page 27 (after line 15), after item 2, insert: 2A Section 7 (definition of Home Affairs Minister ) Omit "Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979", substitute "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018". (5) Schedule 5, items 94 and 95, page 71 (lines 9 to 17), omit the items, substitute: 94 Subsection 5(1) (paragraph (j) of the definition of prescribed investigation ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (j) in the case of the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission (WA)—means an investigation that the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission (WA) is conducting in the performance of the Parliamentary Inspector's functions under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act (WA); or (6) Page 86 (after line 28), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 6 — Unauthorised disclosure of information by current and former Commonwealth officers etc. — sunsetting extension Criminal Code Act 1995 1 Subsection 122.4(3) of the Criminal Code Omit "29 December 2024", substitute "29 June 2026". (7) Page 86, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 6), add: Schedule 7 — Meaning of hors de combat Part 1 — Amendments Criminal Code Act 1995 1 Dictionary in the Criminal Code (definition of hors de combat ) Repeal the definition, substitute: hors de combat: a person is hors de combat if: (a) any of the following apply: (i) the person is in the power of an adverse party; (ii) the person clearly expresses an intention to surrender; (iii) the person has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness and is therefore incapable of defending himself or herself; and (b) the person abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape. Part 2 — Application of amendment 2 Application of amendment (1) The definition of hors de combat in the Dictionary in the Criminal Code, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to: (a) any conduct engaged in on or after 26 September 2002; and (b) any legal proceedings that are commenced on or after that day, if the proceedings have not been finally determined before the commencement of this Part. (2) In this item, legal proceedings include any proceedings before a court or tribunal, and include proceedings that are pending. The government is introducing amendments to the bill that will implement recommendation 1 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report on this bill and make final amendments to the bill to ensure that it operates as intended. I will also introduce two additional sets of amendments which I will return to shortly. Item 1 of the government amendments changes the commencement date of schedule 3 from 1 July 2024 to the 14th day after the Senate receives the royal assent to accommodate the later passage of the bill. Item 4 is a routine amendment to reflect changes in ministerial responsibilities following the administrative arrangements order made on 29 July 2024 which transferred administration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to the Attorney-General. This amendment will ensure that the amendments to establish a communications security coordinator in the Department of Home Affairs operate as designed. Item 5 responds to recommendation 1 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report on the bill. This amendment will ensure that the Western Australian Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission of WA is able to receive information under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 in similar circumstances to other state and territory oversight agencies. Items 2 and 6 introduce a new amendment to the bill to extend the sunsetting date of the secrecy offence in section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by 18 months from 29 December 2024 to 29 June 2026. This amendment will ensure that sensitive Commonwealth information continues to be protected while the government considers and implements two recent reviews of Commonwealth secrecy provisions by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the Attorney-General's Department. Items 3 and 7 introduce a new amendment to retrospectively amend the definition of 'hors de combat' in the dictionary of the Criminal Code to correct a drafting error that was made when the definition was first introduced in 2002. The amendment will ensure consistency between Australian domestic law and international law. The amendment reflects the parliament's original express legislative intent when the provision was introduced. I commend these amendments to the House. Question agreed to. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:21 to 10:31 Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 117

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 117 10:32 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The rubber's hitting the road—or maybe, 'The fins are hitting the water,' is a better analogy—when it comes to the government delivering on its commitment to ensure Australia acquires a nuclear propelled, conventionally armed submarine capacity through AUKUS, and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 creates a framework to regulate the nuclear safety aspects of activities relating to AUKUS submarines, with an objective of promoting the highest levels of nuclear safety. Consistent with the commitment of AUKUS partners, Australia will uphold the highest standards for safety, security and nonproliferation. This includes in relation to facilities that will support AUKUS submarines in Australia. The focus here is on creating a new regulatory framework to ensure nuclear safety across Australia's nuclear powered submarines. So this framework will establish a dedicated fit-for-purpose nuclear safety framework; set out clear safety obligations for personnel involved in nuclear propelled submarines' maintenance and operation through a licensing regime for persons conducting regulated activities, with serious civil and criminal consequences if there's a breach of the law; establish a new independent statutory regulator, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, within the Defence portfolio, independent of the Defence chain of command; and empower the regulator to operate within a system of regulation alongside domestic agencies and, where appropriate, to collaborate with our US and UK partners. The Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 will allow any of the relevant licences issued by the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency to transition to the new regulator where they will be regulated activities under the legislation. The government is committed to ensuring the bill establishes a robust, effective regulatory framework to maintain the highest standards of nuclear safety. The Deputy Prime Minister introduced these bills in November 2023, and they were referred to a Senate committee. On 15 May, that committee published its report and eight recommendations but ultimately recommended that the bill be passed. The government has accepted in full, or in principle, all the recommendations of the Senate committee and will make amendments to the bills to address these. In response to those recommendations, the government amendments are to clarify that the bill does not authorise the establishment of facilities for the purposes of civil nuclear power, the enrichment of uranium or the reprocessing of nuclear material; to establish a requirement that a person must not be appointed as, or remain, the director-general or the deputy director-general of the regulator if they've served any time in the previous 12 months as a member of the Australian Defence Force, or a staff member of defence or the Australian Submarine Agency; to establish a ministerial advisory committee to ensure the minister has independent advice relating to the regulator, its independence and its effectiveness; to allow the Minister for Defence to share reports from the director-general with the Minister for Health and Aged Care and Minister for Industry and Science as the ministers responsible for ARPANSA and ANSTO respectively; and to provide greater sharing and application of nuclear safety best practices and additional penalties for obstructing, hindering or intimidating a member of the regulator to further strengthen the regulator's powers and independence. The government will make other amendments to the bill, including to extend the commencement of the bill from six to 12 months, to ensure an orderly transition to the new regulatory framework. Together, these amendments will strengthen the bill and ensure the highest standard of nuclear safety within Australia's conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarine enterprise. Australia has decades of nuclear safety regulatory experience and a robust framework to regulate current domestic civilian nuclear activities in fields such as nuclear science and medical research. However, this framework was not designed to consider the unique activities associated with naval nuclear propulsion in a military context. The environments in which submarines operate are inherently hazardous. That's why the government is taking steps to establish fit-for-purpose, specialised regulatory frameworks for nuclear propelled submarines. While nuclear powered submarines have a number of roles, they are Navy vessels designed to operate in hostile undersea environments. Regulating the nuclear safety aspects of this enterprise requires a system that is calibrated to addressing the unique hazards and risks associated with sensitive military capability. This new regulatory system will consider the needs across the life cycle of a submarine to ensure the highest standards of nuclear safety and protection are applied. The government has made a decision to establish this new independent regulatory authority within the Defence portfolio. The regulator will remain independent, and its organisations will not be subject to commands from the Australian Submarine Agency, the Department of Defence or the Australian Defence Force in the performance of its duties. Having the regulator accountable to the defence minister is consistent with the need to ensure nuclear safety is unique in the context of defence operations. This approach is broadly consistent with regulatory models in the United States and the UK, which have separate defence nuclear safety regulators. The government is also amending the bill to strengthen the independence of the regulator by ensuring an appropriate separation period from serving in the Defence Force. The director-general and deputy director-general must not be appointed unless the minister is satisfied that the person has the competence, independence, technical expertise and relevant experience to lead the regulator. ADF members, including reservists, are excluded from being appointed as a director-general or deputy director-general of this body to ensure that the regulator remains independent. The term of the director-general or deputy director-general must not exceed five years, though they may be reappointed for further periods, and the DG must not hold office for a total of more than 10 years. The ANNPS Bill will also include a new definition of 'Defence staff member' to include ADF service chiefs, ADF members, APS employees of the Department of Defence and the Australian Submarine Agency in addition to the secretary of the Department of Defence and the head of ASA. The extra qualification around the appointment requiring a separation period will help ensure the independence of this regulator. The government is committed to ensuring that Australia is a responsible nuclear steward and maintains the highest standards of nuclear safety in respect of nuclear powered submarines. Australia will not manage, store or dispose of spent nuclear fuel from US or UK submarines. To put this matter beyond doubt, the government will amend the bill to make it clear that nothing in the bill authorises the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel from United States or United Kingdom submarines. For Australian submarines, we don't expect that there will be a requirement to manage the high-level radioactive waste until the 2050s, when our nuclear propelled submarines are defuelled at the end of their life. This waste will be stored and disposed of on current or future defence estate sites, and the government will announce the process by which it selects this location in due course. All radioactive waste must be managed in line with international best practice and in accordance with Australia's international and domestic legal obligations and commitments, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, or the Treaty of Rarotonga, as it's commonly known. All radioactive waste will be managed in accordance with Australia's comprehensive safeguard agreements, an additional protocol within the International Atomic Energy Agency. The government is also strengthening the security and the scrutiny of reporting of nuclear safety incidents. The government will amend the ANNPS Bill to include additional public notification requirements of certain nuclear safety incidents. This amendment addresses the scrutiny focused on different approaches between the ANNPS Bill and the ARPANS Act around incident notification. This provision means incidents must be tabled in parliament alongside any action taken by the regulator on relevant licence-holders. I want to be perfectly clear about this. These bills deal only with nuclear powered submarines, not civil nuclear power. The government will amend the bill to explicitly state that the legislation does not support civil nuclear power activities and does not displace Australia's longstanding moratorium on civil nuclear power. These amendments will make it clear that the bill does not authorise the construction or operation of certain facilities, including nuclear power plants, that are not related to an AUKUS submarine. The government has been clear that Australia's nuclear powered submarine program, including how it will be regulated, is fully consistent with our longstanding non-proliferation obligations and commitments, and we've worked closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency through every step of the process and will continue to do so. AUKUS is a core pillar of the Albanese government's national security policy to protect our nation, our interests and our security. Central to the government's approach to AUKUS is ensuring that Australia is a responsible nuclear steward. Australia is committed to the global non-proliferation regime, and the Albanese government is committed to maintaining the highest standard of nuclear safety in relation to our future conventionally armed, nuclear propelled submarines. 10:44 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023. I comment my colleague, the shadow defence minister, the member for Canning, on the way in which he has, of course, engaged very proactively with the government on all things AUKUS. We are very proud of AUKUS in the coalition, and having served in the previous parliament, one of the great achievements of the Morrison government was undoubtedly achieving this spectacular breakthrough of giving the Royal Australian Navy access to nuclear propulsion technology through the AUKUS agreement. Of course, we know that this is US technology. It's the absolute best technology available for nuclear propulsion, particularly for our purposes. It has a nuclear reactor that does not have to be refuelled every decade or so like most do. This technology allows a fully fuelled reactor for the entirety of its life to be provided to us. That is transformative in our capacity to have that sovereign capability for the Royal Australian Navy. I remember very well when the announcement was made by the three leaders, President Biden, Prime Minister Johnson and Prime Minister Morrison. There was indeed a great sense of history at that occasion because it had been around 70 years since the United States had decided to provide the United Kingdom with this technology in the fifties, and then, in 2021, agreed to expand that circle of trust, including one other nation, the United Kingdom, to now include Australia. It is a significant marker regarding the esteem that we are held in as a nation and a national security ally with the greatest power on the planet, the United States. They do not share their technology willingly whatsoever, and there are a lot of nations that are extremely jealous of the opportunity provided to us through AUKUS. I note as an aside that it also extends well beyond that nuclear propulsion technology. This is, of course, the most eye-catching component of it, but it is a defence technology sharing agreement that provides enormous opportunity beyond nuclear propulsion. Nonetheless, that is what we are here to debate, and we welcome the opportunity to keep this program moving forward. As an Adelaide MP, not surprisingly I speak regularly on submarines in this chamber and have ever since I was elected in 2019. I've been involved in the issues of submarine construction for what feels like my entire adult life. I've been at many interesting press conferences for many interesting milestones around submarine construction, particularly out at the ASC headquarters in Osborne. There has been a lot of politics around submarine construction for a long time and the people of South Australia are completely sick of it. We want certainty. We want the jobs that have been promised for a long time, by all sides of politics, to start to flow. So seeing legislation move through this parliament is heartening. We're making progress. Although, I do still have concerns about the pace at which the program is moving and when and what the important industrial and economic dividend for the state of South Australia will be on this project, always remembering that, first and foremost, we prioritise capability in the national security interests of our defence forces and, in this case, the Royal Australian Navy. That is why we very proudly support the acquisition of this transformative opportunity in capability. It's also very important, particularly on a bill like this, to note, to point out and to keep on the agenda the very important task of holding the current government, the previous government and any future governments to account for the commitments from an industry point of view and from an economic point of view that have been made. I remember back when we were building conventional submarines. There were very dramatic press conferences held by the now foreign minister, Senator Wong, and other senior South Australian Labor members about the words that we used to hear a lot: 'local industry content'. We miraculously don't hear that from the now government, when in opposition, they liked to talk about it so much. I'm very hot on just what proportion of the AUKUS submarine construction will actually happen in Australia, not just Adelaide. Absolutely, the shipyards are in Osborne. There's no question that the pressure hulls will be welded together and that a whole amount of manufacturing activity will happen on site. But there's an enormous amount of supply chain activity when it comes to the construction of submarines, and we want to keep this government on notice that we're watching very closely what decisions are going to be made, from a supply chain point of view, to make sure they benefit Australian industry. We are happy to be in partnership with the United Kingdom and happy to be building this AUKUS submarine together—designing and constructing it together. And it has to be together. We know the first of class will be built in Barrow-in-Furness in the United Kingdom, and that's fine. That's for the Royal Navy. We equally need to know and understand, at every opportunity when the government spruiks this project, just what are the latest details on timeline and industry content when it comes to the Australian submarines. What we can't stand for, and what we've got to be ever vigilant on—I'm not making an accusation here; I'm saying we have to be vigilant on this—is the risk of governments, and particularly the defence department, trying to make arguments that it might be easier for more and more of this program to happen in parts of the world other than Australia. Sovereign capability comes from the ability to build and maintain these boats in Australia, and, if we start outsourcing more and more of the supply chain—that means componentry—that is a huge impact on future maintenance. I don't level this as an accusation, but, if the worst case happened and people started to say, 'Well, maybe it will be easier to build them over in the UK,' that would be a spectacular betrayal of the Australian people and the defence capability of our nation. I don't believe that's going to happen, but I think, when we're having debates like this one about this AUKUS program, we've got to reflect on and look at commitments that were made and track them against where we're at right now, because I'm not confident that the submarine yard construction is at the pace that the government said it should be at by now. Hopefully, there will be more information from the government about timelines for building the shipyards out there at Osborne to construct our submarines. There's a little uncertainty about how many submarines we will be building, frankly. There's uncertainty about how many we'll be acquiring, potentially, from the United States. We know we're putting billions of dollars into helping to build shipyards not in Australia—shipyards in Connecticut and Barrow-in-Furness. That's fine if what is actually happening in Australia is properly outlined and reconfirmed to people. As an Adelaide MP, I will always take the opportunity in these sorts of debates to relitigate those points and make sure we're monitoring what the government are telling us and how they're staying on track with commitments they've made that start to slip to being a year or two ago but that need to stay on track to give us the confidence that we are getting what we believe we're getting. There's a lot of money going into this program, and as much of it as possible needs to be spent in this country, both from an economic and industrial point of view and from a national security and national security capability point of view. The bill, of course, creates a framework for the proper stewardship and custody of nuclear material. I've been very closely involved in the nuclear waste debate for what feels like most of my adult life. The former state Labor Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, undertook a royal commission in 2015 with the objective of storing about half the world's high-level nuclear waste in the state of South Australia. He's from the Labor Left, and it was his position and his government's position that we take half the world's high-level nuclear waste and store it in South Australia. So he and the royal commission have done a lot of work advocating for South Australia to host a lot of nuclear waste, and as Defence continue to move through their processes of determining where the waste will be stored—they've obviously put some parameters around it, particularly that it will be on Defence land—my strong expectation, based on Labor Premier Jay Weatherill's work, is that that will happen in the state of South Australia. It underscores the point, as the government brings this bill forward and talks about it and proclaims its support for nuclear propulsion technology in this country and provides the assurances that the government can handle all components of this program, including the proper custody and storage of that waste, just how that applies to a civilian nuclear industry as much as it does to the waste from reactors sitting in the belly of submarines. It's the sort of maturity that we've got in this debate that we need to have a debate around civil war nuclear power generation in this country. One of the major issues in any nuclear reactor, whether it's sitting in a submarine or whether it's producing important materials for nuclear medicine like the one we have at Lucas Heights or other reactors that we could have as part of the energy generation mix in this country, is the safe storage of the waste that is produced. What this bill demonstrates and what this debate around AUKUS demonstrates is that we can very sensibly develop proper plans for a safe nuclear industry. This bill is confined to naval submarines, but there's no reason, if we can do it for submarines, that we can't just as equally do it for a civilian nuclear generation industry in this country. I note the comments being made by the government about some amendments that they've put in talking about clarifying this, that this legislation can't envisage or accommodate anything on the civilian side. The fact they're bringing them forward as amendments shows how political they are rather than genuine. No-one drafting this legislation in the department thought that issue needed to be addressed whatsoever. Clearly the minister has had some questions and queries publicly along the lines of: 'You're creating a framework to manage your custody of nuclear material for the naval shipbuilding program. Why in the world could it not be exactly the same for civilian power generation?' For political purposes we see these amendments being brought in to rule that out because, if it weren't for those amendments, the point is we can. We can do it for a civilian industry as much as we can for the custody of nuclear material from the naval submarine program. So, as the debate on nuclear more generally progresses, this bill is specific to naval nuclear capability. But, as the broader debate progresses towards the next election, the government are in a very difficult position. They used to demonise nuclear, just generally, and say it was unsafe and dangerous and they put up ridiculous social media content predicting glow-in-the-dark animals and mushroom clouds and all the rest of it. Now, of course, they've come on board to having nuclear submarines, eight of which will be lashed to the docks at Osborne out of Port Adelaide in my home city. They can't justify the demonisation of the technology and the scaremongering around safety anymore because they've signed up to this AUKUS program. So now they're concocting an economic argument around nuclear. We're always happy to debate the Labor Party on anything economic, particularly when it comes to energy and electricity and the promises they've made in that area and what the reality has been since. This capability is completely transformational for the Royal Australian Navy. It's one of the greatest, if not the greatest, achievements of the Morrison government in Prime Minister Morrison's time. It's one that he often himself singles out as one of his proudest achievements. It's very significant. It took a lot of complexity to negotiate access to this technology. It was also quite significant to walk back from going down the pathway of conventional submarines, but it was a decision made in the interest of our nation. It's a fantastic capability being acquired for the Royal Australian Navy. Also, I'm very proud to represent an electorate in the city of Adelaide where we will be the heart of the future nuclear submarine program. 10:59 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I'll say at the outset, whilst the previous speaker is still here, that I acknowledge the work that the previous government did in negotiating the arrangements that led to AUKUS. But thank God we had a change of government, because announcing things is one thing but delivering, particularly at the pace at which we are and the care with which we're doing it, is another thing entirely. But, overall, I am bipartisan when it comes to defence issues, such as caring for our veterans, those who have served us, and getting after this challenge—this enormous national project to defend our land and our interests. The Australia, United Kingdom and United States—AUKUS—security partnership is committed to promoting a free, open, secure and stable Indo-Pacific region. The first major AUKUS initiative, our acquisition of conventionally armed, nuclear propelled submarines will enhance Australia's capacity to defend itself and our national interests. With the passage of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Act 2023, the government has already taken the first major step towards establishing that legislative framework for the safe and efficient delivery of that really important capability for our nation. With the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, introduced into parliament on 6 November 2023, the Australian government continues with that considered phased approach to building an enduring legislative and regulatory framework for responsible nuclear stewardship. The bill enables the establishment of a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework to ensure nuclear safety within Australia's nuclear powered submarine enterprise and capability life cycle. Can I say from the outset how good it was to be at HMAS Stirling last week or the week before to not only tour the USS Hawaii, which is a Virginia class submarine, the same as what we'll be getting, but also to go aboard and talk to the captain and crew of the HMAS Collins. From the outset, I just want to say how good our people are. Our submariners are among the best in the world. In fact, as we start to do submarine courses in the UK and the US, not only are we coming top five of the students; we've had one top a course in the UK and one Australian submariner top a course in the US. That's how good our people are. To any young Australians listening or to their parents or their grandparents, can I say that we need great young Australians to be getting into the submarine game, and you will have a great career for as long as you want. This particular legislation that we're speaking to today reflects the Australian government's recognition of the need to protect the health and safety of our people and the environment from any harmful effects, implement proper operating conditions for regulated activities, prevent accidents and mitigate the consequences of accidents should they occur, unlikely as they are. A little while ago, I visited the US submarine base in Groton, Connecticut and had a tour of the base there. They haven't had an incident. Kayakers were just going down the river, enjoying getting out into the beautiful environment there in the same way that they do at HMAS Stirling and the same way they do in Adelaide, where we'll build this fantastic capability for the future security of our nation. This bill is part of the legislative framework that underpins that capability and our ability to deter at a distance anyone who would seek to do any harm to Australia or our interests. The bill was introduced to parliament alongside the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, which will enable the transition of any licences issued by the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. This legislation does not in any way— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:04 to 11:14 Mr GOSLING 245392 It's good to be able to continue a contribution on the legislative framework around the nuclear propelled submarine capacity and capability that we're delivering. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I just want to acknowledge the member for Lindsay—she and I are co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the United States—and also acknowledge the member for Riverina's work. In this important week when we've handed down the report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, I acknowledge his work in that space in previous years. I was speaking about the new regulator that will be called the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, ANNPSR, within the Defence portfolio but independent of the Defence chain of command. That regulator will, of course, draw on the extensive experience of the United States and the United Kingdom to deliver international best practice in nuclear safety. I was talking about Sub Base Groton in Connecticut earlier. Indeed, for 60 years, the UK and the US have operated more than 500 nuclear naval reactors that have collectively travelled more than 240 million kilometres around our globe without a single radiological incident. That should be reassuring to Australians. UK and US nuclear-powered submarines have never experienced a reactor accident or release of radioactive material that has had an adverse effect on human health or the quality of the environment, so that proven experience offered by the UK and US programs over decades will support Australia in becoming a world leader in nuclear stewardship. Our AUKUS partners set the standard in nuclear safety and radiological protection of the nuclear powered submarine enterprise, so that standard will inform our sovereign approach to nuclear safety and radiological protection, including how nuclear safety is regulated within the nuclear powered submarine enterprise. I spoke earlier about the deterrence effect and why this capability is so important for the future of our nations. It is important to remind ourselves of what is at stake and why we are embarking on this ambitious project for our nation. Strategically, the AUKUS partnership makes Australia safer from coercion at a distance by putting at risk long-range strike capabilities that would threaten our country in a crisis. The near unlimited range of Virginia class submarines—like the USS Hawaii, which I visited last week in Perth—and, later, of SSN-AUKUS submarines will mean more time on station for our submarines than with the conventional boats like the Collins class that we currently have. Collins will play an important role as we transition to nuclear propelled capability, but the Virginia class and then the AUKUS class will be able to cover a much wider patrol area in our northern and eastern arcs for longer. When you represent a place like Darwin, as I'm so proud to do, you realise that the Indo-Pacific contains two enormous bodies of water: the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Also, south of Australia we obviously have the Southern Ocean. The near unlimited range means that we can be anywhere and we can be on station for a lot longer. Why is this important? It puts question marks in any adversary's mind, because they don't know, as I said, where we are. Deterring any potential adversary—and we always have to be prepared for that; that's our duty and our solemn responsibility—means that if they attempt to sever our sea lines of communication or blockade our ports—and obviously, for us as a trading nation, it is so essential that our ports remain open—or if they try to encircle us strategically, project force against us through our northern approaches or sever our connections, as happened in World War II—if an adversary tries to sever our connection to the continental US then this capability becomes so important—all such aggressive courses of action would be much more likely to fail with our nuclear propelled submarines lurking within striking distance. An adversary would be much less likely to be tempted to use them against us in a war. The odds would be stacked a lot higher against them. Their ships would be vulnerable to being sunk while they staged any assault or attempt to cut us off. Their submarines would be liable to being stalked and destroyed by the best submariners in the world. Their forces couldn't sail towards Australia free of fear that they might be next to go to the bottom of one of those oceans. All Australian warships, including our submarines, are Australian sovereign assets. This point of sovereignty is another one that people having a go at AUKUS like to parrot. Our sovereign assets, our submarines, like our warships, will be commanded by Australian officers and be under the sovereign control of the Australian government. We, the Australian government, alone will determine the deployment of our armed forces on conditions of our duty, in close cooperation with our allies and partners. This parliament, and this parliament alone, will provide the budgetary and legislative oversight, as we are beginning with this legislation, that will oversight Australia's use of force. AUKUS submarines are undoubtedly trilateral in origin. They're initially made in the UK—this is the SSN-AUKUS—with British and US technology, a collaboration with our great partners and allies. Let us be clear: we could not be doing this and having this awesome capability without our partners, but, as I said, it will be a sovereign capability, built and directed by Australians. This bill advances that great project. I think it is important also for those listening to appreciate and understand that this collaboration is not new. For decades we have had Australian submariners on UK boats. For decades we have had Australian submariners on US boats and vice versa. Even on the Collins submarine, our current capability, which is a deterrent, just not as good a deterrent for the reasons I outlined earlier, we have the same weapon operating system and conventional weapons. So we are going to be able to transition this capability. We are going to be able to build this sovereign capability in the future in Adelaide as well. That will be a great thing for our nation. I'm sure that, working together across the parliament, we can get the facts out there about AUKUS and how important it is to the future of our nation and how it's in the best interests of the Australian people. 11:23 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina At the outset, I will acknowledge the member for Solomon's service to our nation. I thank him for most of the content of his speech. He, like me, wants our nation to be the most secure it can be. He, like me, wants the very best in capability and the very best in defence personnel. Whilst he was in uniform, he was one of those. He was the very best our nation could offer to be prepared to go and fight, if necessary, for our nation. Again, I thank the member for Solomon for his words. The price of peace, as has often been said, is eternal vigilance. This legislation and the entire AUKUS framework is based on being well prepared and ever vigilant. As I speak, we have Greens party members throwing manure at police horses in Melbourne. The Greens want horseracing stopped. Just bear with me; this is relevant. The Greens want horseracing stopped in Melbourne, which is the home of the world's greatest handicap horserace, the Melbourne Cup, yet they are at an antiwar, anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protest at the moment, throwing manure at police horses. That is a disgrace. In a moment, we're going to hear from a couple of Greens on this particular bill, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023. If the defence of this nation—the security of Australia—is left to the Greens, then God help us. What we see from the Greens—their antics in the House of Representatives and the Senate and at protests not just in Melbourne and not just in our capital cities but, indeed, in regional centres right throughout Australia, including in my home town of Wagga Wagga at the moment—is nothing short of abhorrent. I truly worry that, after the next election, we will be left with a government which has to rely on Greens votes to get legislation passed, so it's good that we're passing this legislation today or in the not-too-distant future. When it comes to ensuring that national security is, as it always should be, the No. 1 priority of a government, there are a lot of commonalities between Labor and the coalition. Australia is an island nation. We are surrounded by water. Ensuring the safety and security of our coastline and our nation is going to be underpinned by our nuclear naval capability. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill is integral in ensuring that we have the right fleet, the right personnel and the right build going forward to ensure that we meet our commitments to keep Australian people's safety as our No. 1 priority. This is a legacy of Scott Morrison. When he met in the margins of the G7 Summit in Carbis Bay on 12 June 2021, I was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time. I'm very proud to say that this had been months in the making. The AUKUS arrangements, the agreements that we have entered into with the United States of America and the United Kingdom, were vital to our nation, not just in the here and now but for decades going forward. I want to commend former prime minister Morrison for the work he did, the negotiations he managed and the ability to achieve this historic deal. Prime Minister Morrison and President Joe Biden discussed a number of issues of mutual concern, including the Indo-Pacific region. I was fortunate enough to go to the Australia-America dialogue after being invited to do so by former speaker Tony Smith. When we had the briefings with the US at those particular meetings, the need to have a good Navy presence in the Indo-Pacific became even more apparent. President Biden and Prime Minister Morrison agreed that the strategic context in the Indo-Pacific was changing—and it is. It's very much altering. They agreed that there was a strong rationale for deepening strategic cooperation between the three governments: the UK, the US and Australia. Of course, they welcomed at the time the forthcoming visits and exercises in the Indo-Pacific by the carrier strike group led by HMS Queen Elizabeth. What our Navy does—indeed, what our Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force do as well—is have the very best training exercises. They do a lot of those over the Top End, in northern Queensland and in the Northern Territory. The presence in Darwin of our ADF personnel mixed with the finest American Marines is quite integral and important to our future defence operations. Speed is of the essence with the Australian Naval Nuclear Safety Power Bill and the transition and making sure we get on and build the subs. We support this bill. The coalition agrees with this bill. Obviously, this will be followed by Senate scrutiny, and it's vital to our long-term defence capability and the security of Australians. It's in the best interests of our nations that AUKUS succeeds. It's in the best interests of our nation that the Greens do not succeed, because they are bringing to this parliament and to our nation a change in the social fabric of society. They want to tear down all those traditions that we are, quite frankly, proud of. I worry. Even in Wagga Wagga, where we've got a local government election this Saturday, the Greens are already on the council. They've had a deputy mayor in recent times. Wagga Wagga is a garrison city. We have the home of the soldier, Kapooka, Blamey Barracks and the 1st Recruit Training Battalion. If you're joining the army as a recruit, you do your training at Kapooka, at Wagga Wagga. If you spend any given time in the Royal Australian Air Force, you will more than likely end up at RAAF Base Wagga. Indeed, connected to and a vital part of RAAF Wagga is a Navy presence, with dozens upon dozens of Naval personnel in Wagga Wagga—very much landlocked, a long way from the nearest drop of seawater, but we're very proud of having those Navy people. The best, the bravest and the finest that the Navy produces often end up at Wagga Wagga as well. I'm also very proud that, when we were in government and I was the Deputy Prime Minister—indeed, in previous portfolio errors I was Minister for Veterans' Affairs and also Assistant Minister for Defence before that—Wagga Wagga secured $561.9 million for vital upgrades to RAAF Wagga to ensure that it had accommodation that was fit for purpose for 2024, let alone beyond. They were living in quarters that were built in the 1950s. It also received $846.8 million for Kapooka for vital upgrades for the Army base. I say that in the context that we need to be prepared not just on the coastline but, indeed, right throughout our strategic training bases throughout our military presence in Australia. Now, I won't read all of this—if people want to look at it, they can go on the Lowy Institute website and read it in full. I will selectively quote some of the lines from Sam Roggeveen's article of 12 September 2022, 'AUKUS, one year on', which talked about how details were needed. I don't necessarily disagree with that. Some lines in the article talked about how this was brought about very hastily. Well, it needed to be. You can't have a multipronged tripartite defence agreement and just have a national discussion about the pros and cons of that, because, once the Greens start talking about it, nothing will ever get done. Sometimes these do need to happen behind closed doors and then be worked towards a sensible outcome for the nation. In the article he says: On 15 September 2021, Prime Minister Scott Morrison joined his British counterpart Boris Johnson and US President Joe Biden to announce AUKUS. In so doing, Morrison set Australia's foreign and defence policies on a profoundly new course, a course now firmly embraced by the new Labor government led by Anthony Albanese. He continues: If the submarines are all delivered, Australia will join the high table of the world's military powers. I think that's a good thing. Nuclear-powered submarines are the apex predators of naval warfare and Australia is proposing to acquire at least eight, more than the UK and France now have, or plan to have. Nuclear power gives these submarines almost infinite range and endurance, and they will carry missiles that can strike targets thousands of kilometres inland. For the first time in its history, Australia will have global strike capability. There's nothing wrong with that. He writes: Above all, AUKUS is a profound step because of what it says about the Australian government's attitude to the US alliance. I'd almost say there's nothing wrong with that either—I would say that, in fact. He refers to AUKUS being a big bet on America. At the end of the day, I was once told that a definition of a friend is someone who has the same enemies as you have. Whilst I'm not going to detail any enemies that we do have, we do need to be prepared. We do need to be strike ready. We do need to have, not just personnel committed to going into battle if need be—and I hope that is not the case—but we also need to have the weaponry, the equipment and the capability if the need arises. To be able to do that, we need to have a very good submarine fleet, given the fact that we are an island nation, and given the fact that we are in a volatile geopolitical Indo-Pacific region, and things are changing. They are changing fast. Australia's target date for achieving the sovereign ready milestone is the early 2030s. US and UK nuclear submarines will be forward rotating through HMAS Stirling in Western Australia from 2027. We will want to have our people upscaled and our facilities upgraded by that time. We don't have a day to waste. We do not. Australia has to prove to the US and the UK that we are a reliable partner. I think we have done that in world wars past; we have done that throughout rotations with the US and the UK in recent conflicts. I can recall being with the member for McEwen at Camp Baird where we heard, particularly from the US, about how proud they were to serve alongside Australians and how infinitely more secure they felt when they were fighting along Australians than any one else in the world—I see the member for McEwen nodding. We were very proud of the level of commitment our troops gave and, certainly, of the level of safety and security that others felt in our troops. We won't let the US or the UK down. We are making a huge investment, and when the government talks about a made-in-Australia manufacturing initiative going forward, this lies at the very heart of it, making sure that we do, very much, use Australian capability and know-how—obviously, in line with the AUKUS arrangements—to upskill our people. I heard the member for Solomon talking about the wonderful job opportunities that are going to be made available because of this. This is a proud Australian moment; it's a team Australia moment. It's also a great legacy of the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison. I recommend the bill to the House. 11:38 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Today I rise to speak on the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023. This bill is essential for us to fully implement our AUKUS deal, which is in turn essential for the future security of our country and making sure we're ready for any threats to our borders. AUKUS will also bring thousands of jobs to working Australians, with an influx of ongoing defence industry and research opportunities to our shores. But, to fully realise the opportunities that an agreement like AUKUS can give to all Australians, a bill like this is needed to set the regulations and framework for the industry to operate safely. The bill, at its heart, is the next stepping stone for creating a sovereign industry and workforce to deliver conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. Due to the scale of this project and the obvious technical complexities of nuclear submarines, this industrial endeavour that the AUKUS agreement brings to our nation is one of the greatest that has been attempted by Australia. Building submarines in Australia requires a truly whole-of-nation effort, but it's an effort filled with opportunities. The project to build Australia's SSN-AUKUS submarines is anticipated to create around 20,000 direct jobs and see some $30 billion invested in Australia's industrial base, including infrastructure upgrades and expansion amounting to up to $18 billion over the next three decades. The project will transform our skills, productivity, industrial capacity and science and research capabilities. The overall national industrial workforce supporting the construction and sustainment of submarines is projected to be in the range of 6½ thousand to 8,000 jobs. Building this workforce will be a priority for the coming decades. Our fleet will be serviced, maintained and upgraded by Australian workers, and made in Australia for the safety of all Australians. The implementation of this bill is an important step for Australia to meet the milestones agreed with our closest allies: the United Kingdom and the United States. Here we show our commitment to not only our allies but also our Pacific family. Australia is committed to maintaining the highest level of nuclear safety across the life cycle of our nuclear powered submarines. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 will ensure that we do apply the highest standards to submarines enterprise for our country. I want to address some of the concerns people have raised about the disposal of nuclear waste. This bill is instrumental in creating a proper nuclear waste disposal plan. For Australian submarines, we don't expect a requirement to manage high-level radioactive waste until the 2050s, when our nuclear powered submarines are defueled at the end of their life cycle. The waste will be stored and disposed of in the current or future defence estate. The government will announce the process by which it selects the location in due course. Of course, Australia already does produce some nuclear waste. With the development of nuclear submarines, the government is working through the plan to hold the nuclear waste being produced at a national level. However, to be absolutely clear, it will only be for our domestically produced waste. We will not be, as some have suggested, a dumping ground for nuclear waste for other countries, and it's important that we put that scare campaign to bed very quickly and very clearly. Indeed, to put the matter beyond doubt, the government intends to amend the bill to make it clear that nothing in the bill authorises the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel from UK or US submarines. Creating advanced manufacturing is important, and we know the risks that come with having a nuclear based industry. What is the purpose of the bill before us? The bill sets out clear obligations for those involved in the nuclear powered submarines enterprise. This includes nuclear safety duties and licensing requirements for persons conducting regulated activities, and the civil and criminal consequences if contravened. It will also establish a new, independent statutory regulator. The regulator will operate within the Defence portfolio, but it will be independent of the chain of command. Along with the regulator, it will establish a dedicated nuclear framework. It will regulate nuclear safety across the nuclear powered submarine enterprise and capability life cycle for the nuclear aspects of the submarine platform. The accompanying bill, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, will enable the transition of any relevant licences issued by the CEO of ARPANSA to the regulated activities under the bill. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring the bills establish a robust, effective regulatory framework to maintain the highest standards for safety. Those listening may know that the bills were delayed slightly due to their referral to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. The committee has now published its report. It made eight recommendations and ultimately recommended that the bills be passed. The government has accepted, either in full or in principle, all the recommendations from the committee and will make amendments to the bills to address them. We're keen to make sure that we work collaboratively on such technical issues when it comes to building the framework that will underpin national security. The government is happy to address the issues raised by the committee, clarifying that the bills do not authorise the establishment of facilities for the purposes of civil nuclear power, the enrichment of uranium or the reprocessing of nuclear material. We will establish a requirement that a person must not be appointed as or remain the director-general or the deputy director-general of the regulator if they have served at any time in the previous 12 months as a member of the ADF or as a staff member of Defence or the Australian Submarine Agency. We will also establish a ministerial advisory committee to ensure the minister has independent advice relating to the regulator, including its independence and its effectiveness of the operation of the act. We will allow for the Minister for Defence to share reports from the D-G with the ministers for health and the ministers for industry and science, as the ministers responsible for ARPANSA and ANSTO respectively, to provide a greater sharing of information and an application of nuclear safety best practices. We will add additional penalties for obstructing, hindering or intimidating a member of the regulator, to further strengthen the regulator's powers and their independence. Further, the government is looking to extend the commencement of the bill from six to 12 months to ensure the regulatory changes are fully communicated and implemented in an orderly fashion. All of this will strengthen the bill and ensure the highest standard of nuclear safety within Australia's conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarine enterprise. The bill will provide the framework in which the newly established regulator can undertake their role. It also specifies the nuclear safety duties applicable across the enterprise and the very significant penalties that apply for contraventions, to ensure that the industry is clean from any corrupt or adverse actors. The regulator will also have the power to determine the policies, processes and practices required to undertake its functions. Through this bill, Australia is ultimately upholding our international legal obligations, especially those relating to the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Due to the nature of these machines, nuclear submarines will provide greater longevity and breadth to our defence forces. However—and I say this again to be clear—these submarines will only hold conventional weapons. The nuclear part of nuclear submarines is the energy source that keeps them running. The legislation is explicit that the regulator must have regard to Australia's international obligations in performing its functions. There will be no changes needed to be made to Australia's Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987, which primarily implements those obligations. Indeed, Labor will uphold its proud history of championing practical disarmament efforts, its commitment to high non-proliferation standards and its enduring dedication to a world without nuclear weapons. This is also reflective of the current understanding of international best practice. I think it's worth reflecting on the fact that we are following our partners in AUKUS, who have been operating over 500 naval nuclear reactors over the course of 60 years without major incidents. These naval nuclear submarines pose no threat to the environment and are backed up with decades of proven experience offered by the UK and the US. Further, we'll be working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that Australia becomes a world-leading custodian of nuclear waste and to ensure that best practice in nuclear safety is being followed. The government will ensure Australia is a responsible nuclear steward and maintains the highest level of safety in respect of the nuclear powered submarines. We are committed to ensuring the management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel responsibly, including through an appropriately independent regulatory system. Rigorous processes will determine the site of the nuclear waste facility on current or future defence estate with appropriate public consultation and agreement with First Nations communities to respect and protect cultural heritage. To be clear, Australia will not be responsible for disposing spent nuclear fuel or accepting other high-level radioactive waste from any other country. Having a strong naval nuclear defence framework will only strengthen our Defence Force and, in turn, Australia's security position and outcomes in the region. We all can acknowledge that we are living in fraught and ever-changing times filled with uncertainty. The bill helps us fulfil the goal of achieving stronger national security. We know that any untoward threats to our borders will come by sea. By pursuing this policy, we're enhancing Australia's national security goals but not compromising on any previous agreements. Our defence policy is founded on the principles of Australian sovereignty and self-reliance. This bill is just a step in building Australia's military defence capability, especially as we look to play our part in a collective deterrence of aggression. By having a strong defence capability of our own and working with partners investing in their capabilities, we change the calculus for any potential aggressor. To conclude, as I said in the beginning, this bill is the next step to fully implementing the long-anticipated AUKUS deal, a deal that will make our country safer and our borders stronger. Australia's interests lie in the shaping of a region that is peaceful, stable and prosperous, but, as countries become more aggressive or seek to exert more coercive influence, there must be a counterweight to not only balance out the regional power but also solidify Australia's position. The bill protects Australia's interests. It dots the i's and crosses the t's in making sure our naval nuclear industry is safe, and that creates a better and safer future for all Australians. 11:50 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I'm proud to rise in support of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. There are many times when we will have disagreements with the government and seek to hold them to account, but they do deserve credit for their commitment to AUKUS, because AUKUS is one of those nation-changing projects that will only survive if the key requirements of bipartisanship are there. That's bipartisanship not just in motherhood statements but in actually seeing it through. I give full credit to the previous government and the previous Prime Minister for his leadership in negotiating this trilateral partnership, which has multiple pillars, and full credit to the security agencies and then those from DFAT and Defence who negotiated that agreement and led the way. It was an example of Australia taking a leadership role in the world. Too often we downplay our own role in the world, but that is a credit to the previous Prime Minister and the previous government. But that's the easy part. The hard part is in seeing it delivered. We know from conventional non-defence and defence projects that projects are often killed by middle management, by cost blowouts, by other priorities or by a lack of commitment. You can foresee that in the delivery of AUKUS over that timeframe, over that cost and over that level of complexity. Nuclear submarines are the equivalent that we have for spaceships. They have the most cutting-edge, difficult engineering and technological challenges you could possibly imagine, so there will be many reasons to delay, to block and to avoid. They are political, technological and often driven by personnel, so it is important that we all lean in at every stage to make sure that this project is driven forward in the national interest. I'd like to speak about the purpose of AUKUS. There are many commentators, mostly from other nations not part of the trilateral agreement, who see AUKUS as an aggressive act. It's anything but. It's about deterrence, and I'd like to briefly talk about what deterrence means. AUKUS and the submarines and the other pillar 2 technologies are not built to fight a certain war; they're built to prevent future war. Before any conflict in human history has ever been started, there was a point when the key decision-makers decided whether it was worth it and worth it today. That process is called a war game. A war game can be formalised or informal, but there is a point where a decision-maker says: 'Is this in my national interest? Can I win?' The purpose of deterrence is that, in that war game, the answer is this: not today. Our task is to make sure that potential aggressors in the globe wake up and say, 'Not today.' One of the reasons they'll say, 'Not today,' is AUKUS. That's important. Its whole purpose is to create a more peaceful world. That is its whole purpose, and that should never be forgotten. The other thing in terms of delivery is our role as parliamentarians. When you have three nations in a trilateral agreement, all of those challenges that I spoke about, from middle management to cost blowouts and technological challenges—you name it, it will be there—are all multiplied by three. So our role in the parliament is to reach out and have relationships with our allies in the other parliaments, Congress and the United Kingdom. That's where the friendship organisations and the trips through embassies are very important. We, of course, have our role to play in seeing this move forward, but we must also make sure that we are in constant dialogue with our partners to reinforce that in their nations. Right now, on my phone—it's on silent—is the US presidential debate. That is a great moment in their democracy. They will make a decision in November, and whoever is elected, whether there's a President Harris or a President Trump, it's in our interest that either regime or either administration knows that there is a friend that is reliable here in Australia. At some stage, we'll go through our own election. So, for this project to survive, it must survive the twists and turns of three democracies. So far, it's doing that. We had a United Kingdom election, and there's a full commitment to the new Labor administration. We must lean in to make sure the new presidential administration in the US is just as committed, along with members of Congress. The mechanics of the bills before us are quite dry. They're about setting up a regulatory regime, but this is important. Where you have the introduction of advanced technology such as this, it is important that we have the regulatory instruments and those bodies set up, ready to make sure that we do it in compliance with our domestic laws, international treaty obligations and the terms of the AUKUS agreement itself. I'll single out the Senate in its role as a house of review in the report delivered on this provision. It's always a helpful process, particularly in complex bills like these that have consequences that the House may not get to deliver. The report was excellent. It had a number of recommendations, which, I understand, have been considered and accepted. In conclusion, it is important that we support this bill but that we, on all sides of the chamber, are ever vigilant in making sure that AUKUS is delivered on time and in the national interest. In that respect, it is in the national interest of the three nations. It is essential that it be delivered for all Australians, which we are committed to. 11:58 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm pleased to speak on the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The Australia, United Kingdom and United States, or AUKUS, security partnership is committed to a free, open, secure and stable Indo-Pacific. The first major AUKUS initiative, Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarines, will enhance our capacity as a country to defend ourselves around our territorial waters and our national interests. The AUKUS nuclear powered submarine pathway will deliver long-term strategic benefits to all three countries. It strengthens the combined industrial capacity of all three nations, with increased cooperation making trilateral supply chains more robust and resilient. This bill is the second legislative step in support of Australia's acquisition of these submarines. It builds on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill that was introduced in May and commenced in July last year. Following the passage of that bill in August last year, the Australian Labor Party National Conference held in Brisbane, where I was a delegate, adopted a statement in detail explaining why we are requiring conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarines. We recognise that deciding to acquire these submarines is a hard choice but a clear one. The Collins class submarines we currently operate have a potent capability, but diesel-electric submarines become increasingly detectable, and they will continue to do so in the future. So we want to make sure we have a leading-edge capability. We need, simply, to take the step of nuclear propulsion. The statement by the conference in detail explained how a Labor government will go about acquiring conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. For example, it says: Labor will ensure that Australian workers will benefit from the massive investments in industry, infrastructure, and common user facilities. …   …   … Labor will ensure that Australia continues to meet all its non-proliferation obligations and commitments under international law … …   …   … Labor will maintain Australia's longstanding position of not possessing or seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. …   …   … Labor will ensure Australia is a responsible nuclear steward and maintains the highest level of nuclear safety in respect of nuclear-powered submarines. As a delegate, I supported that particular motion and statement, and I continue to do so today. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 in particular is specifically focused on ensuring Australia maintains the highest level of nuclear safety in respect of nuclear powered submarines. It will enable the establishment of a new regulatory framework, including an independent regulator to ensure nuclear safety within Australia's nuclear powered submarine enterprise and capability life cycle. The new framework will harmonise with other schemes, including workplace health and safety, nuclear nonproliferation and civilian nuclear safety. This bill will establish a new independent statutory regulator, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety. Regulator, to ensure we apply the highest standards of nuclear safety across our nuclear powered submarine enterprise and continue to implement the AUKUS agreement. This is the second legislative package introduced to support the pathway of AUKUS. The new regulator will have the functions and powers necessary to regulate the unique circumstances associated with nuclear safety and also protection across the life cycle of Australia's nuclear powered submarine enterprise, and it includes associated infrastructure and facilities. The regulator will be independent of Australia's Defence Force chain of command and directions from the Department of Defence. It is fundamental that a system of regulation be independent. It will work with submariners, with the safety of submariners, with the Australian and international communities, and with the environmental authorities. The regulator will be a non-corporate Commonwealth entity within the Defence portfolio and will report directly to the Minister for Defence. The legislation also establishes a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework, imposing strict nuclear safety duties and licensing requirements for activities related to nuclear powered submarines. The legislation is reflective of the government's commitment to workplace health and safety; dealing with environmental issues and the harmful effect of radiation; preventing accidents; mitigating the consequences of accidents; and implementing proper operating conditions for regulated activities. In particular, the bill establishes some nuclear safety duties to apply to conducting regulated activities; creates a licensing scheme for persons who conduct activities in relation to naval nuclear power; and establishes this new regulator, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, which has some inspectors associated with it. There will be monitoring and compliance powers, offences and civil penalty and provisions. There will be some clarification of certain Commonwealth, state and territory laws. The legislation enables the transition to the new regulator of any licences issued by ARPANSA where they correspond to the regulated activities under the bill before the chamber. The bill ensures that any licences issued by ARPANSA in accordance with the legislation governing it will be treated as Australian naval nuclear power safety licences for the purposes of the legislation before the House. It is consistent with the first tranche of AUKUS related legislation, which passed the parliament previously. By the way, the moratorium on civil nuclear power in Australia has been a feature of our law since the Howard government enacted the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in the late 1990s. This robust and comprehensive approach to regulating Australia's nuclear powered submarine program recognises our commitment to nuclear stewardship and upholding the high standards of safety and security. The new regulator will have access to relevant expertise and experience and will deal with our international partners. The legislation is an important step in ensuring we have nuclear safety and protection across the life cycle of this historic capability. We deliver on our commitment, which is the single biggest investment in our defence capability in our history, and the establishment of the regulator is a critical element in this game-changing capability. It will be a specialised and dedicated regulator, as I said. We're getting on with the job of making good progress when it comes to bedding down the AUKUS partnership, and it's supported by both sides of politics and supported by our partners. In discussions I've had with US and UK politicians, here in Australia and overseas, there is a bipartisan commitment. For example, there's been a change of government in the UK. I spoke to conservative politicians as well as Labor politicians, then in opposition, who both indicated in discussions with me that they supported AUKUS and strongly did so, whether in the Palace of Westminster or in Edinburgh, where I visited. AUKUS partners have now signed an agreement that's essential to Australia's capability to safely build, operate and maintain this conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarine capacity. This enables the UK and the US to transfer these technologies, items and equipment for Australia's future nuclear powered submarines, and our allies have done this in the past. For example, in my electorate I witnessed the Growler technology that the US has provided our planes, based in Amberley. That's the benefit of having these relationships with our strong allies, like the UK and the US: there'll be continued trilateral communication and exchange of information to nuclear powered submarines amongst our partners. It's critical for us to have a sovereign nuclear powered submarine capacity from the 2030s, with the transfer of the Virginia class submarines from the US to Australia and the building of Australia's SSN-AUKUS submarines in Adelaide, consistent with our commitment with the other partners to make sure we maintain the highest standards of safety, security and nonproliferation. It's a useful reminder that, while most attention has focused on the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines, AUKUS is much broader than that. It's an effective technology-sharing partnership between three allies. Complementing this, Australia, the UK and the United States have recently finalised the establishment of an export licence-free trade agreement, which is an environment that creates reform and provides reciprocal, national exemptions from our respective export control frameworks, unlocking billions of dollars of investment and cutting red tape for Australian industry and our AUKUS partners. As of this month, AUKUS partners, industry, higher education and research sectors will now be able to export most military and dual-use goods, technology and services without requiring a licence. It demonstrates the Labor government's commitment, and our AUKUS partners' commitment, to deliver on a collective commitment to streamline defence trade and accelerate collaboration on asymmetric capabilities. Lastly, when it comes to significant employment benefits that will flow from the AUKUS partnership, the Albanese government has just announced that they will deliver a new exclusive jobs for subs training program for more than 200 young Western Australians to work in the AUKUS submarine program. This new nuclear powered submarine graduate apprenticeship and training initiative is an incredible opportunity for young people. These workers will work on the nuclear powered submarine program, particularly on the Submarine Rotational Force-West, based on HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. As part of this, they will receive training across high-priority disciplines and in essential trades, including span fabrication and machining, engineering and project management, and supply chain operations and qualifications. This will deliver hundreds of jobs and will build the workforce we need to sustain and maintain these submarines. In closing, the acquisition of these submarines through the AUKUS partnership is the biggest single investment in Australia's defence capability in our history. It strengthens our national security. It contributes to regional stability in response to unprecedented challenges. It builds a future made in Australia by Australians, with record investments in defence, skills, jobs and infrastructure. It will deliver a superior capability and ensure there is no capability gap after a decade of inaction and mismanagement by those opposite. As part of this we will need a sophisticated security and safety architecture around the nuclear powered submarine program, and that's what this legislation is all about. I want to acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence for bringing forward these important measures to ensure the safety of the submarine program. This is a responsible and a necessary step to ensure delivery of the submarines and the safety and security of Australians. It build on the legal architecture to support this endeavour to ensure further tranches of legislation and this work will extend beyond the life of this parliament. We will continue to adopt a methodical, phased approach to building our capacity as a nation to safely and securely build, maintain and operate conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. Doing this will make all Australians safer. I commend the bill to the House. 12:10 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak in support of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the associated Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. This legislation represents the latest of the many legislative reforms required to implement the AUKUS security arrangements between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This legislation is supported by the coalition, but I do have to take issue with one thing that the member for Blair just said. I was in the chamber when he said this. He said that there had been a 'decade of inaction' by the coalition government on defence issues. I find that a very difficult statement to comprehend in light of the fact that it was the former coalition government that initially signed the government up to the AUKUS arrangement. So I do commend the federal government for continuing the work that was initiated by the former coalition government on the AUKUS partnership for the defence and national security of Australia. It is important, given where we are located within the world, down in the South Pacific, that we have this trilateral arrangement with both the United Kingdom and the United States. We have very strong ties both historically and militarily with both of these nations. They are important friends. They have been in the past. The fact that both the United Kingdom government and the United States government signed up to this arrangement shows the high regard in which they both view Australia and similarly the high regard in which we view our relationship with both of their countries. In the times in which we live, the United Kingdom and the United States are two very important democracies, like Australia, and that is therefore equally a very important point to make in the context of this arrangement. When this arrangement was put in place and signed, it was said that it was done to ensure the future defence and national security of Australia. We know that a government's most important priority is the safety and security of its citizens. If we look back to the history of the AUKUS arrangement, it was announced in September 2021 to promote 'a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable'. In the joint statement that was released by Australia, the United States of America and the United Kingdom in March last year, it was said: For more than a century, our three nations have stood shoulder to shoulder, along with other allies and partners, to help sustain peace, stability, and prosperity around the world, including in the Indo-Pacific. We believe in a world that protects freedom and respects human rights, the rule of law, the independence of sovereign states, and the rules-based international order. The steps we are announcing today will help us to advance these mutually beneficial objectives in the decades to come. The first major initiative of AUKUS was a historic trilateral decision to support Australia acquiring conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. This involves the manufacture of at least three—maybe five—nuclear powered submarines, and these are to be built in Adelaide. I particularly commend this as it will enhance and build upon the nuclear technology that Australia has already developed for many years in our country. I'm very proud to say that in my electorate I have a nuclear reactor which has enabled many technological advancements to be made in nuclear medicine. I think it is very important that we'll now be harnessing nuclear technology for our future defence capabilities. I'll just take this place briefly through when the AUKUS nuclear powered submarine pathway was outlined. Particularly in relation to this legislation, it said that Australia must be 'sovereign ready' before it can operate a nuclear powered submarine. This means that Australia must achieve the capacity to be the sovereign owner, operator, maintainer and regulator of this very important capability. But there are, of course, a series of steps that will need to be taken, primarily through the next decade, and they'll be taken with the support of the United States and the United Kingdom to achieve this capability as soon as possible. It is most certainly in the best interests of our nation that we see AUKUS succeed. As part of the coalition, I am committed to moving forward and seeing this through to its completion. Australia has set a target date for achieving the 'sovereign ready' milestone in the early 2030s. Therefore, speed on this legislation is important. In that regard I note that in March of last year Prime Minister Albanese jointly announced with his counterparts—the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and the US President, Joe Biden—an identified pathway for Australia to acquire the submarines at the earliest possible date. I will now set out that pathway. In 2023, Australian military and civilian personnel were embedded in the UK and US nuclear powered submarines program, and there started to be increased visits by the US nuclear powered submarines to HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. From 2022, we saw the commencement of Australian shipyard design and construction. In the late 2020s, it's proposed that construction of AUKUS nuclear powered submarines will commence. From 2026, UK nuclear powered submarines will commence regular visits to HMAS Stirling. From 2027 to 2032, the Submarine Rotational Force-West will commence, and it will involve one Royal Navy and up to four US Navy nuclear powered submarines conducting rotations from HMAS Stirling. So you can see that there is very much trilateral support for this, not just from having signed a document but also on the ground. We'll be utilising expertise that has been developed by our UK and US friends. These bills are a very important step in the giant leap that we must now take towards becoming a nation that can operate nuclear submarines. I'll turn briefly to the particulars of the legislation. It essentially establishes a new regulator, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. That regulator would be able to grant Australian naval nuclear power safety licences to Commonwealth related persons for a series of regulated activities in designated zones. The regulator will also have a series of compliance and enforcement powers. It will sit within the Department of Defence, which is appropriate. I note that the Greens have some issue with that, but I think that the Greens should listen to the two major parties on anything Defence related. Also, the Minister for Defence will be able to give the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator directions as necessary in the interests of national security and in the event of an emergency. The regulator will broadly be responsible for three main areas: it will be granting the nuclear power safety licences; it'll be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with nuclear safety duties; and it will also be responsible for promoting nuclear safety of AUKUS submarine related activities. These are all roles that are entirely appropriate when we are moving into a new world as we are, and it is very important that this is done by an appropriate regulator. To conclude, this is very important legislation. It builds on an important relationship for Australia. It recognises that the UK and the US have important capabilities that both of those countries have developed, and those countries are interested in and very supportive of Australia also building its capacity with nuclear powered submarines. It reinforces the importance of our strategic relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom and builds on the friendship that our three countries have developed over centuries. For all of those reasons, I commend this bill to the House. 12:20 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023. This government is taking the next important step with this bill towards acquiring Australia's own conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarines, which also reflects on our commitment to best practice safety standards and stewardship. We know that Australia is facing some of the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War. That's why the government is making record investments in defence to keep Australians safe, which is one of the most crucial roles of any government of any persuasion. We also know that keeping Australia safe is one of the most crucial roles. At the same time, the building of submarines within the AUKUS agreement, especially in my home state of South Australia and in Perth, is very important for job creation. We'll see the creation of new technologies, industries and jobs, which is very important to the economy, to my home state and to the nation. As I've said, Australia faces one of the most challenging times since the Second World War. What we're doing is ensuring that this bill establishes a new regulatory framework to ensure nuclear safety across Australia's nuclear powered submarine enterprise, which is central to the government's commitment to delivering Australia's first conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarines. Some of the things it will do are as follows. The bill establishes a dedicated, fit-for-purpose nuclear safety framework to support Australia's nuclear powered submarines and related facilities. It sets out clear nuclear safety obligations for personal involvement in nuclear powered submarines and related facilities. This will be done through a licensing regime for persons conducting regulated activities, with serious civil and criminal consequences if there is a breach of law. It establishes a new independent statutory regulator, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, which will sit within the Defence portfolio independent of the defence chain of command. It empowers the regulator to operate within a system of regulation alongside domestic agencies and, where appropriate, to collaborate with our defence partners—our US and UK partners, of course. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 will allow any of the relevant licences issued by the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency to transition to the new regulatory system where they would authorise regulated activities under this new legislation. That gives you a bit of background. As I said, the government is absolutely committed to ensuring that the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill establishes a very robust and effective regulatory framework to maintain the highest of high standards of nuclear safety that the Australian public deserves. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence introduced these bills back in November 2023. They were referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee in May 2024. The committee published this report, made the recommendations and, ultimately, recommended the bill be passed. So it's gone through the process of the inquiry and committees, and the recommendation is that the bill be passed. The government has accepted, either in full or in principle, all of the recommendations of the Senate committee, as we've heard from the minister. Obviously, we'll make amendments to the bill where these amendments are necessary to address these differences. In response to the Senate committee's recommendation, there will be amendments that clarify that the bill does not authorise the establishment of facilities for the purpose of civil nuclear power, the enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of nuclear materials. It's very important that we understand that. There will also be amendments that specify the requirement that the director-general and the deputy director-general of the regulator must not have served at any time in the previous 12 months as a member of the Australian Defence Force or as a staff member of Defence or the Australian Submarine Agency. That is to clearly have two completely separate entities that will be independent. The amendments will establish an advisory committee to ensure the minister has independent advice relating to the range of matters, including—but, of course, not limited to—the operation of the bill after it's enacted and the suitability of measures to ensure the independence of the director-general and members of the regulator. They will allow the Minister for Defence to share reports from the director-general with the minister for health and the Minister for Industry and Science, as the ministers responsible for ANSTO and ARPANSA respectively, to provide for greater sharing of information with application to nuclear safety best practices and other issues. They will also ensure a more inclusive and robust offence for obstructing, hindering or intimidating a member of the regulator or persons assisting the regulator, to further strengthen the regulator's powers and its independence. The government will make other amendments to the bill as well, including to extend the commencement of the bill from six to 12 months to ensure that we have an orderly transition to the new regulatory framework. The government will also address concerns raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee to clarify the operation of the seizure powers in section 43 of the bill. We know that together these amendments will strengthen the bill and ensure the highest standards of nuclear safety within Australia's conventionally armed nuclear powered submarine enterprise, which is the aim of this bill. Australia has many decades of nuclear safety regulatory experience and a robust framework to regulate current domestic civilian nuclear activities in fields such as science and medical research. However, this framework was not designed to apply in relation to the unique activities associated with naval nuclear propulsion in a military context. The environments in which submarines operate are inherently hazardous and very different, and that's why this government is taking steps to establish the fit-for-purpose, specialised regulatory framework for nuclear powered submarines. While nuclear powered submarines have a number of roles, they are, of course, Navy vessels designed to operate in hostile undersea environments, so regulating the nuclear safety aspects of this enterprise requires a system that addresses the unique hazards and risks associated with sensitive military capability. The new regulatory system will consider the needs across the life cycle of a submarine to ensure the highest standards of nuclear safety and protection are applied. The government has made the decision to establish this new independent statutory regulator within the Defence portfolio. Again, the regulator will remain independent, and its organisation will not be subject to directions or commands from the Australian sub agency, the Department of Defence or the Australian Defence Force in the performance of its duties. Having the regulator accountable to the defence minister is consistent with the need to ensure nuclear safety in the unique context of defence operations. This approach is very consistent with the regulatory models in the United States and in the United Kingdom, which also have separate defence nuclear safety regulators. The government will also be amending the bill to strengthen the independence of the regulator by ensuring an appropriate separation period from serving in the Defence Force, which we see as very important. This bill is extremely important to giving confidence to the Australian public that safety is of the utmost importance to our citizens and to the men who will be serving on these submarines, and to giving confidence to the public and to the defence forces that will be using them that they will be absolutely safe. As a South Australian, as I said earlier, the build of the submarine and the AUKUS project are huge for us. I think of South Australia, my home state, and different periods in time when manufacturing has taken off. Naturally, for my home state you think of car manufacturing, which was a huge thing in the forties, when it was announced by the then Chifley government, I think it was, that we would be putting money into a particular precinct to build manufacturing. This included Premier Playford at the time, and it created thousands and thousands of jobs but also created what for its time was cutting-edge technology. That served South Australia and its economy for 60 years, right through to 2017, when Holden closed its doors—Mitsubishi a bit earlier. It paid thousands of wages, millions of dollars, to families to put bread and butter on the table. I see this next round of manufacturing through AUKUS and through the submarines as the next cutting-edge revolution of manufacturing in my home state. It will deliver thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs, thousands of sustainable jobs that will keep our economy going for generations to come. That's why it's important that we get it right. It's important that we give confidence to the public that safety is paramount and confidence to the defence forces that will be using the submarines and the workers that will be maintaining them that everything will be checked and balanced to ensure that we have no issues with it. This bill is about giving confidence to the public, ensuring that they will be able to have confidence in whichever government of the day that, once the regulators are in place and once the bill is implemented, the builds for the first lot of submarines going out will have safety aspects that have gone through the wringer and will continue to go through that particular check continuously. It also takes me to the point of ensuring that we maintain our capabilities in our region. These submarines certainly will be doing that for us. We know that the nuclear powered submarines are quieter. They can go out to sea for longer than we currently have now with the Collins class and diesel. They will certainly be something that, with our defence partners, will be able to play a bigger role in defending our nation. As I said when I started this speech on this bill, one of the highest priorities that any government has is to keep its public safe. We do that by ensuring that we have the capabilities to do that in a manner that is consistent with our defence partners and in a manner that ensures the utmost safety and the utmost confidence in governments that they are doing everything that they can to ensure that safety is the No. 1 priority. 12:35 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I'm going to start this a long way from the sea. Back in 2001, I was in Cloncurry. I was a campaign for a Senate seat, which was successful. I was having an argument with a guy from the Port of Newcastle, and it almost turned into a physical altercation. Common sense got the better of my valour, and I went to my hotel at around half past 10 or half past 11. I turned on the television and there was what I believed to be a Bruce Willis movie on. I wasn't really interested. The strangest thing happened. I turned to the next station, and you wouldn't believe it, the same movie was on. So I changed to the third station and the same movie was on. Then I realised it was not a movie. It was the anniversary of today. It was 9/11. Terrorists had just flown a plane into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and thousands of people were killed. What is important about that? It was the first instance of the rise of totalitarianism in a very emphatic way. The world changed, and it changed right at that moment. The rise of totalitarianism has continued. You would have to say that, since 11 September 2001, it has not got better; it has got worse. We've seen Putin and his incursion into Ukraine. Most especially, in our region, we've seen the actions of a totalitarian regime in the Chinese Communist Party—not the Chinese people, but the Chinese Communist Party—and its unilateral actions that work against democracy. Democracy is on the wane. Democracy is becoming smaller. And we have to understand how history works. If we deny history, we're not only fools but also dangerous. History pulsates in and out. Power pulsates in and out. Democracy pulsates in and out. Totalitarianism and the rise of one power to subjugate another to take over areas is just the nature of history. It's the nature of humankind. So we need to become as powerful as possible as quickly as possible. It is absolutely indelible in what this nation has to do. We need a defence force. Without a defence force, we wouldn't have to worry about Indigenous policy because there would be no Indigenous policy because we wouldn't have a nation. We wouldn't have to worry about climate change anymore because we wouldn't have a nation anymore. You wouldn't have to worry about your house because that would no longer exist. Forget about your super—it's irrelevant; it's gone. Most importantly, the freedom for your children would also be gone. At best, they would live in a vassal state as supplicants and subject to an iron boot at worst. People say that's excessive. It's not. That's just the history of the world. That's just how it works. We have a massive step to take, and we better do it in a big, big hurry. If that round that was fired at former president Trump had gone about an inch and a half to the right, the United States of America would be an entirely different place. It would have no doubt fallen into a form of civil strife. What is relevant to that is that it would have had a huge effect on Australia. What would be their concentration on foreign policy when dealing with massive issues on a domestic front? The issue for us is that other people would note that straightaway. They would say, 'You are now weak; you will now have a different attitude to what we say to you and the demands we put on you.' Remember, the Communist Party of China has already put its demands on Australia. It's not hidden; it's written. We know what they are—they're there. Are we in a position now where we're ready for that? Are we in a position now where, if others who we rely on were distracted, we'd feel confident that we could defend our nation and all the issues we hold dear, whether we're from the right or left? We had to take a huge step, and AUKUS was a huge step. When I was deputy of the National Security Committee, starting this process was an imperative issue. We've heard so much about the technicalities of this legislation, and the historical memoir of it is part of this, but it is only one part. We have so much more to do. We have to become as powerful as possible, as quickly as possible. To do that, it's AUKUS but it's also everything else. We have to be the best at agriculture. We have to have an education system which matches places such as Singapore. We have to have a manufacturing sector that thrives and grows and is absolutely at the forefront. We have to have the capacity to produce pharmaceutical goods. There is a whole breadth of issues that we have to go to the forefront of. Apart from the defence mechanism of nuclear submarines, there are also demands on Australia to become vastly smarter and vastly more competent. It is going to require thousands of highly skilled technicians, nuclear scientists, boilermakers, fitters and turners—the whole gamut. In fitting that process in, we have to have a wider agenda within Australia to grow and to nurture this. These people will not just turn up overnight, nor do we want them to just disappear when they're finished. It's one of the reasons why we also need a nuclear power process in Australia. It fits hand in glove with this. As part of this debate, we have to acknowledge that, in the defence of this nation, we need this skill set to work with it. I want to dispel a couple of notions for people. First of all, nuclear power works with about three to five per cent enriched uranium. We've had black rocks that boil water, create steam, turn a turbine and create power—that's called coal. We have another rock that boils water, creates steam, turns a turbine, superheats gas and creates power—that's nuclear, and that's three to five per cent. Highly enriched uranium is about 98 per cent. Australia is developing nuclear reactors that are highly enriched to drive nuclear submarines, but not in Australia. Rolls-Royce is doing it for us in the United Kingdom, but we are paying for it. That's right at the cutting edge of technology. We show the willingness to do it in an area where it really does require a skill set, and nuclear power is actually way down at three to five per cent, as opposed to 98 per cent; it's completely different. In fact, sometimes the fuel source for nuclear power is decommissioned nuclear weapons. In Australia, we know where we are. We have got to take this step or live in the complete naivety that the world will just leave us alone. It is so dangerous to think like that, because it just won't. It never has done and it never will. If you doubt that, turn on the television and have a look. Whether you want to look at the Gaza Strip or Ukraine, or all the other wars that don't even make the news, there's one thing in common: the rise of totalitarianism. It is absolutely ubiquitous across the globe. If you have a desire to protect our liberties and freedoms—gender, sexual preference, the environment and everything that we have—then you'd better be able to defend it. If you can't defend it in the most exact form, then you can't defend it at all. Let's just go through a couple of things in this process, because I understand the role of intermittent power. It's not renewable; it's intermittent. One of the problems you have with intermittent power, just on a technical level, is what they call sawtooth power. It works at around 50 hertz. All power has to work at 50 hertz, otherwise power just doesn't work. It's just physics. So you have intermittent power. Basically it's generating direct power. It has to be converted to alternating power. You can't have too much of it. Industry won't work with it. If you ask, 'How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor?' I will tell you a country that built one in six years: Australia. Australia built one in six years. It's called the OPAL reactor. It took us six years to do it. Let's dispense with the idea that it is going to take 20 years. Of the 12- to 15-year build put to date, about six years of that is paperwork before they start moving dirt. Once they start moving dirt, it's about six to eight years and they've got it built. Isn't that what we should be doing, hand in glove with this? We've got to get out of this naivety that we are smarter than everywhere else in the world. We're not. And we've also got to take the leap. For goodness sake, if Greta Thunberg can support nuclear energy then I don't think it's a huge leap for us to. It stands to reason. If AUKUS is to work and we are looking decades ahead—and, by gosh, I want it to work—we also have to have a look at what is happening in the world right now. Right now, as we speak, there is a debate going on in the United States as to the prospect of where they are heading. Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump are having a debate. You have two alternative foreign policies that will be part of that. That will change in minutiae, we believe, how Australia's works, and I hope that is the case. But you can see that there is variance. There is fluidity. It is a discussion. There are discussions in the United Sates about AUKUS—overwhelmingly in support of us but not entirely. Our biggest threat is if this thing falls over, because where do we go next? What's the next step? Do we honestly believe that, when Wang Yi is going to Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, the Solomons, Vanuatu, Fiji, and having discussions with the Cook Islands—do we just think this is by chance? These are tactics against Australia—it always is. It's encirclement. You don't have to invade Australia; you just have to cut it off. If you cut it off, you win. We have to take conditions. Are we formidable enough to say, 'That would be a dangerous move for you to do that'? We have six Collins class submarines. Sometimes we can't get one in the water. We have three warships, and calling them warships is—it's looking after the explanation. We have eight frigates. We have a defence force which is actually getting smaller, not bigger. Cutting-edge technology is important, but it's not made here. If things turn against us, we're in a world of strife. We have one big thing in our pocket, that we have a military agreement with the United States of America. Let's go into that before I close. Your belief is that the good mums and dads of Tennessee, South Dakota, Carolina, New York and Los Angeles will happily send their family members over to be killed on behalf of Australia? What you're saying is that they'll happily do that. I'm telling you that the mums and dads there are just like the mums and dads here. They might have other ideas about that. They might have a big say in the future about how they feel about that. They might say, 'I think we're just going to concentrate on the United States for a while.' If that's the case, those who wish to do us harm—and they exist. Remember, we've had military lasers put on our planes from Chinese ships in our exclusive economic zone. We've had flares put out in front of a Seahawk helicopter. We've had foil in front of a P-3 Orion plane. We've had spies in this parliament. We've had it; we've got it. This AUKUS agreement is fundamentally important. I'm so glad that we have a bipartisan approach to it. I call to the Australian people and to all to just understand history. Don't understand my politics, disregard me completely and dislike me as much as you like, but like a history book. Really have a good read of that and, as you have a read of that, think of all the things that you cherish about Australia and the particular causes you want to pursue and want to sustain. The only way you will sustain that is if you have a formidable capacity to defend your nation. We have a formidable gap to fill before we'll have the capacity to do that, and AUKUS is fundamental in that process. 12:50 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Transparency and accountability are among the keys to voter confidence in public policy. If ever there were a textbook example of what not to do it is AUKUS. What we have before us in this legislation, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and related bill, is not the opportunity to decide the principles of AUKUS; it's merely to determine some of its operational contingencies, in particular the management of nuclear waste and arrangements for independent oversight. We have had relatively few opportunities in this parliament to debate AUKUS, so, before I go to the specifics, I will take a little time to discuss the backstory leading to the legislation now before the House. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to AUKUS, but I retain serious concerns about the way it was developed and then presented to the people as a fait accompli, as the best and only way, with no discussion. Nothing that's happened since that surprise announcement from Scott Morrison, Joe Biden and Boris Johnson on the morning of 22 September 2021 has alleviated those concerns. It is, after all, the most significant shift in Australian defence policy since the 1980s when we formally ended the doctrine of forward defence whose apotheosis was the involvement in the Vietnam War for the primacy of the defence of Australia. That shift followed recommendations in a review commissioned by the Hawke government and produced by distinguished defence strategist Paul Dibb, followed by a white paper. Before the new doctrine began to take shape, with defence assets and infrastructure moved north and west, there was substantive public discussion and debate. That government sought to bring the public with them. That could hardly be said to be the case with AUKUS, conceived in secrecy and Labor given less than 24 hours to make up its mind. Not surprisingly, the then opposition acquiesced given its awful memories of having been wedged by John Howard over the Tampa saga. As national security expert James Curran, who has written extensively on AUKUS in the Australian Financial Review, says: … Treasury and the Department of Foreign Affairs were excluded from the process; and serious risk and feasibility studies were largely sacrificed in the name of securing a politically symbolic deal. Treasury was kept in the dark about an initiative hinging on the expenditure of at least $368 billion of taxpayers' money. DFAT was kept out of the loop on an initiative with significant geopolitical consequences for our nearest neighbours. It doesn't matter whether China is the reason for this strategic shift. If China perceives that to be the case then Beijing will respond as if AUKUS is a threat. South-East Asian knows what it is to be in the cockpit of big power rivalry, from the millions of deaths and economic suffering resulting from the years of conflict between Japan, Australia and its allies in World War II through to Vietnam. Given the way AUKUS was dumped on an unsuspecting Australian public, it's not surprising that voters are proving more than a little sceptical, ambivalent at best. We the people were never let in on this discussion, let alone allowed a debate. A recent poll conducted by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney found 42 per cent of those polled thought that the AUKUS submarines are not worth the cost. At the same time, 46 per cent thought AUKUS is good for creating jobs. A poll conducted by the Lowy Institute got a different result but still found that 32 per cent of respondents—a significant number—were opposed to the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines. Our strategic realignment in the 1980s was an assertion of sovereignty, an assertion that we should be as self-reliant as possible. Almost overnight and with no debate at all, the previous government, with the acquiescence of the Labor Party, agreed to an entirely new approach which, as the distinguished former DFAT chief Peter Varghese points out, reduces our sovereignty and ties us ever closer to the United States. Mr Varghese served both sides of politics in very senior and responsible roles, providing them with frank, fearless and objective advice regardless of which party they came from. He was respected, in short, by all he served and rewarded for his intellect, insights and advice. Here's what he had to say about AUKUS in the Australian Financial Review, and it's worth quoting at some length: The real test of sovereignty is whether you can defend yourself and credibly deter an attack on your territory. Is that what the nuclear submarines deliver? Or would it be smarter to design a defence capability, including the best conventional submarines, which may give us less to offer in a war in north-east Asia but which may be more affordable and more effective in the defence of continental Australia? I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions. But I would have thought that before we took decisions as momentous as the AUKUS submarines that there would be a proper and forensic public discussion about other options and their underlying rationale. It may be odd to argue that a decision to acquire a capability which will not be fully delivered for three decades, if all goes to plan, has been made with unseemly haste. No one on the inside would think so. They have no doubt crunched the numbers and the policy options. But decisions of this magnitude can easily emerge in an echo chamber. And the biggest threat to good policy is a failure forensically to test assumptions and weigh options. Much of that can and should be done outside classified discussions. 'Unseemly haste' and 'echo chamber'—this is not the Greens talking. This is one of the most senior and esteemed public servants Australia has produced. Varghese wrote: What defence capabilities are we not getting because we have set aside some $360 billion for nuclear submarines? Varghese was not alone in his concerns about Australian sovereignty. Allan Gyngell was an equally distinguished public servant, concluding his career as Director-General of the Office of National Assessments. Here's part of what he wrote, also in the AFR, about AUKUS in 2021, a year and a half before his untimely death. Nuclear submarines offer Australia strategic and operational benefits. They go further and faster and stay longer at sea than their conventional counterparts. But they have one large strike against them. We cannot operate them alone. The capability they provide is only available to us if we cede a degree—quite a high degree in this case—of Australian sovereignty. Our capacity to operate the nation's most expensive and powerful defence asset will always be subject to American veto and the program will lead inevitably to deeper operational integration with the United States. This is more than just a theoretical issue. China insists that it will absorb Taiwan one way or the other, and the US is adamant that it will not allow that to happen. This government has repeatedly denied that AUKUS would commit Australia and its new subs to support the US in military conflict with China over Taiwan. But, as recently as April this year, US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell belled that cat. What he told a think tank in Washington was cloaked in diplomatic verbiage, but its message about American expectations of Australia was clear: … what we're confronting now are challenges that require a much deeper engagement with allies and partners. I think the idea over time … will be in a number of potential areas of conflict and in a number of scenarios … He goes on: I think those practical circumstances in which AUKUS has the potential to have submarines from a number of countries operating in close coordination that could deliver conventional ordinance from long distances. Those have enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances … 'Cross-strait circumstances'—well, I'll assume it's the waters between Taiwan and China that he's talking about. As for 'delivering conventional ordinance from long distances', that's what the US expects to be the role of our AUKUS submarines in the case of war between the US and China over Taiwan. That's what Washington thinks we've signed up for. Apart from informed scepticism expressed by experts in publications read almost exclusively by other experts, the question of the implications for Australian sovereignty rarely breaks the surface in broader discussion about Australia's relations with its most important ally. For all that, I do thank the Deputy Prime Minister and his stuff for the in-depth briefings offered to me and other members of the crossbench on the various aspects of AUKUS Pillar II, as well as Pillar I, and for the attention he and his staff have paid to my specific interests in some of the detail of this bill. My most significant concern has been the question of storage of nuclear waste, an inevitable consequence of the acquisition of nuclear submarines and the rotation of US and UK subs through Fleet Base West. The original legislative proposal would have left open the possibility that high-level nuclear waste from American and British submarines, as well as our own subs, could have been left to linger on Australian soil. Low-level waste, gloves, hazmat clothing and the like are one thing; high-level waste is quite another, especially given that the UK, for example, has yet to find a way of disposing of the waste from its many decommissioned nuclear submarines, long after they've left operational service. I'm really pleased to see that the minister has listened to these concerns and those of others which emerged during consideration of this legislation by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. The government appears to have taken both my concerns and those of the committee at face value, and for that I thank the minister. I'm pleased, too, that the government is proposing additional amendments designed to ensure accountability, transparency and independence of oversight of the safety provisions relating to nuclear waste. On the face of it, they mirror arrangements for the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, to protect the community in relation to civilian nuclear waste. There will be an independent regulator to sit within the defence department, as occurs in the UK, rather than the arrangement in the US, where it sits within the Department of Energy for legacy reasons going back as far as World War II and the Manhattan Project. There will also be an expert advisory committee, because there needs to be a second line of accountability. Again, this would report to the defence minister and be appointed by the minister. I'm concerned that there do not appear to be provisions for the expert advisory committee to report publicly, and I would far prefer an independent appointment process. As I said at the start of my remarks about AUKUS more broadly, transparency and accountability are among the keys to public confidence in policy. These concerns will not end with the passage of this legislation or, indeed, any future arrival of AUKUS submarines. They will remain key for the lifetime of this ambitious and fraught project, and it is incumbent on this parliament to keep its eyes open and on these matters for the lifetime of this exercise. Sitting suspended from 13:03 to 16:00 16:00 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The purpose of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 is to establish a new regulatory framework to promote and regulate the nuclear safety of activities relating to AUKUS submarines. This includes establishing a new independent regulator to be known as the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. The impetus for the bill stems from the AUKUS partnership, a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This partnership includes the development and deployment of nuclear powered submarines. Such will necessitate stringent safety protocols and regulatory oversight. Transparency and accountability are key to the social licence for any significant government endeavour. In this biggest of national endeavours, transparency and accountability are sadly lacking. Instead, we're seeing an initial piece of legislation about the AUKUS scheme which really relates to its back end, and even this seems premature given the very real and outstanding questions regarding Australia's readiness for any form of nuclear capacity. I'm concerned that this parliament has not had an opportunity for a detailed and transparent inquiry into AUKUS—into its rationale, its costs and the implications for nuclear proliferation for Australia, or even just related to the questions related to safe handling and storage of nuclear waste. Naval nuclear power potentially offers this country significant strategic and operational advantages, and I'm not saying that I'm opposed to the AUKUS scheme. But it also comes with significant risks which require careful management. It is an ongoing concern, for one, that all the oversight and regulation of AUKUS will be through Defence, which does, after all, have a very significant stake in its success. An independent overseer of the safety aspects of AUKUS—such as ARPANSA, which has decades of relevant expertise and experience but no conflict of interest—might well be more appropriate. Nuclear powered submarines are obvious targets for terrorist attacks or other hostile actions. It's vital that from day one of the program we ensure the security of the vessels and of their nuclear materials. It's also vital that we ensure the safety of waste disposal sites. Addressing these risks involves a combination of rigorous safety protocols, continuous training, robust regulatory oversight and effective emergency preparedness plans. Any doubt regarding those measures will impact significantly on the social licence of the AUKUS scheme in Australia. The operation of nuclear reactors on submarines involves the handling of radioactive materials. Ionising radiation can be harmful or even rapidly fatal to humans and to other living organisms. Despite even the most stringent of safety measures, the possibility of accidents can never be entirely eliminated. Incidents such as reactor malfunctions, leaks or collisions could well lead to the release of radioactive materials. This would pose immediate and severe risks to submarine crews, nearby human populations and the environment. These concerns are not academic. Let's not forget that since 1945 the USA has lost no fewer than three atomic bombs and that since 1950 there have been at least 32 so-called Broken Arrow incidents, in which nuclear weapons have been either dropped by mistake or jettisoned in an emergency setting by American forces. And that's just the US. We have no similar accounting for the UK, France, China or Russia. We do know that Russia has lost several nuclear devices off submarines, but we don't know much more than that. In this country just last year, we saw a radioactive capsule literally fall off the back of a truck. Australians deserve full clarity about the safety of all aspects of any or all nuclear programs in this country. When submarines are decommissioned, the radioactive reactor compartments and spent fuel have to be safely disposed of. Nuclear waste remains hazardous for thousands of years. Accidents during the handling, transport or storage of nuclear waste can lead to the immediate release of radioactive materials—materials which will have severe, immediate and long-term public health and environmental consequences. The storage and disposal of radioactive waste from Australia's nuclear powered submarines will require dedicated facilities and highly trained staff. We have to have surety in the processes of waste transport in sealed and secure containers to storage or disposal facilities. We will need purpose-built facilities for interim storage and then for permanent disposal of that radioactive waste, including spent fuel. For the moment, the ANSTO nuclear facility at Lucas Heights in New South Wales, which has safely and securely managed low-level radioactive waste in Australia for decades, is probably the best place to put Australia's nuclear waste until we have an agreed and integrated management approach. However, at this point we have no information regarding planning processes for long-term management options of high level nuclear waste. Previous attempts to find permanent sites for even just our low-level nuclear waste have been unsuccessful—most recently, the failed attempt to build a dump at Kimba in South Australia. We've now signalled our intent to construct a storage facility for high-grade nuclear waste. That's a facility which will need to be robust for over 1,000 years. This has not been previously achieved by Australia, the US or the UK. Both the US and the UK have had nuclear submarines for decades. Neither has yet worked out a permanent solution for their high-grade nuclear waste from those submarines. As of June 2023, the UK had failed to dispose of any of its 22 retired nuclear powered submarines. It stores them in designated dockyards at a cost of at least 30 million pounds every year. A high-level radioactive waste disposal facility which is now nearing completion in Finland has cost a billion euros already, and the estimated cost of the UK's geological facility for intermediate- and high-level waste disposal is over 20 billion pounds. In March 2023 the defence minister told Australia that we would build a facility on Defence land with the aim of storage and disposal of dismantled reactors, high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. He said in March 2023 that the processes by which this facility would be identified and built would be given to us within a year. That was 18 months ago, and we're still waiting. We really have no reason to feel faith in this government's ability to do better than the US or the UK. It feels very premature to commit to this program when we have no immediate prospect of being able to deliver effective and safe disposal of long-term nuclear waste. I note that the cost of building this high-level storage facility in Australia has not been included in the $368 billion budget for AUKUS at this point. I note that in 2016 a South Australian royal commission estimated the total capital and operating cost of a high-level nuclear disposal facility to be $145 billion over the 120-year life of that facility. I'm glad to see that the government has this week responded to the concerns raised by the Senate committee inquiry into this matter by amending the legislation so that it allows only the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel from Australian submarines. Those assurances, however, relate only to high-level radioactive waste. We have an ongoing concern that, through this legislation, Australia could become a dumping ground for low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from the US and the UK. Those concerns have not, at this point, been addressed or assuaged by the minister in his responses to questions about the issue. Australians already lack certainty about the potential risks of the AUKUS agreement. Recently we learned that either or both the US or the UK could terminate their current commitments under the scheme with as little as one year's notice. We also learnt that Australia has agreed to take responsibility for nuclear safety risks and that we will indemnify the US and the UK against any liability, loss, costs, damage or injury arising from the nuclear risks connected with the design, manufacture, assembly, transfer or utilisation of any of the materials or equipment involved in the submarine program. This is an extraordinarily one-sided agreement. We seem to have surrendered a significant degree of our national military sovereignty. The health, environmental and economic consequences of any accidents or adverse events arising from this program could be extreme. The way in which this government is presenting isolated components of the AUKUS scheme to this House in this manner is depriving the country of an opportunity to look at its bigger picture. We all want to see effective and cost-efficient defence procurement. We all want to be sure that our government is making good decisions in our best national interest. But too many questions about the AUKUS program remain unanswered. Will we ever see these promised submarines? When? At what cost? At what opportunity cost? Will the submarines still be fit for purpose if and when they are received? Can we adequately staff the submarines? Can we provide the technological support required to safely run them? How and where will the waste from this program be stored? How much nuclear waste from the US and/or the UK might be dumped on us? How much will the storage of waste from this program cost us? These are the bigger questions that the government is not putting on the table with this incomplete, sketchy bit of legislation. The people of Australia deserve greater transparency about this very important issue. 16:10 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, which is supported by both Labor and the coalition, is legislation that, if passed, can make anywhere in Australia a nuclear waste dumping ground with no requirement for public consultation, no First Nations input and no warning. The bill allows the defence minister the power to designate anywhere in Australia a high-level nuclear dumping ground, with no public consultation needed. Under this bill, the supposed independent regulator of Defence can be staffed by Defence personnel and report to the Minister for Defence, unlike in other countries where nuclear waste has a truly independent regulator. Under this bill, the same minister would be responsible for the nuclear submarines and for the regulation of nuclear waste, which is a clear conflict of interest. Australia should not be a dumping ground for nuclear by-products of the US or the UK, and this runs roughshod over not only local communities—who will have no say over whether or not their community becomes a dumping ground for high-level nuclear waste as a result of the AUKUS program—but also First Nations peoples who have a long history of protecting their land from nuclear waste, from Muckaty to Kimba. We have more to say on this in the dissenting report, but it's worth noting that the Greens previously raised concerns that the original version of this bill would have allowed the UK and the US to dump high-level nuclear waste in Australia and, when we raised this issue, we were told that we were fearmongering. Now we find that, in fact, it was entirely correct, so you can forgive us for not particularly trusting this next version of the bill on whether or not we will also see high-level nuclear waste or lower-level nuclear waste from the United States or the UK dumped somewhere in Australia without any recourse to object to that. Let's be clear about this and what this is doing. This is facilitating the $368 billion AUKUS nuclear sub program, which is ultimately about facilitating the imperial ambitions of the United States in the Asia-Pacific. Let's be very clear about this: it has absolutely nothing to do with Australian security—zero, none, absolutely not at all. In fact, what this program does is make us less safe and drag us into a potential war in Asia. It's incredible, actually, just how subservient Australia and the Labor Party are being to the United States in this instance—spending $368 billion, where we may not actually see any nuclear submarines over the next 30 years. It's an entirely one-sided agreement that hands over Australia's ability to determine its own future to the United States. In fact, United States officials won't even confirm that Australia will have complete control over the deployment of these nuclear submarines. Mr Wallace 265967 That is rubbish. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 It's entirely true, but it's good to see that we're uniting the Labor and Liberal parties, the true coalition in this place. There are multiple 'get out of jail free' cards for the US under this agreement. If at any point the US think that providing nuclear submarines to Australia would not be in their interest, they can just back up their bags and leave, taking all their tech and all their money with them. This is deeply concerning, as Australia has already begun paying the US and UK nearly $10 billion in public funds. If the US and the UK withdraw, they have the right to take back and/or destroy all material and information provided, and the UK and the US only need to provide one year's notice. The agreement also puts Australia on the hook to indemnify the UK and the US for any liability, loss, cost, damage or injury associated with the use of the nuclear submarines. That means, if something goes wrong with one of the US second-hand nuclear submarines, it is Australia that is liable. Again, this would be a sick joke if it weren't so serious and if the consequences of a nuclear disaster weren't so serious. The UK and the US will even be allowed to determine the price of the highly enriched uranium they are selling to Australia. AUKUS also allows the US and the UK to intervene in Australia's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Australia gets a guarantee of nothing. We have no recourse if the US walks away, we don't get independent consultation with the IAEA, we don't get fair prices for the fuel, and we don't even get a guarantee of nuclear submarines. But, if the whole thing blows up in our face and something goes wrong, we are financially responsible to the UK and the US. This is the deal of the century for the US and the UK, who must be chuckling all the way to the bank, having found an Albanese Labor government who's willing to dish out hundreds of billions of dollars to the United States and the UK for their own imperial ambitions. On average, this will cost $12 billion a year for the next 30 years, in the middle of a cost-of-living and housing crisis. It is genuinely remarkable. Imagine what $12 billion a year could do to tackle the housing crisis. Imagine how many hundreds of thousands of good public homes that could build. What if we put our industrial capacity and our creative capacity not towards helping the US facilitate another disastrous war but instead towards helping people in this country by building enough homes, making sure we put dental and mental health into Medicare, transitioning to 100 per cent renewable energy and creating new industries that create wealth in this country? Instead we're dishing out hundreds of billions of dollars to the United States so they can project more power into the Asia-Pacific and make us all less safe. Let's be very clear about this. If the ultimate outcome of all of this is a war with China, we lose. There's this flippant way that the political class in this country talks about war: 'Let's just continue to fund and expand the US's imperial ambitions in the Asia-Pacific and help create and enhance tensions as if this is some game.' Well, the consequences of war for future generations in the Asia-Pacific are devastating. No-one wins. There would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of people dead. Sons and daughters would be sent to war, for what? For a war created by the tensions created by political decisions like this. Have the Australian political class learnt nothing? I note that there's a Liberal member in this place who had a bit of a go at me then. Well, the Liberal Party in this place has never reckoned with the disastrous invasion of Iraq and backing the United States in that. It has never reckoned with the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan. There were a million dead in Iraq. What did you do there? Australia went to war in Iraq, again backing the imperial ambitions of the US. What did we end with when you invaded Iraq? ISIS. Yes, great work—really good work! That's a fantastic foreign policy decision! What about Afghanistan? Trillions of dollars ended up being spent there in that disastrous war, with the stated intention of getting rid of the Taliban. And what did we end up with 20 years later, after death, destruction and more international instability? We were left with a more radical Taliban. What is it going to take for the Labor and Liberal parties to realise that tying ourselves to the hip of the United States and participating in their disastrous wars—which are never about peace or security and always about their own foreign policy ambitions—render us less safe and cost us money and precious lives? What is it going take? At the end of the day, what we eschew and abandon is the capacity for Australia to pursue its own independent foreign policy. We could be a proud middle power that pursues and facilitates peace in the world. Instead, what we're doing is entirely surrendering our foreign policy to the interests of the United States, despite the fact that every time Australia has done that and participated in an overseas war it has led to death, destruction and less international security, making us less safe; losing our men and women, who die in wars they should not have been sent to; costing the country billions of dollars; and leaving the world a lesser and more dangerous place. 