2024-10-08 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 8 October 2024

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

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) the Prime Minister immediately moving a motion without notice regarding Hamas attacks on Israel and ongoing conflicts; (2) debate on the motion ensuing without interruption, with the question on the motion being put at no later than 1.20 pm; (3) no amendments to the motion being permitted; (4) standing order 133(b) not applying to the Minister's motion; and (5) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Israel Attacks: First Anniversary 1 12:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That the House of Representatives: (1) reiterates its unequivocal condemnation of Hamas' terror attacks on Israel which took place on 7 October 2023, in which more than 1,200 innocent Israelis were killed, the largest loss of Jewish life on any single day since the Holocaust; (2) recognises that hundreds more innocent people were subjected to brutality and violence on that day; (3) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all the remaining hostages; (4) condemns the murder of hostages and the inhumane conditions and violence, including sexual violence, that hostages have experienced; (5) mourns with all impacted by these heinous acts; (6) condemns antisemitism in all its forms and stands with Jewish Australians who have felt the cold shadows of antisemitism reaching into the present day; (7) reiterates Australia's consistent positions to call for the protection of civilian lives and adherence to international law; (8) mourns the death of all innocent civilians, recognising the number of Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza and the catastrophic humanitarian situation; (9) supports ongoing international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza and Lebanon; (10) calls for Iran to cease its destabilising actions including through terrorist organisations, the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas, condemns Iran's attacks on Israel and recognises Israel's right to defend itself against these attacks; (11) stresses the need to break the cycle of violence and supports international efforts to deescalate for a ceasefire in Gaza and in Lebanon and for lasting peace and security for Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and all people in the region; (12) affirms its support for a two-state solution, a Palestinian State alongside Israel, so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensuring a just and enduring peace; (13) recognises the conflict is deeply distressing for many in the Australian community; (14) condemns all acts of hatred, division or violence, affirming that they have no place in Australia; and (15) reaffirms: (a) that symbols of terror and discord are unwelcome in Australia and undermine our nation's peace and security; (b) the undermining social cohesion and unity by stoking fear and division risks Australia's domestic security; and (c) the responsibility of each Australian to safeguard the harmony and unity that define our diverse society, especially in times of adversity. Yesterday, on the first anniversary of the October 7 attacks in Israel, we paused to reflect on the horrific terrorist atrocities that reverberated across the world. As we did last October, this parliament comes together again to unequivocally condemn Hamas's actions on that day. On October 7 Hamas sought only to kill and to terrify. They perpetrated their crimes without mercy and without discrimination. Men, women and children were subjected to acts of degradation and humiliation that, a year on, remain beyond comprehension, yet Hamas made this waking nightmare a reality. They chose a holy day on the Jewish calendar to target young Israelis at a music festival, to hunt down men, women and children in their homes and to prey on families—on children and on parents trying to protect their children in what often proved to be their desperate final act. A year on from that day, when death emerged out of the sunshine, we reflect on all that happened and all the devastation that has followed. We think of the brutality and the cruelty that was inflicted on so many, with such cold calculation. We think of all whose lives and futures were stolen from them that day, as they tried to save themselves and their loved ones, and of all who have had them stolen since. We think of those whose lives remain suspended in the fear and isolation of captivity. And we think of those whose own lives and hearts are so intimately connected with the hostages who were kidnapped that day through the bonds of either blood or the embrace of friendship and community. This has been a year of pain, of loss and of grief. Last night, I attended the vigil in Moorabbin, Melbourne, where I had the sombre privilege of meeting with a relative of Galit Carbone, the Australian woman who was among those killed on that fateful day. I expressed my condolences and those of our nation. We also heard firsthand the experience of those with relatives and friends who were killed by Hamas on that day, who were killed after being taken hostage or who remain hostages. For so many, this past year must have felt like a cruel eternity. For the friends and families I spoke to prior to the event last night, in their torment of not knowing the fate of a loved one who's been taken hostage or, indeed, having the terrible truth confirmed, October 7 will always be a day of pain. As we mourn and reflect we also reaffirm a fundamental principle of our shared humanity: that every innocent life matters—every Israeli, every Palestinian, every Lebanese—every single innocent life. It is the terrorists who close their eyes to that powerful, simple truth. It is the terrorists of Hamas who are not only enemies of Israel; they are an enemy of the Palestinian people as well. The number of civilians who have lost their lives over the past year is a tragedy of horrific proportions. An estimated 40,000 Palestinians have been killed. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is devastating. Our government has consistently and repeatedly called for a ceasefire, for the release of all hostages and for the protection of all civilians. We remain committed to a two-state solution as the path to an enduring peace: two states, Israel and Palestine, living peacefully side by side with prosperity and security for their people—a position that has been bipartisan in this parliament for a long period of time. There can be no possibility of a just future without that. Let's be very clear. Australia's position is consistent with that of other democratic countries. I've issued multiple statements with the Prime Ministers of Canada and New Zealand. We know that it is only through diplomatic efforts that this cycle of conflict and bloodshed can be broken. Escalation denies diplomacy any chance of working. On 26 September Australia joined with 11 other nations, including the US, Canada, France, Germany, the UK and Japan, to call for de-escalation. We agree with every word in the G7 statement of this week: A dangerous cycle of attacks and retaliation risks fuelling uncontrollable escalation in the Middle East, which is in no one's interest. Therefore, we call on all regional players to act responsibly and with restraint. We encourage all parties to engage constructively to de-escalate the current tensions. International humanitarian law must be respected. …   …   … We also reiterate our call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the unconditional release of all hostages, a significant and sustained increase in the flow of humanitarian assistance, and an end to the conflict. We fully endorse the efforts by the US, Qatar and Egypt to reach such a comprehensive deal, in line with United Nations Security Council resolution 2735. The situation in Gaza is catastrophic, and tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost. We reiterate the absolute need for the civilian population to be protected and that there must be full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access, as a matter of absolute priority. In his statement, marking the first anniversary of October 7, President Joe Biden said this: We will not stop working to achieve a ceasefire deal in Gaza that brings the hostages home, allows for a surge in humanitarian aid to ease the suffering on the ground, assures Israel's security, and ends this war. Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve to live in security, dignity and peace. We also continue to believe that a diplomatic solution across the Israel-Lebanon border region is the only path to restore lasting calm and allow residents on both sides to return safely to their homes. A year on from October 7, Israelis and people across the world are mourning those who were robbed of their lives and futures and waiting anxiously for news of the hostages who remain in captivity. Palestinians are mourning the lives taken from them in the continuing aftermath. So much has been lost; so many loved ones buried. We join all of them in their grief. Tragically, we are seeing the situation worsening. Since late last year, we and others have been expressing this concern about the real risk of the conflict spreading. We are now seeing that come to pass. We unequivocally condemn the actions of Iran and Hezbollah. Iran must cease its destabilising actions, including through its terrorist proxies. Amid their attacks on Israel, Australia steadfastly maintains support for Israel's right to defend itself. We always have, and we always will. We repeat our call for all sides to observe international law. It is important to recognise that the loss and grief of this past year have been deeply felt here in Australia. Sorrow knows no boundaries. It recognises no differences. Since the atrocities of October 7, Jewish Australians have felt the shadows of the past creeping into the present. We condemn the poison of antisemitism in whatever form it takes. This is a pain the Jewish people should never have had to endure again. The Holocaust is not softened by the passing of time. It doesn't recede into history. It does not offer one the slender comfort of distance. Our Jewish-Australian community is made up of Holocaust survivors and their children and grandchildren, including, of course, our Attorney-General here in this parliament. The branches of their family trees are heavy with loss and suffering and with acts of survival in the face of overwhelming odds. It is shocking and wrong that in 2024 Jewish people are having to draw on their courage and their resilience again. I want to repeat the message that I have given to all Jewish Australians since the outset: You are not alone; your fellow Australians stand with you. Our social cohesion has been built over the course of generations by people of all backgrounds and from every faith and tradition. All of us take pride in it and all of us must work together to protect it. This parliament gives all of us a national platform and a national duty to send a message to every Australian: You have the right to be proud of you are; the right to feel safe in your community, whether you wear a yarmulke or a hijab; the right to feel free to live the truth of your faith; and the mere act of your children walking freely to school should just be a regular part of daily life, unremarkable in its happiness. Every time parliament rises and we return to our electorates across this great continent of ours, we can travel along the streets and see synagogues. We can see mosques. We can see churches and temples. As a country and as a people, we're big enough to contain them all, and we're enriched by them all. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to prevent conflict in the Middle East from being used as a platform for prejudice at home. I want to be clear to anyone who thinks about taking a Hamas or Hezbollah flag to a protest: these symbols are not acceptable. They are symbols of terror. They are illegal, and they will not be tolerated here. Hamas and Hezbollah serve no cause but terror. They have shown themselves to be the enemy of the very people they purport to represent, and we unequivocally condemn any indication of support for such organisations. Today, as we remember those who were lost, we stand with all those who wait. We stand with all those who endure loss. We stand with all those who endure hope. Let us stand together as a nation and as a parliament in our shared determination to preserve the harmony that makes this the greatest country in the world, knowing in our shared commitment to a just and lasting peace that the truest act of strength is to protect the innocent. That is the truth we must hold on to—the truth of a shared humanity, the hope that peace is possible and the belief that it belongs to all people. To quote the great Dr Martin Luther King: Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. I commend the resolution to the House. Honourable members: Hear, hear. Mr ALBANESE R36 And I table this statement from President Joe Biden marking one year since the 7 October attack and the statement from the G7 leaders on recent developments in the Middle East. 12:17 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Last night in Sydney, along with some of my colleagues, including the member for Berowra, I attended a gathering of people from the Jewish community. There were 12,000 people in total. The emotion was raw, and, to mark the first anniversary, there were a number of fine speakers who contributed to the debate, including the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns. We heard from a number of people who had experienced firsthand the tragedy of lives being ripped from them—people who attended the Nova music festival, people who saw their friends mown down in the desert, people who had been living in the kibbutz and those who experienced loved ones losing their lives at the hands of the barbaric acts of Hamas as they crossed the border. To this day, as we know, over 100 people are still unaccounted for—people who are held in tunnels, in captivity, people who have been tortured and raped and people who have been killed with certainty. We know that. The tragedy on that day, where 1,200 people lost their lives, was the greatest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, where six million people were tortured, gassed and murdered. For the Jewish community, as was noted last night by many of the contributors, the last 12 months have been a truly shocking experience, particularly in our country. That's not just because of the loss of 1,200 and the indiscriminate way in which those men, women and children were attacked, but also because of the response here in Australia and the rise of antisemitism. The attack took place on 7 October. Israel hadn't responded. On 9 October, on the steps of the Sydney Opera House, people started their chants, saying, 'Where are the Jews?' It was eerily similar to what we saw in the period of the 1930s. It started on 9 October in this country, and it has run largely unabated over the course of the last 12 months. The Prime Minister himself has outlined details of his own office being protested at and picketed and some of the vile acts that we've seen supported by the Greens political party and others. There's the antisemitism which is now rife on university campuses, where, for months and months and months, people of Jewish heritage—whether they were students or lecturers or visiting fellows or whatever it might have been—were treated as Jews have been treated over the course of history: with disdain and with hatred and with racism. Those campuses have held those protests over a long, long period of time—over many months. We know that we've got Jewish schools in this country that have armed guards permanently present, so that young children can go to receive their education without the threat of a terrorist attack. We know that there are aged-care facilities in Australia housing elderly, aged, people of Jewish heritage, Jewish Australians, to protect them from an attack. We know that graffiti has been scribbled on the walls of Jewish schools and places of worship. What has happened over the last 12 months is something that our country should be ashamed of. So last night, in New South Wales; in Melbourne, where the Prime Minister attended; here in Canberra, in a service that was organised by His Excellency, the ambassador; and at many other points across the country, people held a moment's silence for the loss of October 7. On Saturday, I wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting that we should arrive at a bipartisan position and bring a motion before the House to mark the anniversary of October 7. This motion was supposed to be about October 7—about the loss of human life in the circumstances that were just graphically outlined and that people across the world now have come to understand. I proposed to the Prime Minister a motion which was balanced and objective, and I appreciated the engagement with the Prime Minister when I met with him this morning. Regrettably, we've not been able to arrive at a position of bipartisanship in relation to this matter. I think, when you go to the detail of what the Prime Minister has proposed, it becomes clearer why the coalition cannot support this motion before the House at the moment. As has been remarked by many commentators over the course of recent weeks, this government has sought to walk both sides of the street in relation to what has been a very divisive debate for our country. It's what, in part, has given rise to the antisemitism that we've seen in university campuses but across society more generally. It's what making the survivors of the Holocaust, for the first time in their lives in our country, say that they feel unsafe here in the current environment. So in the motion moved by the Prime Minister today are not just words of comfort and words of recognition in relation to October 7—and I acknowledge those words in his motion. But of course, it goes beyond that, and it's an extension of the way in which the Prime Minister has conducted the debate and himself over the course of the last 12 months, trying to please all people in this debate. Now is not the time to call for, as the Prime Minister does in his motion—and I'll quote the words to the House, Mr Speaker, because I'm not sure that the Prime Minister did; the words included in the motion at (11) say: … stresses the need to break the cycle of violence and supports international efforts to de-escalate, for a ceasefire in Gaza and in Lebanon, and for lasting peace and security for Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and all people in the region … There are other sections here which go well beyond the intent of what should be a motion to mark the loss of life of 1,200 people, on the first anniversary—that's what this motion was to be about. But, of course, the Prime Minister is trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth, and that is not something that we will support in relation to this debate. None of us support the loss of civilian life, and everybody in this place, I'm sure, condemns the actions of a terrorist organisation—a listed terrorist organisation, Hamas—when they put tunnels under schools and under hospitals, when they bury bombs and they store their ammunitions in residential buildings, knowing that they're using people as human shields. But today is the day when this parliament was meant to mark what should be a solemn moment—when 1,200 people lost their lives. That is the position we put to the House. We know that under the government's rule here in the chamber they won't allow amendment to the motion moved by the Prime Minister, which is what has put us in a very difficult position. It is a deliberate strategy by the government not to allow any correspondence to be entered into to. As I've said, we've gone backwards and forwards with the Prime Minister and his office this morning, in good faith, but have not been able to reach agreement in relation to this matter. I think it says to Australians that on this day—8 October, the first sitting day after the 7 October anniversary—this Prime Minister wasn't able to lead a moment of bipartisanship in this parliament. In my memory, that is without precedent, Prime Minister. There has always been a bipartisan position between your predecessors. You're citing Biden, France, Hawke, Keating. But you don't mention Rudd; you don't mention Gillard. There has been a position of bipartisanship on these issues, and your predecessors would have had the decency to respect the Jewish community in a way that you have not done today. For that, Prime Minister, you should stand condemned. We have put to this Prime Minister a more than reasonable position, and the Prime Minister has rejected that position for his own political domestic advancement, and that has been recognised by millions of Australians, and for that the Prime Minister should be condemned. It is unbelievable. It is this Prime Minister who has departed from the precedent of the Labor Party—people who should be speaking up, people who should be out there advocating a position, as Bill Shorten is and as many people in the Labor Party are able to do, but not this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has taken a position today that has further diminished the Australian Labor Party and his standing with the Australian public. 12:27 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara It takes a long time to grow a tree, but it can be cut down in an instant. When you think about what happened on 7 October, you think about how the lives of too many innocent people were cut down in an instant. I think about the Nova Music Festival, where hundreds of young people were out there celebrating. I've been to music festivals just like it. I know that many people in all our electorates go to music festivals, to go and be free and be young. Yet those lives were taken, and you hear stories of people not knowing which way to escape, not knowing which way to turn, not knowing which way was safe. That is what happened on October 7. I went to Kibbutz Kfar Aza. The young people were on the border of the kibbutz. They were the first people attacked. You see the scale of these areas. It wasn't an operation by a small group of people; it was a large operation of people who took machine guns and went and targeted civilian people. I think about when we went to Sderot, a town commonly known as one of the most bombarded towns in the world. If you're in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, it takes about 90 seconds from when the siren goes off to when a rocket will land. In Sderot you've 10 to 15 seconds to get to a bomb shelter. We were there, and I saw the CCTV footage of a father holding his daughter in his arms, leaving a car, running for safety for those 10 to 15 seconds. He was killed in cold daylight. These images are ones that haunt me every single day. I mourn for those who lost their lives, and I think about the experience of the Jewish people and the Jewish community who look back at that day, at the largest loss of Jewish life, of our people, since the 1940s. It breaks my heart, and it broke our community's heart. In synagogues around this country the pain still lives with each and every Jewish Australian. I think to myself: how do you move forward from that; how do you bring people with you and reach from that moment of darkness towards a moment of a better future? It is so hard, because here in Australia the Jewish community, like so many around the world, have experienced a rise in antisemitism that I have never experienced in my lifetime. You only have to go online. I'm sure that any person in this place who has made a comment about this conflict will know that the sort of hate you receive back is just extraordinary. It's relentless and it's devastating. Often the way it's targeted at Jewish people here in Australia is that somehow they don't deserve a place and time to have a say, to make a contribution to this debate. I think about what's happened in our schools. I think about what happened to my office, for goodness sake. It wasn't a comment on the Middle East; it was a comment showing me with horns on my head. I'm a proud Australian. I love this country. I love what this country has given me, what it has given my family and what it has given my community. But that sort of nonsense doesn't belong on our streets. I think about the fact that on our streets we've had some of the most aggressive and unnecessarily confrontational protests, with people holding up symbols of hate and terror. That doesn't belong on our streets either. I say that all of this, the darkness and devastation that has happened to me, my family, my community and my country, is real. I also ask how, knowing all of that, we can extract ourselves from this and recognise that we are all humans, that we have a shared humanity. I think of my friends in the Palestinian community—and I have many—and my friends in the Lebanese community. Do they not feel the same anxiety and pain when they look at families back home? Do they not feel, when looking at war, the same sense of loss and devastation that my own community feels? Surely the lesson of all of this, knowing what I and my community have been through, is not to think, 'How do I scream the loudest? How do I ensure I get my place in the sun,' but, rather, 'How do I open my hand, reach out to other communities and say: "We are all one human race. We are all one people. We all want to live and we all want to hand over to our community and our kids the keys to a future in a world of peace and dignity"'? I want to see Israelis be able to live and work free from the threat of terror and violence. I want to see Palestinian kids grow up knowing that they have a future too. I want to see Lebanese families be able to live comfortably. I know that the destabilising forces in the region, led by Iran, are having devastating impacts right across the region. The world needs to be alive to that and honest about it, and we must be a part of the international efforts to confront that terror. But I also know that here in Australia we can do more to reach out to each other. I say this as a proud Jewish Australian: the Palestinian people and the Lebanese people are not my enemies. We are all people. We all must think about the future that we need to build together. Today, in this place, this motion recognises the pain of 7 October. It recognises the fact that, for no excusable reason, thousands of militants came in and ripped apart communities and traumatised a country. There are still over a hundred hostages in the tunnels of Gaza right now, and that is causing the most devastating pain for people right around the world and, of course, in Israel. I also recognise the fact that we are all humans, and that Yitzhak Rabin and many other giants of Israeli society didn't seek war; they sought to build peace. Those who seek to build peace will be remembered kindly by history. We have to be the peace builders, too, and we have to be the people here in Australia who say to all communities and all Australians: you belong; you are part of Australian society. We want to see a shared future of people who share our humanity, our love of life and our celebration of culture, diversity and multiculturalism. We want to see a better future for all people—for those here in Australia, for the Israelis and Palestinians and for all people in the region as well. 12:35 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Today we think of the 1,200 men, women and children, citizens of more than 30 countries, who were slaughtered by Hamas in the largest murder of Jewish people on a single day since the Holocaust. We think of babies being slaughtered in their cots. We think of women and girls being raped. The depravity is almost incomprehensible, but for some it seems not worth mentioning. To some in our own country it has been a point of elation. The number 1,200 does not do justice to the lives of the people. Today we think of those who perished. We think of Eli, who was 42. When the attacks started, his sister phoned him from the Nova Music Festival. She urged him to stay away, but he set out to try to find her. He died attempting to save his sister, whose body was found several days later. We think of Margarita, who was 21. She loved art. Three days after her murder, alongside her boyfriend, Simon, her family received notice that she had passed the entrance exam for her studies to become a doctor, something she had always dreamed of. Nitikorn 'Lee' Sae Wang was 26. Lee was from Chiang Rai, in Thailand. He had borrowed money to travel to Israel to earn money for his family so they could start a new life. He was murdered before he even got a chance to meet his son, to whom he was trying to give a better life. Yehudit was born in 1947 in a displaced persons camp for Holocaust survivors. She loved Barbara Streisand and Dolly Parton. On the morning of October 7, she hid in her home. The last message she sent was a heart emoji to her grandson. Her body was found in her garden, where she had been dragged before being slaughtered. Last night I attended the communal commemoration in Sydney, an extraordinary night of Australians peacefully mourning the loss of lives of Jewish people around the world. Twelve thousand Australians—roughly one in four people in the Sydney Jewish community—were there. I met the cousin of Naama Levy. We've all seen the pictures of Naama Levy. She was a 20-year-old triathlete and alumna of Hands of Peace, which promotes peace among Israeli and Palestinian youth. She volunteered for organisations like the Red Cross and the UN. We haven't seen pictures of her doing that, but we have seen the footage on our social media of Hamas dragging her from the boot of a vehicle, her hands bound and her sweatpants stained with blood, while her abductors chanted, 'God is great!' Naama Levy remains a hostage, along with 100 other people who were taken that day. They are somewhere under Gaza and still haven't been returned. We must bring Naama and all the other hostages home now. These are the thoughts that we should be having today. Last night the Leader of the Opposition received no fewer than four standing ovations for his speech. To the Jewish community of this country, the Leader of the Opposition has been heroic. He has been thoroughly clear not only on the terrible attacks that occurred in Israel but on standing against antisemitism in this country and on continuing to stand with Israel, as a Western liberal democratic country in the Middle East. Before the last election, senior Labor figures told the Jewish community in the Australian Jewish News that there would be no difference between Labor and the coalition on Israel and the Jewish community. As I've said, no greater falsehood has ever been told in the history of Australian politics. Even before 7 October, we saw Labor changing votes at the United Nations; Labor returning funding to UNRWA, an organisation that has blood on its hands from 7 October; and Labor changing its recognition of the capital of Israel. And we've seen that line continue since today. The Leader of the Opposition is right about the origin of this motion. I know he's right because he consulted me before he put the words for this motion to the Prime Minister. The motion that the Leader of the Opposition came up with was a good motion. It was a motion that could have achieved bipartisan support. What do you do to achieve bipartisan support? You recognise that this side of the House and that side of the House are coming from different perspectives on this issue. You respect and acknowledge that difference, but you try to work through that difference, and, if you can't work through that difference, you leave out words in the motion. Have in the motion the things you can agree on, not the things you can't agree on. I'm sorry that we don't have the motion before the House that the Leader of the Opposition intended when he put forward a motion to the Prime Minister at the weekend. We wanted to see a bipartisan resolution, but there's too much difference in what this motion suggests in relation to the foreign policy of each side of this House. We can't have a ceasefire at the moment that would allow terrorist organisations—that we list as terrorist organisations in our own country—to regroup and reform and continue to attack innocent civilians. We can't have a ceasefire when Iran continues to lob missiles into Israel, and the only reason that there haven't been more casualties in Israel as a result of this is the Israeli defence systems. We can't have a ceasefire in Israel and the Middle East when the hostages have still not been returned. We can't have a ceasefire when organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah and countries like Iran refuse to recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist. And we cannot be imposing a timetable in relation to a two-state solution without full and proper negotiations on the final-status issues. To go to the United Nations at this time and make speeches which suggest that we should set a timetable today, in the wake of this terrorist activity and the terrorist attack that occurred 12 months ago, and in the wake of the continued rocket attacks, I think fails to read the room. I don't care, frankly, what other countries do. I care what we do as Australia because Australia has had a wonderful record of always standing with Israel, going back to the time of Doc Evatt, the former Leader of the Labor Party, who sat in the chair at the time that the State of Israel came into being. On this side of the House we continue to stand with Israel because Israel is a Western liberal democratic nation that believes in the rules of law and respects human rights, including those of women, religious minorities and LGBTQI people—people who are not respected by any of these terrorist organisations, or by Iran, for that matter. It is right that our foreign policy should be based on those values, and we should not sacrifice those values at any point or at any time. That's why we on this side of the House cannot support the motion in its current form. We wish we could. We wish we could amend the motion. We wish we could return to it the words that the Leader of the Opposition put to the Prime Minister over the weekend, because they were good words. I think the other point that I want to make today is that the antisemitism that we have seen unleashed in our country since 7 October has been unprecedented. The Prime Minister quoted Martin Luther King. Let me provide another Martin Luther King quote: 'In the end, we don't remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.' Too many leaders have been silent and supine in the face of the antisemitism that we have seen in this country. They range from our political leaders, particularly the Greens, some of whom have aided and abetted and encouraged some of the antisemitic activity, to our police force, university leaders and the Human Rights Commission. I put forward a private member's bill in June of this year to deal with what I regard as the epicentre of antisemitism in this country: universities. I put forward a private member's bill for a judicial inquiry into that fact. It is a bill that is supported by every major Jewish organisation in this country. It is a bill that is supported by the government's own special envoy on antisemitism, Jillian Segal AO. It is a bill that is not opposed by the Human Rights Commission, which was the alternative place to send that inquiry, and it is a bill that is not opposed by the universities, and yet this government refuses to adopt a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on Australian university campuses. It is appalling that in this country, a country that has been unique in human history in being good to the Jewish people, this government refuses to stand with Jewish students, with Jewish staff and with the Jewish community on something that they've asked for—to take the politics out of this issue and to ensure that we get to the truth of what's been happening for decades on Australian university campuses, where some of these ideas about oppressors and the oppressed, and bad ideas about Israel and bad ideas about Jews are allowed to fester. We can't sit around here and let this continue to fester when we have an opportunity to do something about it. What we've seen with the antisemitism that has grown in this country is that it has grown because of the failure of too many leaders in this place to take action. It's an antisemitism that began long before Israel's retaliations and Israel's operations in Gaza and it's an antisemitism that continues to this day. I'm sorry that we can't vote for the motion, because this should be a day of unity. This should not be a day for petty politics. 12:45 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I thank the Prime Minister for moving this important motion today. It is a grave topic that all of us in this place have an obligation to rise to, to meet this occasion as leaders in this country. On this side of the chamber, as I hope on all sides of the chamber, we meet, as we did on 16 October last year, to give an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas's appalling terrorist attacks in Israel. They were terrorist attacks characterised not just by their brutality, with 1,200 innocent civilians killed, but by the appalling broadcasting of this depravity, a unique innovation in this depraved attack. Hundreds more were traumatised by the attacks, sexual violence and of course hostage-taking, with many still living in Hamas's terrorist tunnels beneath Gaza. On Sunday night of this weekend, I attended a candle lighting in Sydney: Illuminate October. As a result of the quirk of international time zones, it was the first candle lighting anywhere in the world to acknowledge the loss of life on October 7 and the hostages that are still being held. We heard from Michal Ohana, who gave a powerful testimony as a survivor of the violence at the Nova music festival, where young people meeting to dance were met with appalling violence. We heard from Melissa McCurdie, a Jewish Sydneysider who had multiple members of her family taken hostage on that appalling day. Around the country, Australians meet and have met in the preceding days to express their shared humanity and their outrage at these attacks. It is a basic act of human decency to mourn the loss of life that we have seen. It's a basic act of decency to recognise our shared humanity as Australians and to express our shared devastation at the loss of civilian life on October 7 and in the following 12 months, with 40,000 Palestinian deaths and many innocent Lebanese civilians killed in the last week. We mourn all civilian deaths—Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese—that have been unleashed by the appalling events of October 7. That's why we are focused in our foreign policy on the protection of innocent civilian life. It's why we've contributed $84.5 million in humanitarian assistance. It's why we've advocated for sustained and elevated humanitarian assistance to be provided into Gaza. It's also why we've advocated for restraint and de-escalation from all parties. It's why we've emphasised the importance of urgent diplomatic solutions in the region and ceasefires in Gaza and in Lebanon. Diplomacy cannot succeed in the context of military escalation. That's why we've condemned Iran's indiscriminate and irresponsible missile attacks. It's why we've condemned Iran's destabilising actions through its proxies in the region. It's why we've condemned Hezbollah's appalling missile attacks into Israel. We recognise Israel's right of self-defence in international law. We also recognise that the only enduring solution to this conflict is a diplomatic solution. The only enduring way to conclude this conflict is through a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians are able to live side by side in peace, prosperity and security. I want to dwell on one of the points of this motion. The member for Berowra said that we should leave things out of this motion if we can't agree on them. I just want to dwell on point 11. It reads: … stresses the need to break the cycle of violence and supports international efforts to de-escalate for a ceasefire in Gaza and in Lebanon, and for lasting peace and security for Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and all people in the region … I would have hoped this was something that we could all agree on. This is a motion where all of us have an obligation. All of us in this parliament, and throughout our nation, have an obligation to rise to this grave moment. An aspiration for peace is surely something that we can all agree to. Diplomacy cannot succeed in the context of escalation, and that is also true in the context of rhetorical escalation. All of us in this place, all of us in Australian society—all leaders in our society—have an obligation to model the kind of engagement and empathy that we need, to see an enduring solution to the conflict in the Middle East. I want to endorse the outstanding contribution to this debate by my friend the member for Macnamara. He's been a leader that we've been able to look to in Melbourne, across all communities, and I'm proud to call him my friend. I should note that my office has been vandalised many times in the last 12 months too, but no-one has ever drawn devil horns on my head. Josh, the member for Macnamara, gave an interview on the ABC this week, and I just want to quote what he said: The Jewish community has spent the past year in mourning; praying for those taken hostage to return home and grappling with an unprecedented rise in domestic anti-Semitism. There is a collective grief which is hard not to feel, and I know it will take generations to recover … There are many communities impacted by the past year and we must do all we can to show empathy and talk to one another because if we can't do that here in Australia, how do we expect those in the region to? As hard as this year has been, I haven't lost hope of peace. No matter how far away it seems, we must hold onto that hope. We should reflect on that in this building. If we can't model that here in Australia, then, on the other side of the world, how can we ask those who are parties to this conflict to model that? We've seen an appalling rise in antisemitism and in Islamophobia in Australia as this conflict has raised tensions in our community. We have not been silent about that in this place. The leaders in this place have not been silent. We have called it out regularly and directly. We also need to see empathy. There are so many in our community that are carrying trauma at the moment. I speak as a representative for the significant Lebanese-Australian community. I'm proud to represent them in this place. I've spoken to them. I know the terror and the fear that they feel for their friends and families still in Lebanon. I reiterate the call we've been making in recent weeks. Australians in Lebanon: Now is the time to leave. I know it's a heart-wrenching decision, but it's in your interest, for your safety, to make that decision to leave now and to take one of the assisted flights leaving the region that DFAT has organised. All of us here have an obligation, as leaders, to model the empathetic engagement that we need to see. Horrible things happening on the other side of the world are not a licence to behave horribly in our community. We're a diverse country—half of Australians were either born overseas or have a parent born overseas. Naturally, that means we'll have different perspectives on issues. We have different histories. We come from different starting points. We've got to find a way to live together in our country—in our schools, in our workplaces, in our sporting teams and in our communities. The only way we can do that is by doing less condemning, by doing less shouting, by doing more listening and by doing more empathising. We need to recognise that many of the people working side by side with us—many of our teammates on our sporting teams and many of our classmates—are carrying real trauma from the conflict that we've seen in the Middle East since October 7. We need to have a bit of empathy for that. We need to find space in our hearts to hear the suffering of our fellow Australians. Our country relies on that. If we can't do that as Australians, our nation can't continue. That's what we mean when we talk about social cohesion. It means getting on. Cohesion is not an end state—it's a verb; it's a process. It happens every day in our society. There are many things that we can disagree about in this conflict, but the way we disagree matters. We've got to disagree in a way that recognises that we have more in common as fellow Australian citizens than what divides us. We've got to disagree in a way that doesn't close off the possibility for us to live side by side. We've got to disagree in a way that recognises our fellow humanity. That's an obligation on all of us in this place. It's something that I'm proud to have seen the Prime Minister model, something I'm proud to see the foreign minister model and something that I'm proud to see the diverse representatives of our government of all faiths model since the appalling terrorist attacks of October 7. 12:55 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield On October 7, one year ago, Israel experienced an horrific, unprovoked attack by the barbaric terrorist organisation Hamas. Some 1,200 men, women and children were killed, over 200 people were taken hostage and some of those sadly have since been killed. A small number have been released. It's estimated that just over 100 are still held, and we hope and pray for them to be released. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Berowra in their clear, public statements in relation to how we, as the Australian nation, should respond to these dreadful events. Let's be clear: dreadful events have been continuing since 7 October 2023 because, of course, the terrorist organisation Hezbollah, which controls much of Lebanon, has been firing missiles into Israel, forcing some 70,000 people to leave their homes. It's clear that Hamas and Hezbollah are client organisations of the brutal theocratic regime in Iran. In recent months, as well as experiencing military aggression from these two terror organisations, Israel has come under extensive drone and missile attack directly from Iran. Iran and its various front organisations represent a profound threat not just to the existence of the State of Israel but also to the liberal democratic values which underpin Australia and like-minded nations around the world. That is a key reason why our response, as a nation and as a parliament, to these dreadful events is of enormous importance. We have seen exceptionally troubling developments in this country since that time. We have seen people celebrating this act of terrorism and the appalling murder, violence and sexual violence which accompanied it. We've seen a rise of antisemitism which has led to many Jewish Australians for the first time feeling unsafe. I'm proud to represent an electorate which has the second-largest Jewish community of any in New South Wales, and I have met with my constituents who have told me they feel unsafe, who have told me of episodes of their children being exposed to antisemitic bullying and harassment in school. Sadly, this is something which is facing our Jewish community. This is a real test of what is special about the Australian nation. We are all intensely proud of living in this enormously successful, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multiracial, multifaith nation, and our success reflects a profoundly Australian spirit of mutual tolerance, understanding and respect. It is vital that we maintain that spirit. A small number—a minority of people, but a troubling minority—are seeking to import into Australia sectarian hatred and violence which have no place here. We see this in the language and symbols used in the pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah protests, and there can be little doubt that agents of the Iranian regime are also involved. The great majority of Australians are rightly dismayed at these developments, and Australians recognise that this is a test for our nation and for the leadership of our nation. It is a test which demands in response strong and unequivocal leadership. It is a test which demands in response moral clarity. But we have not seen that from this Prime Minister and this government. We have seen, on a daily basis, calculations as to which gradations of words to use, informed by domestic political considerations and assessments of which seats in Western Sydney may be at risk. This is so much more important than those petty political considerations. This is a contest between good and evil, and we need a clear statement of that, a clear recognition of that. That brings me to the reason the coalition cannot support the motion in the words it takes, in the form it takes, before the House today. As the Leader of the Opposition and as the member for Berowra eloquently explained, this wording, particularly paragraph (k), is not wording that we're in a position to support. And I note that the changes to the standing orders imposed by the government for this debate specifically prohibit any amendments to the wording of this motion. When we see language about the cycle of violence which makes no reference to how that cycle of violence commenced—with an unprecedented attack in which 1,200 innocent men, women and children were killed—we see the kind of language that reveals the lack of moral clarity that has been a consistent feature of the weak and equivocating positions taken by the Prime Minister and by other senior Labor ministers. Let's be clear: of course everybody wants to see the people of Israel, the people of Gaza, the people of Lebanon and the people of other Middle Eastern nations living in peace and prosperity. But it is utterly fanciful to think that this objective will be achieved by pressing Israel to take no action in the face of repeated murderous attacks from terrorist organisations that are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel. To ignore that grim reality is to ignore the fundamental challenge and issue here. Unfortunately, the language of this motion reflects the continued equivocation of this Prime Minister and of this government on what should be an issue where there is clarity, an issue where it is accepted and understood and recognised that this is a conflict between good and evil. I want to quote from Israel's ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Amir Maimon, who said Israel 'did not ask for this war'. He said: We did not start this war, but we are determined to win this war, not just for our own sake, but for the sake of the free world. This isn't just another conflict. This is a battle between good and evil, between life and the forces of destruction. I want to emphasise those words: 'a battle between life and the forces of destruction'. As the member for Berowra eloquently spoke about, the images, the videos from the appalling attack on October 7—horrifyingly, videos taken and distributed in many cases by the terrorist attackers—show people celebrating indiscriminate violence and brutality against men, women and children, including sexual violence: glorification of this horrific treatment of other human beings. In these circumstances, the response of the State of Israel—a democracy, a longstanding ally and security partner of Australia, a country that is and should be a beacon of hope for nations around the world—to defend itself, to defend its people, to restore order, is a response that is appropriate and proportionate. It is regrettable in the extreme that, at a moment when we should have been able to come together with a motion of this parliament marking the one-year anniversary of this appalling event, the Prime Minister was unable to bring himself to use language which recognised the stark moral clarity of what has occurred here. It is deeply disappointing that the coalition has been put in this position. It is so important that, on this anniversary, we acknowledge the horror and the loss and we express our support for the people of Israel. 13:05 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein In Goldstein there are children who have barely slept since the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7 last year. Having a family history linked to the Holocaust means that even small children are aware of what can happen. Some have refused to go to school for much of the time since. One primary-school-aged child that I know of was only convinced to attend school when he knew that armed guards would be there to protect him—in Melbourne, Australia. People in our community who are not Jewish say, 'Why is this our problem here?' It's because of the threads that bind us to Israel via our large Jewish communities in Sydney and Melbourne, many of whom live in my electorate of Goldstein, just as, in other parts of Melbourne and Australia, Palestinians have settled, also seeking peace. Everyone deserves that simple thing. I note the opposition leader's comments arguing that mentioning both sides in this conversation is unhelpful today. Respectfully, I disagree. The pain of more than one group of people can coexist, no matter where that pain began. Shouting at each other in this place does not cancel out anyone's pain either. I would argue that that's actually what's unhelpful. This isn't a political conversation, or it shouldn't be. In Goldstein we welcomed refugees from the Holocaust. We offered them and their families refuge and safety, and they have flourished. In Caulfield, in Elsternwick and in Balaclava, especially, they have grown families and lives. Like my neighbours, the members for Macnamara and Isaacs—who I offer my sincere support to for the anxiety that they and those around them have suffered this year—they hoped the terror would never find them again. But it did on October 7, from across the seas. The spike in antisemitism since has been horrifying. On the weekend I attended the 100th birthday of Abram Goldberg. Abram last saw his mother as they lined up in Auschwitz in 1944. As he told the Australian Jewish News in 2022: When we lined up and heard the screams from the SS—'men one side, women and children the other side'—my mother realised that she was not going to get out alive … And in those few, precious moments she told me, 'Abram, you should do everything humanly possible to survive and when you will survive, wherever you will find yourself, you should tell people what actually happened.' Abram's mother was immediately sent to the gas chambers. He has since kept his promise, telling his story with bravery, generosity and understanding to all. As he said at his birthday party on Sunday, 'There is no place for hate between people, no matter their colour.' I have heard Abram speak several times and each time I've learnt and grown from hearing his story. I have learnt about humanity. As we pass this anniversary we must continue to press for the release of all hostages, for a ceasefire and for parties to come to the table. This will require carefully calibrated international and regional leadership to create a regional peace framework, to keep the peace in Gaza, to dismantle Hamas and to build an organisation capable of leading the Palestinian territories on a reasoned path through negotiations with Israel. Protests are understandable, but they won't fix it. I did hope to see bipartisan support today—to see a day that changes the conversation to one of hope. This is apparently not that, sadly. War is real. War is bloody. War is tragic. War is avoidable. As the conflict escalates into the region—attack, retaliate, attack, retaliate—soon it will be impossible to arrest that cycle. The word we need now is 'de-escalate'. We must, because the safe and secure future of the Israelis and the Palestinians is intertwined—and with our own stability, too. Last night, I joined thousands of members of Melbourne's Jewish community to mark one year since October 7. I wasn't sure what to expect on such a difficult and emotional day, but what I felt there amid, among and between that crowd was love. Let us find our shared humanity. 13:10 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Let me first start with what we do agree on in this chamber. I firstly want to acknowledge three members of this chamber: the member for Isaacs, the member for Macnamara and the member for Berowra. They are Jewish, or from Jewish descent, and this October 7 was obviously a very traumatic day for them, for the Jewish community and indeed for the wider community. We have all seen the vision. We've all heard the stories and we've all read reports about what happened on that day, just over a year ago. I remember talking to someone not long after the event, and I think they described it very well. They said that evil walked the earth that day. These were human beings. We have had some nice platitudes in the sense that we're all human beings, but we have to remember there were human beings that day who thought it was okay to shoot an unarmed teenager in the face. There were human beings that day that thought it was okay to kill babies. There were human beings that day that were happy to do some of the most horrific, barbaric things that a human being can do to another. We need to realise what we are dealing with here. If you speak to soldiers who have been engaged in armed conflict, defending their country, they will almost universally talk about the horror for them when they have killed a fellow human being. They did it in defence of their country. They did it because there was an armed conflict going on. What makes this worse is that not only were these people not armed, not only were these people women, children, teenagers at a music festival and normal civilians going about their work, and not only was the way they were killed the most barbaric, inhumane way you can kill people—but their killers celebrated it. That's what makes this all the more horrific. How do we know they celebrated it? They filmed it. They were jumping around excited. They were dragging young women out, who had been raped and brutalised, and they were running around excited about that. They were taking hostages back to their communities, and there were euphoric scenes about that. That's what we're dealing with. As a country, Israel has suffered something on a barbaric level that very few countries see very often. We can all agree with that. I'm sure there is no person in this chamber who does not agree that what happened that day, and the celebration around it, was horrific, barbaric, and not okay. So, good, we all agree with that—as we should and we speak very strongly about that. Now, what we're talking about is what do we do as a country, and what do we do as a government, in response to that? That's where the disagreement is. As my colleague the member for Berowra said—I thought very eloquently—we've got to remember that Hamas and Hizballah are terrorist organisations. If you say to Israel, 'You need to negotiate a ceasefire,' you're talking about negotiating a ceasefire with people who killed babies, celebrated raping people and did very barbaric acts—that's who you're negotiating with. For them to put that pressure on Israel, saying, 'What you're doing is not okay and you should be signing up to a ceasefire,' when these people still hold hostages and have celebrated their barbaric acts—Israel doing this in a state of self-defence to make sure it doesn't happen again but also to try to get those hostages returned to their country is very understandable, I think. It's why I'm very supportive of Israel's response to this, and the fact is that, unfortunately, this motion went places I thought it shouldn't. The other thing I want to touch on is my horror at what has happened in Australia since then. Let's not forget that there was a celebration of this event—that barbarianism—at the opera house within 24 hours. That's what we also have to acknowledge in this chamber and acknowledge as legislators, given that we as ministers, and state ministers, look after the police forces and whatever. There are many people, unfortunately—thousands of people, I think, in Australia now—who celebrate that. Sure, there is a wider conflict; there is a wider story here about Palestine and about the Middle East. It is a very complex situation, and I respect differences of opinion on that. But at the moment we are dealing with two barbaric terrorist organisations who did barbaric things, and there are people celebrating that in Australia. I think, both as Australian police forces and Australian governments, we need to do more in communicating that that is not okay at any level, and we have to support Israel defending themselves against these barbaric acts. 13:16 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise today to mark the solemn one-year anniversary of Hamas's October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, a devastating attack that claimed more Jewish lives in a single day than any since the Holocaust. October 7 was not just an assault on Israel; it was an affront to humanity. Men, women and children were slaughtered without mercy—not just Israelis and not just Jews; they were from 30 countries and five religions. They were tortured, murdered, raped, taken as hostages. This was not a military intervention. These were not soldiers or military targets. They deliberately targeted civilians—men, women, children, grandchildren—to drive fear and horror and undermine any sense of safety. And people were frightened. This attack awakened family memories of antisemitic attacks at different times and in distant nations. But we cannot let the terrorists write this story. We have to write a new story after this. And so last night I was part of a wonderful commemoration of October 7. Over 10,000 people came together in my community to mourn but also to stand together in strength. We heard it from young Israelis who survived October 7, and we saw it in the courage of the families and friends of hostages in those commemorations last night. These are the people who have stood with strength. The events of October 7 have had a devastating impact not just on Israelis. They have created a horrifying loss of life on all sides, because Hamas didn't just kill Israelis; it led to a devastating loss of life of Palestinians. Hamas didn't protect the people it claimed to lead. It hid its weapons behind civilians and it used them as human shields. Over 40,000 Palestinians have died, many of them innocent civilians. This has now escalated into a broader conflict with Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran—an axis of evil that seeks to plunge the region into deeper violence and instability, which I condemn. Once again, I acknowledge what people have said about the antisemitism that people have seen in this place, and to be honest this is one of the biggest concerns of my community, which has the biggest Jewish community in the country. I have heard children talk about being abused on the street for being Jewish, and there are kids who are afraid to go into university because they are Jewish. This is unacceptable. But I have to talk briefly to this motion. I was not part of the bickering of the major parties that has led to this divided House today, and I am so disappointed. I condemn October 7. I condemn the actions of Hamas. I mourn the Israelis that have died. But I also mourn the innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians that have died. These people are somebody's children. I wish that we as a parliament could come together and lead in a united way. I would have supported this motion had it been separated into two motions—one on October 7 and one recognising the pain that the last year had brought—even on separate days. We could have found a way through this, and I am once again disappointed by this House and the politicisation of this issue, because the country is looking for us to come together. The country is hurting. There are people who have lost friends and family across our communities. They are hurting, and we are not helping these people. On the record—because I know this is politicised—I do support Israel's right to defend itself and its right to respond right now. I do not support a one-sided, imposed ceasefire on Israel. I'm entirely clear of this. But, of course, like so many other people, I pray for peace. I believe the only way we will get that, ultimately, is if we have two states living next to each other. This is a peace that I pray for, and I wish to God that this parliament could actually make a contribution towards it. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to.    