16:18 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher If you want an example of why you should not vote for the Greens, we just heard one from the member for Griffith. For the member for Griffith or anybody who is even contemplating voting for the Greens at the next election or any election, here is a bit of a history lesson. It's called 1942. In 1942, we faced an existential threat. Our traditional ally up until 1942 was mother England, but the Labor government of the time—rightfully, in my view—changed this. As a result of the fall of Singapore, Australia was in great peril. Who came to the aid of Australia? Who was it? It was the United States. The United States came to the aid of Australia in the Battle of Guadalcanal. Thousands of Marines from across mainland United States came to a place that they had never heard of to fight a war that they really didn't have a fight in, and thousands of them died. Thousands of them fought to defend Australia. The Battle of Milne Bay and the Battle of the Coral Sea changed the face of World War II. But for the actions of the United States in literally saving Australia, Australia would look very different today. But the Greens would have you believe that all of that is in the past, that we ought not even consider these things. My grandfather served in World War II. He served on HMAS Kanimbla. I grew up as a young boy constantly hearing this sentence—it's really simple—'Thank God for the Yanks.' I grew up hearing that time and time again because the reality was that Australia in 1942 could not defend itself. Today in 2024 Australia can't defend itself. That is a shameful position to be in. But the reality is, peer on peer, if we were to face a peer competitor, Australia would not be able to defend itself on its own, in the same way that we were not able to defend ourselves in 1942. They say if you refuse to look at history you're destined to repeat it. If we did what the Greens want to do as is in their political manifesto we'd decimate the Australian Defence Force. That's exactly what the Greens want to do. At a time when we live in the most geopolitically unstable period since 1945, the Greens want to decimate the ADF. That's what they want to do. They want to decimate the ADF. They want to rip the guts out of funding for it. They don't believe in defence. They don't believe in ADF personnel. It's very clear. I'd love to know how many Greens members are protesting— Mr WALLACE 265967 I'm surprised you're here today and not in Melbourne, Member for Griffith. I'm surprised that the member for Griffith is here and not in Melbourne, supporting his mates throwing rocks at VicPol. But I digress. I apologise for digressing. The member for Griffith winds me up because the member for Griffith and people like him have no appreciation for history and have no appreciation for the loss and sacrifice that generations before us have made. They think that this democracy that we live in today just kind of appeared. The lives which we enjoy today in this country came off the back of service men and women from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain and the United States. It didn't just happen. It is because countries like us stood up against tyranny in both World War I and World War II and said: 'We will not stand for this. We know it's going to cost money. We know it's going to cost lives, more importantly. But when countries do not stand up against that sort of tyranny the world falls apart.' But for the Greens it's all peace, love and mung beans, baby, and it doesn't matter because the world is a beautiful place. Mr WALLACE 265967 Try telling that to the Ukrainians. Try telling that to the Israelis. Try telling that to so many other countries that have been violated, invaded and attacked. Life just doesn't work like that. In a nirvana, it would be wonderful. It would be wonderful, wouldn't it, shadow Treasurer, if you didn't have to find the sort of money you'd need to fund our Defence Force? In a nirvana, it would be perfect. But you know what? We don't live in a nirvana. Sadly, we live in a world where people like the President of Russia have invaded Ukraine. President Xi has told his senior military to be prepared to take Taiwan by force, if necessary, by 2027. That is why this bloke, at the next election, will need to find the money to fund AUKUS. That is why Jim Chalmers, the current Treasurer, has to find the money to fund AUKUS. Parties of government have a responsibility to ensure the peace and security of this country. Parties like the Greens and Independents can promise the world and give you an atlas. But, sadly, we live in a world that is the most geopolitically unstable. Almost everybody agrees with that—since 1945. That is why this bill, that is why AUKUS, is so incredibly important. It's not just about nuclear powered submarines. There is so much more to AUKUS than submarines. I welcome the Minister for Defence into the chamber because the member for Griffith and I have just had a wonderful exchange about the need to properly equip the ADF with some of the most stealthy submarines available today. I reminded the member for Griffith that peace comes at a price. There's a very old phrase that has been bandied around for millennia. You know the phrase, don't you? The phrase goes something like, 'If you want peace, prepare for war; if you want to provoke your enemies, then be weak.' That is exactly what would happen if the Greens ever had control over the government Treasury benches. We face a very real prospect. And I'm really pleased that the Minister for Defence is in here right now because I earnestly believe—and I'm probably going to regret saying this in public—that the Minister for Defence is a good man. It's true. I do believe he's a good man. I do believe he has the interests of this country at heart. We face a very real prospect at the next election that Labor and the Greens will be in some sort of a power-sharing arrangement. It'll be a power-sharing arrangement. It'll be a coalition. God knows this bloke could be the new defence minister because he's so committed to the defence of this country! And the Greens will say to the Prime Minister, if it comes to this, 'If you want to remain Prime Minister, Prime Minister, you need to have us at the cabinet table. You need to have us at the policy formulation table.' The Greens will exact a very heavy price, Minister for Defence. You know that. I know that. We know that on this side. The Greens will exact a very heavy price on this government. And you know what? I hope we win the next election. I really do. That's what we're fighting for. But do you know what? If we don't win it, I hope the Labor Party win a majority government, because the worst thing that could ever happen to this place, to this country, is you guys ever being in a power-sharing arrangement with the Greens. God help us. God help this country if the Greens are ever sharing power with the Labor Party again, just like they did in the last Labor government. I'm making a plea to anybody who's watching this, anybody who is even thinking remotely about voting for the Greens. In the words of President Biden: 'Don't.' Don't do it, because you will significantly weaken the defence capabilities of this country and the region. It would not even surprise me if this government came under pressure on all things that we don't want to see. So I also want to encourage the government not to accept preferences from the Greens, the Member for Griffith et al, because of the reasons I have outlined about a power-sharing arrangement between the Greens and the government, which would only come into force by virtue of a preference arrangement. I've sat and watched in the chamber for weeks and months as the government and the Greens fought over this, that and everything, but, if the government is so against what the Greens have been doing in recent times, particularly in relation to Gaza, then the Labor Party should stand up and say: 'Well, you know what?' Just as they said to us decades ago, 'You shouldn't accept preferences from One Nation,' I say to the Labor Party, 'You shouldn't accept preferences from this mob, because they will bring you down.' As sure as God made little green apples, this lot will bring you down. Not only will they bring you down; they will make this country a far less safe place than it is culturally, defence-wise and certainly economically. We cannot afford a situation where these guys get anywhere near the Treasury benches, because it will ruin this country. Anybody who is listening to this on the radio or watching this: you probably need to get a life! But I would encourage you: please don't support the Greens. 16:34 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Firstly, I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on these amendments, particularly having heard the last speech. I thank the member for making that speech; clearly, I chose the wrong tie today! I'd also like to thank the opposition for its bipartisanship and support in progressing these bills through the parliament. These bills are the critical next legislative step in establishing the highest standards of nuclear safety and stewardship of Australia's future conventionally armed nuclear powered submarine enterprise under the banner of AUKUS. The government has listened closely to the contributions of those who have engaged in the consultation processes around these bills, including through the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. That committee considered the bills and made seven recommendations to improve the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, ultimately recommending that the bill be passed. The government has accepted, either in full or in principle, all of those recommendations, and I can foreshadow that I will shortly move amendments to address these. The government thanks the committee for its work in thoroughly considering the bills and acknowledges all those that supported the inquiry process. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 will establish a new fit-for-purpose regulatory framework—including an independent regulator, the Australian Naval and Nuclear Power Safety Regulator—for nuclear safety within Australia's conventionally armed nuclear powered submarine enterprise and capability life cycle. This new framework will be harmonised with other schemes, including those relating to work health and safety, nuclear nonproliferation and civilian nuclear safety. This new regulator will have a range of functions and comprehensive powers and will work with existing regulators to promote the safety of our submariners, the Australian and international communities and the environment. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 supports the transition between the existing regulatory regime and the new regulatory framework that will be established through the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2023 on commencement, designed specifically to regulate nuclear safety aspects of naval nuclear propulsion and the nuclear powered submarine enterprise. Throughout the development of the legislation, the government has demonstrated a clear commitment to consultation, engaging with targeted stakeholders across state government, local councils, unions, industry, First Nations representative bodies, relevant Commonwealth and state agencies, academia and training providers. We welcome all these contributions and encourage engagement as we proceed. This commitment will continue as we progress further on the pathway to acquiring nuclear powered submarine capability for our nation. These bills are critical to Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. I commend these bills to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 142

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 142 16:38 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023 142

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023

Second Reading 142 16:38 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I'm pleased to resume the speech on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023 that I began in the other chamber, where I had laid out our strong commitment to an independent, credible, capable Reserve Bank. It's very clear that those opposite don't share that commitment. I also said that we consider completely unacceptable a strategy from those opposite to sack and stack the Reserve Bank board to serve their own purposes. It has become very clear and very apparent not only that they are not committed to an independent, credible, capable Reserve Bank but that they are committed to sacking and stacking the current board. This is a treasurer who learned his trade from Wayne Swan, the President of the Labor Party, and from Paul Keating, whose view of the Reserve Bank was that they do as they're told. Of course, what happens with Labor treasurers is that they lose control over the economy, they lose control over inflation, and growth stops. It shudders to a halt. And they want to be able to control the Reserve Bank for their political purposes in the lead up to an election! When it wrecks the economy, when they've got their foot on the accelerator, for instance, when the Reserve Bank has their foot on the brake, the engine stalls, but they don't care. They don't care as long as they can serve their own political purposes. Let me tell you that this Treasurer and this Prime Minister are only about the politics. They couldn't care less what implications it has for the engine when their foot is on the accelerator as the Reserve Bank's foot is on the brake. We saw that in the extraordinary comments that were made over the last week. The person who led out was the Treasurer. He led out before he set the rest of his dogs—his surrogates—out. He started by blaming the RBA for all of his woes. They're his woes. It's his economic disaster that's hurting Australian households and has seen their standard of living collapse since he became the Treasurer, but he went and said, 'I'm going to shift the blame to the Reserve Bank. I'm going to find an excuse. It's the Reserve Bank smashing the economy. It's all them.' He was backed in by the Prime Minister. He was backed in by the other members of the government's frontbench. I'm sure the member opposite agrees with him. He was backed in by those Labor aligned commentators, like Stephen Conroy and Stephen Koukoulas. They all backed him in. He was then backed in on Friday by the ALP president, his mentor, Wayne Swan, who said that he was very disappointed in the Reserve Bank and that—wait for it—it was punching itself in the face. Those are extraordinary comments from a former treasurer. It shows a complete disrespect and disregard for an institution that has served this country well. It is not perfect, but it has served this country well. This is a country that over multiple decades has had stronger growth and lower inflation than almost any other country in the world. But this is their view, and it's because it's not serving their political purpose. At the end of the day, that's where they come out. But it goes even deeper than those comments from the ALP president. Shocking quotes came out from an ABC report by Jacob Greber, where he revealed: One senior Labor figure described them— that is, the RBA— to the ABC on Friday as "barbarians" and "weirdos" in the thrall of a "bizarre group-think". Bullock is a "nutter" … These are the comments. I hope those opposite don't agree with these comments, but these are the comments from a senior Labor figure reported by a very credible economic commentator, Jacob Greber, and it truly is shocking. The idea that what you do in the week leading up to introducing legislation that they want bipartisan— An honourable member interjecting— Mr TAYLOR 231027 No. I'll take the interjection. Those opposite are bringing in a new piece of legislation to reform the Reserve Bank that allows them to sack and stack the board. In the week leading up to that, you sent the dogs out. You sent the surrogates out to say that the Reserve Bank is filled with barbarians, weirdos and bizarre groupthink and that the governor is a nutter. What sort of an outfit is this? It's an economic joke! What sort of a treasurer is this? He is helpless and hapless. Mr Perrett HVP Deputy Speaker, I ask you to ask the member for Hume to not reflect on the Treasurer when today he clearly indicated he had nothing to do with the statements that the member for Hume is connecting him to. He's misleading the Federation Chamber completely. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 I think the member for Hume is referring to comments other than those made by the Treasurer. Mr Perrett HVP No, he then directed it directly to the Treasurer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 I ask the member for Hume to continue. Mr TAYLOR 231027 I connected it to a senior Labor figure. I certainly hope it wasn't the member opposite who said these things. I certainly hope not! Perhaps he can clarify that at some point. I certainly hope it wasn't either of the members opposite who said this, but they did say the Reserve Bank was a bunch of 'barbarians and weirdos in thrall to a bizarre groupthink' and they did call the governor a 'nutter'. It's truly extraordinary. It is clear that the attacks on the Reserve Bank were led by the Treasurer. That's the time sequence. He led them out. Out went the surrogates and out went the proxies; out they went, attacking this institution. At the end of the day, we know what they're really on about. What they're really on about is two things. One is shifting the blame for their failures. There's been a nine per cent reduction—a collapse—in the Australian standard of living. No other OECD country has seen it. Michael Read at the AFR laid this out just a short time ago. No other OECD country in the world has seen a collapse in its standard of living like Australia has in the last two years. It's extraordinary how unlucky Labor governments always are, isn't it. They're terribly unlucky. They wreck the economy every single time. We're the worst in the OECD. We've got inflation which is stuck. Core inflation since January has not moved, and there is not a single advanced country in the world, other than Australia, where inflation hasn't moved since January this year. We are the only one. We are at the back of the pack every single time. Our inflation is higher than any other advanced country in the world. We're at the back of the pack in dealing with it. The answer, for the Treasurer and for those opposites, is to shift the blame to the RBA and then try to seize control, which no doubt will lead where it always leads with Labor—wrecking the institution and wrecking the economy. Labor's plan is clear to see. Let's look at the economists' reaction to the war that Labor is waging against the RBA. Well-respected RMIT economics professor Sinclair Davidson said: All the economic indicators are going the wrong way, and what is the government doing? Fighting with the RBA. Highly respected former RBA board member Warwick McKibbin said: You want to think that the government and the central bank are working together in the same direction for the benefit of the country. To make those sorts of comments— the sorts of comments made by the Treasurer and others— suggested that maybe there's some other agendas at work— we know what they are— and that's not helpful. Another former RBA board member, Graham Kraehe, said: For the treasurer to then be coming out and saying, 'Well, this is the Reserve Bank's fault'. I don't think another serious economist in the country … would agree with that. I can assure you, Deputy Speaker, this Treasurer is not a serious economist. He is a doctor of spin, not a doctor of economics. 'Doctor' he likes to call himself, but it's not of economics, and Graham Kraehe has made the point that there's no serious economist that would back in what the Treasurer has said. The truth is what's sitting behind this is Labor's failed economic management. We only have to look at the facts to see how bad it's been for Australians. Those opposite like to pat themselves on the back and say how good Australians have it. Every single day we hear them say that, but let's look at the facts. Living standards and real disposable incomes have fallen by 8.7 per cent since Labor came to power. Albo's little gold coin is worth almost 10 per cent less than when those opposite came to power. That's what you get with Labor—aspiration dies and hope dies. Australians are, understandably, seeing less and less light at the end of the tunnel as things continue to get worse. Labour productivity has collapsed by 6.3 per cent. There is no pathway to prosperity without labour productivity. Paul Keating understood that, but Paul Keating is at war with this Treasurer. Everyone is at war with the Treasurer now—the Productivity Commission, the RBA and most economists around the country. He, on the other hand, has failed to win the war against inflation and certainly hasn't won the war on productivity, which has collapsed by 6.3 per cent. Household savings are down by over 10 percentage points. Australians are giving up hope. They're cracking open the big piggy banks because they've run out of anything else. So they've essentially stopped saving under this government. They have to to make ends meet. Personal income taxes are 25 per cent higher than when Labor came to power. Chris Richardson makes the point that we have had raging inflation over the last two years, which has been at its highest level since Labor has been in power. Shame. The Prime Minister should take note of that. Inflation is terrible for households. It drives up interest rates, it drives up the cost of living, it drives up taxes being paid and it drives bracket creep, which means the tax rate goes up as well. Interest paid on mortgages has almost tripled, and the economy is experiencing the slowest GDP growth since the 1990s. Indeed, there have been six quarters of GDP per capita going backwards. That's a household recession. Households have seen their GDP per person going backwards for six consecutive audits, which is absolutely extraordinary. In the 50 years since we've been keeping that data we haven't seen that before. Fifty years ago was a long time ago. Abba had just put out 'Waterloo', the Rubik's cube had just been invented and the Fonz had just appeared on our TV screens in Happy Days. They were happier days. They were under Gough Whitlam, but they were happier days, I have to say. But the truth is it's a long time in which we haven't seen anything like what we are seeing today. You see a lot of economists talking about the desperate situation with our economy that came out of the national accounts just last week. Warren Hogan said: 'We are going backwards in terms of our living standards. Our productivity is falling. Our government is growing. If this is our new economy'—it might be the fourth economy—'then the standard of living of one of the world's wealthiest countries is going to go away.' The KPMG chief economist Brendan Rynne has this to say: 'The public sector has a foot on the accelerator and the Reserve Bank's foot is on the brake. It's stalling the economy. In effect, we are in no man's land.' He is saying it, too. It's a good line. He said: 'Government spending is not sustainable and is effectively taking from Peter to pay Paul.' Brendan Rynne goes on to say: 'Whilst there's this idea that government spending has saved the economy, what it's effectively done is just move the deck chairs around.' That's what those opposite like to do. They certainly want to do that with the Reserve Bank, don't they? They want to move deck chairs around there and get rid of the people they don't like and put some of their mates in. EY Chief economist Cherelle Murphy has said the lack of coordination between fiscal and monetary policy means the path to low and stable inflation and therefore lower interest rates is slower than it needs to be. We want to see this economy get back on track. We want to see Australians' standard of living restored. We want to see inflation back within the target band. We want to see interest rates getting back to the level where they are sustainable for Australians. We want to see real wages rising, not falling the nine per cent they have for working families under this government. We want to see the productivity that drives prosperity getting back on track. But the only way to do that is to get back to basics. That means cutting red tape, securing our energy future and reforming our tax system so that it's simpler and fairer, with lower taxes, particularly for small business. We've announced a substantial expansion of accelerated depreciation. It means restoring sensible workplace laws that are good for both workers and employers, for both sides, something that those opposite used to believe in. It means encouraging small business and enterprise and supporting a strong financial sector. All of that leads to a situation where Australian families see hope restored, their standard of living restored and their aspirations restored and Australians believing again that Australia is the greatest country in the world to live in. That's what we stand for. That's what we will be fighting for all the way through to the next election. 16:54 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Thanks for waking me up after the shadow Treasurer spoke. I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill as brought to the House by the Treasurer, my good friend, my neighbour, the honourable member for Rankin. The bill seeks to implement reforms to strengthen the Reserve Bank of Australia and make it more independent, efficient and ready for the rest of the 21st century. The first question we need to ask the chamber, the mighty backbench team opposite me, is: Why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? Why would the LNP fight against the Reserve Bank when the governor said she supports this legislation? Why would they vote against this positive change? Why are they fighting the Reserve Bank? That's the question that we'll come back to throughout this debate. With respect, we had a shadow Treasurer who spent 24 minutes successfully avoiding the legislation in front of the chamber. It was quite a droit move, I guess, because the Treasurer has worked hard with the shadow Treasurer over the past 18 months to reflect the shadow Treasurer's views and gain bipartisan support. We don't want to go off dancing with the crossbench in the House of Reps or in the Senate. This is a serious piece of economic legislation that should be debated by the parties of government. Instead, those opposite seem to be running for the hills, and betraying Menzies. He must be spinning in his grave at what has become of the mighty Liberal Party, or the LNP version in Queensland. We needed this to have bipartisan support, which is why the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, worked with the shadow Treasurer. The Labor government believes that the reforms to the RBA, one of Australia's most important economic institutions, should enjoy opposition endorsement. In fact, on a number of points, Labor accepted the opposition's preferred approach because it wants to drive this important legislation forward. As I said, the shadow Treasurer had six requests that he put to the Treasurer. And how many of those six requests were accommodated? All six. Sadly, the member for Hume was then rolled in yet another example of the constant negativity we get from the coalition. I saw negativity trotted out every single day under Tony Abbott when he was the opposition leader. I saw that in the 43rd Parliament, where he perfected the art of saying no. The Leader of the Opposition has obviously copied from the Tony Abbott playbook and has just said no to everything. He doesn't believe in national unity. He has no vision for our nation. All he can do is say no. His default response to any reform is to say no. It's his go-to happy position. Over history, many countries have been led by the strongman leader. If you look through your history books, you can see them. They're peppered throughout the history books. And the member for Dickson, having studied under Tony Abbott, has said, 'Give me some of that tactic.' Deputy Speaker, have you ever been to Aldi? I don't know about the Aldis in Victoria, but in Queensland, the middle aisle has a treasure trove of amazing things. The member for Dickson, the opposition leader, has become the strongman bought in the treasure trove at Aldi. That's where he's picked up his strongman persona. It does not quite work. He's a poor man's emulation of Tony Abbott. Contrast this approach, the 'Dr No' approach, with the Albanese Labor government. This bill was not discussed by the shadow Treasurer at all. He touched on it once in 25 minutes. This bill implements the government's response to an independent review of the Reserve Bank of Australia. I heard the backbenchers opposite talking about independence. This is a review that was not mentioned by the shadow Treasurer. We're backing this reform to reintroduce the independence of the RBA and to mandate the RBA's overarching objective, as supported by Governor Bullock. I've heard a lot of questions of late about people supposedly attacking the RBA. Those speaking need to indicate why they are attacking a piece of legislation that the Reserve Bank governor supports. The measures included in this bill and the other associated changes represent the biggest reforms for the Reserve Bank in over three decades. These measures will ensure that our monetary policy framework is sound and that the RBA can make the right calls that are in the best interests of the Australian people and the Australian economy. I say again: to vote against them, as the LNP intends to do, is to fight the Reserve Bank governor's recommendation. Australia as a nation has enjoyed historically good economic outcomes. Despite what the shadow Treasurer has said, most of those economic reforms were set up under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. They were the economic visionaries who set Australia up for years and years of growth, as acknowledged by John Howard, the longest-serving Liberal Prime Minister. Our ability to stay stable and strong through crises such as the global financial crisis has made Australia a gold-star economy and meant that we're a strong market for foreign investment. One of the key reasons we're able to absorb supply-and-demand shocks to our economy is the ability of the RBA to adapt and react to changing economic times. The RBA is a strong arm's-length institution in Australia. Maintaining and strengthening its independence is imperative in futureproofing our economy. Giving the RBA a strong set of aims and the tools necessary to achieve them will ensure that the Australian economy continues to be stable long into the future. One of the recommendations from the Reserve Bank review was to ensure the trajectory of the RBA was a long-term objective. This bill seeks to implement this recommendation with the mandate that the overarching objective of the RBA is to—and I quote for those opposite—'promote the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia both now and into the future.' How could the LNP vote against this? Why would they want to fight the Reserve Bank? It is a big question that goes to the character of those opposite, I would suggest. As our financial systems evolve and become more complex, our targets must also involve. This bill confirms that monetary policies should have the dual objectives of price stability and contributing to full employment. You'd have to be an idiot to vote against such a proposition. Without setting out strong targets for the RBA, we cannot have a stable monetary policy, and this outlines the RBA as a robust arm's-length institution while still giving it a strong set of aims. We all agree that the RBA is a vital institution and it's imperative that we continue to ensure its ability to operate in the modern financial system. Part of this approach will be to replace the existing Reserve Bank Board with a new monetary policy board and a governance board. The Monetary Policy Board will be responsible for the monetary and financial system stability policies of the RBA, chaired by the governor. The Governance Board will determine the policy of the RBA that is not within the remit of the Monetary Policy Board or the Payments System Board and will be the accountable authority of the bank. The Payments System Board will continue to set the RBA's payment system policy and will be chaired by the governor. This approach will aid in delivering stronger monetary policy decision-making and will give the RBA the flexibility to make nuanced monetary policy decisions. So I ask again: why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? This bill will also clearly delineate the responsibilities of each board and establish a mechanism to facilitate consultation in the event of any overlap. The governor of the Reserve Bank will be a member of all three boards and will be responsible for resolving any disagreements between the boards. The governor will be the first chair of the Governance Board; this enables continuity during a period of change. External chairs may be appointed after the initial transition period. The governance model will ensure that the Monetary Policy Board and the Payments System Board can achieve their legislative functions independently. All three boards will be subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 except where there are inconsistencies with their statutory functions. So I ask yet again: why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? Existing members of the Reserve Bank Board will transition to the Monetary Policy Board automatically. The exception is if they advise the Treasurer that their preference is to be on the Governance Board. The Labor government is happy to respect the wishes of the current board members, especially as the Monetary Policy Board has a different set of responsibilities and expectations. These include time commitment, public engagements and the publication of unattributed votes. This proposed amendment has been included to meet the expectation of the opposition specifically, as discussed and agreed on with the shadow Treasurer, and with the expectation that all current board members automatically move to the monetary policy board. So I ask again: why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? The modern Australian economy requires modern monetary policy, ensuring that the dual mandate of the RBA is imperative for the future stability of the RBA. Full employment has always been a goal of monetary policy since the inception of the RBA. Price stability and managing inflation are goals that are consistent with how the RBA has interpreted its mandate for many, many years. Formalising these processes gives the RBA a stronger mandate to fulfil these responsibilities. In a modern, globalised economy, it's imperative that price stability remains a consistent goal to give us a good grounding in all international trade agreements. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023 reinforces the RBA's independence through limiting the power of the Treasurer to override the RBA's monetary policy decisions. The Treasurer will only be able to exercise this power in extreme circumstances, or when doing so is in the public interest. Asserting the autonomy of the RBA sends a strong signal both to Australians and the international market. This message is that we are committed to long-term stable economic management. So I ask again: why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? Ensuring the RBA's independence allows it to get on with managing monetary policy and allows us to get on with the business of governing. The Albanese government has made strong economic management a priority since we were elected. Allowing the RBA to manage monetary policy while we focus on fiscal policy has ensured that we create sensible long-term economic reform. This bill will also remove the power of the RBA to determine the lending policies of banks. This is a straightforward procedural change. The institution of APRA is now responsible for directing the lending activity of private banks, therefore it does not make sense for the RBA to have this remit. The RBA has not exercised its power to determine lending policy since APRA was established way back in 1998—last century. One of the first acts of the Treasurer when we entered government was to conduct a review of the RBA. This is because we are dedicated to fact based, rational economic management. Reviewing our institutions is imperative in ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of a continually evolving economy. This bill is the combination of this review and implements the government's response to the many recommendations. The review, called An RBA fit for the future, indicates that to continue evolving our institutions need to keep up with the modern world. Just like the RBA we are dedicated to being fit for the future and the Albanese government has a clear commitment to a better future for all Australians. And so I ask again: why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? Robust institutions, paired with robust governments, create a strong and stable nation. This bill implements key reforms to the Reserve Bank in order to make sure that our main economic institution is capable of combating the economic challenges of the modern world. The Labor government has consulted extensively not only with the shadow Treasurer and other members of the opposition but with current and former RBA staff and academics to develop a fact based bipartisan approach to our monetary policy. As I've mentioned, when making changes to the Reserve Bank, it is vital that we have a strong consensus on the way forward. So I ask those opposite again: why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? Everyone in Parliament House understands the importance of stability when it comes to our national economy. That is why we've taken steps to make sure that these reforms come from a full review and with widespread consultation. So I ask yet again: why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? The Albanese government is strongly committed to sensible and responsible economic reform and management. We do so as a party of government, not as a party of protest. This bill is the embodiment of this commitment and demonstrates how mature governments create long-term policy outcomes that benefit all Australians. So I ask those opposite yet again: why would the LNP fight the Reserve Bank by voting against this positive change? In closing, I go back to this bill. It's quite a simple bill. It's a bill that has been consulted on with the opposition because they are a party of government. We did not want to go and consult the crossbench and see where some of their more extreme views would go. We wanted to consult with the party of government. The shadow Treasurer was on board and then was rolled by the guy that came from the Aldi treasure aisle. In closing, we know that this legislation will create a stronger government, a strong economy, and a stronger Australia. I commend this bill to the House and ask the LNP to go back to the Aldi treasurer aisle and buy themselves a new leader. 17:10 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I will miss the member for Moreton. I will miss him deeply. Labor didn't miss him; they shot him down in his prime, sadly. He was just about to cut loose, too. He knows the personal regard I have for him. On this, as with many of his speeches, he offers so much work for us to engage in, and I am going to take him up on three points because there are three points I think we want to hear as these Labor talking points get repeated through the rest of this speech. Firstly, there is the bizarre accusation that we are somehow fighting with the RBA. Let's call this out. This is what we call an accusation in the mirror. It's a tactic you use to attribute your motives to your opponent and hope no-one will notice. Scoundrels across the world use it in politics to try to get away from the fact that they've been caught out. You've been caught out. You're fighting with the RBA. Every single credible economist is saying this. Labor is fighting with the RBA at the moment. There is no-one in the world who is going to listen to that speech, no matter how many times the member for Moreton or any other Labor members speaks afterwards and tries to twist the world around. They have picked a fight with the RBA, the world has seen it and that is what we're going to call it. Secondly, when we speak to this piece of legislation, one of the things I'm going to raise is the various attacks that have been made on the RBA. That speech was, again, laden with attacks: attacks on the shadow Treasurer, attacks on the Leader of the Opposition, attacks on the character of us opposite. This is all they've got. They've been caught out. They're using poor logic in their arguments and they're using personal attacks. I think the third point is very relevant to this piece of legislation: pointing to the time of Paul Keating as the Treasurer. Credit where it's due: some of his reforms will be remembered for a long time in this country for the benefit they raised. But, when we're talking about the independence of the RBA, I'd like to take you to one of Paul Keating's more famous quotes, talking about his relationship with Bernie Fraser, where he said, 'I've got the RBA in my pocket.' That was Keating's view on the relationship between the government and the RBA. So, if we're going to praise that time, let's remember that that's exactly the view he took in terms of how the government and the RBA's relationship should look. I think it's relevant when we look at the objections that this side of the House are raising to this particular piece of legislation. I thank the member Moreton for all the fodder he gives us, but it was on 28 February that I first raised my concerns about the government's intentions around stacking the RBA. I called it out back then. It was in the Sydney Morning Herald. I was concerned that the proposed legislation at that stage was going to give Labor the power to stack the board so that they could control decisions on interest rates and effectively reduce the independence of the RBA by stealth. That was my concern at the time. I raised my concerns publicly and I stand by them. To his eternal credit, the shadow Treasurer argued, no, we must give the government the opportunity to demonstrate that their intentions are pure and that, in what is an important piece of work that has been done—the review of the RBA—they will not use the findings of the report to reduce the independence of the RBA and will act with a good conscience, putting the needs of the people of Australia first and ensuring that the independence of the RBA is maintained. The shadow Treasurer held that view. It's important. I think it speaks to the views of this side of the House. We have treasured the independence of the RBA. In fact, I've talked about the relationship between Keating and Fraser. It was under Peter Costello and his relationship with Ian Macfarlane that we established, firmly, the independence of the RBA and gave them clear guidelines on conduct to follow. Ever since that time, by setting the target band of inflation that the RBA was to work towards, we have had that independence. We can see that in commentary from former prime minister John Howard, where he talked about how, in his time, there were decisions made by the RBA that certainly caused him a lot of grief but he had to accept that there was an independent decision-making process and that the RBA were the right people to make those decisions. They were the independent body to make those decisions. Whether we like it or not, that's the process. So this side of the House has stood up, and we have runs on the board in terms of this. This is important to us. As time has gone on in this debate, there has been a worrying trend of attacks on the RBA and specifically on the RBA governor, Michele Bullock. These have been coming from Labor, starting directly from the Treasurer himself claiming that the RBA was smashing the economy—a claim that no credible economist has substantiated. No-one else is willing to stand behind that. That is a claim that has absolutely no substance and that no-one credible believes, and yet our Treasurer made it, trying to convince Australians that the pain that they're suffering—the economic pain that is going from household to household—is the result of the RBA. This was followed up from the very top of the Labor Party. Wayne Swan decided to jump in and claim that the RBA was punching itself in the face. He was backing that up, going a little bit further than the Treasurer. Shortly, after Mr Swan's comments, the Treasurer tried to disassociate himself from those comments but maintained that the RBA were the bad guys in the situation and were, indeed, smashing the economy. If that weren't a bad enough hit job, they have now come in to put in front of us this legislation that enables the government to sack and stack the RBA board as they see fit. We had this incredible piece from the ABC on Friday, with one senior Labor figure describing the RBA as 'barbarians', as 'weirdos' and as being in the thrall of a 'bizarre groupthink', and, worst of all, saying that Governor Bullock is a 'nutter'. This is coming from a senior Labor figure, quoted in the ABC. This is a series of attacks that we have seen coming from the government in the lead-up to putting this legislation on the table. The Treasurer's position has been backed by the Prime Minister, by members of the government frontbench and by Labor aligned commentators. No-one from the government has acknowledged that these statements are indeed attacks that are without precedent, that do nothing to help the Australian people and that do nothing to maintain the independence of the RBA. There is no apology from the government for these baseless attacks. The government was then challenged: 'So if you think the RBA should change its attitude then simply change the target band. Go on: change the target band. If you want to see interest rates reduced, change the target band, which would allow the RBA to make a different decision.' When they were challenged with that, of course, they ran away from that: 'Oh, no, we wouldn't want to actually do anything. These are just attacks. These are simply attacks we're going to throw out.' When we see these sorts of attacks come through, it absolutely makes us question the motives of the government in bringing forward this legislation. Why else would you try and drag the RBA through the mud in the way that they have tried to do here, in the lead-up to the introduction of legislation that would enable them to sack and stack the board in a way that suits the government of the day? It's incredible; it's absolutely incredible. Why are we here? Why are we seeing this? Why does the government feel the need to increase its influence and to remove the independence of the RBA board? We're here because things are bad. The economy is in a very, very bad way. Living standards have fallen by 8.7 per cent since this government came to power. That is incredible. That is more than in any other OECD country. Productivity has collapsed by 6.3 per cent. We've seen that household savings, which were built up during the COVID period, are now down 10.2 per cent. The economy has absolutely stalled. Outside of the pandemic, it's experiencing the slowest GDP growth rates since the 1990s. Things are bad. When going through this piece of legislation and the intent that is clearly behind it, I think it's important for people who believe in the independence of the RBA to stand up and say, 'Things are bad, but it is not the fault of the RBA.' The RBA have a very clear mandate, a very clear target band that they have to bring inflation down to. That is their job. This side of the House absolutely stands by any measures that can be made to improve the board, the functioning and the way that the RBA works. We have been committed to that all the way through, and the shadow Treasurer's patience in working with the Treasurer on this bill all the way through is a demonstration of our willingness to engage in that process. But we must make this point very clear to Australians: this is not the RBA's fault. We are not here because of the RBA. The challenges you are facing in your economy are not because of the RBA. Do not listen to these attacks. These attacks were done as a prelude to this legislation coming through. They have a clear purpose, and it is not a purpose that aligns with the betterment of Australia. It is not a purpose that will help bring inflation down. It is not a purpose that'll make life easier for Australians and Australian households and businesses. It is purely a political purpose. It will enable the government of the day to influence and put pressure on the decisions of the RBA. I think that is a terrible situation. We can debate this piece of legislation, but the reality is that it'll go through the House and it'll go up to the Senate, and there we will see a prelude of what a minority Labor-Greens government might look like. We'll get a little sniff of just what a Labor-Greens minority government might look like, because it is there that the Greens will have their way with the RBA. That's a terrifying thought, because we've already heard that it is the express intention of the Greens to enable the Treasurer to have the power to overturn interest rate decisions. That's what they're putting on the table as a starting point. The second one they've talked about is that they want the RBA to tell banks how to lend. This is where the Greens are starting from: a level of intervention which is unlike anything we have seen. This is where we're heading. So, as sad as I am to see the process of the shadow Treasurer trying to work with the Treasurer on this and to see this come to the resolution it has, I am quite grateful, because we get to see a prelude of what a minority government might look like when the Labor government has to deal with the Greens and when Greens ideology will play out on such important issues as how the RBA board will function and operate. I think the Australian people will be grateful for the opportunity to see that too, because there is nothing more terrifying than the thought of the Greens being at the helm of the most important independent economic body in Australia and having the control and influence to get a Treasurer to overturn the RBA's decision on interest rates. What a terrifying thought! This is exactly what Peter Costello set out, way back in 1996, to ensure would never happen again—that never again could we have a treasurer, like Paul Keating, say, 'I've got the RBA in my pocket.' On this side of the House, we don't want that, and we have fought to maintain that position. As we stand here today, that is exactly where the government is taking us: back in time to a place where the Treasurer has the RBA in their pocket because that is explicitly the desire of the Greens party. We are going back in time and back to a worse place. This will not make life easier for Australians. This will not make life better for Australians. It is short-term opportunism on behalf of the government. They should be ashamed. 17:25 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Prior to the 2022 election, Labor committed to conducting an independent review of the RBA. The matter before us today is yet another example of the Albanese Labor government fulfilling its election commitments. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023 addresses those aspects of the RBA review requiring legislation. It should be noted that not all recommendations of the review are covered by the bill before us. Some are being dealt with administratively by both the RBA and the government and partially through the Statement on the conduct of monetary policy, while other recommendations are progressed by the Council of Financial Regulators. More than ever before, Australia needs a strong monetary policy and framework, and, more than ever, Australia needs a strong, high-performance central bank. The government knows these are challenging times, and we know the struggles that Australians are facing. It is timely that this bill is before us today because the legislation is central to ensuring that we have the best and strongest monetary policy possible to meet both the challenges of today and those of tomorrow. Firstly, the legislation before us reinforces the independence of the RBA in the operation of monetary policy. The corollary of this is removing the government's power to override monetary decisions. Interestingly, this override has never actually been used, but formalising it is nonetheless important if we're going to have a genuinely independent operation of monetary policy. Secondly, the bill mandates the RBA's overarching objective to promote the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia now and into the future. This statement of intent is important to ensure that the RBA stays on track to serve the people it is meant to—all Australians. Next, the bill confirms that monetary policy should have the dual objectives of price stability and contributing to full employment. The dual mandate is consistent with how the RBA interpreted its mandate for many years. Both of these mandates will ensure that inflation and its destructive effects are addressed as well. Fourthly, two new boards will be created. One will be focused on monetary policy, and the other will be focused on the management of the RBA. The Monetary Policy Board will be responsible for the monetary and financial system stability policies. It will be chaired by the governor. The Governance Board will determine the policy of the RBA not in the remit of the Monetary Policy Board or the Payments System Board and will be the accountable authority of the bank. The Payments System Board will continue to set the RBA's payments system policy. This governance model minimises the potential for confusion or conflict by clearly delineating the responsibilities of each board and establishing a mechanism to facilitate consultation in the event of an overlap. Importantly, the governor is set to be a member of all three boards and will therefore be charged with resolving any disagreements between them. Fifthly, this bill clarifies the RBA's responsibility to contribute to the financial system stability. Finally, the bill repeals the RBA's power to direct the lending activity of private or commercial banks, a function that was transferred to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority back in 1998. The RBA has been in existence since 1960. Since that time, as a nation we've faced any number of challenging economic circumstances, not least the GFC. The current times present their own unique set of challenges and difficulties. The task for this parliament is to ensure that our institutions, not least our central bank, are up to speed and fit for purpose to meet these challenges. This bill does that. I commend the bill to the House. 17:29 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Thank you to my colleagues from both sides who have spoken on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023. It is a sad position that we have arrived at. It seems that in many negotiations for bipartisan support, which is to be welcomed, they don't always get there. The glue required for it to get there is trust. That trust was broken in the last week. And it was broken by the conduct and the actions of the Treasurer, backed in by others, including the former Treasurer and his former boss in their attack of the RBA. That's what changed here. We've heard indignation upon indignation from those opposite saying, 'How dare you not sign up to the agreement that we were negotiating with you?' It happened because of the very calculated way in which the Treasurer sought to deflect attention and accountability from himself and the government to the RBA. That's the unprecedented change. That's why we're in this position. It is disappointing that that has happened. You have to ask: why has the Treasurer done that? He has done that because of the real economic data that is coming in. It's data that we know to be true when we speak to families in our electorate. They know they have less money in their pocket. They know that the prices of everything are going up. They know that their mortgage repayments are at record levels. They know they are being pushed into higher tax brackets through bracket creep. They know that real incomes are down because their real incomes are down. Let's look at the data we've had come in. Living standards in Australia have collapsed. They have collapsed by a figure of 8.7 per cent since this government took office. It's common in various election campaigns for leaders or opposition leaders to ask, 'Are you better off than you were two or three years ago?' It's a legitimate question, and it can't be a question that's asked in a self-serving way when it suits. The answer to that question—and we're not fully through this term—is no, and by a figure of 8.7 per cent. The average wage in Australia is $95,000. The median wage, which half of all Australians are on, is $65,000. They didn't have 8.7 per cent sitting around in a savings account to deal with this loss in real income. Let's talk about the three categories that are hitting Australians. Firstly, there is the cost of everything. The key energy commodity, gas, which is particularly important in the colder states like mine, in Victoria, is up 33 per cent.  For anyone who knows a little bit about compound maths, how does that work going forward? It works in this way. I spoke to a dry cleaner in my electorate, in Templestowe, who has been there for many decades. He said that in the last six years—and I acknowledge that goes over multiple governments—his gas bill for his drycleaning business is six times what it used to be. Other than wages—and he's self-employed, so he is the wage—gas is his No. 1 expense. It's gone up six times in six years. It's rising faster than it ever has before. Electricity is up 14 per cent, even after the rebates; rent is up 16 per cent; health is up 11 per cent; education is up 11 per cent; food is up 12 per cent; and insurance is up 17 per cent. You can't just isolate those increases to this term. They are compounded over time so that when people reflect upon where they were five or 10 years ago, there are many multiple increases in the bills that are going out. So the first part of the trifecta is the cost of living. And it's more than a slogan. It is about real impact and that heartbeat that gets skipped when people open that envelope and look at the bill. The second part of the trifecta is interest rates and mortgage repayments. Those who are paying off a mortgage or trying to rent a house where the landlord is paying off a mortgage are getting hit harder than anyone else. My good friend the member for Bennelong is sitting opposite. We've heard from the big bank CEOs who have quite clearly said that not all Australians have been hit equally. They're not. Those who have been hit hardest are aged between 30 and 44, and they live in the south-eastern states, including my state of Victoria and the member for Bennelong's state of New South Wales. They're being hit extra hard. It's not an accident that that's happening under this government's watch. The third part of the trifecta that leads to the drop in real disposable income is the fact that income tax is rising as Australians are pushed through higher brackets for income tax. That's what is referred to by the term 'bracket creep'. So what does the government propose to do in all of this? The one thing they could do that is meaningful is to take pressure off the Reserve Bank by pulling spending back, and they haven't done that. In fact, they've done the opposite: they've put their foot on the gas. They have massively increased spending in this term, and that has caused, more than anything else, the Reserve Bank to have to do the work. The second part is what we hear about all the time in question time, in talking points and in the media: 'Don't worry about the 8.7 per cent loss in real disposable income; the government's here to help.' But that help is treating the symptoms and not the cause of this economic crisis. We are giving families who are facing a $10 increase in a bill a $1 subsidy—10 to one. It's not even touching the edges. It's not helping, but the government get to say, 'We're here to help, and you voted against it, coalition.' 'Well, we are a serious party that is here to propose solutions that treat the causes and not the symptoms, and the cause is excessive government spending.' Then, again, the reply is predictable: 'Oh, well, coalition, tell us what key programs you're going to cut, including in veterans and in much-needed care-economy expense items.' Again, that's a cheap talking point. At the very time when families are cutting back on their own expenses—they're finding savings, and they don't have many places to look—we know there is waste and inefficiency in government. We know that, and there are many places to find savings. We know this government is not even looking for them, because it's having you or the RBA do all the work on the increases. When we considered these reforms, there were some good parts that I think sensible people can agree on. But at the core of our concern is a lack of trust in this government to deal with it, because this government is looking for anyone to blame but itself. The Treasurer has shown that in question time. There's a reason the Treasurer was asked a question in question time today and yesterday. There were a lot of complaints that we weren't doing that in the last sitting period, but I do not think the government's too happy that they are getting asked. The Treasurer was asked to confirm if Australia had been in a household recession for the past six quarters, which is the longest-running per capita drop on record. It's a pretty simple question with a simple answer. What did he say? All he could say was that the government was throwing around multiple billions in subsidies—the very thing that's leading to the increase in interest rates. That's all he could respond with. He was invited to confirm that, since the government was elected, Australian families have suffered a bigger real fall in disposable income than any other OECD country—it's not a record you want to break. Again, instead of addressing that real concern, which is a fact, the Treasurer spent his time talking about the coalition, engaging in politics rather than actually solving the problems for Australian families. This is bigger than the election cycle that we have before us. We have collapsing productivity rates in Australia. When we pull open and dust off the Intergenerational report from last year, we see that current projections of government spending will go from $25,000 per person to $40,000 per person in 2063, within a generation—and that's adjusted for inflation. Without increases in productivity, how does that work? How do we get to be the prosperous nation that people move heaven and earth to move to? How do we get to be a nation that rewards hard work, education and people who take a risk, rather than being born into the right family? How does that work when the average wage will still be, with no increases in productivity, $95,000—and a median of $65,000—when $40,000 per person is required for Commonwealth government spending alone? It doesn't work. So this isn't just about the immediate cycle. This is structural. This is serious. It's about what sort of nation we want to be and whether we can afford the things that Australians rely upon us to deliver. It would have been nice to have worked together on this, but trust was obliterated when the government and the Treasurer sought to avoid responsibility for the very thing they have been elected to deal with. We talk about going to our electorates and earning their trust. Well, Australians lent their trust to this government at the last election, and it has been abused. I think Australians are asking themselves, 'Am I better off than I was 2½ years ago?' and the answer is a clear 'no'. 