The House divided. [13:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

85 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 54 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 13 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024, Aged Care Bill 2024 13

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

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024

Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024

Aged Care Bill 2024

Reference to Federation Chamber 13 13:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No.1) Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Bill 2024 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024, Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 14

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

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

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

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 14 Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024, National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024, Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023, Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 14

Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024

Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024

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

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

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

Assent 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Good Neighbour Council Launceston 14 13:30 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I had the pleasure of joining with a wonderful community organisation last Friday as they celebrated their 75th anniversary. The end of World War II saw more than 170,000 displaced people arrive in Australia from countries across Europe between 1947 and 1954. Immigration departments were not set up to provide practical and essential support to our new arrivals, so they looked to the people and asked organisations and everyday Australians to become involved. And so the Good Neighbour movement was born, with 960 community agencies and thousands of volunteers across the country within a few short years. Tasmania was there from the start. In November 1949, the Tasmanian Good Neighbour movement was founded. The Launceston branch was one of the first and, sadly, is now the last remaining branch in the country. With its original functions now largely overtaken by the work of migrant resource centres, the Good Neighbour Council Launceston has evolved as its members have aged. It now has some funding support through the aged-care portfolio, but it remains GNC's mission to ensure its members are not isolated, by providing opportunities for group and individual social support. Friday's celebration was a testament to that, with a joyous gathering of members and supporters reminiscing about 75 years of fun, friendship and care. Highlights were the young singers, the flag parade, Chris's trip down memory lane and, of course, the cake. Thank you to the Good Neighbour Council Launceston. Congratulations on your 75th birthday. May there be many more ahead. Help to Buy Bill 2023 14

Help to Buy Bill 2023

13:31 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley I rise to speak about the Albanese Labor government's Help to Buy Bill 2023, which is returning to parliament and is another important initiative regarding the cost of living. The Greens political party and the Liberals have teamed up to delay this bill, which is just shameful. Labor has a simple belief that ordinary Australians should be able to own their own homes. The Help to Buy Bill will help Australians buy a home with a smaller deposit. By providing a contribution of up to 40 per cent for new homes, the Help to Buy Bill will help Australians on low and middle incomes to buy a home with a deposit as low as two per cent, getting more Australians into a home of their own. This will bring homeownership back into reach for thousands of Australians who have been locked out of the housing market. This government knows it needs to do more to help people own a home in this country. That's why we are working for Australians and getting on with the job of building more homes in this country—as opposed to the Greens and the Liberals, who just want to play politics. Heritage, Mr Robert Frank (Robbie) 15 13:33 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Funeral directors hold a special place in our community. They help people in some of their worst times, commemorating and celebrating a life and guiding families through an unimaginable tragedy, particularly the death of a child. Robbie Heritage played a large part in our community. On Saturday, I, with thousands of others, paid tribute to Robbie and celebrated his life at his funeral parlour. Robbie Heritage and the Heritage family—through Heritage & Heritage—are a huge part of our community. The Warby highway was a traffic jam, and I thank the local CFA for directing traffic. The last time we saw traffic that bad for a funeral in our community was for the late, great Don Bigham and his contribution. Robbie's life was a life well lived; he was a local icon. He was born in Healesville in 1940 and spent his whole life in our community. He built a business, lost it all, went again and continued to give back to the community, even in his final days. So many people, including me, have been touched by Robbie's presence at funerals, sitting in the back and making sure everything went well. Vale, Robbie Heritage. My condolences to his wife, Elaine; his son, Gavan; his daughters, Sandra and Janet; and his grandchildren, Lockie, Jackie, Jaime, Brad, Charlotte and Kate. Rest in peace, Robbie. Labor Government 15 13:34 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The Albanese government has a laser-like focus on helping Australians with cost-of-living issues. We want Australians not only to earn more but to keep more of what they earn. If we had those opposite running the country, not all Australians would have gotten a tax break. But we've made sure that all working Australians will get some tax relief, and that will be good for all Australians and Australian families. We also know that the cost of living is really hurting Australian families in particular but also every single Australian, which is why we have done so much to make sure not only that there is pressure on the supermarkets but that there is more transparency to make sure they are dealing with their customers—our fellow Australians—fairly. We've brought in the code of conduct, which, under those opposite, was only voluntary. We've made it mandatory. We've funded Choice to do the tracking and monitoring of the price of groceries across the country, and what we've found is that ALDI is often a lot cheaper. That's why I'm pushing to bring ALDI to the Northern Territory, and I understand that Tasmania is keen as well. The more competition we have, the better it will be for Australians around the country, and that is what we're focused on. Raise Our Voice Australia, Voluntary Assisted Dying 15 13:36 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise today on behalf of a constituent, Eve, as part of the Raise Our Voice Australia initiative. This is Eve's speech: My Mum passed away in August 2023 via Voluntary Assisted Dying. Her death, whilst peaceful, was not without suffering. Mum suffered from end-stage renal failure and had been on dialysis for three years. With the current wording of our legislation, Mum wasn't considered eligible to access VAD until she ceased dialysis. It took nine weeks for VAD approval following her final submission. Had she discontinued dialysis, the application process would have taken longer than her life expectancy. I encourage our federal representatives to advocate for further expansion and unification of the legislated eligibility criteria for VAD. Death and illness do not discriminate. Unifying eligibility criteria would help enable equal access for all Australians, regardless of location. Had those changes been in place, my mother could've avoided unnecessary suffering and had a less traumatic passing. I thank Eve so much for her courage and generosity in sharing her mum's story. Much does need to be done to improve end-of-life care in this country. I commit to working on this for as long as I remain in this House. Cost of Living 15 13:37 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The cost-of-living of pressures facing Australians are real. These pressures have been exacerbated in recent times by inflationary pressures and suppressed wages. It has meant that everyday Australians have found day-to-day living difficult to manage. The Albanese Labor government acknowledges the difficult circumstances facing many Australian households. But, unlike those opposite, we actually have a plan to offer real help while fighting inflation. Our plan is one that I'm proud to stand by. We have delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. In addition, every Australian household has $300 worth of energy bill relief. But our plan has gone further. We delivered a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian, delivered cheaper child care, delivered free TAFE, expanded bulk-billing and supported a pay rise for $2.6 million workers. But the work is not done. We're also cracking down on supermarkets, their gouging and the shrinking of their products, because consumers deserve a fair go. Labor's plan is the right one. It offers genuine and real relief to all Australians, because we want Australians to both earn more and keep more of what they earn, rewarding effort and helping in difficult times. That's the Labor way and the hallmark of this government. Health Care 16 13:39 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane Universal health care is critical to a progressive and productive society. It ensures that everyone has access to the health care they need when they need it, without fear of spiralling costs forcing a choice between health and any other essential. In my electorate of Brisbane, it has become almost impossible to find a GP who bulk-bills. Over the past decade, the number of bulk-billing GPs has dropped to just over three per cent. I have met many people in the community who no longer have access to bulk-billing services because of policy choices made by previous governments. Unfortunately, it doesn't come as a shock. As handouts to multinationals and the super wealthy increase, austerity and cuts to public services always follow. We should be real about this. For every dollar given as a subsidy to a fossil fuel company, that is a dollar missing from our healthcare services. The Greens have recently announced a plan to triple the bulk-billing incentive for everyone with a Medicare card to enable all Australians to go a GP for free as well as to get free GP appointments with other primary healthcare professionals. It is absolutely vital that we pressure the government to recommit to truly universal health care. Living through the United States healthcare system is what made me get into politics. We cannot go down that path. We must ensure that every community has access to bulk-billing GPs. Anything less is to give up on universal health care. Cost of Living 16 13:40 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby This government's No. 1 priority is all about helping Australians with the cost of living while fighting inflation. We are bringing down costs for households, getting wages up and working hard to get inflation back to where it should be. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn and not pay more than they should. Since 1 July, we've delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just for some. There has been a $300 energy bill relief for every Australian household and $325 for small businesses, and the first quarter rebate is out already; a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian; a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers; and more funding to build more homes. But that's not all. We've delivered cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment in expanding bulk-billing. We're delivering a better deal for Aussies at the checkout, cracking down on dodgy supermarket discounts, fighting against shrinkflation because you deserve a fair deal, and making sure that supermarkets that do the wrong thing face multimillion-dollar fines. All of this is part of the long-term economic plan, helping Australians right now, working to bring down inflation and planning a future made in Australia. We know there's more to do, and we'll keep working and I'll keep working every day to deliver for every Australian. South Australian National Football League 16 13:42 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I had hoped to be speaking to the House in different circumstances to report on a fantastic victory of the Norwood Redlegs Football Club at the recent SANFL grand final, but regrettably it was not to be. Unfortunately, my local team were defeated by Glenelg by less than a goal, after having a fantastic season, finishing on top and going on to win the first final that they played in, guaranteeing them a berth directly through into the grand final. Being there at Adelaide Oval, I did think, initially, that the wind had a significant impact. It was not the greatest first quarter but an excellent second quarter. Unfortunately, in the third quarter, Glenelg really did pull away. Norwood came so close in the final quarter, getting to within a goal. We were waiting and hoping that we could just create an opportunity for a final goal much like in the 2022 victory, where the famous Matt Panos kick on the siren, through the middle, achieved victory for Norwood. It wasn't to be in 2024. My deepest congratulations to Jade Rawlings and the whole Norwood footy club team. They had a fantastic season; there's no doubt about it. It was bitterly disappointing that we didn't quite get to bring home the cup, but hopefully next year we can make it a very, very different story, and I look forward to continuing to go to their games well into the future. Cost of Living 16 13:43 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Australians are under cost-of-living pressures right now, and that's why our No. 1 priority is helping Australians by bringing down the costs for households, getting wages up and working hard to get inflation back to where it should be, because we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Since 1 July, we've delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just for some. There has been a $300 energy bill relief for every Australian household and $325 for small business; a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian; a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers; and more funding to build more homes in every part of the country, and that's not all. The Albanese Labor government has already delivered cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing. We are delivering a better deal for Aussies at the check-out by cracking down on dodgy supermarket discounts, fighting against companies shrinking the size of products—paying more for air just isn't fair—and making sure supermarkets that do the wrong thing face multimillion dollar fines. This is all part of Labor's long-term economic plan to help Australians right now, working to bring down inflation and support Australians to do well. Queensland State Election 17 13:45 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert This month, the good people of Queensland have a decision to make: stick with a tired, old, washed-up state Labor government that has been recycling ministers—Steven Miles, the Premier, is just another Palaszczuk minister—or back in a change in the form of the LNP, David Crisafulli and his team to lead the state of Queensland. In Townsville we have three very tired Labor state MPs who haven't been backing the people of Townsville. Crime is the No. 1 issue. We see people living in fear. We see people who have been robbed, carjacked and threatened, whose lives have been put at risk. We're told time and time again by these three state Labor MPs that crime is not an issue. Well, tell that to the people who have been robbed at knife point, whose houses have been broken into and who are continually scared in their own homes. There are four good options in Townsville. There is Adam Baillie, for the seat of Townsville, who is a small-business owner. There is Janelle Poole, for the seat of Mundingburra, who is a police officer, protecting the community. There is Natalie Marr, for Thuringowa, who worked for Crime Stoppers, answering those calls. And there is Annette Swaine, our candidate for Hinchinbrook, who is also a police officer. We need to make change at this state election. Albanese Government 17 13:46 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I was very honoured to be elected to this place in May 2022 as the member for Spence. I ran on a campaign motto of Your Community Voice, standing up for the hard-working men and women of my electorate. When we came into government, things were pretty tough. Inflation was at 6.1 per cent. Wage growth was next to non-existent. We had a lot of cleaning up to do. What did we do? We stood up and delivered for working-class Australians. We got to work, as good Labor governments do. We implemented our responsible economic plan, a plan that is working. Inflation is now almost half what it was when we came into government. We delivered targeted energy relief to households by way of our $300 relief on bills. We put a freeze on the PBS medicines. We made the really hard decision to put more money in people's back pockets, including more than 67,000 people in my electorate of Spence, through our bigger, better, fairer tax cuts. At the end of the day, the Albanese Labor government wants to make sure that you earn more and keep more of what you earn. Those opposite want you to work longer for less. Mental Health 17 13:48 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff During Youth Voice in Parliament Week, I committed to reading a speech written by a young person, to give her a voice in this place and to amplify her view. Today I will be sharing the words of Libby, who wants to see Australians have accessible, affordable and high-quality mental health support. We know that one in five teenagers and young adults experience mental health challenges annually, with common problems including depression, anxiety, substance abuse and trauma related disorders. Getting support isn't easy, due to long waiting lists, shortages of psychology services, and struggles with the associated fees. With this psychology shortage, many teens give up on the thought of getting better. Suicide is now the leading cause of death among young Australians, with more than 3,000 young people taking their own lives each year. Libby is a teenager who suffers from poor mental health, and she has many close friends who suffer from suicidal thoughts and mental illness. She says the feeling of having no professional to turn to, due to the waiting lists and fees, is a scary reality. Libby wants parliament to help address this issue by providing more funding, ending stigma and spreading awareness. She says the funding should be extended beyond phone lines, as sometimes it requires more than one visit. There should be more school-based wellbeing programs, with proper psychologists, and more funding to organisations such as Borderline Australia so that more young adults can get the help they need. Wages 18 13:49 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt The Albanese Labor government was elected on a clear promise to get Australians' wages moving after a decade of stagnation. As someone who has spent most of their life on the minimum wage, I know how important that fight is. One of our first actions in government was securing a 5.1 per cent pay rise for minimum wage workers, despite the Liberals claiming that it would harm the economy. Across the economy wages have grown at an average of 3.1 per cent under Labor—nearly double the rate under the Liberals, who suppressed wages and made sure Australians earned less. For full-time minimum wage workers this means an extra $143 in their pockets each week. With Labor's tax cut, the average resident of Holt is also saving $1,320 per year. While the Liberals remain distracted, Labor is focused on what matters: tackling the cost of living and putting more money in people's pockets. History shows that you can't trust Liberals with your wages. Labor is here to raise incomes and deliver real relief for every Australian in this nation. Parkes Electorate: Growing Regions Program 18 13:51 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes Over the term of this government we've seen a cutback in funding going into regional Australia. We've seen the cessation of local government programs for community infrastructure and roads, such as Roads of Strategic Importance and the Stronger Communities Program. The Growing Regions Program, which is this government's flagship funding program for regional Australia, is something that my communities have been hanging out for. I acknowledge that, in the last round, five projects in my electorate were funded, and those organisations were grateful to receive that funding. We've got a problem in New South Wales at the moment, though, in that round 2 closes for applications in two days time, on 10 October. Since 13 September, local government has been in caretaker mode, virtually, because of local government elections. We haven't had councils. In some of the 19 councils in the Parkes electorate, we haven't yet got a mayor elected, because of the timeframe and the complexity of counting in local government elections. I'm calling on Minister King to please extend that deadline out by another week or so so that councils that have been caught up in the hiatus of local government elections can get their applications in. (Time expired) Leader of the Opposition 18 13:52 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid There are moments in this place when we need our political leaders to rise to meet the moment. Every time we have those moments, the Leader of the Opposition fails to meet the moment. There is no issue too big for him to politicise and show how small he is. He did that earlier today when he refused to back a motion commemorating the attacks on 7 October, because the motion also acknowledged the loss of life of those in Gaza and Lebanon. Why am I surprised by the actions of the Leader of the Opposition? He has form on this. He has always failed to reach the moment. He did that during the election campaign when asked whether or not people on the minimum wage ought to receive a wage increase. In that moment he said no, whereas the Prime Minister unequivocally said yes. When we are going through a cost-of-living challenge and we are saying to people, 'We want to give you energy bill relief,' the Leader of the Opposition says no. When the community are saying that they want action on climate change, the only offer the Leader of the Opposition is providing is not renewable energy but nuclear energy, again failing to read the community and failing to rise to meet the moment. O'Connor Electorate: South Coast Marine Park 18 13:54 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor () (): I rise to update the House on the shambolic South Coast Marine Park that WA Labor is foisting on my constituents. The environment minister, Reece Whitby, wants to ban beach access and fishing along a 1,200-kilometre stretch of WA's south coast from the South Australian border west to Bremer Bay. If Mr Whitby and his Greens backers succeed, the fear is that they'll turn their attention further westward, banning fishing from Albany along the entire south coast to Augusta. I've done my own community surveys, which found that over 90 per cent of 6,000 respondents outright oppose the park. I've held forums in coastal communities, where their anger is palpable, where they've seen WA Labor try to impose its cultural heritage act on farmers and families and federal Labor commit to banning live sheep exports. The WA government promised a thorough socio-economic analysis of the effects of the proposed marine park, but nothing has materialised. Commercial fishers have asked: what compensates the loss of an intergenerational livelihood? Recreational anglers have queried: why can't fishing be regulated rather than subject to a blanket ban? And beachgoers want to know why they'll be unable to access their pristine coastline. Speaker, this is not a planning process; it's a banning process, and Labor should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Wages 19 13:55 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck The people of the electorate of Hasluck have been telling me that they know the government is listening and they know that if the member for Dickson had been Prime Minister over the last two years then wages wouldn't be up. He wouldn't have supported an increase to the minimum wage. He wouldn't have supported better wages for aged-care workers. He wouldn't have supported better pay for childcare workers. The people of Hasluck know that if the opposition leader had been the Prime Minister there wouldn't have been a tax cut for every Australian worker, there wouldn't have been two consecutive budget surpluses and there wouldn't even have been action on supermarket prices. People in Hasluck know that the government is listening, and they know that the coalition have no answers. They do know that the Liberals and Nationals don't support wage increases for Australian workers. They do know that the Liberals and Nationals don't support fair working conditions for Australian workers. The Liberals and Nationals won't even do the work to ensure that Australian shoppers get a fair deal at the supermarket and farmers get a fair deal at the farm gate. Australians deserve of a future of opportunities—a future that includes jobs, security and prosperity. Labor is making one for every person in Hasluck and for people across the country. Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 19