17:40 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023. It's been made very clear that the opposition will not be supporting the government's proposals here to reform the Reserve Bank Act. We approached this topic with a great deal of good faith, and it is very disappointing that the government has taken us to the point where we can't work with them and support them in reform of the Reserve Bank, because the thing I do agree with the Treasurer about is that these things should be bipartisan. We're talking about how the monetary policy of this country operates, and how the trusted organisation—the Reserve Bank—which quite rightly has independence from political interference, operates, governs itself and makes decisions that affect every single Australian. It is disappointing that the government is now pursuing reform without bipartisanship. This brings back memories of the last time they did this on something that required bipartisanship: the Indigenous voice referendum. We all know how that ended up. We'll see what negotiations they do in the Senate with the minor parties, but it's very regrettable that they want to push forward with reform of an institution that should be above partisan politics—the Reserve Bank—without bipartisan support. What's just as regrettable is the behaviour of members of the broad Labor family on the record and off the record in the last few weeks, deciding to now start to turn the RBA and its decision-making into some kind of political attack point, deciding that they're feeling so much heat from the electorate in this cost-of-living crisis that maybe they can make it all someone else's fault. Some comments have been veiled. Some have been more direct. Some people have been cowardly and not put their name to their commentary in off-the-record briefings to journalists. The Treasurer has been very wishy-washy in what he's had to say and the confidence that he has and hasn't at different times expressed about the way in which the RBA operates. Former Treasurer Swan was outrageous and appalling in just the last week in the way in which he launched his own attack on the Reserve Bank and the decisions it is making. The Reserve Bank is doing what it needs to do, which is make decisions with the policy lever it has: monetary policy, the cost of capital in our economy. If they were working in concert with those that have the fiscal policy lever—the federal government—then they might not have had to make some of the decisions that they have in the last few years since Labor was elected. I, like everyone, wish interest rates were lower, not like the government, because they're worried about their own political future, but because I genuinely care about the people who are struggling to meet the costs of their mortgages and other debts that they might have because interest rates have so dramatically increased since Labor came to power. But, of course, monetary policy interacts with fiscal policy. Monetary policy can loosen, encourage and stimulate the economy or it can contract to dampen the economy. The Reserve Bank has to make decisions based on their forecasts and various other sources of information that they have access to to make judgements on how the economy is travelling and, in particular, their primary goal, which is to make sure that inflation is kept between a target band of two and three per cent. That hasn't been the case for the last couple of years. The Reserve Bank has increased the overnight cash rate, which obviously results in a cascade of rate adjustments across the various loans in our economy. The Reserve Bank is the most reliable lender in Australian currency. They print the Australian currency, so they're the most reliable lender. Whatever their rate is, every other rate will be set against it. The most significant one for any Australian is their mortgage rate. Mortgage rates are running high because the Reserve Bank has had to increase interest rates to try and tame inflation. Fiscal policy can play a big role in inflation because government spending is an enormous part of economic activity: when it expands it fuels inflation, and when it contracts it puts downward pressure on inflation. We have a situation where the Reserve Bank, who are doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to addressing the overheating economy and high inflation, are now being attacked by the government. The government are not doing what they could with their own policy levers and are instead deciding to set up the RBA as a kind of straw man in the economic argument, as they heads towards an attempt to get themselves re-elected. Politicising the RBA should be a no-go in our modern democracy. This wasn't always the case, and certainly in decades gone by there was a lot of politicisation of decisions of the Reserve Bank. Obviously, when government are thinking about electoral cycles and deciding what may or may not have a short-term benefit or hit to their political fortunes, that can cloud their judgement in making decisions in the best interests and the long-term price stability of our economy. Clearly, we should absolutely cling to the RBA's independence of politicians and election cycles and to the structure we have now, where the Reserve Bank operates independently and makes decisions in the medium- to long-term interest of price stability in our economy, not taking into account the political impact for any particular side of politics, particularly the government of the day. What we've seen in the last few weeks, and what we're now highly suspicious of, which leads to us not being able to support these proposals, is the repoliticisation of the Reserve Bank, with political leaders cowardly starting to blame the Reserve Bank, criticising it and attacking it through the media. I'd love for the Reserve Bank to reduce interest rates, but I want them to do it because that's the sensible monetary policy decision to make. That will give them confidence that, by reducing rates, they can keep inflation in our economy within that two- to three-per-cent band, which we're not yet at. If the government of the day, this Labor government, wants to see interest rates reduced, it should think about what it could do to help the Reserve Bank have confidence that price stability in our economy, the inflation rate in our economy, is running in that target band. In the decades gone by, when governments interfered in these things and either blatantly made monetary policy decisions directly or had shadowy processes that really meant the Treasurer or finance minister of the day was exerting influence on monetary policy decisions, we had rampant inflation. That was the case across different sides of politics, I might add, and it's clearly the case around the world where counties don't have independent monetary policy setting by their central banks. The worst way to destroy wealth, to crush wealth, is for inflation to erode it away, because it gets absolutely everyone. It gets asset holders, it gets consumption and it gets real wages. No-one in the economy is rewarded in a high-inflation environment. Even worse than high inflation—or equally as bad—is high price volatility, where policy settings are changing dramatically. We see that overseas with countries that devalue their currency or bring about dramatic steps in their cost of capital by the way in which they set their cash rate at the central bank level. Business and investment completely evaporate away from those economies. We are very lucky that we've had decades and decades in this country where there has been very high confidence. Our independent central Reserve Bank and our floating exchange rate mean that there is a great deal of certainty for markets and for investors in our economy that kneejerk policy decisions that could leave capital stranded or dramatically devalued in our economy won't be made. Our economy, particularly our jobs market and people's standard of living in this country, is very much contingent on strong investment that drives an expansion of the economy, economic growth and—the most important thing in our social compact—sharing the dividends of economic growth between those who invest their capital and the workforce of the economy—making sure that real wages are growing. Wages can grow on paper nominally, and if inflation is running hotter than that—as it has for the last couple of years—then workers are going backwards. Through a lack of price stability and high inflation through the politicisation of the central bank decision-making process, the biggest destruction of wealth will come to real incomes. We know that from any study of the history of high-inflationary environments. We regret that we're not having a debate where there is genuine bipartisan support for reform to the Reserve Bank Act. That's very disappointing because it's the sort of thing that should have bipartisan support. When the Hawke-Keating government undertook the reforms that they undertook, that included central bank reform and, most importantly, things like floating the Australian dollar and having a market mechanism for the determination of the Australian dollar, which was politically difficult terrain to traverse. That was done with the support of the then opposition. Whilst what's in this bill is not in the league of those dramatic reforms, it's in the category of them, and it's really disappointing that the government's attitude is that they don't want to work with us in reform that everyone can support to something as significant in our economy as the governance of the Reserve Bank. With those comments, I urge the House not to support the second reading of this bill. 17:52 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Millions of renters, mortgage holders, young people and families across the country are really suffering and struggling to make ends meet in the wake of relentless Reserve Bank rate hikes. Since the Labor government came into power in 2022, rents have gone up by 31 per cent and the average mortgage payment has increased by a staggering $1,667 a month. Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock has publicly conceded that rate hikes are pushing people to the edge while she blithely continues to hike rates. To rub more salt in the wound, Bullock also said that people are now facing the brutal reality of having to sell their homes to survive. Who suffers most from this hiking of interest rates? Those least responsible for inflation. Yet Bullock has offered no relief or hope to the millions of Australians doing it tough, stating that she doesn't expect the RBA to cut rates in the near term. According to the Treasurer, the Reserve Bank has smashed the economy. So why is he then seeking to remove the democratic oversight over the RBA? Another capitulation by Labor to the power of capital, the big banks and the corporations. Clearly, they are the ones who have the ear of this government—not you, everyday Australians. Labor's so-called reforms to the Reserve Bank of Australia are a lost opportunity for genuine change. The RBA is described as independent, but we know that the decisions that it makes are political. These are decisions that affect every Australian. When the RBA makes a decision, someone loses. Right now, that is the 40 per cent of renters who are struggling to pay rent; the 1.6 million households in mortgage stress because of interest rate hikes; and the 85,000 Australian households who could be at risk of losing their homes. And the government wants to give Bullock and the RBA even more power? They want to remove section 11 of the RBA act, which gives the Treasurer the ability to overturn the RBA's decisions, leaving Australians at the mercy of unelected bureaucrats with zero accountability. It's appalling and dangerous. Here's what section 11 of the RBA act actually does: it gives the Treasurer the power to intervene to override the Reserve Bank when necessary. The Treasurer could use that power right now to reduce interest rates. It's truly baffling. The government tells Australians that it's working on cost-of-living relief, but it has a massive lever it could pull to offer relief to thousands of Australians right now, at this very minute, and it's not only not using it but also trying to remove that power from this Treasurer and future treasurers. No wonder ordinary Australians are feeling abandoned, even targeted, by this government. Don't let them treat you like idiots, Australians. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the Treasurer wants to rid himself of the power to overrule an RBA decision because he doesn't want to be blamed for massive increases in mortgage payments and rents. These are huge cost-of-living pressures right now for most Australians. Rather than backing everyday Australians, the Treasurer is once again choosing to wash his hands and let the banks and the corporations continue making massive profits off people's pain. The banks aren't here for you; that's clear. Recently, we heard Matt Comyn, the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, boasting about their half-yearly profit of $5 billion. That's not even a full year, and they've made $5 billion in profit. Then he calls the Greens proposal to tax such excessive profits 'insidious populism'—those are Matt Comyn's words. So of course he likes the system just the way it is. Labor and the LNP are colluding when it comes to protecting the interests of the banks. Over the last decades, the big banks have donated $5 million to Labor and $6 million to the LNP. What do the banks get in return for this generosity? They get enormous profits—profits off the backs of hard-working Australians who are drowning in debt. There's no clearer example of how power really works in this country. If you're facing the prospect of having to sell your home—thanks for the suggestion, Governor Bullock—or you don't think you'll be able to pay your rent at the end of the fortnight, I just want you to know that the Labor government has the power to bring down interest rates right now and it's choosing not to. The Labor government should retain and use its existing power to overrule the RBA and bring down interest rates. This bill, in its current form, again illustrates Labor's failure to stand up to the banks and the corporations—indeed, its comprehensive capture by them. Instead of letting the RBA turbocharge the cost-of-living crisis, Labor should be stopping inflation and corporate profiteering—by supporting the Greens super profits tax, to tax corporations that are price-gouging and driving up the cost of essentials, by freezing rents, by putting dental cover into Medicare and by making child care free. These initiatives, proposed by the Greens, would actually bring down inflation and help people, as opposed to what the RBA, with the government's tacit support, is doing—pushing renters, young people and mortgage holders, who aren't causing inflation, to the brink. 17:58 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook That's one of the most dangerous economic ideas I've heard in my time in this place—having Labor overrule the RBA on interest rates. The RBA has been one of the most effective independent institutions that the Australian government has. To suggest that a political party should be overruling an independent body that is managing our economy and managing inflation is absolutely economic vandalism and risks plunging this country into a deeper economic crisis than it already finds itself in. That is absolutely ludicrous from the last member. We need to defend the Reserve Bank, which safeguards our prosperity; we need to defend it from politicisation. Suggesting that a party should be setting interest rates running into an election is absolute lunacy. Sadly, through inflationary periods, we're reminded of its importance. That is absolute populism to say that we should allow political parties to set interest rates. Since the first formal agreement on the framework for monetary policy in 1996, which was the formal endorsement of the RBA utilising monetary policy to achieve an inflation rate of two to three per cent, we've seen its impact. Before this, from 1976 to 1984, inflation grew 9.3 per cent annually. Between 1985 and 1992, it grew 6.3 per cent annually. Following the implementation of this target and empowering an independent Reserve Bank, between 1993 and 2023, inflation grew by just 2.6 per cent annually. Why is this important? To quote Ronald Reagan: The very word "inflation" leads us to think of it as just high prices. Then, of course, we resent the person who puts on the price tags, forgetting that he or she is also a victim of inflation. Inflation is not just high prices; it's a reduction in the value of our money. What does that mean? It means that individual households get poorer. And if you had a populist policy like what was suggested here, we would see Australians right across the country get poorer. It's just a great example that you cannot listen to the Greens. If you allowed the Greens anywhere near the economy, if you allowed them to share the balance of power with Labor, which is a risk in the upcoming election, this is the type of economic vandalism we will see. We risk seeing inflation getting back to where it was—9.3 per cent annually—before the Reserve Bank was made independent. Suggesting that the RBA should be overruled by a political party leading into an election on interest rates is absolutely sheer lunacy. Thanks to this Labor government, we still have too much money. I'm glad that the leader of the Greens is here. If we let a political party start overruling the RBA on interest rates in the lead-up to an election, it would be letting the kid into the candy store. It's absolute lunacy. I'm sure the Treasurer would absolutely agree. He would absolutely agree that you cannot let a political party overrule, as the Greens just suggested, an independent group of economists who have done an amazing job. Mr KENNEDY 267506 Pardon? Mr KENNEDY 267506 So the leader of the Greens—listen! We're sick of your politicising. We know you play footsies with the Greens when it suits. Now when they're talking about extreme measures— Mr Burnell 300129 On a point of order, I think the member for Cook needs to be reminded to direct his remarks through the chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T If you could assist the chair. What was said just then? Mr Burnell 300129 He keeps referring to the Treasurer as you. He's putting his remarks through you, the Chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T It would assist the House if you could withdraw. And I remind you that we refer to members by their electorate name or by their title, for example, Treasurer. Mr KENNEDY 267506 Yes. I'm sorry. I think there might have been one 'you' in there. I was trying to refer to him as the Treasurer. The Reserve Bank has been extremely successful in managing inflation. As I said, between 1976 and 1984, inflation was growing by 9.3 per cent annually; between 1985 and 1992, inflation was growing by 6.3 per cent annually; and following the implementation of this target, between 1993 and 2023, inflation increased by just 2.6 per cent. This was the first soft-edged target adopted by a reserve bank in the world, and nearly all advanced economies now use the same framework. When reflecting on this agreement, Prime Minister John Howard said, 'It gave confidence that interest rates would be set reflective of economic conditions, rather than immediate political considerations.' The RBA implemented a rate rise in 2007, held almost on the eve of a federal election, confirming the independence of this body. The Reserve Bank has saved Australian consumers and businesses billions and billions over the years in price increases driven by inflation and has saved their money from being devalued. It is regrettable that Labor and the Treasurer have chosen to throw away bipartisan convention when reforming this important institution and have instead chosen cheap populism with the Greens political party. Australian needs a strong Reserve Bank now more than ever to combat inflation when we have higher inflation than most developed countries around the world. Interest rates are the major policy lever to combat this cost-of-living crisis we are now struggling with. This policy lever is crucial for the government given core inflation remains stubbornly high, higher than almost all other advanced economies in the world, at 3.8 per cent. Our core inflation is higher than that of the US, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and many other countries. The Reserve Bank has provided crystal-clear advice that inflation remains too high. The governor is on record as saying: Make no mistake, inflation is still too high and the board does remain concerned about the degree of excess demand in the economy. The bank went on to call out Labor's inflationary spending and said: The stronger outlook for public demand reflects ongoing spending and recent announcements by federal and state and territory governments. That was the response, saying the government has its foot on the accelerator while the Reserve Bank is jamming on the brakes. The Australian economy is left to suffer in response. What was the response to the bank's frank and fearless independent advice? Dr Chalmers, who has just left the chamber, said interest rates were 'smashing the economy', ignoring his own role in creating inflation. His former boss, mentor and president of the federal Labor Party, Wayne Swan, was quick to add that 'the RBA's punching itself in the face'. Then Jacob Greber, a journalist, said a senior Labor figure, who wasn't named, claimed the governor is a 'nutter', called the Reserve Bank 'barbarians' and called them 'weirdos'. What an attack on an independent institution as legislation where they can stack the board is coming before the House. The timing could not be more politically motivated or better. It's an absolutely ridiculous attack on what is one of our best institutions. We have seen two former RBA board members come out and decry these comments made by the Treasurer and his mentor, Wayne Swan. Former RBA board member Warwick McKibbin said: You want to think that the government and the central bank are working together in the same direction for the benefit of the country. To make those sorts of comments suggested that maybe there's some other agendas at work—and that's not helpful. There sure are other agendas at work. Another former RBA member, Graham Kraehe, said: For the treasurer to then be coming out and saying, 'Well, this is the Reserve Bank's fault'. I don't think another serious economist in the country … would agree with that. They are fighting with the Reserve Bank currently. They are fighting with past board members. The Treasurer has tied one arm behind the RBA's back in trying to fight inflation with his loose fiscal policy and is shocked at this tight monetary policy, and it means we'll have higher rates for longer. Sadly, the people who will be hurt the most from that are everyday Australians, everyday families doing it tough. This loose fiscal policy has included an extra $315 billion in additional spending since 2022. That's $30,000 per household. Those opposite love to say, 'The coalition's going to be cutting $315 billion and hurting families.' But I'll tell you what: people in my electorate of Cook do not feel $30,000 better off. When I ask them how they feel after the last 2½ under a Labor government, they tell me they feel much worse off. Make no mistake: the government has created this inflation crisis. The federal government is at an equal record of 11.8 per cent of GDP for the last quarter. The only other time a federal government has been at this level was during COVID-19—never, ever before. So, while we have high rates, while we are trying to take some of the demand out of the economy, they are stuffing the economy full of money, keeping interest rates higher and devaluing hardworking Australians' bank accounts and money at home. What does that mean as a result? What have we seen? Productivity has cratered to 6.3 per cent. Not only are household savings being devalued by inflation; they've dropped 10 percentage points. We have the slowest GDP in over 30 years—since the early 1990s. We've been in a household recession for 18 months. What does that mean? It means that per capita GDP is going down. That means that each household is getting poorer and living standards are dropping. These are the implications of this policy for everyday Australians. The Treasurer is intent on assigning blame for these higher interest rates to everyone but himself. Food is now up 12 per cent. Energy is up 14 per cent, even after these rebates they crow about. They have the hubris to crow about a rebate when the average Australian is paying 14 per cent more in energy prices. Day after day, in question time, I have to listen to them slapping themselves on the back about rebates. It's a one-off rebate that is now gone, while Australians are left with energy prices that are 14 per cent higher, and that's just in a year—it's well over 20 per cent over the last two years. There's deferred health care. In 2023 a report by the Productivity Commission revealed that more people postponed or skipped GP visits in the preceding 12 months because of cost. Another report revealed that almost 50 per cent of people forwent heating their home. Labor's big spending agenda is keeping inflation higher. What are the mechanical issues with this legislation? It's surely the role of this parliament to safeguard and promote the strength of the Reserve Bank, one of the most critical institutions in this nation. Strong institutions, like this bank, this parliament and the Public Service, are vital to a strong economy and a strong democracy. They were the model that the rest of the world followed only 30 years ago, but right now we are weakening them. Any actions that undermine the strength of our institutions need to be called out and halted. The comments made by the Treasurer, the former Labor Treasurer, the current president and an unnamed coward calling the Governor of the Reserve Bank a nutter were timed precisely, just before this legislation coming before the parliament. The fundamental fault of this legislation is that it doesn't transition existing board members into the monetary policy board. Further, and less importantly, the section 11 test of 'extreme circumstances' has not been defined, leaving a back door for political decisions on what should not be political. Managing our economy is too important. We on this side of the House care about it, and we're not about to let the government wreck it. There's also an opportunity for Labor to stack the board, which they've already jumped at by appointing two former union officials to the board earlier in their term. What are the risks of the Labor Party compromising with the Greens political party to deliver this reform, and what is the response of the Treasurer to the issues identified by my colleague the shadow Treasurer? Instead of bipartisanship with the coalition, the Treasurer now reportedly wishes to make a deal with the Greens. They don't value the independence of the Reserve Bank. They just called on the government to overrule the Reserve Bank on interest rate rises now, in an election period. That's what we just heard in this chamber. It's extremely dangerous. The Greens policy thought bubble on this significant issue was to try and retain section 11 of the RBA act and grant the Treasurer a veto over decisions made by the Reserve Bank. If you think inflation is bad now—if you think your money is worth less than before and you're worse off than you were 2½ years ago—wait until they get the Treasurer to work on this provision. It's going to get worse. We're standing up for the independence of the Reserve Bank and we're standing up for everyday Australians. 18:13 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I acknowledge the presence of the Greens leader, the member for Melbourne, in the room. I recognise that he's a decent person—although, philosophically, we are absolutely poles apart—but I do worry about the member for Melbourne and the Greens getting any control or say on the Treasury benches after the next election. What we're seeing with this legislation tonight, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023, is the rub: the Greens are already having a large say on policy, including—worryingly and disturbingly—economic policy. If you read the article by the Sydney Morning Herald's economics analyst, Shane Wright, who is a very good journalist—because I trained him! I'll take some credit for that; I'm sure Shane won't mind. But this article is headed 'Chalmers eyes Greens lifeline for Reserve Bank overhaul', and he writes: Treasurer Jim Chalmers may drive through the biggest overhaul of the Reserve Bank in a generation with support from the Greens after the Coalition walked away from months of negotiations and concessions aimed at winning bipartisan approval for the changes. Yes, we did, and the member for Hume took this position for good reason. We've seen the to and fro between Labor and the independent Reserve Bank in recent days and times, and it's worrying. But let me go back a little bit. I want to acknowledge also the work that Dr Philip Lowe did as the eighth RBA governor. He was deputy governor under Glenn Stevens from February 2012 until he became the governor in his own right in September 2016, and he held that August role until September 2023. He was castigated and derided by regional newspapers for some of the comments he made about inflation. It was difficult at that time to predict what might have happened, particularly coming out of the back of the worst of COVID-19, and Dr Lowe did a very good job. Dr Lowe and I went to school together at St Michael's Regional High School. He also attended Trinity Senior High School in Wagga Wagga. It's not that I stick up for the likes of Shane Wright and Dr Lowe, but they both have been in Wagga Wagga and they understand regionality. They understand what ordinary, everyday people expect from those in positions of power. Both of them occupy or occupied positions of power, Shane as a journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald and Dr Lowe in his position with the RBA. I thought Dr Lowe was unfairly treated by some sections of the media during the latter time he was the RBA governor, and I want to put on the record my thanks to him for his role, for what he did and for appreciating and understanding the very great pressures on regional Australians and what he did during COVID. I think it's important to place those sorts of things on the record. We are in an inflation crisis at the moment. We are in a crisis of confidence and a cost-of-living crisis. Much of it—some might even argue all of it—has been brought about by Dr Chalmers and by Labor policies. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I ask the member for Riverina to address the Treasurer by his title. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Sure—by 'the Treasurer'. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if I called him 'Dr Chalmers', because he has got a doctorate, but I take your advice. I'm reading from the Sydney Morning Herald article: The Coalition initially supported the move, but in recent months has raised fears Chalmers would "sack and stack" the new committee. It had demanded all members of the current board be moved to the new committee. Chalmers had agreed to this, but also said he would not move a board member if they preferred to shift to the governance board. I know that the member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer, has said that the RBA had been undermined by the Treasurer, who last week said high interest rates have smashed the economy, trying to deflect attention from the government's role in the country's inflation. Of course the shadow Treasurer is right in that regard. We previously considered this bill very carefully, but it was agreed that the coalition would continue to engage in good faith with the government. But, unfortunately, the government is now not acting in good faith with either us, the coalition, as the opposition or with the RBA. You cannot have senior members of government—and journalists don't generally make these things up—describing members of the RBA as nutters or weirdos or barbarians. That is unacceptable, completely unacceptable. In August, the Treasurer wrote to the shadow Treasurer with some proposed amendments. The government's amendments leave open the option for a complete stitch-up of the RBA board. Following this and what I would say are extraordinary interventions of the Treasurer and his surrogates in just the past week, the coalition will not be supporting this bill. Indeed, this particular legislation implements what the government said that it was going to do with the 2023 RBA review, but it goes too far. What will happen is that we will be seeing more and more intervention by the government into the independence of the RBA. We have a situation where the government has overseen huge increases in inflation, and then we have these incendiary comments by the Treasurer about how the RBA is smashing the economy. Then he was crab-walking back from that in question time, where he repeatedly talked about $1 trillion of Liberal Party debt. First of all, it's nowhere near $1 trillion dollars. I see the member for Griffith agreeing with me. It's not often that the member for Griffith and I agree, but it's not $1 trillion. It's not more than $1 trillion either, Member for Griffith. It's nowhere near that. It's also not just the Liberal Party that actually did the job during COVID; it was the Liberal and the National parties together. In exchange for the debt that the nation found itself in, we saved tens of thousands of Australian lives at a time when the Chief Medical Officer of this nation, Dr Brendan Murphy, had said that we would lose, if something wasn't done, tens of thousands of Australian lives within weeks, if not months. We acted, and we did everything we could under bizarre, unique circumstances. The world had not seen a pandemic like this since the end of the First World War. The First World War ended in 1918, and the pandemic of 1919-20 took the lives of many people. COVID-19 threatened to wipe out so many people off the face of this earth, and, indeed, it did. In fact, it killed millions. They were piling up coffins in churches because the morgues were filled in Italy. They were burying people in mass graves on Manhattan Island in the United States of America. They are two countries with good health systems. We were faced with the prospect of what to do as a nation. We shut the borders. We put in place the National Cabinet; it worked well at the start. We put in place logistics. We put in place methods to get vaccines across the nation and throughout the Pacific. Not only did we save tens of thousands of Australian lives, but we also saved millions of jobs through JobKeeper. Then we get the Treasurer of Australia standing up and saying, 'Well, what did we get for the trillion dollars worth of Liberal Party debt?' He should stop saying that because it's just not true. What we got was the second-best rating in all of the world from the Johns Hopkins centre, that institute which measured pandemic preparedness and pandemic reaction. We should be very proud of what we did because there are people today alive who would not have been so but for the actions that we took. But Labor is growing more and more desperate. Attacks on the RBA are as unnecessary as they are unwarranted. Of course, when the Treasurer blames the RBA for 'smashing the economy', we see a very desperate Treasurer almost akin to the naughty schoolboy who didn't do his homework and who, when he comes to class and the teacher asks where the homework is, says, 'Well, the dog ate the homework,' the dog in this instance being the RBA for just doing its job. Michele Bullock is doing her job. She's doing the job she was asked to do and was put in place by this government to do. What we're seeing is rampant inflation. What we're seeing is an economy that is not supporting business. Each and every day I go into my country communities in the Riverina and the Central West and I see more shops putting up 'Closed' or 'Closing down' signs in their windows. We see more and more people sleeping in their cars. We see tents appearing in places where people simply cannot afford either rent or their own home or other accommodation. What we're getting is a Treasurer blaming the Reserve Bank governor and the Reserve Bank board and then wanting to change the rules so that the government can sack the said board and do a complete job on the Reserve Bank board. This is just unheard of and unparalleled. Then what we find is that the government wants to do a deal with the Greens, and here they are—the economic strategists of the nation. Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 Put us in charge. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Did you say 'Hass'? Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 Put us in charge. Mr McCORMACK 219646 'Put us in charge'? My goodness! Hopefully not, Member for Griffith. It is a worry. Let me tell you: if the Greens have any say on the treasury bench then this nation is headed for far worse inflation figures and cost-of-living pressures that we have now. So the coalition will not be supporting this bill. Labor's growing desperation is becoming more and more evident as time goes on. I know we have MYEFO, the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, coming up. I know we potentially have another budget prior to the next election, but who would know? Only the Prime Minister knows when he's going to go out to Yarralumla and hand in his commission. But, when he does do that, let's just hope that at the next election we don't see a minority government in conjunction with the Greens, because at the moment we have gas up 33 per cent and electricity up 14 per cent even after the taxpayer funded rebates of $300. I thought it was going to be $275, as was promised prior to the last election, but, of course, even though that was promised on almost 100 occasions, nothing was further from the truth. Rents are up 16 per cent. I know the member for Griffith had a lot to say about that and his solution to it, but I don't think he needs to be listened to either, because the Greens have done more to hold up local government development applications than anything, and that is causing a huge problem in local councils and states, who are most responsible—let's face it—at the end of the day for housing and the like. Health costs are up 11 per cent, education costs are up 11 per cent and food prices are up 12 per cent. All these costs add—it goes on and on and on—to people's mortgages and household bills. Financial and insurance costs are up 17 per cent. Honourable members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646   I can hear the Greens yelling out. Rest assured that, if they get hold of the treasury bench, we are all in trouble—not just us here on Capital Hill but ordinary everyday mums and dads throughout Australia, families and businesses struggling to pay bills now. This bill is not good. This bill will not be supported by the coalition. We should have an independent RBA. This doesn't give us that. 18:29 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I thank the member for Riverina for his contribution. He's outlined very well why we won't support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023. I'm pleased that we've come to the position that we have in relation to not supporting this bill, because I didn't support it from the outset. What is proposed to be done in this bill—the government and all of us elected members of this parliament handing over absolute power to an unelected body—is, I think, a danger to our democracy. What I find interesting is that this isn't the only piece of legislation to go through this House that allows for this sort of thing to occur, where ministers take a hands-off approach and go: 'It's up to the bureaucrats—it's up to the Public Service or whatever other body we have set up.' I think that is a very grave danger to the foundation and stability of our democracy. It's interesting that there has been much debate and discussion over the years—as Deputy Speaker Wilkie and the member for Melbourne would know, having joined me in this place in 2010—about the conduct of our banks et cetera. It finished up in a royal commission. What a lot of people probably don't realise is that there was actually a royal commission well before that. Back in 1935 there was a royal commission that was appointed to inquire into the monetary and banking systems that were then in operation in Australia. The reason it was appointed was that there was concern that the banks weren't doing their job and were actually making the Great Depression worse. It's interesting to read some of the comments in that royal commission report. I want to thank a good friend of mine, Professor Bill Mitchell, for the work he's done on some of this. I'll quote his work. He's pulled these paragraphs out of the royal commission report so that I didn't have to go back and read through it again. In paragraph 143 of that report, it says: It is essential for a central bank that its relations with the Government responsible for monetary policy should be close and cordial in order that there should be consistency between Government financial operations and those of the Bank. Well, what have we heard in the past week or so? The complete opposite of that. We've heard the Treasurer say that the Reserve Bank is 'smashing our economy', and we've heard a former Treasurer say that they've been hitting themselves in the face. That, to me, doesn't speak of a 'close and cordial' relationship between the government and the Reserve Bank to ensure consistency between the government's financial operations and those of the bank—far from it. We've also heard the comments by the Reserve Bank governor on her concerns about government spending, both federally and across the states. Why would we go down the track proposed in this bill, then, of removing the accountability of the Reserve Bank through the government, under section 11? I fully believe that section should be retained and never done away with, because the drafters of the legislation, back in 1957 or 1958—it was enacted, finally, in 1959—understood the necessity of the elected representatives in this parliament maintaining watch and power over our non-elected bodies. To go back to that 1935 report, it goes on further to say: In our view, proper relations between the two authorities are these. The Federal Parliament is ultimately responsible for monetary policy, and the Government of the day is the executive of the Parliament. The Commonwealth Bank— it's the 'Reserve Bank' in modern parlance— has certain powers delegated to it by statute, and the Board's duty to the community is to exercise those powers to the best of its ability. Where there is a conflict between the Government's view of what is best in the national interest, and the Board's view … the Government should give the Bank an assurance that it will accept full responsibility for the proposed policy, and is in a position to take, and will take, any necessary action to implement it. It is then the duty of the Bank to accept this assurance and carry out the policy of the Government. Well, that has been done through the statement of principles that the Treasurer signed and provided to the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank's remit is twofold. It's to deal with inflation and to ensure full employment. So the Reserve Bank are doing their job only for the Treasurer to then turn around and say, 'I don't like what the Reserve Bank is doing.' Well, have that discussion but have it in a cordial way. I am sure the Treasurer and the Reserve Bank governor speak all the time. But to go out publicly and demonise the Reserve Bank and the governor and the rest of her team for doing the job that is actually mandated for them to do, which is tackle the inflation challenge as well as full employment, is an attempt, in my view, by the Treasurer to offload the responsibility for his part of the equation. It is about time the Treasurer accepted responsibility for what they've failed to do to deal with the inflationary pressures. Hence I fully support the position that we as a coalition have now taken to oppose this bill, because I believe that the structure of the Reserve Bank should be retained, along with section 11. While I accept it has never been used, I believe fundamentally, for the protection of our democracy, that that provision should be retained because we never can say categorically in the future that we know that at some point that won't need to be used, heaven forbid. I hope it never has to be used. I hope that the cordial working relationship between the government of the day and the Reserve Bank is maintained and strengthened for the benefit of our country as a whole. I think the words from the 1935 royal commission report remain as valid and prescient today as they were then. I oppose the bill, and I am pleased that as a coalition we have taken the position that we have. 18:37 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith There are millions of mortgage holders and renters right now across this country getting smashed by an economic system that they are not responsible for, and yet they are asked to pick up the pieces in skipping groceries and in choosing between feeding their kids and paying the rent. When it comes down to it, since 2022, rents have gone up a staggering 31 per cent. Monthly mortgage repayments, on average, have gone up by $1,600. What's happened is that a coalition of the Labor and Liberal parties have decided that they are okay with the Reserve Bank putting up interest rates and forcing ordinary people to pay for an inflation crisis that they had nothing to do with. Here is the reality: the Labor government right now could override the Reserve Bank—they have that power in legislation right now—and force the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates. And, yet, they choose not to. By doing that, they have decided to enshrine and protect an economic system that always punishes ordinary and everyday people for an inflation crisis they are not responsible for. Let's be clear about what's driving inflation right now and why costs are going up. It is corporate price gouging. The IMF has pointed out that it is corporate price gouging that is one of the principal drivers of inflation right now. It is Coles and Woolworths using their duopoly power to drive up grocery bills. It is landlords using the fact that Labor refuses to cap rent increases to drive up rents right now. In fact, even the RBA says that one of the principal drivers of the inflation crisis right now is skyrocketing rents. They are increasing at close to twice the rate of standard inflation. Labor could stop that by freezing and capping rent increases. They choose not to and instead what they do is allow the Reserve Bank to jack up interest rates and punish ordinary and everyday people. Let's be clear. You might be watching this at home right now, stressed out of your mind about how you're going to meet your next month's mortgage repayment and stressed out of your mind about how you're going to cop another rent increase. You might be watching the news as the Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock is saying that she doesn't foresee an interest rate cut in the next few months. You might start to think, 'Well, how is this my fault?' You might start to think: 'Maybe I need to cut back more. Maybe I should have done more to pay off my mortgage earlier. Maybe I should have worked harder.' Don't think that, because the reality is that it is not your fault. It is not your fault. It is the fault of a political and economic system that always punishes ordinary and everyday people. It always chooses to punish them and allow big corporations to get away with making massive corporate profits. In this same period, big corporations have made over $100 billion in crisis profits. That's according to Oxfam. That includes the National Australia Bank. It includes Woolworths. Those are financial institutions and big corporations that are making excess profits by using their monopoly and duopoly powers to drive up prices and punish ordinary and everyday people. Here's how this economic system works. First, you have a big set of big corporations, banks, Woolworths, Coles. They drive up prices, taking advantage of their enormous economic power. That drives up prices and that drives up inflation. Then what happens, when inflation gets high, is the Reserve Bank kicks into gear and says, 'The way we're going to tackle this is to put up interest rates.' The effect of putting up interest rates is punishing mortgage holders and renters. Their intention is—and let's be very clear about this—to push mortgage holders and renters into financial pain to reduce their capacity to spend money in the economy. They claim that this will somehow decrease inflation. But let's talk about what they're decreasing spending on: food, rent, health, housing costs and food for kids. When I was running a free meal program earlier this year, we had a nice family come up to us. They were dressed very nicely. They sat down with us. They were eating one of our free dinners. I asked them, 'Why are you here?' I thought that maybe they were there to talk to me about some issues in their local community. They had two young kids with them. They were living in Carina Heights. They turned to me and said, 'Well, look, to be honest, any night where we don't have to fork out and pay to feed our kids is another night we're more likely to meet our mortgage payments.' That shouldn't be happening in a wealthy country like Australia. Politics is about choices. There is no political, economic or technical reason why we couldn't force the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates right now. A real plan to tackle inflation could be cutting interest rates The effect of cutting interest rates right now would be relieving pressure on mortgage holders, allowing them and renters to feed their kids and not have to make tough choices and not be forced to sell their homes, which is what Michele Bullock, the Reserve Bank governor, said they might have to do. Instead what we could do is crack down on price gouging in supermarkets. We could tax the superprofits of big corporations and punish them for price gouging ordinary Australians. We could use that revenue to provide dental and mental health under Medicare and incentivise the states to freeze and cap rent increases. Indeed, one of the best ways to tackle inflation right now would be to cap rent increases. One of the key drivers of the inflation crisis is rents. We could do that, and we could relieve the pressure on millions of people. Why is it that in this country it's always ordinary and everyday people who have to pick up the pieces of an economic system they're not responsible for? Why is it always that there is a single mum in this country having to choose between feeding her kids and paying the rent, while the Commonwealth Bank records a $9.69 billion profit? Why is it that in the middle of one of the worst housing crises we have seen in this country's history, while there are millions of people struggling to meet their mortgage payments or their rents, why is it precisely at that moment that the Commonwealth Bank can come out and record an over $9 billion profit? Imagine what we could do with $9 billion. We could bring dental into Medicare. We could bring mental health into Medicare. We could put a down payment on bringing back free university and scrapping student debt. We could invest in building enough public housing. Instead, it's going into the profit margins of the Commonwealth Bank, which has made those profits because the Reserve Bank has put up interest rates, driving up mortgage costs that allow those big four banks to price gouge ordinary Australians, make more from mortgages, make more off that human misery and screw over ordinary Australians. The Greens are fighting hard to protect the current power that the federal government has to override the Reserve Bank of Australia and cut interest rates, because that is an important element of a democracy. What interest rates are charged is a fundamental economic question in this country, and that should be subject to democratic review. I would argue that what Labor is attempting to do in scrapping the power that they have right now to override the Reserve Bank is to wash their hands of the responsibility of one of the key decisions in our economy and pretend they have nothing to do with it. But let' be very clear: in refusing to override the Reserve Bank of Australia and in attempting to get rid of that power, they are endorsing a political and economic system that time and again asked the people that are already doing it tough to suffer more while bankers, big corporations and politicians benefit by billions of dollars. 18:45 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I spoke last month about Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill and likened it to Labor's use of the term 'made in Australia' to Mickey Mouse as the sorcerer's apprentice in Disney's 1940 classic Fantasia. In the story, Mickey, as the incompetent apprentice, takes the magician's wand and inadvertently animates mops, buckets and furniture, in the process creating chaos in the wizard's tower. Labor's Mickey Mouse apprenticeship is on full display as described by the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, who called out the Labor government's spending as driving the rising cost of living. Australia is the only major economy where inflation is rising, not falling. Labor's homegrown inflation crisis, thanks to the $315 billion of spending, mostly on big government agenda items and equivalent to $30,000 more per household since they took office, is incredible. Household disposable income is heading south while in comparable economies household income is heading north. My constituents in Mallee are feeling that cost-of-living pain acutely. We are living in Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis, and no amount of waving of wands, press conference trickery, TP tactics or pulling spending rabbits out of hats will convince the Australian public that this government has a fiscal clue what it is doing. Thankfully, Mickey's Fantasia mess is cleaned up when the wise wizard returns to set everything aright. The coalition's role has ever been thus in Australian politics: righting Labor economic chaos. My hope is sooner rather than later. The coalition does not support this bill. We worked on a bipartisan position for over 18 months, but we are now at a point where, as the shadow Treasurer said this week, we need certainty and stability, not more change, at the Reserve Bank. The RBA is under unprecedented attack from this Albanese the Labor government and some of their proxies in the retired Labor operative space, as I will go into later. Even Gough Whitlam acknowledged the need for his ministers to fly economy, not first class, during a cost-of-living crisis his government faced. This government would make Gough Whitlam blush, such is the Albanese Labor government's bluster, trickery and gaslighting of Australians. The coalition believes in the stable, credible and independent Reserve Bank of Australia. The independent RBA has hiked the cash rate 11 times on Labor's watch. The last cash rate hike was over 300 days ago, on 8 November 2023, yet Labor want to shift the blame to the RBA somehow smashing the economy. With Labor's abysmal track record of picking winners, the last thing we want is for Labor to stich up the Reserve Bank board. They've wrecked other government institutions with government appointments, and there is a huge cloud over Labor's connections with the disgraced CFMEU and questionable operatives in industry super. The coalition are very cautious about letting sack-and-stack Labor pick the team when Coach Chalmers is taking Australians to the bottom of the cost-of-living global ladder. We on this side of the House have serious questions— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Order. I would remind the member for Mallee to refer to the Treasurer by his title. Dr WEBSTER 281688 The Treasurer. We on this side of the House have serious questions about how committed the Albanese government is to the continued independence of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Every day, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister demonstrate they are more focused on fighting others and shifting blame than fighting their homegrown cost-of-living crisis. The Treasurer is trying to fight and pin the blame for his own economic woes onto the Reserve Bank, the opposition leader, the Productivity Commission, the laws of economics and even his hero and old mentor, Paul Keating, over superannuation taxes. The Prime Minister, members of the government frontbench and Labor-aligned commentators, like Stephen Conroy and Stephen Koukoulis, joined in like children whacking a pinata, hoping the lollies of public support would fall out for them. On Friday, ALP president Wayne Swan said that he was 'very disappointed' in the Reserve Bank and that it was 'punching itself in the face'. This was the same man who, in his stint as Treasurer, projected budget surpluses but never delivered one. The Rudd-Swan government was a master at converting black into red—net savings into net debt. Labor's frothing and loathing directed at the RBA exposes that they can't handle the truth. Rather than take responsibility—what a novel concept, responsible government—Labor goes around attacking truth tellers, threatening them with consequences for speaking the truth. They stack and undermine our independent institutions. They force those who come in good faith to negotiate with the government, even priests, to sign non-disclosure agreements. One senior Labor figure has reportedly described the RBA to the ABC recently as 'barbarians' and 'weirdos' in the 'thrall of a bizarre group-think' and that the Reserve Bank chair, Michele Bullock, is a 'nutter'.  This brave unnamed source said, 'This is all coming from a Labor government fighting everything but inflation, a government that attacks the Leader of the Opposition for his truth-telling on the cost of living and accuses him of being the bad guy for telling the truth.' Perhaps the truth bombs from the RBA hit their mark the best when they criticised government spending as a driver of Labor's homegrown inflation crisis. After some pointed criticisms from the government, the RBA explained that their comment was also directed at state governments. In my home state of Victoria, sadly, Labor has done incredible damage not only to Victoria's economy but also dragging down the national economy while they do it. This is the same Victorian Labor government that, to use a popular phrase, 'smashed the economy' in Victoria by making Melbourne the lockdown capital of the world. The Victorian Labor government was so inept that it was re-elected on a promise to host the Commonwealth Games. It then embarrassed Victoria and the nation after the election by admitting they couldn't afford to host it after all. It took a Freedom of Information request. In June last year, the Victorian health minister, Mary-Anne Thomas, wrote to Treasurer Pallas urging for an urgent bailout to save the state hospitals. It gets worse. Victorian Labor's priority primary care centres were rebranded urgent care centres, and, hey presto, Mickey Mouse, the apprentice Labor here in Canberra, came along and bailed out the clinics, saying, 'The Commonwealth will now run them.' It should be bad enough that the Albanese Labor government is fighting everyone but the cost-of-living crisis. Now they are running a protection racket for the spend-happy Victorian Labor but bailing them out of their own mess. Getting answers out of the secretive Allan Labor government about their fiscal standing is just as hard as getting the Albanese Labor government to admit its economic missteps and take responsibility for its cost-of-living crisis. This Albanese Labor government is not only at war with the institutions but also with the overwhelming opinion of eminent economists as well. RMIT economist Professor Sinclair Davidson said: … all the economic indicators are going the wrong way, and what is the government doing? Fighting with the RBA. Former RBA board member Warwick McKibbin said: You want to think that the government and the central bank are working together in the same direction for the benefit of the country. To make those sorts of comments suggested that maybe there's some other agendas at work—and that's not helpful. Another former RBA board member, Graham Kraehe, said: For the treasurer to then be coming out and saying, 'Well, this is the Reserve Bank's fault'. I don't think another serious economist in the country … would agree with that … Warren Hogan said: We are going backwards in terms of our living standards. Our productivity is falling, our government is growing, and if this is our new economy, then our standards of living as one of the world's wealthiest countries is going to go away. …   …   … Bigger government is not what delivered our modern wealth … EY chief economist Cherelle Murphy added: The lack of co-ordination between fiscal and monetary policy means the path to low and stable inflation—and therefore lower interest rates—is slower than it needs to be. KPMG chief economist Dr Brendan Rynne had this to say: … the public sector has its foot on the accelerator and the Reserve Bank's foot is on the brake—it's stalling the economy. In effect, we're in no-man's land. He said that government spending is 'not sustainable and is effectively taking from Peter to pay Paul'. He also said: While there's this idea that government spending has saved the economy, what it's effectively done is just move the deck chairs around. Picking up on what Dr Rynne said, the chatter here in Canberra is that there'll be a May election and an early budget in March. This May, the Treasurer predicted inflation would come back into the RBA's target range of two to three per cent by Christmas. I don't want to scare you, but it's only 105 days till Christmas, and the RBA is only meeting three more times before Christmas under Labor's reduced meeting schedule. My fear is that Labor's pre-election budget will spend, baby, spend because it's all Labor knows how to do. If you think the Albanese government are clawing at the institutions, economists and other truth-tellers now, wait until inflation isn't back into the target range by Christmas and the RBA hasn't cut rates. The Albanese government have gone past the denial stage of their fiscal grief cycle, and now they are in the anger stage. They are lashing out verbally at truth-tellers and lashing out at the Leader of the Opposition for standing shoulder to shoulder with hardworking Australians who are struggling to make ends meet, and it gets uglier from here. If the Treasurer's Nostradamus predictions on inflation don't come true by Christmas, voters may have some lumps of coal ready for the Treasurer's stocking. Just like the economists, the numbers don't lie either. Last week, national accounts showed the slowest GDP growth since the 1990s outside the pandemic. Australia has reported its sixth consecutive quarter of negative GDP per person growth, the longest per capita recession in 50 years. In May 2022, the former coalition government left an economy with low unemployment, strong growth and recovering government finances, yet Labor have wasted it. Living standards—real disposable income per capita—have fallen by 8.7 per cent, productivity has collapsed to 6.3 per cent, household savings are down 10.2 per cent, personal income taxes are 25.3 per cent higher, and interest rates paid on mortgages have almost tripled. The economy is experiencing the slowest GDP growth since the 1990s outside the pandemic. A Peter Dutton led coalition government will get Australia back on track with back-to-basics economic agenda. We will deliver strong economic management that fights inflation and boosts productivity. We are absolutely focused on restoring Australians' way of life. Winning the fight against inflation is the only way to ease the cost-of-living pressures Australians are facing now. The coalition will boost productivity, bringing essential fiscal discipline to bring down inflation and restoring Australia's standard of living. The coalition will get Australia back on track by delivering a back-to-basics economic agenda that includes cutting red tape, securing our energy future, reforming our tax system, restoring sensible workplace laws, encouraging enterprise and small business, and supporting a strong financial sector. That is how we will restore our standard of living and ensure future prosperity. 18:58 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I would like to thank all the members who've made a contribution to this debate about some very important issues and a really key economic institution. Thank you for the opportunity to sum up the debate for the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023. This bill will strengthen the Reserve Bank's independence. It'll clarify its mandate and modernise its structures. It will deliver the biggest set of reforms undertaken at the Reserve Bank in over three decades, and it will implement the government's response to the independent review of the Reserve Bank of Australia. That review received input from current and former RBA board members, staff and others. It considered international best practice and it canvassed views from across the community. I want to again thank the review panel, some wonderful people—Professor Carolyn Wilkins, Professor Renee Fry-McKibbin and Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM—for their work, and I also thank the more than 1,500 stakeholders who contributed to the review process. I released the review and its recommendations almost 18 months ago now, and I welcome the discussion and debate that has occurred since then. We've already made some progress on implementation, and here I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Reserve Bank, led by Governor Bullock, in following through on many of the recommendations that go to its own internal operations. As part of our response, I've also agreed on an updated statement on the conduct of monetary policy with the RBA board. That was released in December last year, and I thank the board members for their engagement with that as well. This legislation before us is the next step in implementing the review. The Reserve Bank governor has said herself that she is 100 per cent behind the changes that are being proposed. She has publicly called for them to be legislated, and that means that opponents of this legislation are at odds with the public position taken by the Reserve Bank governor. Our response to this extensive piece of work is in keeping with its recommendations to strengthen the RBA's independence, clarify its role and modernise its structure, as I said. To give a little more detail: the bill amends the Reserve Bank Act 1959 and the Banking Act 1959 to reinforce the Reserve Bank's independence in the operation of monetary policy, renew the bank's statutory objectives, improve accountability and transparency in the bank's monetary policy decision-making, enhance the bank's governance arrangements to bring them into line with best practice, and clarify the RBA's responsibility to contribute to financial system stability. As I said, we welcome the discussion and debate that has occurred in the House and in the broader community since my second reading speech in November of last year. Many MPs have highlighted, as I do again, the critical role the Reserve Bank has played in our economic success for well over six decades now. They've recognised how important it is that we equip the bank to continue serving all Australians in an increasingly complex and challenging economic environment, and they've accepted the review and the government's response to it as the best way forward. At every stage, I've done my best to reach a bipartisan consensus on the changes before the House. I've always wanted this bill to be widely and broadly supported and for that support to include the major governing parties in this place. As a demonstration of my bona fides in this regard, I want to remind the House that the coalition, via the member for Hume, have raised six issues over the past year and we've responded to each of those six issues in good faith. Whenever there's been a lineball call, whenever there's been a view put to me by the opposition, we've accommodated that view. They wanted the chair of the governance board to be the governor, and we facilitated that. They wanted flexibility in term limits, and we facilitated that as well. They wanted senior RBA executives to have oversight of the operation of the bank; the bill makes the deputy governor a member of the governance board. They wanted to ensure that the dual mandate should exclude references to equal weight, and so the legislation and the statement of conduct on monetary policy that I agreed with the RBA board late last year doesn't mention equal weight for the dual mandate. They asked that section 11 be retained; we proposed an amendment that would have retained section 11 but focused it more appropriately. They asked that all current members of the RBA board should move to the monetary policy board, and we proposed an amendment that would transfer all current board members to the monetary policy board unless that was not their preference. But, instead of being able to garner enough support for these changes that responded to his concerns and his suggestions, the member from Hume was rolled once again. I dealt with him in good faith. I engaged extensively with him. I had three face-to-face meetings. I organised multiple briefings for him with my department and with the review team. For the best part of two years, I put a premium on bipartisanship, but there is only so much you can do when you're dealing with someone who doesn't carry the necessary authority amongst his own colleagues. The coalition have had every opportunity to support this important economic reform, and it's more than disappointing that at the last moment they have not. Our preference has always been and continues to be for bipartisanship between the two major governing parties on these issues. That's because I think that these issues and these changes should endure beyond any future changes of government. We will continue to do our best to ensure a bipartisan outcome. I was planning to move our amendments in the House today as they directly address concerns raised by the coalition, but unfortunately, in light of the position that they announced yesterday, we will not be moving the amendments in the House today. Instead, as you'd expect, we will be considering our options and considering next steps. We are still willing to work across the parliament to help these important reforms get through. We are still committed to the passage of these reforms. We anticipate and we flag for honourable members that we will have to move amendments in the Senate to secure further support. It is not our preference—and I say this respectfully to the member for Griffith—to accommodate the Greens on this, but the coalition may force our hand. The government is committed to strengthening the independent Reserve Bank in an increasingly complex and changing world. Our reforms are timely and measured, and they should be enduring. To support sustainable growth in our economy and to support a better future, we need an RBA that is transparent, strong and independent, an RBA that draws on more expertise to make its important decisions, an RBA that is at the forefront of international best practice and an RBA that remains world class, and that's what these reforms are all about. That's why I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:07