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024

13:57 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks The government's misinformation bill is a shocking betrayal of democracy. It has no place in our nation, and the coalition will oppose it with every fibre of our being. This is a terrible piece of legislation which gives digital companies a big financial incentive to censor the free speech of Australians on a wide range of issues, including elections and referendums. It's right there in the bill. This bill gives a minister of the Crown the personal power to order misinformation investigations and hearings. I would encourage those opposite, if they haven't had a chance to read the bill their minister has put forward, to please do so. You might be surprised by some of the content. You might be surprised, for instance, to discover that if an ordinary Australian says something then that can be misinformation, but if an academic says the same thing then that can't be misinformation. You might be surprised, Mr Speaker, to discover that in this bill a wide range of things are covered and every Australian's free speech is at risk, because the digital companies have every incentive to censor material to comply with this bill. There's one place that this bill belongs, and that is the bin. Cost of Living 19 13:58 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie In spite of the joy of the mighty Panthers' spectacular fourth grand final win in a row at the weekend, there's no denying that things are tight for families in Macquarie. Labor know that, and it's our No. 1 priority to help ease the pain of cost of living, at the same time making sure that what we do also helps fight inflation. We're making sure Australians earn more, keep more of what they earn and don't pay more than they should, especially at the supermarket. We're cracking down on dodgy supermarket discounts and fighting shrinking products, making sure supermarkets face multimillion dollar fines for doing the wrong thing by consumers. While we know there's more to do, we also know this: the Liberals would not have given every Aussie a tax cut, just some; the Liberals would not have given every household $300 or every business $325 off their electricity bill; the Liberals would not have frozen the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian; the Liberals would not have supported a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers; and the Liberals would not be providing funding to build more homes right across the country. Only Labor will keep working to bring costs down for households and to get wages up, and we'll work hard to get inflation back down where it should be. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 19 CONDOLENCES Dondas, Hon. Nicholas Manuel, AM 19 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the House of the death on 8 September 2024 of the Hon. Nicholas Manuel Dondas AM, a member of this House for the division of Northern Territory from 1996 to 1998. As a mark of respect to the memory of the Hon. Nick Dondas, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 20 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Truss, Rt Hon. Mary Elizabeth 20 14:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a guest of the Leader of the Opposition, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Rt Hon. Elizabeth Truss. On behalf of all members, I welcome you to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration 20 14:01 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Was the minister the decision-maker in issuing a visa to Khaled Beydoun, or was the minister or his office made aware that Beydoun had applied for a visa? 14:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson That visa would have gone through the department. It was not brought to my attention before it was issued. Middle East 20 14:02 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on efforts to bring Australians home from Lebanon? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Werriwa for her question. I know that this is an issue that she has raised directly with me and the Minister for Home Affairs, as she has a sizeable population of Lebanese origin, like many of our electorates, many of whom would have been in Lebanon during this extraordinarily difficult time. I can report that, as of 8 October, a total of 1,215 Australians, permanent residents and their immediate family members have been assisted by the government to depart Lebanon. This includes six Australian government flights: two on Saturday 5 October, carrying 407 passengers; two on 6 October, carrying 448 passengers; and two on 7 October, carrying 311 passengers. There are 3,892 Australians and their immediate family members registered to depart. Vulnerable and displaced people are being prioritised. We know that hundreds of thousands of people in Lebanon have been displaced. The scenes of families reuniting at Australian airports have been so moving. I'm pleased that the member for Watson, the Minister for Home Affairs, was able to greet many of the Australian citizens when they arrived in Sydney just last night. One returning Australian, Aurore Gharib, told the media she was very proud to be a citizen. To quote her: 'The things the Australian government did for us, nobody in the world would do.' Our message to Australians in Lebanon remains to please take the first flight option that is available to you. There should not be an empty seat on any of these flights. We will not be able to continue these flights indefinitely. Can I say that Australians in Lebanon who wish to leave should ensure they are registered via DFAT's crisis portal or by calling the Australian government's 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61262613305. Further flights back to Australia are planned for coming days. Two more flights are scheduled to leave Beirut today, Beirut time. Australians and their families are staying in temporary accommodation in Larnaca in Cyprus and returning to Australia on connecting flights. I thank Foreign Minister Wong for her tireless efforts. I thank DFAT, the Australian Defence Force and other Australian officials who've been working around the clock to get these Australians home. I thank all the members of the National Security Committee who've been meeting regularly to put these measures in place in advance. I do also want to thank the airlines Qantas and Qatar, who are assisting with these repatriation flights and providing their aircraft and personnel to assist with the safe return of Australians from what is a very dangerous and precarious position. Once again, to reiterate: Please come home when you have the opportunity. Do not wait. Do not think, 'Things might get better.' Please come home and be safe. The SPEAKER 53517 On indulgence, the honourable the Leader of the Opposition. 14:06 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to agree and wholeheartedly support the comments of the Prime Minister. To all Australian citizens who are in Lebanon at the moment: Please heed the advice of the Prime Minister and the Australian government. Please listen to family and loved ones back here, where they are urging you to return back to Australia. It is a precarious time in the Middle East, as we well know. The Australian government has done a good job in providing clear advice to Australian citizens who are in the region, to take up the offer of the flights. People should do that without hesitation. Again, I endorse and support the words of the Prime Minister in providing that encouragement to Australian citizens. Australian Greens 21 14:06 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Australian Greens have been racist and antisemitic in the position that they've adopted since October 7, 2023? The SPEAKER 53517 There are some difficulties with that question as it's asking for an opinion or a view, and those questions have not been permitted within the standing orders. Perhaps, to assist the chamber and to assist the Leader of the Opposition, he could make the question relevant perhaps to the direct responsibilities of the Prime Minister or what he's in charge of. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to previous statements of the Prime Minister where he's been critical of the Greens political party and their stance, which has been racist and antisemitic, that has been adopted since October 7, 2023. Does the Prime Minister still have that view? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition, we will deal with this; we'll find a way through. People are entitled to ask questions. It's my job to assist all members, to ensure that there is a free flow of debate. The Leader of the House. The SPEAKER 53517 Well, it's a broad question, and it's referring to the Prime Minister's former statements, so it's within order. I'll give the call to the Prime Minister, but it will be, obviously, a very broad answer. 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, and I reiterate this point: there have been moments of antisemitism and racism in some of the responses that we've seen in the political debate taking place here in Australia. I have been critical of the stance that the Greens political party have made, but I make this point as well: many people in the Greens political party, like in other parties—the Liberal Party and the National Party, as well as the Labor Party and the Independents—are people of goodwill who join political parties because they think that is the vehicle for them to make the change that they want. It's not something that I agree with. I would always be a member of a political party that's a party of government rather than a party of protest. But I wouldn't want to suggest that every member in my electorate or in other places has engaged in that. In the lead-up to the local government elections in my local area, in the Inner West Council, I was extraordinarily critical of the actions of Greens councillors and their supporters for being part of a campaign, including a counterproductive campaign outside my electorate office as well as in council meetings, where a council meeting had to be abandoned because of the disruption that had occurred. The Inner West Council has a lot of things to do. It looks after rubbish. It looks after roads. It looks after housing. It looks after the local community. It is not a player in the conflict in the Middle East. One of the things I've been critical of is the attempt to argue that Australia can have a role—not a major role, compared with a country like the United States—in what occurs in the Middle East. But we can make a decision that we won't bring conflict here. We do have a role in that. I'd say that people, if they hold office in federal or state parliaments or in local government—whatever political party they represent—need to bear in mind the words of Mike Burgess, the ASIO director-general, about the responsibility that we have to take the temperature down in this country rather than to lift it up. Whichever political party is engaged in that, I would urge everyone in this chamber and, indeed, everyone who holds a role in public life to bear that warning and caution of Director-General Burgess in mind. Housing 21 14:11 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is for the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for working Australians in my electorate and across the country to own a home? What might prevent that from happening? 14:11 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I want to thank the member for Fraser for his question. The member for Fraser and I share a pretty simple belief. We want to live in a country where ordinary Australians can get the opportunity to own their own home. But he knows and I know that too many of our constituents spend their weekends in rental queues, dozens of people deep, looking at homes that they don't even really want to live in. We have a generation of low- and middle-income people who are stuck in rent traps, who feel anger and despair at the notion that homeownership feels out of reach. Mr Sukkar interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Ms O'NEIL 140590 All of us in this chamber have constituents who are making major life decisions—delaying children, spending two hours in a car every day getting to and from work—because they can't find the housing that they need. It's not good enough. That is why our government is so committed to making a difference to this problem. Right now, the parliament has the chance to do just that. Our Help to Buy legislation will back 40,000 childcare workers, teachers and apprentices into homeownership where they would otherwise have no chance of getting into the housing market. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is going to cease interjecting. Ms O'NEIL 140590 There is genuinely no sound policy reason not to support this bill, but that's never stopped the 'noalition'—the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens who are today standing in the path of this reform. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. I would like to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The term is out of order and the minister should be asked to withdraw. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: the earlier ruling that you made was based on parties being referred to by their correct titles. Therefore, you had objected to that term being used when it was a combination of the Liberal Party and the National Party. It's another thing altogether to use that term, where there's no protection under the standing orders, where a new alliance is formed between the Greens, the Liberal Party and the National Party. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House needs to state his point of order without excessive details. Whoever is interjecting can cease immediately as well. To assist the House, I will enable the minister not to use that term and just to refer back to the question without any titles. If she was referring to political parties I'd ask her, to assist the House, to assist me in addressing political parties by their correct titles. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I'm absolutely happy to do that. I would encourage those opposite, if they don't want to be called that, to stop teaming up with people of the crossbench to stand in the path of critical things that will help us address the housing issues in the minds of Australians. In some senses, I expect this ridiculous bloody-mindedness on this policy that we see from those opposite, because it was a decade of inaction of the part of their party which has in part brought us to where we are today on housing. But I do expect better of the Australian Greens party. The hypocrisy from the Greens is so outrageous that they actually bought a shared equity scheme, a similar policy, to the election in 2022. They are coming into the parliament and voting against their own policy, and they're holding to ransom the housing aspirations of 40,000 people who need and deserve the help of government. Our party takes a very different view. Those 40,000 people—the childcare workers, the early career nurses, the aged care workers—are the reason that my colleagues and I get out of bed every morning. Those people are the reason that the member for Fraser and I decided to go into politics. I remind the parliament that this is not some abstract political debate here. The things we do in this chamber have real consequences for real people. Forty-thousand people can have their lives changed by this law, but those opposite and those on the crossbench stand in the path of progress. I would say about the Greens that they're good at making a very big noise about their concerns about housing progress, but, when it comes time to make a difference, they will choose politics every single time, and they deserve every day to be condemned for that stance. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 22 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS United States: Congressional Delegation, Settlement Services International, Hull, Mrs Kay Elizabeth AO 22 14:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of United States congressional staff, visiting Parliament House and hosted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of representatives and partners from Settlement Services International. They are in Canberra to launch their Activate Australia's Skills campaign aimed at reducing barriers faced by overseas-trained Australians. I also want to welcome back to parliament Mrs Kay Elizabeth Hull AO, former member for Riverina. Welcome to you all to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Gambling Advertising 22 14:16 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein My question is to the Prime Minister. In the gallery today, we have several people who have tried to meet with you and your ministers to tell you how gambling addiction has ruined their lives. They say that gambling ads constantly triggered them to gamble, and they're asking you to ban all gambling ads to stop the normalisation of gambling, especially for children. Prime Minister, why have you engaged directly with those who profit from gambling but not with these people, and what do you have to say to them as they sit here today? 14:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I was with the member for Goldstein last night. She's fully aware of where I've been and fully aware of who I've been with today. So I reject the assertion that I won't meet with people. The last person I met with on this issue was Tim Costello ten days ago. Housing 23 14:17 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the Albanese Labor government's plan to help more Australians into homeownership, and what is standing in the way? Ms O'Neil 140590 The Noalition. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Housing will cease interjecting and cease using that term. 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. My neighbour in Reid is fully aware of the pressures that are on housing in our shared community of the inner west of Sydney, which is why Labor's Help to Buy program, aimed at helping 40,000 Australians to buy a home of their own, is such a practical initiative. We're stepping up to get Australians the assistance they need to buy a home. It's a pretty simple scheme. It's one that's worked around the world. It's worked in the UK; it's worked in New Zealand; it's worked in WA for decades. That's why the clue is in the title: Help to Buy. The Liberals, of course, never want to help, and the Greens don't want people to buy. They're against homeownership. So perhaps you can understand why this has occurred. But Australia's housing crisis didn't happen overnight. The former government didn't bother to have a housing minister for the entire time they were in office. They just didn't bother. Their solution today is much the same—stand in the way, block help, play politics instead of progress. Of course, the Greens political party have blocked more homes than they've ever built. There's a plan at the moment in my electorate for housing at Taverners Hill, along Parramatta Road. There's a plan for housing at the old Balmain Leagues Club, which has been derelict for decades, just there wasting away. But those opposite think there are too many houses being built there. It's on Victoria Road, and the local state member for the Greens is worried about overshadowing onto Victoria Road—that the drivers who drive along that main thoroughfare might get a bit of shadow! We on this side support more homes, and that's why we're getting on with the job of building them. Now, this isn't the be all and end all. We have record funding for social and public housing. We're also trying to get our program going for build to rent. So, we want every aspect: we want more public housing, we want more private rental housing and we want more homeownership—all three. And we want to provide assistance to states and territories for planning, to make sure local and state governments are approving more housing. We know this issue is too important to wait, and it's beyond my comprehension how those in the Senate continue to block. Australian Greens 23 14:21 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister take a principled stance and rule out giving preferences to the racist and antisemitic Greens political party at the next election? The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Housing and for Homelessness is now warned. No-one is to interject before a prime minister or minister is to speak. 14:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler When I came into this House, in 1996, a fairly famous redhead was elected and used to sit up in that back corner. At that time, Pauline Hanson was dis-endorsed by the Liberal Party. I don't know what the voting record is in the Senate there, but, as much as we talk about legislation, we put her automatically in the column of the LNP—an LNP that has said, very clearly, in the election that's underway at the moment in Queensland, that they'll give preferences to One Nation. If they're worried about preferences going to the Greens and about the Greens being elected to parliament, I would say that the only reason there are Greens in the Queensland parliament is that the Queensland LNP put them there with their preferences. Cost of Living 23 14:23 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to the Treasurer. What progress has the Albanese Labor government made in fighting inflation and easing the cost of living? What obstacles are standing in the way? 14:23 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the wonderful member for Calwell for her question. There's a very good reason questions on inflation are coming from this side of the House and not from that side. It's because we got some new numbers between the last time parliament sat and parliament's sitting today. Those numbers show that headline inflation has fallen substantially, from 3½ per cent to 2.7 per cent in monthly terms. That is less than half what we inherited from those opposite and it's less than a third of its peak in the year we were elected. Our cost-of-living help is a really important part of this story, but it's not the only part of the story. Trimmed mean inflation also went down, from 3.8 to 3.4. The measure that excludes volatile items went down from 3.7 to 3. Non-tradeable items went down from 4½ to 3.8. Services inflation went down as well. What all this means is that we are making welcome and encouraging progress in the fight against inflation. Headline inflation was down. Underlying inflation was down. And domestic, homegrown inflation was down as well. Our policies are helping, but we know that the monthly numbers are volatile. We know that there's upward pressure on oil prices because of what's happening in the Middle East, and we know that people are still under pressure. That's why our cost-of-living help is so important and so necessary. Our energy bill relief helped ensure that electricity prices fell by 17.9 per cent instead of falling by 2.7 per cent. Rent assistance took some of the sting out of rents as well. All of this is making a meaningful and measurable difference according to the ABS. And we did this while we turned two big Liberal deficits into two big Labor surpluses—surpluses that are also helping in the fight of inflation, according to the governor of the Reserve Bank. Those opposite oppose our cost-of-living help, and they wouldn't know the first thing about responsible economic management. We are 2½ years into a three-year term, and they still don't have any costed or credible economic policies. They say they want to cut $315 billion in spending, but they won't come clean on what that means for pensions, housing or Medicare. They want higher inflation, higher interest rates and a hard landing, because they think that will help them politically. They are focused exclusively on their petty, divisive and damaging politics, whilst this side of the House is focused on fighting inflation, on helping with the cost of living and on paying down Liberal debt. We've obviously got more work to do, but we are making encouraging and substantial progress on all these fronts, while those opposite just play their usual divisive politics. Negative Gearing 24 14:26 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Treasurer. In 2017 the Treasurer said, 'Any housing policy that doesn't have changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax is just a shocker.' On what basis has the Treasurer directed his department to work on a secret new housing tax? 14:26 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks very much for the question from the shadow housing minister, who doesn't want Australia to build any more homes for people to live in. The irony— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin has asked his question. Within seven seconds, there's not a reason to interject. You'll leave the chamber under 94(a). Just show some restraint. The member for Deakin then left the chamber. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I've been asked this question a number of times in the course of the last week or two, and I'm happy to answer it again. I do get advice from my department from time to time on contentious issues, and that shouldn't be seen as unusual. Those opposite did it, too, when they were looking at jacking up the GST and changing negative gearing when they were in office. We've made it really clear that our policy is not to knock off negative gearing or the capital gains discount. That's because, unlike those opposite, we are focused exclusively on building more homes. We are focused on housing supply. As the Prime Minister has said, as I have said and as others have said, we are not convinced that ditching those tax breaks would build more homes, and we want to build more homes in our communities. We have a housing policy, and that's not part of it. We have tax policies, and that's not one of them. What is common between our housing policies and our tax policies is that elements of both of those are in the Senate right now. If those opposite were serious about housing, tax reform or budget repair they would vote for them in the Senate, not oppose them. I think it speaks volumes about this shadow Treasurer and this opposition that, faced with a severe shortage of housing, with a debate raging on housing policy not just in here but around the country, they would not take any steps to inform themselves of the impact of existing policies. We know why that is, and we know why the shadow housing minister is asking this question. It's because they don't want to talk about inflation falling. They don't want to talk about the fruits of our stabilising our relationship with China. They don't want to talk about the two surpluses this Labor government has delivered after those opposite delivered none. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The member for Wannon on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 It goes to relevance. This question wasn't about the opposition. It was: on what basis has the Treasurer directed his department to work on a secret new housing tax? The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer was not asked about alternative policies in this question. He was not asked about a compare and contrast. Obviously, he is answering the question about his decisions. If he can frame the remainder of his answer regarding the question he was asked, it would greatly assist the opposition and the House. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The point that I'm making is this. They want to focus on what we're not doing, to distract from the progress that we are making with the things that we are doing as a Labor government focused on the cost of living and building more homes and cleaning up the mess that they left behind. Energy 25 14:30 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to reduce the cost of energy? What other policies would increase the cost of energy? 14:30 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for the question. I also thank him for his friendship over the last 17 years. I know the whole House wishes him the best. The Albanese government is focused on two things: delivering cost-of-living relief today and delivering cheaper energy into the future—and there have been developments on both fronts since the parliament last sat. We are delivering energy bill relief through the budget, and the Treasurer just referred to the inflation figures that were released the week before last. Those figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics also dealt with energy prices and said: Electricity prices fell 17.9 per cent of the 12 months to August … This is the largest annual fall for Electricity on record. We also have seen progress in relation to energy prices more broadly. I can tell the House that yesterday wholesale electricity prices were $53.92, compared to $286 on the day we came to office. The shadow Treasurer, the then minister for energy, promised electricity prices at wholesale level of $70 a megawatt hour at the 2019 election. Today they are $53 a megawatt hour. This is what real progress looks like. The honourable member also asked me what could push prices up. We've also seen developments on that since the House last sat. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor is now warned. Mr BOWEN DZS A couple of weeks ago, we saw the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis release a report on the prospects of nuclear energy for Australia, and it found that electricity bills would rise by $665 a year for a median electricity bill and by more than $1,000 for a family of four. Now, that analysis makes a certain sense when you consider that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy available in the world. So, of course, if you introduce it into Australia, we're going to see energy prices go up. But there have been other developments. Last night we saw some; we saw about 45 minutes of developments on Four Corners last night. It's a bit unusual for a minister to recommend watching a show about an opposition policy. But I do say to the House, if you didn't see Four Corners last night, it's a cracker. We had 45 minutes of expert after expert talking about nuclear policy. We saw Peter Bradford, a former commissioner of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, say: What we know about nuclear is that's it's very capable of large disappointments. …   …   … If nuclear was a person, it would be weeping with its head in its hands over the Vogtle story in Georgia. We saw Stephanie Cooke, the former editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, say: It amazes me that there's so much hype about something that's been such an abject failure in my opinion. I mean, yeah, it's produced electricity, but at what cost? I recommend that show and I recommend the analysis of the opposition policy—because they can't release the details because the details would show the policy is a dog. Taxation 25 14:33 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister rule out any changes to the tax treatment of the owner occupied family home and to negative gearing? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition. The question has been asked. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition are going to cease interjecting before we have the answer— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When everyone ceases interjecting, the Prime Minister will have the call. 14:34 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'll wait for the anger and arrogance to subside from those opposite. As the Treasurer has just said— Mr ALBANESE R36 And there it is again, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition, we're not going to be yelling across the chamber. We're just going to take the temperature down. We're going to listen to one another and show each other respect. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I'm asked now, in this ever-growing list of fishing expeditions—and it should perhaps go to the minister for agriculture and fisheries, this question, so I might ask Minister Collins to add to this answer— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm actually asked about a new element now. Apparently now we're going after the family home. Government members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 We're going after the family home! According to them, we're going to go in, and there'll be a knock on the door and we'll go: 'We're the government. We're here to take your home from you. We're going to nationalise the home.' The only political party that I've seen talk about mass nationalisation is that of those opposite, who want to nationalise the energy network. Then they want to intervene in the markets and nationalise the supermarkets when they're forced to sell. The family home— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister was mid-sentence talking about the family home, but I'll take the point of order from the member for Hume. Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. You're entitled to take one. Mr Taylor 231027 It was a very straightforward question. It wasn't about the opposition. It was about the government's proposal—their secret tax on the family home. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume is entitled to raise his point of order. The Prime Minister has had a preamble. He was mentioning the family home mid-sentence. I'm going to invite him back to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Mr Speaker, he's delusional, because he speaks about a secret plan. If it's secret, why are they asking about it? It seems to me there's a gap there, Mr Speaker. There's a gap, because the family home is of course— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume! I appreciate you've asked the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're just going to cease interjecting for the remainder of the answer. Just to assist the House, the Prime Minister can return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 We have all of our tax policies out there, and all of the ones that they want to talk about are things that we are not doing. We're talking about what we are doing, some of which they are blocking over in the other chamber, whether it's housing policy or whether it's tax policy. The idea—this nonsense that they carry on with—that we're— Mr ALBANESE R36 Have you got Tourette's or something? You sit there, 'babble, babble, babble'— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr ALBANESE R36 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. I withdraw and apologise. Mr Speaker, they sit there and interject nonstop. The truth is that we regard, as does every Australian, the family home as being sacrosanct. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McEwen is warned. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order I'll just remind the chamber that the member for O'Connor and the member for McEwen are on warnings. Renewable Energy 27 14:38 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How many renewable energy projects has the Albanese Labor government ticked off? How will these projects ease cost-of-living pressures for all Australians? How is the government's approach different to other proposals? 14:39 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Blair for his question. We had a lovely visit to his electorate recently, when he took me to meet the people—the good people—from Goodness Enterprises and have a look at the koala revegetation project they're engaged in. After a decade of failure, of the Liberals' and Nationals' delay and denial, our government is delivering on a renewable energy boom. So far I have ticked off on 63 renewable energy projects. In fact, this year renewable energy will provide 42 per cent of the energy in our grid. I'm approving those renewable energy projects at record rates, and those 63 projects are enough to power seven million Australian homes. That's enough to power New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory combined. In fact, I'm approving about one renewable energy project every two weeks. Just yesterday, it was the 450-megawatt Goulburn River solar farm in New South Wales—enough to power 191,000 homes in the member for New England's electorate. On Friday, it was the 350-megawatt Sixteen Mile solar farm in Queensland—enough to power 160,000 homes in the electorate of the Leader of the Nationals. And there are plenty more where those come from. I've got another 136 renewable energy projects before me in the pipeline. We are cracking along with the transition to renewable energy in this country. We're putting cheaper, cleaner renewable energy into the grid, into people's homes and into people's businesses right now. Of course, there is a risk to this. The risk is those opposite and their expensive, risky plan for nuclear power. Can you imagine what else we could spend the $600 billion on that they're planning to spend on nuclear reactors? The choice is very clear at the next election: a slow transition to risky, expensive nuclear reactors under the Liberals or a fast transition to cheaper, cleaner renewable energy under Labor. It's a choice between a plan to ease the cost of living right now, including with the $300 electricity bill relief, and the most expensive form of electricity, delivered in perhaps 20 years time, under those opposite. The last thing our country needs right now is that sort of insecurity. (Time expired) Housing 27 14:42 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The Greens will work with Labor to cap rents, phase out negative gearing and the capital gains discount, and invest the savings in a mass build of public housing. We don't expect to get everything. We are ready to negotiate, but you have offered nothing. For the sake of the single mums one rent increase away from eviction, the families sleeping in their cars and the renters locked out of homeownership by negative gearing and the capital gains discount, will you work with the Greens to negotiate a plan that helps the millions of people your government is leaving behind? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There was far too much noise on my right. The member for Corangamite will leave the chamber under 94(a). Do not interject while members are asking questions. It is highly disorderly. That applies to both sides of the chamber. The member for Corangamite then left the chamber. 14:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'll make three points to the member for Griffith. The first is that we won't be doing measures which aren't part of our policy, and, in the case of Help to Buy, all we're asking for is the Greens political party to vote for something that was their policy. That's the first point that I would make. The second is the shopping list of proposals that he just went through, including the idea that the Commonwealth is in a position to freeze rents—he knows, I know and everyone in this chamber knows that simply can't be done. It's not within the Commonwealth's power. He knows that's the case and he's being disingenuous when he puts it forward. Thirdly, there's legislation before the parliament, before the Senate, at the moment—Help to Buy. Vote for it. Vote for more homes, and it will go through. There are enough crossbench votes to ensure it happens. I think the Liberal Party and the National Party should vote for it as well. It's beyond my comprehension why any political party in this place would intervene to block 40,000 people from homeownership. Women's Economic Security 27 14:44 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring better economic and social outcomes for Australian women, including by increasing opportunities in traditionally male-dominated spaces, and how does this compare with other approaches? 14:44 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Newcastle for the question. You couldn't get a prouder advocate for the advancement of women in this country. Thank you. Our government is taking real action to deliver cost-of-living relief for millions of women, along with significant investments in women's safety. We're investing over a billion dollars to pay superannuation on paid parental leave so women aren't penalised for taking time out to care. We're investing over $3 billion to reduce student debt and fix the indexation of HELP loans, with women holding the majority of these loans. Our tax cuts, which came into effect on 1 July this year, have delivered Australian women taxpayers an average tax cut of $1,649. This all comes on top of our work to close the gender pay gap and support fair wages for those in our critical care industries, like aged care and of course early childhood education. Delivering for women is in the DNA of the Labor Party. We're the first government in Australia's history where women make up more than 50 per cent of our party room, reflective of Australian society. We know having women around the table matters, whether it is in the board rooms of this country or whether it is in the cabinet room. Across the country there are very, very few places, I'm glad to say, where women are not involved and are not allowed. But one such place, as those of us in Victoria would know, is a place called the Athenaeum Club. It's at the top end of Collins Street, and it stands as a bastion to a long, long gone age. It's a place that neither I nor any single woman in this country could become a member of. It's a club that describes itself as a place for gentlemen of good character. In other words, it's a place that prohibits the membership of women. People like Graeme Samuel, Terry Moran and even the former Liberal Party state director John Ridley have walked away from the club over this issue, with Ridley describing the situation of not allowing women members as pathetic. Yet, just last week, who decided to not only attend this club but actually hold a fundraiser in this club? It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition. What a lack of character this shows—the Leader of the Opposition holding a fundraiser at this club that prohibits women's membership. On this side, we want women around the cabinet table, we want women around the board table and we don't want women excluded anywhere. We want to make sure that women are involved because, when they are, it matters. On this side of the House, that's what we want. On that side of the House, they don't even want them involved at all. Mining Industry: McPhillamys Gold Project 28 14:47 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. It's now more than a month since Regis Resources confirmed the Blayney goldmine, a $1 billion investment with some 800 regional jobs, was no longer viable due to the minister's section 10 decision. Last month, the minister promised in question time, and I quote: 'I've made it clear to the company that they'll get a statement of reasons.' Has the minister provided a statement of reasons to Regis? If not, what's the government hiding? 14:48 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thank you for the question and thank you for raising this important issue again. I'm very confident that I made the right decision. I've just finished looking at the statement of reasons. It should be with the company very shortly—this week, certainly. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M It's interesting that the deputy leader of the Liberals should be interjecting. I made the decision based on advice from the same group that she based a decision in Bathurst on. It was the same group of people, for the same reasons, under the same— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Solomon is warned. I can appreciate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may have strong views on this, but to continue a conversation while the minister is answering a question is highly disorderly. For the remainder of this answer, to assist the House and to assist me to listen to the minister, I'm going to invite the deputy leader to not interject anymore. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I made a decision that a mining company can't build a tailings dam on the headwaters and springs of the Belubula River, because it is culturally significant to First Nations people in the area. I'd remind the Leader of the Nationals that I haven't blocked the mine. I've blocked the building of the tailings dam. The company themselves have said that they have investigated alternative sites for that tailings dam. I have protected 16 per cent of the 2½ thousand hectares of the site that the company owns. I'd also note that both the chair and the CEO have bought extra shares in the company since I made my decision and that the share value of the company substantially increased after I made my decision. The only thing I would leave those opposite with is that they've said that they would approve this project without ever— Mr Littleproud 265585 Yep Ms PLIBERSEK 83M 'Yep,' says the Leader of the Nationals. He's never looked at the information from the traditional owners. He hasn't read a page of the 2½ thousand pages of documents that I have examined. He hasn't received any information from any expert. That's how we got robodebt. That's how we got sports rorts. That's how we got car park rorts. It's picking friends and picking winners without any evidence, without any examination of the facts. Early Childhood Education 29 14:51 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease cost-of-living pressures in early childhood education and care for workers and families? 14:51 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Robertson not just for his question but for his continued dedication and commitment to early childhood education and care. The member for Robertson will know that this week in his electorate of Robertson and, indeed, right across Australia families will be sitting around the kitchen table working out their household budgets. For many of them, a significant factor in working out those budgets is the cost of early childhood education and care. For them, it will determine how much they can work or even in some cases if they can go back to work. It will determine how much money is left over for discretionary spending and for even putting food on the table. Early childhood education is indeed a significant factor in the cost of living for families with young children. That's why we introduced our Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill as one of the first acts that we did when we came into office. The latest data we have shows that these reforms have reduced out-of-pocket expenses, on average, by 13 per cent from June 2023 to June 2024. That means a family on $120,000 have saved $2,140 in early childhood education and care costs than they otherwise would have paid. In July, that same family also got a tax cut of $2,679. Making early childhood education and care more affordable is not just about cost-of-living relief; it's actually a first step towards our vision of universal early childhood education and care. To achieve that, we know we need a sustainable workforce. That's why we introduced an historic 15 per cent wage rise. I'm pleased to say that, from today, providers can now apply. They can now apply for the government funding to deliver this wage increase. This means that 200,000 early childhood education care workers will have at least $100 more in their pay packets before Christmas. Along with their tax cuts, that means that early childhood education and care workers can earn more and keep more of what they earn. It means that we retain more workers and we build a strong and stable workforce. It means keeping costs down for families, by capping the amount that providers can increase their fees at 4.4 per cent. This is how you deliver cost-of-living relief—tax cuts, wage growth and working towards an early childhood education system that's affordable, accessible and inclusive for every child, every family and every community. Global Nature Positive Summit 29 14:54 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water. This week, Australia is hosting the world's first-ever Global Nature Positive Summit, focusing on private investment in nature repair. Meanwhile, research from the Biodiversity Council shows the government continues to spend $26 billion every year on harming biodiversity. How can we hope to be nature positive in this country when the government continues to invest in being nature negative, and shouldn't we first stop subsidising nature-negative activities like native forest logging? 14:55 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Mackellar for her question. She is a diligent, thoughtful advocate for the environment, and I know her constituents thank her for that. Mr Speaker, the first-ever Global Nature Positive Summit in Sydney has attracted 1,000 delegates from around Australia and from over 50 countries around the world. I can tell you there is enormous enthusiasm at this meeting for a nature-positive future. It's an opportunity for us to share the fantastic things that Australia is doing and to learn from best practice around the world. Yesterday, for example, a range of Australian businesses and NGOs launched Nature Positive Matters, a really important initiative to change some of the economic settings that the member for Mackellar is referring to. We also saw yesterday that the number of Australian companies reporting on their nature impacts using the TNFD framework has in fact doubled in the lead-up to the summit—another important achievement. Today we announced that the Albanese government is now the global leader in ocean protection. We protect more of our marine environment than any other country on earth. We've expanded the Heard Island and McDonald Islands marine parks to the areas that we protect. Today we announced an additional 310,000 square kilometres will be protected by the Albanese Labor government. That's an area the size of Italy. It is the largest addition to conservation anywhere in the world this year. And it comes on top of last year's expansion of the Macquarie Island Marine Park, which was the largest addition to conservation anywhere on the globe last year. For two years running, we have been global leaders in conservation. I think that's something to be pretty proud of, and I can tell you that the delegates at this conference are so impressed by the fact that we've already passed our first tranche of environmental laws with a stronger water trigger and that we are hoping to set up Australia's first environment protection agency, if we can manage to get the Greens and the crossbench or the Liberals and the Nationals to vote for it in the Senate. We were just one vote away from it. We've doubled funding for our national parks. We've kept the Great Barrier Reef off the 'in danger' listing. We've started the work to get Murujuga and Cape York onto the World Heritage List, and we've done so much more. Australia has the right to be very proud. Aged Care 30 14:58 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government helping aged-care workers earn more and keep more of what they earn? And what impact is that having on the quality of aged care in Australia? 14:58 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Lalor for her question and for her devoted commitment to looking after older Australians in her electorate. The cornerstone of the Albanese government's mission to lift the standard of aged care in Australia has been to recognise the value of all aged-care workers. In 2023, we invested $11.3 billion to deliver a historic increase to the award wage for 250,000 workers. But our investment in aged-care workers didn't end there. Last month we delivered a further $3.8 billion to fund stage 3 of the Fair Work decision—a decision which, importantly, included workers who were excluded from stage 2, like food service assistants, admin staff, cleaners and workers engaged in nondirect care. Those workers can expect to see an increase in their pay packets from 1 January 2025. These pay rises are having a real impact on workers. I recently met with residents and workers at Mercy Place in Cairns in the member for Leichhardt's electorate. I spoke with a registered nurse named Kavitha who looks after clinical services there. It was only Kavitha's fourth week working in aged care; before that, she had been working in acute nursing in hospital. She told me that she'd been wanting to work in aged care for years because she was particularly passionate about caring for older people, but she wanted a career that allowed her to build stronger relationships with the people that she cared for, rather than the more transient hospital system. To be blunt, she told me that, for a long time, she couldn't afford to work in aged care, even though that was her preference—but that was until the Albanese government delivered a 15 per cent increase to the award wage for aged-care workers. Now, a registered nurse like Kavitha can earn up to $10,000 a year more than she could have under those opposite. On top of that, they're getting a tax cut. So they're not just earning more; they are keeping more of what they earn. That bigger pay packet allowed Kavitha finally to cross over to aged care and pursue her dream career. Kavitha told me that aged care is no longer a last choice; it is a career of choice. She said our aged-care improvements had made the pursuit of a career in aged care more dynamic and more rewarding. Kavitha is not alone. Data from Seek tells us that there has been a doubling in applications for jobs for aged-care and disability carers since these wage increases began—double. That is what happens when you value aged-care workers. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 30 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Spain-Australia Council Foundation 30 15:01 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Her Excellency Mrs Esther Monterrubio Villar, Ambassador of Spain to Australia, alongside a high-level delegation from the Spain-Australia Council Foundation. A warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 30 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 30 15:01 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. Next week marks the one-year anniversary of the failed Voice referendum, where over 60 per cent of Australians rejected the Prime Minister's $450 million effort to divide our country during a cost-of-living crisis. Is the Prime Minister still committed to makarrata? 15:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. Of course, he would remember the Voice referendum because he held two forums in his electorate. He held a forum for 'yes' people and a forum for 'no' people. He did both during that referendum. I note that it wasn't 'yes' and 'no' together—an engagement—it was two separate voices and two separate messages to two separate constituencies. He's worried about what's going on up there in that corner, and he should be. Mr Dutton 00AKI Can you just give a straight answer? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition, where he speaks about straight answers. He promised during the referendum campaign to have another referendum. That is what he promised to do. He said, 'If you vote no you will get another referendum and an opportunity to vote for recognition in Australia's Constitution.' The question for him and the question for the member for Bradfield is: is that still their position? Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 31 15:03 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring Australians have access to affordable life-changing medicines on the PBS? Why is the government making all medicines on the PBS cheaper after a decade of cuts and neglect? 15:03 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for McEwen for his question and his support of strengthening Medicare and making medicines cheaper. He knows that Australia has one of the best medicine systems in the world, one underpinned by the PBS—one of Labor's legacies that again was opposed tooth and nail by the Liberal Party at the time. The PBS ensures that Australians have access to the world's best treatment at affordable prices. Since we were elected only two-and-a-bit years ago, we've made more than 250 new and expanded listings on the PBS. This month, among a number of other medicines, we listed a new medicine, Vazkepa, to reduce the risk of repeat heart attacks or strokes for patients with high triglycerides. Around one in three people who survive a heart attack or a stroke will go on to have a repeat event within seven years. So often, that repeat event will be either deadly or, at the very least, very seriously disabling. This is the first treatment listed on the PBS for this group of patients. It will benefit more than 10,000 patients a year, we think. It will save lives. It will genuinely save many, many lives, and it will be available at those affordable PBS prices, instead of patients paying almost $2,000 a year. We've been making those PBS prices even cheaper for all Australians. In our first three months we slashed the maximum amount that pensioners would pay for medicines across a given year by 25 per cent. The final budget outcome that the Treasurer released last month revealed that that measure alone delivered pensioners 22 million free scripts last year that would otherwise not have been delivered. That's 22 million free scripts saving pensioners about $170 million just in one year. Last year we also delivered general patients, not concessional patients but general patients, the biggest cuts to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. These measures, along with 60-day scripts and all those additional listings on the PBS, have saved Australians hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, making a real difference to Australian households. But we know household budgets are still under real pressure and that we have to do more, which is why, in this year's budget, we also announced that we would be freezing the price of PBS medicines next year for up to five years, saving patients another $500 million. What we also know is that that is all under threat from a shadow Treasurer who has said very openly that he doesn't support any of our additional investments in bulk-billing, in urgent care clinics and in cheaper medicines. That is the clear choice for Australians: cheaper medicines and cost-of-living relief or those opposite. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 31 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 3 and 4 of 2024-25 31 15:07 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 2024-25: No. 3 performance audit Australian government commitment to the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop east project:Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts and No. 4 performance audit Management of conflicts of interest by the Australian Financial Security Authority: Australian Financial Security Authority. I also present a corrigendum to the Australian National Audit Office annual report 2023-24. Documents made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 31 DOCUMENTS Presentation 31 15:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MOTIONS 32 MOTIONS Israel Attacks: First Anniversary 32 15:07 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) unequivocally condemns the attacks on Israel by Hamas and other terrorist organisations that took place one year ago and the vow made by the perpetrators to repeat these attacks indefinitely; (2) recognises that these heinous acts of terrorism took place after a long period of quiet at the Israel-Gaza border and involved the deliberate targeting, murder, rape and mutilation of civilians including women, children and the elderly, Jewish and Arab, as well as the taking of hostages and indiscriminate rocket fire by the terrorists at civilian population centres in Israel to inflict maximum damage; (3) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages; (4) condemns the murder of hostages and the inhumane conditions and violence, including sexual violence, that hostages have experienced; (5) stands with Israel and affirms its inherent right to defend itself and protects its citizens; (6) recognises that Israel shares the same liberal democratic values as Australia and other western nations and affirms that Israel's battle is a battle fought against the enemies of civilised people everywhere; (7) recognises that this entire conflict is between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran acts through its proxies, all of whom are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel; (8) acknowledges the devastating loss of life and mass displacement of Israelis and Palestinians as a result of the war sparked by Hamas on 7 October 2023; (9) condemns antisemitism in all its forms and the jealousies and falsehoods that lie at the foundations of this hateful prejudice; (10) pledges to redouble efforts to work with Australia's Jewish community to ensure that the rise in antisemitism in Australian society is properly repudiated and addressed; (11) emphasises the importance of mutual respect as individuals go about expressing their diverse views on the conflict in Australia; (12) condemns all acts of hatred, division or violence, affirming that they have no place in Australia; (13) reiterates the responsibility of each Australian to safeguard the harmony and unity that define our diverse society, especially in times of adversity; (14) condemns the actions of those seeking to celebrate and promote the barbarous actions of terrorist organisations; (15) reaffirms that symbols of terror and discord are unwelcome in Australia and undermine our nation's peace and security; (16) condemns all forms of hate speech and violent extremism, including antisemitism, as repugnant to our shared national values which uphold the freedom and dignity of every Australian; and (17) notes that fostering fear and division undermines social cohesion and risks Australia's domestic security. Leave not granted. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Unbelievable! I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion—That the House: (1) unequivocally condemns the attacks on Israel by Hamas and other terrorist organisations that took place one year ago and the vow made by the perpetrators to repeat these attacks indefinitely; (2) recognises that these heinous acts of terrorism took place after a long period of quiet at the Israel-Gaza border and involved the deliberate targeting, murder, rape and mutilation of civilians including women, children and the elderly, Jewish and Arab, as well as the taking of hostages and indiscriminate rocket fire by the terrorists at civilian population centres in Israel to inflict maximum damage; (3) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages; (4) condemns the murder of hostages and the inhumane conditions and violence, including sexual violence, that hostages have experienced; (5) stands with Israel and affirms its inherent right to defend itself and protects its citizens; (6) recognises that Israel shares the same liberal democratic values as Australia and other western nations and affirms that Israel's battle is a battle fought against the enemies of civilised people everywhere; (7) recognises that this entire conflict is between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran acts through its proxies, all of whom are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel; (8) acknowledges the devastating loss of life and mass displacement of Israelis and Palestinians as a result of the war sparked by Hamas on 7 October 2023; (9) condemns antisemitism in all its forms and the jealousies and falsehoods that lie at the foundations of this hateful prejudice; (10) pledges to redouble efforts to work with Australia's Jewish community to ensure that the rise in antisemitism in Australian society is properly repudiated and addressed; (11) emphasises the importance of mutual respect as individuals go about expressing their diverse views on the conflict in Australia; (12) condemns all acts of hatred, division or violence, affirming that they have no place in Australia; (13) reiterates the responsibility of each Australian to safeguard the harmony and unity that define our diverse society, especially in times of adversity; (14) condemns the actions of those seeking to celebrate and promote the barbarous actions of terrorist organisations; (15) reaffirms that symbols of terror and discord are unwelcome in Australia and undermine our nation's peace and security; (16) condemns all forms of hate speech and violent extremism, including antisemitism, as repugnant to our shared national values which uphold the freedom and dignity of every Australian; and (17) notes that fostering fear and division undermines social cohesion and risks Australia's domestic security. The reason that this is so important and that the parliament should deal with this issue now is that yesterday, across the country, indeed across the world, people of decency and good heart commemorated the slaughter of 1,200 people—innocent men, women and children—12 months ago to the day. It's incumbent upon this parliament to pass a motion which reflects that sorrow and which records our deep regret at the actions that Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation, took against unarmed civilians—the murder, rape and slaughter of people in their homes and the mowing down of young, innocent people celebrating a music festival. The opportunity for us today to speak with a united voice is represented by this motion. This motion was first put to the Prime Minister on the weekend in a spirit of bipartisanship, in a spirit of sending a united message to the Jewish community here, to the State of Israel and to all good people around the world that this parliament strongly and without equivocation condemns the actions of Hamas, and we commemorate the lives, we thank the heroes who saved lives on the day, and we repeat our want for antisemitism to come to an end in our country. October 7 is not the day, is not the occasion—on the 12-month anniversary or any anniversary subsequent to this, when we should concentrate on matters other than that which is most immediately at hand. That's the point we make here today. Over the past 12 months, as has been commented on by Jewish leaders and as was obvious in Melbourne last night—where the Prime Minister was booed by the Jewish people who were in attendance at that function—people have found the Prime Minister's position completely and utterly untenable. Australians across the country ought to know that their Prime Minister can stand up for a view and argue it on behalf of Australians, to prosecute his position and ultimately to prevail. But this is not that Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has tried to walk on both sides of the street, and it was evidenced in the failed motion put forward by the government today. It tries to please everybody, as this Prime Minister always seeks to do. And ultimately he pleases no-one at all. Out of respect today, we ask the Prime Minister to come back into the chamber, to reassess his position and to support this motion. The minister wouldn't give us permission or grant leave for this motion to be brought on. So, we seek to suspend standing orders so that proper debate can take place, because people who are living in this country at the moment—Holocaust survivors, for example—who for the first time in this country, in their new life that they started in this country after the end of the Second World War, feel scared. They are open in their condemnation of the antisemitism that is now rife within our community, that in large part sprung to life in our country on the steps of the Opera House on 9 October. On 9 October, the Prime Minister didn't have words of condemnation. The foreign minister was calling for restraint from Israel on the day of the attacks on the kibbutzes and at the music festival site. That's what the government had in its heart and its mind from the very first day. Since that time, on university campuses, for months and months and months, the radical protesters have known no boundaries. We see the elements out on the weekend within the community, and following up on protests from last week, where they're flying Hezbollah flags and celebrating the life of a listed terrorist organisation leader who had been responsible for the death not just of Israelis but of people across to Middle East—a person who had masterminded a number of terrorist attacks, resulting in the loss of life of people from many countries. Those people were able to march, and at the time we were told that there was no offence for marching, waving flags and holding up photos of that dreadful individual. The world is a better place for him having left it. That's the reality. Yet this Prime Minister tried to tell us that there were no offences, that the Australian Federal Police had looked at it and there was nothing to see here. As it turned out, that was not true. All it has done is exacerbate the pain and the hurt of the Jewish community in this country. The Prime Minister today, in a motion which should be solely dedicated to remembering the lives of those who were slaughtered on 7 October, has extended it well beyond that, for the reasons I have outlined. The fact that on the weekend we saw people who were willing to march on the streets in our country to celebrate the one-year anniversary of people being slaughtered demonstrates how far from reality this debate has swung and how the Prime Minister of our country could have looked to any one of his predecessors, Labor or Liberal, and taken a different path but has chosen not to. He has departed from decades of Labor Party policy. Why would that be the case? Why would the Prime Minister be at odds with the Jewish community? Why would he be at odds with the people of Israel and the State of Israel, for whom Australia has been a reliable partner and ally for decades? Why would the Prime Minister be at odds with Howard's position, with Hawke's position, with Keating's position, with Abbott's position, with Rudd's position and with Gillard's position? It's because this Prime Minister sees domestic political advantage in the position that he's taken. That is how disgraceful the position is. And the fact that the Prime Minister doesn't seek to associate himself with this motion and support it, not just in essence but in spirit as well, reflects so poorly on his character and his weakness of leadership. I say to the Jewish community here in Australia: the coalition dedicate ourselves to making sure that we stamp out antisemitism in this country. I don't want to see armed guards standing at schools and preschools in Jewish communities. I want to see every Australian treated equally. I want to see no Australian discriminated against. I want to see no racism in our country. But the point today is that this Prime Minister has had the opportunity—and has squibbed it—to support a motion which is truly dedicated to supporting the memory and lives of those 1,200 who were slaughtered. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the motion seconded? 15:21 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I second the motion and support the Leader of the Opposition's call for urgency on these matters. This House must speak with moral clarity. This House must speak with one voice. October 7 for Jewish people all around the world is what September 11 is for the American people—an extraordinary terrorist attack that rocked the world and changed people's perceptions of it. The Leader of the Opposition is right; this is a time for moral clarity. That's why today and yesterday were days where we in this parliament, where we as Australians, should be standing with Israel, standing with the victims of terror and standing with those hostages who are still being held against their will in appalling conditions in Gaza. What has amazed me since the events of 7 October has been the moral equivalents we have seen everywhere. Jewish people in this country did not have even a moment to grieve for what had happened on 7 October before there were antisemitic incidents right across the country. I want to talk about and remind people of the antisemitic incidents that occurred in those first weeks, even before Israel had commenced its operations in Gaza. The Leader of the Opposition is right to point to the issues that occurred at the opera house on 9 October, because I think that everything that we have seen subsequently in this country comes from the failure of leadership and the failure to bring people to justice for burning flags, lighting flares, spitting on Jewish Australians and saying horrendous things about Jews on that day. Since that time all sorts of antisemitic protesters have tried to push the envelope and see how far they could get. We had the worst set of protests at the weekend, where people were basically aping the flag of Hezbollah—an organisation that we in this country list as a terrorist organisation—and coming out in Hezbollah colours, thumbing their nose at the police and thumbing their nose at the laws of this country because so many of these protesters, so many of the people engaged in these antisemitic activities, believe that the law doesn't apply to them. They believe it shouldn't apply to them. They don't believe in Australia and its democratic traditions. They are, in fact, trying to undermine and attack the multiculturalism which has denoted the brilliance of this country right from European settlement and which has only been enhanced generation after generation, as people have come here. I think that this is a major attack on the country. Even before the 9 October protests, on the very next day after 7 October, in Western Sydney we saw a gathering that was addressed by Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun, who said: I'm smiling and I'm happy … I'm elated, it's a day of courage, it's a day of pride, it's a day of victory. This is the day we've been waiting for. They were his words in relation to the terror attack. Nothing has been done. On 10 October we saw people in a car stop and ask a man on a street if he knew where any Jews were. The man asked, 'What will you do if you find Jews?' They responded, 'They know what we're going to do once we're done with them.' Another passenger said, 'We're hunting for Jews.' That was in Melbourne on 10 October. On 11 October, there were death threats against a rabbi and his eight-year-old son. On 13 October, outside the Sydney Jewish Museum—a museum which teaches Australians about the evils of the Holocaust and hatred—three men gave a Nazi salute and goosestepped. This had nothing to do with the Israel government, nothing to do with Middle East politics; it was rank antisemitism. In Melbourne the following day, there was an 'Expose Jewish Power' banner by the National Socialist Network, and they were handing out business cards on a train and questioning passengers to see if they could find any Jews on the train. On 15 October, Melbourne heard chants of 'Khaybar, Khaybar, Oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!' which refers to a massacre of Jews by Muslims in Khaybar at 628 CE. It was used as a war cry to threaten and attack Jews at an anti-Israel rally in Melbourne. That same day, at an anti-Israel rally outside the QV building, there was a cartoon placard of Netanyahu in a coffin, draped in a Palestinian flag, being put into an Auschwitz-like crematorium, along with a sign that said, 'Arbeit macht frei'. This was all before Israel had commenced its operations in Gaza. The antisemitism in this country has reached a terrible point, and I commend the Leader of the Opposition for his strong stance against it. I see that the Minister for Education, who is a good man, is at the table today. I say to the minister: please support the judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus, because so many of these bad ideas, which we saw even in the week that followed 7 October, develop on our campuses. It's high time we stop subjecting students, many of whom are still teenagers, to this level of hatred in our country. 15:26 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.    

The House divided. [15:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

77 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 63 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Taxation 36 15:35 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to the tax treatment of negative gearing. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:36 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Australian families are facing enormous economic and financial pain right now. For 18 months, we've seen a household recession in this country. For 18 months, GDP per capita has been going backwards, not forwards, and that's the economic growth measure that counts—GDP per capita—because that's what people feel. That's how their financial situation is affected. You can't cover it up by having over a million people come into the country and say, 'It's great. It's all fine,' because it's not. You've got GDP per capita going backwards in six consecutive quarters. Now, we haven't seen that since the early nineties, when, of course, Labor was in power. We haven't seen it in that state. At the same time, we've seen the standard of living of the average Australian family fall by just under nine per cent. The standard of living of Australians, their capacity to buy, has gone down 8.7 per cent in just over two years. Of course, we know that is the worst in the OECD. We know that. There is no other country that has seen anything like that collapse in the standard of living. And we know that, sitting underneath that, the prices a working family are paying on average—their cost of living—have gone up by 18 per cent, way higher than their wages. Real wages have been dropping. We know they're paying 25 per cent more personal income tax than they were a couple of years ago, and we know they've seen 12 mortgage interest rate increases in that time. It's no wonder, then, that they've seen an absolute collapse in their standard of living. Whilst we're seeing interest rates coming down in countries and regions across the world, we're not seeing it here. We're seeing interest rates coming down in the US, they're coming down in the UK, they're coming down in Canada, they're coming down in Europe, they're coming down in New Zealand—but not in Australia. Australians are having to find a way through. They've cracked open the piggy bank. There are no savings anymore. They've stopped saving. They've essentially stopped saving. We know they're doing extra work. They're taking on extra hours, and that's unsustainable. They struggle to work out who's going to pick up the kids from school and who's going to find the time to do those chores around the house when they have to make extra income to make those extraordinary extra payments. We also know there's no pathway to improvement here for Australians. But there's a problem here for the government. I mentioned earlier that a 25 per cent increase in personal income tax is being paid. We know there have been very high iron ore prices, just at the time when the government have been making it hard for mining companies to get approvals. We know that those personal income tax revenues and those commodity tax revenues that have been fuelling this government's spending habit—a 16 per cent increase in spending in just two years—are coming to an end. They're coming to an end, and, as they come to an end, the government have to find new pots of money. It seems they have been working on exactly that, because we saw, in the Sydney Morning Herald, confirmation that negative gearing and capital gains tax are in Labor's sights. Well, they're always in Labor's sights, but the Sydney Morning Herald picked it up this time. It was leaked by 'a senior Labor official'. Let me quote: Federal officials have started work on options to scale back negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, preparing the ground for a bold new housing policy that could define the federal election. It goes on: This masthead has confirmed with a senior Labor official, who asked not to be named so they could speak freely about internal policy development, that a request for modelling on the potential change to negative gearing has been made and that it could canvass changes to the concessions on capital gains tax. Obviously, that's to the family home. We know you can't trust Labor when it comes to tax—we know that—because we were told before the last election that they weren't going to make any changes to superannuation, yet we know they are bringing forward unrealised capital gains tax on Australians' super. They are unrealised capital gains. They're going to tax them. Where those small businesses and farmers who have their land in a self-managed super fund are going to find that money, we don't know. Labor don't know either. They don't care. Those on that side of the parliament have never been interested in small business and farmers. But we do know they're breaking a promise. They're also breaking a promise on income taxes. We know that Australians are going to pay an extra $28 billion in bracket creep in coming years because of a broken promise from the Labor Party. We do know they've broken a promise on franking credits. Labor are targeting $1.5 billion of revenue from franking credits, through tax and regulatory changes. We know it's hardworking Australians who, over many, many years, have squirrelled away that money in their super funds and their savings who are going to end up paying for Labor's big-spending habit. Deputy Speaker, this housing tax that Labor are going after is about more than just raising revenue. It is about raising revenue, because Labor always want to raise more revenue, but it's also about their vision for housing in this country. We know what their vision for housing in this country is—it's housing that you rent. It's not ownership. They don't believe in Australians owning their home. They want people to rent. They want them to rent apartments and they want those apartments to be built by the CFMEU. They want them to be built by the CFMEU, Deputy Speaker. They want them owned by big investment funds and they want mum-and-dad investors out of the way. We hear them talk regularly, those speaking out—and I'm sorry the member for Moreton is not here, because he's always speaking out on this; he's one who loves the idea of getting rid of negative gearing—and we know what they hate. They hate mum-and-dad investors who own three or four homes. But they're completely okay with a big industry super fund owning 3,000 or 4,000 homes. They're okay with that because that's their vision of housing in this country. That's their vision of housing in this country, and it's a vision that we absolutely don't share. We believe it is right and proper that a young family—a young builder, plumber, teacher, nurse—should be able to buy a home, invest in it for a period and then move into it or sell it. They sell it in many cases—and I see this in my home town—to someone who becomes an owner-occupier. This is a well-trodden path in this country, but it's not a path that those opposite believe in. It's not a view of how housing should work in this country that those opposite believe in either. We know that the Treasurer has long believed in this picture of getting rid of negative gearing and capital gains tax. He told Sky News: We think that any policy on housing affordability which doesn't make important and considered changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing has a hole in the middle of it. That's the Treasurer. That was the Treasurer back in 2017. It didn't end there. A month after that he said: Any housing policy that doesn't have changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax is just a shocker. 'Any housing policy that doesn't have changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax is just a shocker.' I'm very happy to repeat that. The Prime Minister doesn't like it when I repeat things! But I will repeat that, because that's a great quote. To give you another one, the Treasurer told the ABC: If you want to deal with housing affordability, you need to start with negative gearing and capital gains. This Treasurer has made his view clear. We know what his real plan is, and he's not alone. I mentioned the member for Moreton, who normally comes along to MPI. It's sad that he's not here today. He's looking for his next role in life. But we know he's alongside the Treasurer in wanting to get rid of negative gearing and cut back concessions on capital gains tax on the family home. The member for Macnamara has also said he's open to changes, and we'll hear from others. They're all looking down. I'm sure amongst them are many others who agree with the Treasurer's view on this. Well, I'll tell you what we're not going to do—we're not going to whack a tax on the family home or make it harder for mum and dad investors to squirrel away their investments and rent out homes to young Australians who want to get ahead. 15:46 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I'm really pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the parliament about the government's incredibly broad and ambitious housing agenda. It's the broadest and most ambitious housing agenda a Commonwealth government has had for some decades. And the reason that we are taking this problem so seriously is very simple: this problem is having profound consequences for our country and for literally millions of Australians today. I want to talk to you about some of the people I've talked to in these early months in the portfolio and just express their deep emotion about how much this problem is affecting their lives. Speaker, a lot of those conversations, you wouldn't be surprised to know, have been with young people. I've talked to a lot of young renters around the country, and they've talked to me about just the desolate experience that they have when they're between homes, spending every Saturday morning—instead of being able to spend time with their friends and their family—in rental queues. Some of these rental queues around Melbourne will go for 40 or 50 people. People have to literally spend hours looking at a property that is dilapidated and that they don't even want to live in. At the end of that process, that doesn't mean the young person gets the rental. They've got to fight with the other people who are standing in that queue. We see a lot of illegal behaviour where people are being encouraged to bid against each other, effectively raising the rental price. Most of the young people in that queue miss out. They talk to me about the sense of dread that they feel standing in those queues, knowing they've wasted yet another half a day trying to get into a rental property that they don't want and, in the end, not even getting there. I've talked to a lot of parents, too. I hear quite a bit from parents about this. I think something that's really changed about the housing debate in this country is that, for the first time, the older generation are thinking about this in the context of those younger people. I talk to parents who are desperately worried about their children, and I'm not talking about 25- or 26-year-old children; they're worried about their teenage children and what the housing market will look like for them when they get into that age group. I talk to a lot of young people who are still living at home with their parents. They're not particularly young people but those who are 28 and 29—even young people in their 30s who are still at home with their parents just so they can try to get that opportunity to scrimp and save for a modest house deposit. I talk to a lot of renters who are living a life of intense instability. I rented when I was a young person; I'm sure you would have rented a bit in your youth as well, Speaker. My view is there comes a time when Australians are entitled to expect stability in their lives, and, really, that time is around when people look to start having a family. All of us have talked to constituents who are in their 30s, with young children who are in early years and in school, who are renting. This is exactly the sort of Australian family that in the 1980s would in all likelihood—almost certainly—have owned their own home. And yet, today, these people are locked out of the housing market. The impact this is having on their lives is absolutely profound. I've talked to mums who have children with disability, who have to pick those kids up and move them from one school to another because they don't have the stability and the housing that they need. All of us talk to constituents who are spending extensive amounts of time travelling—I'm talking about more than an hour a day and more than two hours a day in a car—when they could have been spending that precious time with their children and their family. All of this comes back to the problem that we're having with housing in our country We've got a really clear plan here, and it's one that we thought about a lot in opposition and brought forward. From the experts I talk to, there's pretty unanimous agreement that the things that the Labor government is trying to do about this problem are the right things—things that, frankly, could have been done a long time ago. We're having some issues though—you might have noticed, Speaker—in progressing a couple of areas of reform, and that is because we face an incredible intransigence in this parliament. We don't just have a broken housing market in this country; we have broken housing politics. What I mean by that is we've got a lot of parliamentarians who come in here, say all the right things, and then, when it's time to take action and make real progress for real people, they instead turn their back on Australians and choose politics over progress. We see that extensively from those who sit opposite me, and it's not much of a surprise really because housing has just never been a priority for the coalition. When I talk to Australians about what they feel produced the housing crisis that we're dealing with right now, they often point to what was effectively 10 years of inaction from those opposite. I'll remind you of a couple of things that really speak to this. We had a coalition government for almost a decade in this country, and for five of those years there was actually no Commonwealth housing minister. They're trying to get credibility in this debate. For most of the time they were in government, there was no Commonwealth housing minister. I try to be polite and respectful in this parliament, but there are a few things I could say about how the people they choose to lead this debate reflect the importance that they place on it, and I think we saw that with the choice of the housing minister and the current shadow housing minister. Mr Howarth 247742 We reduced homelessness. Mr Sukkar 242515 We were pretty successful by comparison. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Everyone who is watching this debate can see that the Commonwealth alone can't fix this problem. Mr Howarth 247742 Homelessness was lower under us. It's through the roof under your mob. Ms O'NEIL 140590 We saw that state and territory housing ministers were not brought together—not at all. There was not a single conversation with state and territory housing ministers and the Commonwealth for the last five years that the coalition were in government. Mr Howarth 247742 That's a lie! Ms O'NEIL 140590   So I don't find surprising at all this extensive— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Honourable members. Mr Repacholi 298840 Shut up! Ms O'NEIL 140590 and rude interruption from those opposite. Mr Howarth 247742 Tell the truth! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Honourable members! Ms O'NEIL 140590 Yes, could you call them to order? I'd be appreciative of that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I'm more than happy to make a call, but I'm asking you to give me the opportunity. Honourable members, you'll have your opportunity, and I'll make sure, when you're making your contribution, that the same respect is shown to you from the other side. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Thank you so much, Deputy Speaker. So it is a real shame that we see a government that's got a plan here and those opposite, after their decade of complete inaction on this problem, will not let us make progress on some key parts of it. Unfortunately, we do see a pretty similar attitude from the Greens, who are important for us trying to get our housing agenda through the Senate. We're seeing it on the Help to Buy legislation, which is before the parliament at the moment. I'll be reintroducing that bill into the House very shortly, and I'm really hopeful that the Greens are able to take a beat and do the right thing and support the people that they say they care about. The Help to Buy legislation will come before the parliament again. It is about making sure that 40,000 childcare workers and aged care workers and early years teachers have the opportunity to own their own home. It's based on a pretty simple belief that ordinary people in our country should have the ability to access home ownership. Here we have the chance for the parliament to support 40,000 of those people into home ownership. Instead of allowing us to make progress on this matter, the Greens political party continue to play politics. I've spent a little bit of time in the last couple of weeks visiting states where shared-equity schemes—as the Help to Buy legislation is—are on foot at the moment and speaking to young people who have been able to use those schemes to get into home ownership. I met a wonderful young man, Yianni, last week in Adelaide. He's 26 years old. He's a physio at the local Defence base. He literally gets out of bed every morning and goes to a Defence base and assists veterans in trying to regain mobility after they've had injuries. He's spent his whole life so far living with his parents, and he talked to me about this opportunity of getting a shared-equity scheme—of starting out thinking that he had no chance of getting home ownership, then learning about a shared-equity scheme, putting aside that little bit of money that he could and then the incredible feeling that he had of actually getting that chance to own his first home. He said to me, ‘Any kind of scheme that helps people get into the housing market in this way is amazing,’ and he just talked to me about the experience he has now of having his own space. For him, it was about the experience of becoming an adult and having housing as a part of that. I also met with Emma in Melbourne last week, who is a researcher and who was able to buy her first property thanks to the Victorian shared-equity scheme. She talked to me about the experience she had, quite similarly to Yianni, where she had basically given up on home ownership—this amazing young person in Melbourne. She just talked to me about the genuine elation she felt and how she walked around the house after she got home ownership for the first time and thought to herself, ‘I can't believe this is mine and that I don't have to ask permission to paint the walls, that I don't have to worry about hanging a picture and that my dog can have a place they get to know where they can feel safe and comfortable.’ These are the things that home ownership means, and we can make 40,000 Emmas and Yiannis if we work together as a parliament to address this critical issue. Help to Buy is, of course, only one part of the government's agenda. We are working very hard with the states to build more homes in our country. We are working with the states to improve renters’ rights, and we've helped 120,000 people into home ownership through the home guarantee scheme so far. We've got a rich and broad housing agenda, and it's been a real pleasure to speak to the parliament about some of those initiatives. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member for her contribution, and before I give the call to the most honourable member for Deakin, I would just acknowledge that the same courtesy will be given to the opposition that was extended— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Once I got into the chair? I would suggest that— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I give the call to the most honourable member for Deakin. 15:56 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The housing minister studiously avoided the topic of this MPI. One wonders why she even bothered turning up, because the MPI refers to the threat to the tax treatment of negative gearing. We know the housing minister wants to avoid any difficult debates and discussions, because the cupboard is threadbare here on the government’s side with respect to any coherent housing policy or anything that would seek to help either first homebuyers or renters. This is about Labor's agenda to tax housing even more, and every time the Labor Party talk about taxing housing more by abolishing negative gearing and doubling capital gains tax, what they're essentially saying to the Australian people is, ‘Housing needs to be taxed more.' The logic of their argument is that if you tax it more, it will somehow be cheaper for people who are either buying or renting. Now that would be the first time in the history of tax policy that taxing something more leads to a cheaper price. In fact, all you need to do is ask the members of the government to reflect on excise policy in this country. Successive governments have made the decision, for health reasons, to decrease cigarette and tobacco consumption in this country. So what have they done? Successive governments have increased the tax on cigarettes, why? Because they want people to consume less of them. Quite simply, if you tax housing more, fewer homes will be built. Higher taxes equals fewer homes. So every time the Labor Party talk about abolishing negative gearing for mums and dads and doubling capital gains tax just on housing—not abolishing the capital gains tax discount on other things but just abolishing it on housing—what they are saying is, ‘We want to tax housing more.’ We know from modelling undertaken by Deloitte Access Economics, through the Property Council, that that is the exact consequence of abolishing negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount on housing. Higher taxes and fewer homes equals higher rents. It takes some sort of genius to come up with a policy that's been rejected by the Australian people time and time again. In fact, it was even rejected by a former Labor government who tried this and, when it disastrously failed, backflipped and reinstated these tax settings. It takes a special sort of genius to go down this path again. This is a policy that will simultaneously tax mum-and-dad investors more, increase the rent for Australians who are already suffering crippling rent increases and through lower housing stock make it even more difficult to buy a home. The shadow Treasurer, when he made his remarks in relation to this, highlighted the dichotomy here. On one hand, the Labor government want to abolish negative gearing and slash the capital gains tax discount for Australian mum-and-dad investors, therefore increasing the housing taxes for them. But simultaneously they want to reduce the amount of taxes that large investment funds pay, including many foreign investment funds, like Vanguard, Blackstone—big US funds. The question here is who owns Australia's rental stock? A third of Australians, give or take, rent a home. Someone's got to own those homes. There are millions of homes. Someone's got to own them. At the moment, mum-and-dad investors own those homes. Australian mums and dads own overwhelmingly one property that they invest in for their future and the future of their children. Labor want to tax them out of existence so those homes are not owned by those mum-and-dad investors anymore. Instead the Labor government want them to be owned by large foreign funds who own tens of thousands of those properties to rent out to Australians. Lower taxes for the foreign corporates and higher taxes for the mum-and-dad investors would be a disaster for this country and is not a vision that we share. This government is bereft of ideas. Sadly the housing minister, who was demoted from her former role, is a big part of the problem we are facing here because, on her watch, she ramped up migration to more than a million people in two years when we're building fewer homes, and that's why rents are rising. Shame on Labor. 16:01 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to speak on this MPI to do with housing. I think it sets out nicely the differences between the coalition and the government. We had the member for Hume spend 10 minutes talking about manufactured fear. Then we had the member for Deakin spend five minutes of manufactured outrage about something. And we had the housing minister, who offered practical solutions and hope, because we are the party of hope. I'm delivering this address aimed squarely at my 19-year-old son because I fear for him and his generation in terms of what chance they will have. Thankfully, the housing minister laid out plenty of practical solutions and a clear plan. I note that we don't have anyone from the Greens political party here for a debate about housing. I guess that is that dangerous interplay that we've got. Whilst we're an old party, we're all about new ideas. We're a very old party. Those opposite saw Menzies investing millions of dollars in social housing. That's what Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, did. He invested a lot of money in public housing. Now they have basically deserted that. As I said, we're an old party, and we're called the old party by the Greens as if that's a slur. The Greens have been around for about 50 years, but they're still pretending that they're the young party. Really it's mutton dressed as tofu, isn't it? They are an old party, and they have joined with the Liberal Party and the National Party. It's incredible. I think the Prime Minister touched on this. If the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the National Party stop housing any longer, they'll have to have a double-barrelled surname. They really will. What would it be? Would it be Proud-Dutton? No, that doesn't work. Or would it be Little-Dutton? They'll have to have some combination if they're going to keep blocking housing like the Greens do. That's what they'll have to do. They'll need to get a double-barrelled name of some sort. We are providing national leadership when it comes to housing and more importantly $32 billion. We're training more tradies so that the Australians of tomorrow can build those houses. We've also had to bring in a few skilled tradespeople, as those opposite would know if they actually spoke to people in the building sector. They get scared by the idea that they might run into someone from the CFMEU. I'll give you a clue: the housing sector is not a heavily union regulated business. Go and talk to the people in your suburbs. Do you know what their No. 1 concern is? Getting skilled people to work on their building sites. That's why investing in training is a great thing—the fee-free TAFE and all of those things. We're delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade—$6.2 billion in direct budget investment. We are committed, in a fair dinkum way, to building 1.2 million homes. The opposition and the Greens—the missing sector of the parliament—have combined in this unholy alliance to block a sensible policy that will deliver homes for 40,000 people. You might say, 'Well, that's not a lot, in terms of percentages,' but, I'll tell you what, that will make a difference. As we heard from the Minister for Housing, through the individual story she related, it does make a difference. It gives people a roof over their heads. It gives security, and so many other benefits come from having secure housing. We know that it's difficult. I've been an MP for 17 years and I have never seen as many homeless people as I'm seeing now. Before I was elected, I was on the board of Kyabra Community Organisation, which actually builds housing—yes, Greens, there are people that build housing. In fact, if people build more houses, we'll have more houses. The Greens keep saying, 'You're on the side of developers.' Well, people like Kyabra and the Brotherhood of St Laurence build houses. I know the leader of the Greens combated a housing development built by those evil developers the Brotherhood of St Laurence. We need people, like the Brisbane Housing Company, to build more housing. That's what we need, and this policy will give 40,000 eligible Australians a chance to buy a home, with either 40 per cent of the purchase price for new homes or 30 per cent for existing homes. It's in Greens electorates, and it's also in coalition electorates around the nation. Get on board. 16:06 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's always a pleasure to follow my good friend the member for Moreton. I always take his contribution on face value, but I'd like to think he's being somewhat optimistic on what the government's housing plans are actually going to achieve. I'll say to the member for Moreton: come down to the electorate of Forde and see how many houses are being built. The issue is that this government is letting—or has let, in the past two years—over a million people into this country. We cannot build houses quickly enough to keep up with the population growth that this government is presiding over. It doesn't matter which way you cut the cake; it just doesn't work. Having a father who was a ceramic tiler, I, a bit like the member for Moreton, spent plenty of time on building sites and in the building industry over the years. So I well understand what is required to build the number of houses that those opposite propose to build. In my area, though it's probably not so much of an issue in some areas, the cost of a block of land is $300,000 to $350,000. The average house size is 200 to 250 square metres and, at somewhere around $3,000 a square metre, the numbers start to add up pretty quickly. If you start to divide those numbers, in what those opposite are proposing to invest, you don't get very many houses whatsoever. That's the problem for the government: their figures never add up. They sound good on the surface, but, when you dig into the details, they never add up. We've now seen the kite-flying exercise by the Treasurer, or some other senior Labor person who wishes to remain nameless, about negative gearing. They might be interested to know that, in my electorate of Forde, some 35 per cent of the population rent, according to the 2021 census, which is a little bit above the Queensland average of 33 per cent and reasonably above the Australian average of 30 per cent. If they want to take negative gearing out of the equation, those opposite might need to take a history lesson. That was floated back in the mid-1980s, and how long did that policy last? Six months, before it was reversed. Why? Because people bailed out of investment properties. Can I also suggest to the minister regarding her remarks earlier, where she talked about tenants' rights et cetera, that plenty of the states are doing a lot of work in that space, and the people I've spoken to who have had investment properties are bailing out of the investment properties because of those very tenants' rights problems that are now being created by state governments. Everywhere we look, the government say one thing and they propose one thing but the reality is that the outcomes for the average Australian are the opposite. If you have a look at the statistics, 90 per cent of people who own investment properties own two or fewer investment properties, according to the 2021 data. So, I don't know what problem they are trying to solve. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Well, you're not going to solve supply, Member for Lyons; you're going to make it worse. And talking about Help to Buy, in Queensland there's a state scheme already, and I think there's a state scheme in WA. There's a plethora of help-to-buy schemes around the country that are not being very popularly used; they're all undersubscribed. The best thing the government can do is focus on improving the supply chains, reducing the costs in our economy, reducing the inflation rate, getting out of the way, and reducing the immigration levels so that our market can keep up. (Time expired) 16:11 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I remember buying my first home of my own. It was here in Canberra, in the 1980s. It was a little one-bedroom 1960s bed brick unit, and it was mine. I could play my choice of music. I didn't have to accommodate flatmates. Up until then I'd shared houses. I could paint it if I wanted to. I could change the blinds. There was just that sense of being able to control the space that you're in. It was tiny. It was a foot in the door. But when I sold it a few years later it didn't buy me a house or even a flat; it bought me a block of land, and I then got another mortgage and built a house in the Blue Mountains, which is the block that I'm on to this day. That's a lot of years ago. I remember, on both those occasions, the sense of security it gave me—a sense of place, of having somewhere that was mine, no matter what else was happening, including in the press gallery in Old Parliament House. No matter what was happening, I had a place to retreat to. And I want more people to feel that, to have that sense of their own place, because I think secure housing—knowing the place you're going to sleep in not just tonight but every night for as long as you choose for that to be your home—all comes down to your control over that space. I think having that sense of security also allows you to focus on education or career, your physical or mental health, your family. That is really special, but it is out of reach for way too many people right now. Previous speakers have talked about their fears for their children. I'm the bottom of the baby boomers, and my friends and I fear for our own children and our grandchildren. We fear for nieces and nephews and their friends, who don't have the same belief about a home, because of the neglect that this sector has faced for so many years. They don't have that sense of trust that this will one day be theirs. We have to change that, and we're very focused on changing it, and the only way we're going to change it is with more supply. For a start, we need supply that gives people a place to rent while they're saving to buy their own home. But, more than anything, we need new places to expand the options for people. Without supply we're just going to get stuck in this rut with prices of existing properties spiralling. It's really clear to us that that has to be the focus, not tax changes that are not even our policy, which is what the opposition wants to talk about—the place where there has been a vacuum of housing policy the entire time I've been in this parliament. For more than eight years there has been nothing from those opposite to provide any tangible improvement in housing supply. But that's what we are focused on. The cost of housing is one of the biggest hip-pocket hits that people are feeling right now, whether it's through their mortgage or through their rent. I want to put something on the record. There's a lot of talk about who did it tougher. Was it the people back in the nineties paying 17 per cent interest rates? I was one of those. But there's no doubt in my mind that young people now are facing a much tougher barrier to entry into housing. We were paying maybe 17 or 17½ per cent. It was off a lower base. Yes, our incomes were lower, but our cost of living was also lower because we just didn't have the essentials that you have to have today. That is why housing speaks to the true cost-of-living crisis that people are facing. We're helping in three ways. One is that our housing policy and our cost-of-living policy are all about helping to reduce the costs and helping to stop the increase from continuing on the terrible trajectory that it is on. That's the second challenge: fighting inflation. It is half what it was when we came to government. These are the challenges. And the third one is supply. 16:17 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this matter of public importance which concerns the threat to the tax treatment of negative gearing. We saw in the Sydney Morning Herald last week confirmation that Labor has been secretly modelling changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing rules. This proves that Labor is at war with the Australian dream of homeownership. Indeed, Labor is even at war with the dream of private rentals. What they are proposing with these changes is to increase the tax on homes. Why do governments bring in taxation? Why do governments impose taxes on certain items? It is because they want to change consumer behaviour in some way. Witness, for example, the massive taxation on cigarettes—something that I support—in order to discourage people from buying cigarettes by simply making them too expensive. I note that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have previously ruled out making any changes to taxes on housing. Why the Treasurer or whoever is secretly obtaining modelling is beyond me. I agreed with almost everything that the member for Macquarie just said. She identified all of the current problems that we have with housing. She identified supply. She identified construction costs. She identified how expensive it now is for the current generation to buy a property as opposed to her generation and generations that have gone before. But what the member for Macquarie failed to do was to identify how this government, after 2½ years, has in any way increased the supply of housing and brought down the cost of housing. In my electorate, in southern and south-western Sydney, housing prices have not gone down one single bit. First of all, those who are lucky enough to already be in homeownership have had 12 interest rate rises in a row, causing them to pay more than $35,000 in additional interest rate payments. My electorate knows—from Illawong to Ingleburn, from Bonnet Bay to Bangor and Bundeena, from Heathcote to Hammondville, from Moorebank to Macquarie Fields—that, whether they are buying a house, paying off a mortgage or renting, those prices have significantly increased. Just last week, I was out at Holsworthy, and I met some people in tears, who said, 'We have to move out of this three-bedroom townhouse because the rent has now gone up in 18 months'—of a Labor federal government—'by $150 to $750.' That is out of their ability to pay. I think we should just look at some actual stats around negative gearing. Let's do a bit of fact finding around negative gearing. According to the Australian Taxation Office, 90 per cent of those that utilise negative gearing—and there are around 2.25 million Australians that do—have two investment properties or fewer; 71 per cent have only one. When we drill down to who those Australians are, many of them are middle-income Australians. They're teachers, they're nurses, they're plumbers and they're builders. They are the people that often buy an investment property to prepare for their future. While we are talking about plumbers and those that work in the construction industry, one of the other main issues that the government has not managed to fix, and which has indeed been exacerbated under this Labor government for 2½ years, is the cost of construction materials and the shortage of workers in the construction industry. That has also been one of the biggest drivers of the massive increase in the cost of housing. Secretly modelling negative gearing changes and changes to the capital gains tax is simply putting another tax on— (Time expired) 16:22 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Supply, supply, supply. That is the answer to the pressures facing Australia's housing sector. Increasing supply is what the Labor government has been seeking to do since our election in 2022. It's the policy we took to the election: more homes to buy, more homes to rent, more homes period. That's the answer to ensuring more Australians get a roof over their heads and enjoy the security that the member for Macquarie alluded to. But standing in the way is Australia's new coalition of protest and petty grievance. The Liberals and the Greens are chained together to the excavator on home sites across the country, stopping tradies from getting on with the job. It's not Bob the Builder; it's 'Pete the protester'. This MPI, from the member for Hume, is on negative gearing, which shouldn't surprise us. The shadow Treasurer has brought on a matter of public importance about a matter that is not government policy. It's a Seinfeld debate—a debate about a policy that doesn't exist, except in the cavernous space of the member for Hume's head. It's easier for him, I suppose, than an MPI on the government's actual economic record of more jobs, higher wages, bigger tax cuts, lower inflation and two big Labor budget surpluses. The fact is this Labor government is fixing the mess the Liberals left behind over their decade of neglect. Labor has done more for housing in three years than the Liberals did in 10. If you want to look at the record of Liberals in government, look no further than the bin fire in my home state. After a decade of state Liberal government, Tasmania has 4,700 people on the emergency housing waiting list. It has doubled since the Liberals were elected in 2014. The average wait time for placement is 94 weeks, which is four times longer than in 2014. As for affordability, New South Wales remains the most unaffordable, but a close second is Tassie. That's the legacy of a decade of failed Liberal government in Tasmania and nationally. Compare that to the progress that's been made after just three years of federal Labor government. Our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan unlocks all parts of the housing ecosystem to build more homes, providing leadership, funding and incentives to state governments to get homes more quickly, training more tradies, funding more apprenticeships and growing the workforce, including through fee-free TAFE, which those opposite opposed. We're delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade to help reduce homelessness. We're improving affordability, with our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, our $3 billion social housing accelerator payment and the largest increase to Commonwealth rental assistance in 30 years. One part of our comprehensive housing plan is the Help to Buy bill being blocked and delayed by the Liberals and Greens in the Senate. Help to Buy will support up to 40,000 eligible Australians, many of them young Australians, to purchase a home. It will do this by the government taking on some of the equity in the property, significantly bringing down the cost of servicing the loan. We know it will work because various states, including Tasmania and Western Australia, already have similar shared-equity schemes in place. A shared-equity scheme even operates under the state Liberal government of Tasmania, and shared-equity schemes are part of Greens policy, but both the Liberals and the Greens in this place are chained together in opposition to shared equity. The naked political pointscoring of this coalition of chaos is stopping 40,000 Australians a year from getting the opportunity to get their foot on the first rung of the homeownership ladder. The shadow Treasurer has brought on a debate about taxation policy. What he should be talking about is the Labor government's taxation policy. I'm very proud of the changes we made to the Liberal Party's stage 3, which delivered a tax cut for every Australian worker and bigger tax cuts for most. Importantly, they also delivered a tax cut to workers earning under $40,000 a year, who would have received nothing under those opposite. In my home state of Tasmania, 90 per cent of workers—nine in 10—are better off under the Labor government's taxation policy changes. That's what this debate should be about, not the fantasy of changes to negative gearing, which is not government policy. 16:27 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook The member for Lyons is correct: supply, supply, supply—that is the answer. Unfortunately for him, the Labor government isn't doing much about that. As of today, the Housing Australia Future Fund is yet to pay out a single cent or build a single home. This signature policy is yet to deliver anything on supply. Yes, the member for Lyons and the Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil, believe that the fundamental reason behind Australia's house price growth is supply not keeping up with demand, and they are right. But, unfortunately for us and, more importantly, unfortunately for Australians all around the country, they are not doing anything about it. There is still no detail on where these houses will be located, when they will be built or who will build them. Unfortunately, there are real people suffering from these policies. I spoke to a community member recently: a single mum, escaping domestic violence, who had been living in a three-bedroom apartment in Miranda. The apartment was being sold, so she was being forced to move out. She could not find a place, despite going for rental after rental. When she came to my office she was going to be homeless in 10 days time. I called the real estate agent, thinking that there must be some problem with her application—she mustn't have enough money or a good job. They informed me it wasn't the application; it was just that there were 40 people going for each three-bedroom apartment in Miranda. While those opposite have identified a problem of supply, they have been unable and unwilling to fix it, and unfortunately there are people who are paying the price, like this constituent of mine who is facing homelessness with her two children. Now we hear about secret plans to look at negative gearing. The problem is: if they believe it's supply, negative gearing doesn't help with supply. Independent analysis by Master Builders Australia suggests that there's a shortfall of 166,000 properties against the Labor government's 1.2 million target. A separate model put forward by the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council says Labor will fall at least 300,000 homes short of their aim. The problem is that any tinkering to negative gearing will make this much worse. Modelling by Cadence Economics reveals that Labor's negative-gearing tax and any changes to that would lead to Australia ending up with 42,000 fewer dwellings, 32,000 fewer full-time jobs and up to $11.8 billion less building activity. The Property Council commissioned a report from Deloitte that showed that changes to negative gearing would cause a 4.1 per cent hit to the dwindling pipeline for new homes. Those changes would be a $1.5 billion hit to our already languishing GDP and would cost Australia over 7,800 jobs. A more recent study, from the University of Melbourne, found that any changes to negative gearing would see supply reduced by 1.8 per cent. More research conducted by the University of Melbourne found that rent would increase by 3.6 per cent and the welfare budget by 1.7 per cent if negative gearing were removed. So, whether they're rumours that are being pushed out by the Labor Party to check this policy out, what we do know is that changes would hit Australians harder, when they are already struggling with the cost of living. Given these facts, I imagine the minister, who's a good person, would be troubled by these reports that the Treasurer and his department could be secretly modelling changes. Centre for Independent Studies economist Peter Tulip says getting rid of these tax deductions would have very little effect on housing affordability. He argues instead that, actually, supply reforms and zoning reforms would have up to a 30 to 50 per cent effect on house prices. The Labor government should be focused on housing supply, not imposing a higher tax burden on Australia. There's record migration under this government, with 547,000 immigrants last year and only 164,000 new homes added. This year looks to be on track for the same sorts of numbers. When we have this huge imbalance between demand and supply, we need to solely focus on increasing supply so that people like my constituent, a single mother, can find housing, doesn't have to face homelessness and doesn't have the stress of wondering whether she and her two daughters are going to be sleeping on the street. We need more housing supply desperately. 16:32 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence This is a remarkable matter of importance presented to the House today by the member for Hume. I say 'remarkable' because those opposite are actively blocking housing supply and cost-of-living relief in this country when it is needed most, as we're seeing right now in their opposition to Help to Buy and as we saw in their heel-dragging over Labor's tax cuts for all Australians, and then they stand up in this place not to help Australian families doing it tough, not to bring any actual solutions to the table, but instead to weaponise people doing their best to deal with the cost of living. Like a tool in the shed, the coalition will only bring up housing when it's politically useful to them, not to help everyday Australians. In my electorate of Spence this is especially disappointing because as the local member I know that my community is one of the hardest hit by this cost-of-living crisis. I know it not just from the stats but firsthand, on the ground. There are families in tough circumstances, living week to week, watching their costs going up, doing all they can to pay their bills and put food on the table, across Elizabeth, Salisbury and Gawler. I see it every single day in this job, and every single action that I take in this job is to help them. That is to help bring their rents down and make houses more affordable. That's to help get their income up and get their wages where they need to be for them to live and thrive well into the future. I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that feels exactly the same as me. I'm even prouder to hold the Liberals to account when they do their best to block that help. Across the long nine years on their watch, the previous Liberal government never helped those families in Davoren Park, Munno Para and Craigmore as the housing crisis in this nation got worse and worse. Those families were tightening their belts more and more as their rents went up exponentially, whilst those opposite sat on their hands and did nothing. They not only continue to do so now; their insistence on sheer inaction is only making this crisis worse. It's part of a strategy to promote fear and division to help themselves instead of actually helping people, as this MPI makes clear. But Australians in my community and across the country see through it. They know that this government has a clear policy on housing, and it does not include a change to negative gearing. That policy is to build, build, build. The Liberals don't like it, because their policy is to block, block, block. Regardless, this Labor government has set a target to build 1.2 million homes in this country by the end of the decade. That's because, unlike those opposite, we are tackling the housing crisis. A part of that is the federal government's work with our state counterparts nationwide to ensure these houses are constructed quickly. I watched this happen in real time just last week in Virginia, alongside the Minister for Housing in this place and the minister for housing in SA, Nick Champion. As we speak, more than 3,000 metres of new trunk water main are being laid underneath Angle Vale Road in my electorate. This project alone will support up to 40,000 new dwellings in the north, delivered in a collaboration between this federal Labor government and South Australia's Malinauskas Labor government. That is government addressing the housing crisis, government helping everyday Australians who are doing it tough. It is not launching scare campaigns on negative gearing or blocking cost-of-living assistance to score points; it is taking real action for real Australians. The member for Hume and his Liberal colleagues should take note. This Labor government isn't stopping there, either. We're training more tradies, to grow the workforce and help build those unlocked houses. We're delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade to directly make houses more affordable where they are needed most. That's all part of our plan, in creating supply to meet demand. But we want to do more. With our Help to Buy Bill we want to support 40,000 Australians to purchase their own home. We want to give tens of thousands of families in this country the means to break into the housing market. But, just like with the tax cuts and so many other policies to directly improve the circumstances of everyday Australians, the Liberals say no. They would prefer to block this opportunity to help 40,000 Australians own a home. Those actions say more than this offensive waste of an MPI discussion ever could. COMMITTEES 45 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 45 Report 45 16:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present report No. 32 on the Standing Committee on Petitions. The report read as follows— HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT No. 32 Petitions and Ministerial Responses 8 October 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP Mr Sam Birrell MP Ms Alison Byrnes MP Ms Lisa Chesters MP Mr Garth Hamilton MP Ms Tracey Roberts MP Ms Meryl Swanson MP This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented. The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 14 August and 21 August 2024. 1. The committee resolved to present the following 93 petitions in accordance with standing order 207: Petitions certified on 14 August 2024 From 65 petitioners—requesting the harmonisation of laws relating to protection orders and changes to the way in which domestic violence cases are handled (EN6395) From 105 petitioners—requesting that purchases of personal lifesaving equipment be made tax deductible (EN6396) From 12 petitioners—requesting bulk-billing for dental treatment (EN6397) From 4 petitioners—regarding the impact of housing costs on child support payments (EN6398) From 78 petitioners—regarding concerns about the human rights of members of the Montagnards Stand for Justice organisation in Vietnam (EN6399) From 3 petitioners—regarding the Australian Defence Force's procurement process (EN6401) From 5 petitioners—regarding the Australian Defence Force Reserves (EN6402) From 4 petitioners—requesting the prohibition of nuclear energy (EN6403) From 16 petitioners—regarding driving tests for people with autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (EN6404) From 5 petitioners—requesting an investigation into allegations of racial discrimination at the University of Tasmania (EN6405) From 28 petitioners—requesting that the age of eligibility to access superannuation and Age Pension payments be reduced for Indigenous Australians (EN6407) From 12 petitioners—requesting that Australia transition to a system of voluntary voting (EN6408) From 10 petitioners—requesting the repeal of newly introduced legislation relating to e-cigarettes and vaping products (EN6409) From 5 petitioners—requesting that Australia provide coal to Ukraine as humanitarian aid (EN6410) From 6 petitioners—requesting an amendment to section 591 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (EN6412) From 29 petitioners—requesting updated legislation to protect copyright material from being harvested by generative artificial intelligence (EN6413) From 11 petitioners—regarding the role of the public service in developing regulations (EN6414) From 10 petitioners—requesting legalisation of the sale of vaping products (EN6415) From 7 petitioners—requesting the forced divestiture of stores by specific retailers (EN6416) From 15 petitioners—requesting the prohibition of messenger ribonucleic acid technologies (EN6417) From 3 petitioners—requesting the forced conscription of people in prison (EN6419) From 121 petitioners—requesting an onshore application process for Sponsored Parent (Temporary) visa (subclass 870) extensions (EN6420) From 6 petitioners—regarding concerns related to Australia's preferential voting system (EN6421) From 5 petitioners—regarding requirements for governors-general (EN6422) From 11 petitioners—requesting reduced immigration into Western Australia (EN6427) From 1161 petitioners—requesting the appointment of a Minister for Men and Boys (EN6428) From 13 petitioners—regarding the safe disposal of electronic vapes (EN6429) From 6 petitioners—requesting recognition of convict settlers (EN6430) From 86 petitioners—requesting changes to the way the Family Tax Benefit is calculated (EN6431) From 32 petitioners—requesting that financial literacy be included in the Australian Curriculum (EN6434) From 5 petitioners—requesting that new motor vehicles be required to have a full-size spare wheel (EN6436) From 145 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government support the implementation of the domestic violence disclosure scheme known as Clare's Law (EN6437) From 55 petitioners—requesting that the House declare its position on Israel's actions in Gaza (EN6439) From 23 petitioners—requesting additional carer's leave for parents of young children (EN6440) From 109 petitioners—requesting a pathway to permanent residency for people who lived and worked in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic (EN6443) From 14 petitioners—requesting the removal of the cap on the number of hours that international students are allowed to work (EN6444) From 6 petitioners—requesting mandatory paternity testing for newborns (EN6445) From 10 petitioners—requesting additional measures to prevent bias in reporting by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (EN6446) From 11 petitioners—requesting that funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency be ceased (EN6447) From 4 petitioners—regarding concerns related to COVID-19 vaccinations (EN6448) From 21 petitioners—requesting that online poker be legalised in Australia (EN6452) From 268 petitioners—requesting the appointment of a Minister for Older Australians (EN6454) From 13 petitioners—requesting that medicinal cannabis be covered by Medicare (EN6455) From 298 petitioners—requesting a reduction in processing times for Permanent Residence (Skilled Regional) Visa (Subclass 191) applications (EN6456) From 43 petitioners—requesting that fexofenadine be included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (EN6457) From 4 petitioners—requesting that notice be provided to the community prior to artillery or explosives exercises at Holsworthy Barracks (EN6460) From 531 petitioners—regarding the medical requirements for Permanent Residence (Skilled Regional) Visa (Subclass 191) applications (EN6463) From 7 petitioners—requesting the removal of the 2% Lifetime Health Cover loading on private hospital cover (EN6465) From 2 petitioners—regarding concerns related to human rights in Bangladesh (EN6466) From 1 petitioner—requesting that the Australian Government respond to allegations of human rights violations in Bangladesh (EN6470) From 2 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government address allegations of human rights violations in Bangladesh (EN6471) From 53 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government condemn Israel's occupation of the West Bank (EN6472) From 171 petitioners—requesting that 21 July be recognised as a public holiday and referred to as National Oscar Piastri Day (EN6474) From 201 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government respond to alleged human rights violations in Hong Kong (EN6475) From 5 petitioners—requesting legalisation of dry herb vaporisers (EN6476) From 13 petitioners—requesting increased support to assist people on low incomes or receiving a pension to access dental treatment (EN6479) From 308 petitioners—requesting that a furniture company be referred to the appropriate regulator for investigation (EN6483) From 2100 petitioners—requesting the removal of clawback charges to finance brokers (EN6484) From 1502 petitioners—requesting that hypnotherapy treatments be included in the Medicare Benefits Schedule (EN6485) From 24 petitioners—requesting changes to the way child support payments are calculated (EN6489) From 4 petitioners—regarding concerns relating to COVID-19 vaccinations (EN6491) From 2 petitioners—regarding concerns relating to COVID-19 vaccinations (EN6493) From 66 petitioners—requesting that immigration be reduced (EN6494) From 3 petitioners—requesting that the sale of nitrous oxide canisters be prohibited (EN6495) From 38 petitioners—requesting that the House recognise the state of Palestine (EN6497) From 50 petitioners—regarding the National Redress Scheme (EN6498) From 1 petitioner—requesting restrictions on home shopping advertisements (EN6499) From 7 petitioners—requesting the establishment of a publicly owned airline (EN6500) From 37 petitioners—requesting the establishment of a Federal Judicial Commission (EN6501) From 93 petitioners—requesting that increases to the alcohol excise be ceased (EN6504) From 70 petitioners—requesting that the indexation of HECS-HELP debts be ceased (EN6508) From 10 petitioners—regarding concerns related to Australia's preferential voting system (EN6514) From 6 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government lift sanctions against Syria (EN6516) From 2 petitioners—regarding alleged human rights violations in Bangladesh (EN6517) From 323 petitioners—requesting a reduction in processing times for Employer Nomination Scheme visa (subclass 186) applications (EN6518) From 2 petitioners—regarding violence against students in Bangladesh (EN6519) From 6 petitioners—regarding the Fair Work Commission (EN6522) From 2 petitioners—regarding alleged human rights violations in Bangladesh (EN6525) From 846 petitioners—requesting an increase in the rebates for physiotherapy treatments provided to Department of Veterans' Affairs clients (EN6526) From 180 petitioners—requesting a reduction in processing times for Partner visa applications (EN6527) Petitions certified on 21 August 2024 From 102 petitioners—requesting legislation to prohibit misinformation in political advertising and communications (EN6530) From 345 petitioners—requesting that funding be provided to veterinary hospitals and practices for wildlife care (EN6532) From 50 petitioners—requesting the removal of the title 'Honourable' from all Members of Parliament (EN6533) From 118 petitioners—regarding concerns relating to allegations of domestic violence (EN6536) From 5 petitioners—requesting that further details about property ownership be included on the Register of Members' Interests (EN6537) From 31 petitioners—requesting that Rachael Gunn be appointed to the role of Governor-General (EN6539) From 1 petitioner—regarding the shortage of qualified tradespeople (EN6541) From 28 petitioners—requesting a temporary halt on the granting of new visas (EN6543) From 185 petitioners—requesting a pathway to permanent residency for people who engaged in farmwork during the COVID-19 pandemic (EN6544) From 9 petitioners—regarding concerns related to the treatment of the Cham Bani community in Vietnam (EN6545) From 12 petitioners—requesting a reduction in processing times for Prospective Marriage visa (subclass 300) applications (EN6546) From 85 petitioners—requesting changes to allow prevocational doctors to work in general practice (EN6547) From 130 petitioners—regarding concerns related to the Digital ID Act 2024(EN6548) 2. The following 25 ministerial responses to petitions were received. Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 11 September 2024 From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition regarding plans to protect lands, seas, habitats, and species (EN4145) From the Treasurer to a petition regarding the Meal Entertainment Card salary packaging maximum limit for aged care and disability workers (EN4246) From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition regarding concerns related to geoengineering (EN4406) From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition regarding the impact of the amphibian chytrid fungus on the Baw Baw frog (EN4441) From the Treasurer to a petition regarding the classification of Bitcoin for Australian tax purposes (EN4470) From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting the criminalisation false or misleading statements made by public officials in relation to climate change (EN4671) From the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury to a petition regarding supermarket profiteering during the cost-of-living crisis (EN5209) From the Treasurer to a petition regarding interest rate rises (EN5281) From the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury to a petition regarding supermarket pricing practices in relation to Australian farmers (EN5495) From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition requesting new energy policies that provide relief to families and industry (EN6053) From the Minister for Industry and Science to a petition regarding the impacts of artificial intelligence on the creative arts (EN6054) From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition regarding concerns relating to the responsiveness of the National Disability Insurance Agency (EN6084) From the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the Skilled—Recognised Graduate (subclass 476) visa (EN6093) From the Minister for Defence to a petition requesting information about the memorandum of understanding signed by Australia and Israel in 2017 (EN6122) From the Minister for Communications to a petition regarding concerns related to the 5G network and associated infrastructure (EN6123) From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition requesting regulations to prohibit carbon capture and storage in the Great Artesian Basin (EN6134) From the Minister for Defence to a petition requesting that an F/A-18 'Classic' Hornet be allocated to the Queensland Air Museum (EN6153 and PN0608) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government impose sanctions on Israeli officials and businesses operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (EN6171) From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition regarding the closure of national parks (EN6179) From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition requesting that endometriosis be recognised as a permanent disability under List D Conditions in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (EN6251) From the Minister for Finance to a petition regarding concerns related to the Digital ID Act 2024 (EN6286) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting a review of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to allow companion dogs in indoor dining areas (EN6338) From the Minister for Education to a petition requesting an improvement in conditions for Higher Degree by Research students (EN6358) From the Leader of the House to a petition requesting that Members be prohibited from using mobile phones during Question Time (EN6386) From the Minister for Communications to a petition regarding the capacity of battery supply at the Telstra Speewah Exchange (PN0611) Ms Susan Templeman MP Chair—Petitions Committee PETITIONS 49 PETITIONS Presentation 49 16:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie () (): by leave—I present the following 93 petitions Domestic and Family Violence 49 Personal Safety Devices 50 Dental Health 50 Housing 50 Human Rights: Vietnam 50 Defence Procurement 50 Defence 51 Nuclear Energy 51 Assessing Fitness to Drive Guidelines 51 University of Tasmania: Discrimination 51 Senior First Nations Australians 52 Election of Members and Senators 52 E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 52 Ukraine 52 Fair Work Commission 53 Artificial Intelligence 53 Public Sector Governance 53 E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 53 Competition Policy 53 COVID-19: Vaccination 54 Defence 54 Sponsored Parent Visas 54 Election of Members and Senators 54 Governor-General 54 Western Australia: Migration 54 Advocacy for Men 54 E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 55 Australian Society: Convict History 55 Pensions and Benefits 55 Australian Curriculum: Financial Literacy 55 Vehicle Safety 56 Domestic and Family Violence 56 Gaza 56 Workplace Relations 56 Migration 56 International Students 57 Family Law 57 Australian Broadcasting Corporation 57 International Humanitarian Assistance: Gaza 57 COVID-19: Vaccination 57 Gambling 57 Senior Australians 58 Medicinal Cannabis 58 Skilled Migration 58 Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 58 Defence Exercises: Holsworthy Barracks 59 Skilled Migration 59 Private Health Insurance 59 Human Rights: Bangladesh 59 Human Rights: Bangladesh 60 Human Rights: Bangladesh 60 Human Rights: Occupied Palestinian Territories 60 Motor Sport 60 Human Rights: Hong Kong 60 E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 61 Dental Health 61 Corporate Governance 61 Banking and Financial Services 62 Medicare 62 Family Law 62 COVID-19: Vaccination 63 COVID-19: Vaccination 63 Migration 63 Substance Abuse: Nitrous Oxide 63 Occupied Palestinian Territories 63 National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse 64 Television Advertising 64 Aviation Industry 64 Judiciary 64 Taxation: Alcohol 65 Universities 65 Election of Members and Senators 65 International Relations: Australia and Syria 65 Human Rights: Bangladesh 65 Skilled Migration 66 Human Rights: Bangladesh 66 Fair Work Commission 66 Human Rights: Bangladesh 67 Department of Veterans' Affairs: Allied Health Rebates 67 Family and Partner Migration 67 Parliamentary Standards 67 Animal Welfare 68 Parliament 68 Domestic and Family Violence 68 Parliamentary Standards 69 Governor-General 69 Housing 69 Migration 69 Migration 69 Human Rights: Vietnam 69 Family and Partner Migration 70 General Practitioners 70 Digital ID Legislation 70 PETITIONS 71 PETITIONS Responses 71 16:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie by leave—I present 25 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Environment 71 Taxation 71 Environment 72 Baw Baw Frog 72 Cryptocurrency 72 Climate Change 73 Grocery Prices 73 Economy 74 Agriculture Industry 74 Fossil Fuel Industry 74 Artificial Intelligence 75 National Disability Insurance Scheme 76 Skilled Migration 77 International Relations: Australia and Israel 78 Telecommunications 78 Great Artesian Basin 79 Queensland Air Museum 79 Middle East 80 National Parks 81 National Disability Insurance Scheme 81 Personal Information and Privacy 82 Food Standards 82 Universities 82 Parliamentary Standards 83 Telecommunications 84 BILLS 84 BILLS Help to Buy Bill 2023 [No. 2] 84

Help to Buy Bill 2023 [No. 2]

First Reading 84 16:37 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I ask leave of the House to present a bill for an act to provide for Housing Australia to enter into shared equity arrangements on behalf of the Commonwealth to improve housing outcomes for Australians and for other purposes. Leave not granted. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent a Minister introducing a bill without notice. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

84 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 52 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:47 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I present the Help to Buy Bill 2023 [No.2] and the explanatory memorandum to this bill and to the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 [No.2]. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 85 16:47 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: That this bill be now read a second time. What an incredible moment for the parliament. If Australians had any question about where the Liberal Party and the National Party stand with regard to housing and homeownership, they have no questions left. Not only do the people opposite not want to come into the parliament and support the Help to Buy scheme; they're actually trying to use their numbers in the parliament to prevent us from even bringing this back into the parliament and having a debate about whether and how we can support low- and middle-income people in this country into homeownership. I want childcare workers, aged-care workers, apprentices and nurses across the country to see this. Those opposite are not standing up for you. Instead, they are in this parliament trying to stop you from getting access to homeownership, which we believe you deserve. The people behind me are not going to stop fighting for those people. As I said in question time, the reason that the people behind me get out of bed every morning is to try to help and protect and defend the interests of low- and middle-income Australians. We believe something very humble, and that is that ordinary people in our country should get access to homeownership. This is exactly what this bill is about. It's about 40,000 people who right now are complete locked out of the housing market and bouncing from rental to rental, having their rents increased and having to move their kids from one school to another. We can help 40,000 Australians and their families have that life-changing transformation of having their own home for the first time. The Liberals come in here and not only don't support the bill but don't even want us to debate it. That is a disgrace. The Labor government committed to establishing a shared-equity scheme to help 40,000 low- and middle-income Australian households into homeownership. Today marks a significant step to delivering that promise. The Help to Buy scheme will be the first national shared-equity scheme of its kind. It will be delivered through Housing Australia and will help Australians to overcome both the hurdle of saving for a deposit and servicing a mortgage. Through Help to Buy, the Commonwealth will cut the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent. Participants will only require a minimum two per cent deposit and will benefit from lower ongoing mortgage repayments through a smaller home loan. Eligible participants will be able to access the scheme through participating lenders alongside a standard mortgage. Housing Australia will then provide the Commonwealth's equity contribution for a loan arrangement secured against the property. Housing Australia will be funded by a special appropriation to enter into Help to Buy arrangements and will return funds to the Commonwealth when the equity is repaid. The Minister for Housing will provide written directions to Housing Australia on the operation of the scheme, including decision-making criteria for entering into Help to Buy arrangements. The bill also contains provisions enabling states to pass legislation for their constituents to participate in this scheme. All states have agreed in principle to participate in the scheme. Help to Buy will be open to help people who have owned homes before and those who haven't. It will help couples, siblings and singles alike. Those who are close to retirement, those just starting out in the workforce and anyone eligible in between. This is a historic commitment by the government because we understand what buying a house means to Australians. For most, it's the single biggest investment they'll make in their lifetimes, but it is so much more than that. It's giving people the certainty of homeownership, an opportunity to live in their community and the chance to create opportunities for their families. Delivering on Help to Buy, alongside the Housing Australia Future Fund, the Social Housing Accelerator Payment and the Housing Accord, will mean more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. I really call on others in the parliament to come forward and support this bill. There is no public policy reason to stand in the path of 40,000 people who need and deserve the government's help. We deal with a lot of legislation in this parliament. We face few opportunities that are as clear as this one to, in one move, be able to change the lives of 40,000 people around our country, and I urge the Liberals and the Greens to work with the government to take it. Debate adjourned. Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 86

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Reference to Committee 86 16:52 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I move: That the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics for consideration and an advisory report by 2 December 2024. For the benefit of all members, I want to explain the motion that I'm moving here. I'm moving this motion in accordance with standing order 143. This standing order provides for a motion concerning a bill to be referred to the Federation Chamber or to a committee to be put after the first reading, but before the question on the motion for the second reading is put—that is, before we conclude debate on the second reading. Clause (b) of this standing order allows for the motion to be moved without notice and allows for a bill to be referred to a committee for an advisory report. That is the simple objective of this motion: to seek the agreement of the House. Let me be clear: the opposition will always work with the government in good faith to pass legislation. Last sitting, we saw this in practice. We supported the introduction of aged-care legislation and various migration amendments. In my position as shadow minister for climate change and energy I have supported government bills—recently, the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Regulator bill, the GEMS bill. It is notable that this bill has been wrapped within the government's broader Future Made in Australia plan, which, as we know, has more economic holes than a block of Swiss cheese. Mr Coleman 241067 Which tends to have a lot of holes. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Swiss cheese does have a lot of holes; indeed, so too does their plan. It is a plan for more government, not for more business investment. The more we hear Labor talk about a future made in Australia, the more it simply does not stack up. Australia requires strong economic management that gets our economy back on track by getting the basics right: affordable and reliable energy, flexible workplaces, less regulation, fewer market interventions and less red tape. Labor's policies on energy, industrial relations and tax are all making Australia a less attractive place to do business in. The facts are clear: insolvencies are up, productivity is down, and businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. Just last week, we saw a major energy company abandon its plan for green hydrogen—a key focus of this bill. We know this bill shows bias, prompting a renewables-only approach in contrast to similar schemes being established by the UK and the EU—a bias that will directly impact longstanding Australian companies. We on this side of the House know that the future made in Australia bumper sticker is more about spin and delivery, and therefore this bill should be scrutinised in detail. I make this point following the government's gagging of debate, in the last sitting of the parliament, during the consideration in detail phase of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. The bill to which this motion I put today refers has implications for domestic industries. Referring this bill to the Standing Committee on Economics will allow for a detailed examination of its potential economic impact on various sectors, particularly manufacturing and energy-intensive industries, which may be hit with additional costs related to the Guarantee of Origin scheme. Through the imposition of any additional regulatory and certification costs on energy producers, this bill may lead to higher energy prices. This could hurt Australian households and businesses at a time when they have been gripped amidst a cost-of-living crisis. Referring the bill for further scrutiny will allow for a proper assessment of potential energy price increases and their impact on consumers. As shadow minister for climate change and energy, I strongly believe a bill such as this should be closely aligned with economic policies, and thus the importance of the committee to which it is being referred. The importance of job creation and economic growth is included in some of those economic considerations. Labor has stood behind CSIRO estimates that an Australian clean hydrogen industry could create more than 8,000 jobs. How do these numbers stack up after recent withdrawals from green hydrogen by Fortescue and Origin? A referral can evaluate whether the bill would further support or hinder job creation in light of these changes in the marketplace and would suggest modifications that better serve our national interest. As we know from other Future Made in Australia legislation, there are loopholes that create a pathway for foreign companies to extract economic benefits from Australia without adequately supporting domestic businesses. Referring the bill for further scrutiny will help to ensure it is focused on the genuine economic interests of the Australian people and the Australian economy. That's why I stand today to call on the House to refer this bill to the economics committee for an advisory report. As I mentioned earlier, the committee would operate as it would when undertaking an inquiry into any other issue of concern or interest. The committee would be free to convene public hearings and invite submissions. It could provide this House with an advisory report to help inform members as to the merits or otherwise of this bill. This would enhance the House's consideration of the bill and certainly not undermine it. Importantly, the work of this House committee would be entirely separate to whatever work the Senate is currently considering via its own processes. To anticipate an argument from those opposite about there being two concurrent inquiries into this bill being run, I say this: if the minister has nothing to hide in this legislation, then surely more scrutiny, not less, is a good thing. There is an important consequence to passing this motion which I want to ensure is understood by members. Under standing order 144—and this is detailed further in practice—the House cannot proceed to the consideration in detail stage of debate until such a time as the committee has reported to the House. The opposition deems this necessary to ensure extensive economic assessment by all members in consultation with stakeholders. This should not be a controversial proposition. The opposition is not proposing to push this bill into the never-never. We are not running interference or seeking to block the government's legislative agenda. What we are doing is asking the government to work constructively with the opposition and all members to ensure that this bill is given the scrutiny it plainly deserves. This motion is, in itself, an acknowledgement of this fact. I hope those opposite will support what is a simple, straightforward request. If indeed the government has nothing to hide and is not afraid of scrutiny, then it would support this motion without hesitation. I commend this motion to the House. 17:01 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I second the motion with great joy. It's a very sensible motion put forward by the very sensible member for Fairfax. We seek every opportunity to work with the government on sensible policy. We seek the opportunity to provide scrutiny to the government's agenda. That is our job as the opposition. It's a job that we take very seriously, and we do that in an open manner. We seek the opportunity only to do our job and provide scrutiny to the government's agenda. I want to get to one point that very much supports this motion, which is the work of the committee and the value that it does provide across this parliament. The economics committee has been a veritable beacon of bipartisan cooperation by working very well together. Unfortunately, none of the members are present, so I'll have to praise them in their absence. But I will acknowledge very openly, as I have on many occasions, the stewardship of this committee by the member for Fraser, who has always been willing to allow a bipartisan approach to any discussions that we've had on that committee. The fruit of that work has been borne out multiple times. I refer particularly to the work we did in the inquiry into competition and productivity, where we heard from the small banks about the need for a regulatory grid to be brought into the Australian banking system, much as it has been in the UK. We heard that multiple times. Before we even got the report out—the primary recommendation of which was to implement a regulatory grid—to their credit, the government implemented a regulatory grid, and that is now part of how Australia operates. That came from Liberal members bringing it into that committee. It was discussed, it was debated, and it came through. This is an example of working together. This committee works. I would also point out the work the committee has done raising the issue of capital and liquidity requirements that APRA have brought into question and seek to change. It is through the work of that committee that we've put pressure back onto APRA and called their overreach into question. This committee works. It is a good committee. I praise the members of it. I praise again the leadership of the member for Fraser and the work that he does. This is the right committee to send something like this to. These bills should be given full scrutiny, and I will repeat the point that the member for Fraser made. Why are we on this side of the House concerned about this? It's because we saw consideration in detail gagged for the Future Made in Australia Bill. Our ability to do our job, to hold the government of the day to account, was withdrawn from us. The Australian people lost out. The simple workings of democracy were denied the Australian people. We seek the opportunity to provide that scrutiny. We seek to do it through processes that are already in place, processes that are strong and proven. There are a lot of questions that we would like to have answered. I would love for the committee to hear from the Chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, to understand why she feels that 'We need to be very cautious when stepping into this space.' That was her comment on the Future Made in Australia Bill. I would like to understand what's behind that comment. I think it would be great to have that brought out—for those questions to be explored and to form a part of a report provided by this committee. I would like to hear from the CSIRO and understand whether the 8,000 jobs that it said would be provided by the green hydrogen industry still stand, when multiple organisations are running away as fast as they can from this. Do those 8,000 jobs now need to be publicly funded? Has that number declined, as we suspected it would? I would like to hear about that. I think that would form sensible scrutiny of these bills. I would like to hear from Fortescue and Origin to understand why they walked away from green hydrogen, why they are turning their backs on this. These are questions that would inform our deliberations, and this committee would be perfectly placed to deal with. I'd love to hear from the resources council. I'd love to understand what the impact of these bills will be on jobs and growth in our resources sector, and I'd like to hear about the capability of our resources sector to match these investments. Mr Sukkar 242515 That's sensible. Mr HAMILTON 291387 These are eminently sensible suggestions. It would impress even the member for Deakin how sensible these measures are. We have the opportunity to use the proven systems of this parliament to provide scrutiny to a bill that—let's be honest—has really struggled to find support in the media. Even that bastion of right-wing thought the ABC is happy to report on the 'vague and difficult to interpret' guidelines that make it very difficult to understand how this bill would be implemented. They report Australian Industry Group's chief executive, Innes Willox, questioning the community benefit principles that sit within this legislation and commenting that they may reduce policy certainty and increase investment risk: 'This runs'—a somewhat obvious statement here—'counter to the objective of increasing investment in targeted sectors.' Gee, that doesn't sound good. That's not a ringing endorsement. The media has not been behind this. And that's the ABC. I'm starting with the ABC. I could go to the Guardian if I felt like jumping too far to the left. The Sydney Morning Herald goes down much the same lines; Shane Wright refuses to give this legislation a green pass. No-one's happy about where this is going. It has not received support. For all of those reasons put together, this suite of bills deserves scrutiny. It deserves to be sent through to the economics committee. On a final point, I'm old enough to remember the last election—maybe the member for Fairfax and the member for Deakin are as well—and there was a really important word ringing through the campaign, and that was 'integrity'. When you gag debate in consideration in detail, you are lacking in integrity as a government. This government is running at an integrity deficit. In good faith, we are offering an opportunity to recover that. Show the Australian people that you're not afraid of scrutiny. This is a bill that the minister himself describes as 'the biggest transformation since the industrial revolution'. That's from the minister's own press release. That sounds like something we should be having a good, hard look at. That sounds like something that does deserve an extra set of eyes going across it. Who better than the economics committee to do that? In closing, I'm very happy to support this motion. It is very sensible. In choosing not to support this, the government would be walking away from scrutiny, going further and further into that integrity deficit. We are trying our hardest to offer the government a way out. I hope they take it. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question negatived.

 Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 90

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

Second Reading 90 BUSINESS 90 BUSINESS Rearrangement 90 17:18 Mr DYW Watson BURKE (—) (): by leave—I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 14, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 90 BILLS Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 90

Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024

Second Reading 90 17:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm very proud to speak in support of this important legislation about giving wage justice for early-childhood education and care workers. At the last election, we had a commitment to take action to make child care more affordable and to make the entire system more sustainable. We know that it had been neglected for the previous decade under the former government. And we know as well that part of the issue was that, in feminised areas of the workforce like aged care and child care, the truth is that, whilst during the pandemic we regarded those workers as being heroes, they weren't paid properly. In both of those sectors, the people, largely women, looking after our youngest and oldest Australians were underpaid and undervalued. My government committed to fix that when in opposition. In my first budget reply, in the days when oppositions actually had costed policies, we put forward a costed policy to make child care more affordable. But we also committed to a Productivity Commission review which would examine the entire system and how it could be improved. This legislation brings together so many of the fundamental priorities of my government, like helping families with the cost of living, getting wages moving again for workers, taking action on economic equality for women and opening the doors of opportunity through education. This legislation reflects the approach that drives our government, meeting the challenges of the here and now while always looking to the future. The challenge of the here and now is making sure that this sector has a workforce, because, without paying people properly, early-childhood educators were leaving the system, just like aged-care workers were leaving the system. We know that a fundamental precondition for bringing up the standards of early education is recognising the valuable contribution it makes. It is a valuable contribution to every young Australian who goes through that system, which is not child-minding, because we know that, in the first five years of life, human brain development is almost complete. They are the most important years. We don't question whether government has a role in providing universal education once a child reaches kindergarten age, and we recognise that there's a responsibility for society in funding education right through the school system, particularly, of course, in the public education system. But somehow, unlike many successful countries overseas, we haven't up to this point valued early-childhood education enough. This is about valuing early-childhood education. The first step is valuing early-childhood education workers. Our government understands that, when we invest in early education, we're investing in two generations of Australians at the same time. We're investing in the young people themselves—the children whose skills and smarts will define our prosperity tomorrow—but we're also investing in the educators, families and employers of today. The low-hanging fruit when it comes to productivity improvement is increasing workforce participation. It is making sure that women can re-enter the workforce quicker after having a child or each child as they go through life. That, together with the other measures we're putting in place—the increased paid parental leave, the superannuation on paid parental leave—are all about economic equality based upon gender, which is something we put in the objectives of the Fair Work Act as part of our commitment. It is four years ago to the day that the centrepiece of that first budget reply was a commitment to cheaper child care. And, two years ago this month, cheaper child care was at the centre of our government's first budget, brought down by the Treasurer. Those reforms have delivered meaningful cost-of-living relief for around 1.2 million families. Just as importantly, they've brought greater choice and flexibility to working parents across Australia, particularly women. More affordable and more accessible child care takes pressure off the family budget. It's also an economic reform that boosts productivity and participation. Making child care cheaper makes it easier to go back to work, and it increases the incentive to work an extra day or take an extra shift. That's good for parents who are seeking a balance between their career and caring responsibilities. It's good for business, too, because employers get their valued staff back sooner, with all the corporate memory and skill that they bring. That's why affordable and accessible child care is good for the economy, good for parents and good for children, because of that early brain development that occurs in those first five years. Early education teaches children the foundations of preliteracy and prenumeracy. In recent times I've been in electorates right around the country—Swan, Newcastle, Chisholm—having a firsthand look at the extraordinary work done by these early educators. They're not just sitting and minding the kids but teaching them how to read, teaching them numeracy, teaching them communication skills. In addition to that, the children are learning social skills, interacting with each other, which is so important. The truth is that it gives our young Australians the chance to listen to music and sing. I was in a centre with the member for Maribyrnong just last week, as well as our candidate there, Jo Briskey, who is a former head of the Parenthood and someone who has worked extensively in that area. Those young Australians in the inner western suburbs of Melbourne are just delightful, engaging with each other. It is one of the best things we get to do. I know that the minister, the member for Cowan, is particularly keen on visiting these centres and engaging—and I must say, she draws a better rabbit than I do! Dr Aly 13050 That's not hard, though! Mr ALBANESE R36 It is not hard; that is absolutely true! All these benefits—to our economy, to families, to our youngest Australians—are possible only because of the work early childhood educators do. Across Australia, whether at Moonee Ponds, where I was last Thursday, or wherever I go, it is the same uplifting experience. The title of this bill speaks volumes: 'wage justice for early childhood education and care workers'. Wage justice means a 15 per cent pay rise—a 10 per cent pay rise starting this December and a further five per cent next December. That is an extra $100 a week for a typical early childhood educator this year and an extra $150 a week from next year. As with the historic pay rise we're delivering for aged-care workers, this is a boost for a workforce that is predominantly made up of women. It's no accident that we see the gender pay gap reduced to its lowest gap ever under my government. It's because of a conscious decision that we have made about gender equality. It's another crucial investment in recruiting and retaining the carers and educators that our nation needs to succeed in the future. I do want to emphasise this point as well, which goes to an example of how the government is making sure we deliver for people cost-of-living support whilst also making sure that our responsible economic management helps across the board: in order for a childcare provider to receive the funding for this pay rise, they have to agree to cap their fee increases. They have to agree to do that. This means that, while we're getting wages up for childcare workers, we're getting costs down for families. We're doing this by bringing together the providers, the workers and the unions, because our government understands you always get more done with cooperation than conflict and because we're focused on building an economy that works for people, not the other way around, where wages and productivity rise together, where we value the power of education and the work of educators, and where every Australian family can choose affordable and accessible early education for their children if that is what they want to do. This legislation delivers for two generations of Australians, and it is in the finest traditions of the Labor Party. We, on this side of the House, believe in gender equity. On the other side of the House, the alternative Prime Minister is attending the Athenaeum Club, having fundraisers at events where women are banned from being members. It says it all about the contrast that is there between this government's approach to equality for women and the dinosaur approach of those opposite who are promoting a club that excludes women from membership in 2024—something that I would have thought was something that was abandoned many decades ago. I am very proud to join with every member of the government in commending this bill to the House. I thank the minister, the member for Cowan, very much for her work, ably supported here by the education minister. Both of them are so passionate about opportunity and how education is the key to creating that opportunity for all, which is about creating an opportunity for Australia to seize to be the best country that we can be in the future. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 92

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 92 17:37 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. This is a bill that expands the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. The AML/CTF Act, as it is known, creates a hostile regulatory environment for money laundering and terrorism financing. It currently applies to entities providing a range of designated services, including banks, credit unions, casinos and other high-risk sectors. Summarised in one sentence, this bill extends the AML/CTF regime by applying it to lawyers, real estate agents, accountants, gemstone dealers and other designated non-financial businesses and professions. Almost 90,000 businesses across Australia will now be subject to this complex new regime. It is a massive step, and one that we on this side of the House take very seriously. Before I get to the substance of this bill and, in particular, some of the hysterical commentary which we've seen from those opposite, it's worth making the coalition's position clear. The coalition has not committed to a position either way on this bill. There are some worrying signs, and we want to hear the evidence. We want to understand what the costs and benefits are. We want to understand the impacts on the ground. Every elected member in this chamber has something in common when it comes to this bill: all of us in this place have small businesses in our electorates which will face additional costs as a result of this bill. That's not the coalition's perspective; that is what the government's own modelling says. We're talking about $13.9 billion in regulatory costs over 10 years. I'll say that again: $13.9 billion in new costs. Who pays these costs? It's the accountants who do the tax for cafes and bookshops and for mums and dads who engage someone for help with their financial affairs. It's the real estate agents who manage sales and rentals. It's the country lawyers who run small practices in rural and regional areas around our country. These are the people who will be paying for this bill. The odds are, of course, that the additional costs will be passed on to Australian families. So I ask every colleague in this place, particularly the government members: why did this government decide to slug businesses in your electorate—in every member's electorate in this chamber—with $13.9 billion in new costs in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis? Before I go on, I want to spend a couple of minutes outlining the coalition's position on Australia's AML/CTF regime. We've heard some remarkably hysterical hyperventilating—which is, of course, the worst kind of hyperventilating—from the Attorney-General in response to a series of legitimate questions raised by the coalition about this bill. Frankly, at least some of his commentary was almost unhinged, and I'll come back to it shortly. But, before I do that, there are a few things on which it's worth getting the record straight. The modern AML/CTF Act is a Howard government initiative which has its roots in international cooperative efforts to combat terrorism after the September 11 attacks. In every term of coalition government since those attacks, we have worked to improve our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing architecture. It was the coalition government that in 2002 criminalised terrorist financing as part of the Criminal Code and then moved money-laundering offences into the Criminal Code. It was the coalition government that in 2006 introduced and passed the AML/CTF Act, conferring AUSTRAC with the significant and far-reaching powers that it has today. It was the coalition government that in 2015 led Australia through its latest mutual evaluation process. It was the coalition government that upgraded the AML/CTF Act in 2017 to implement the first suite of changes from that evaluation process. It was the coalition government that in 2020 upgraded our AML/CTF regime once again. It was the coalition government that oversaw civil penalty applications against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, securing a penalty of $700 million. It was the coalition government that oversaw enforcement action against Westpac and others for systemic failures to comply with the AML/CTF Act and secured a record penalty of $1.3 billion. It was the coalition government that oversaw the application for civil penalty orders against Crown Melbourne and Crown Perth which ultimately resulted in penalties of $450 million. Our scorecard on this side of the House is clear. When we say, 'We take money laundering and terrorism financing extremely seriously,' the evidence is unequivocally on our side. We can point to enforcement action on our watch which secured penalties totalling around $2½ billion for breaches of Australia's anti-money-laundering and terrorism-financing regime. We can also point to the existence of the AML/CTF Act itself. So, when we ask questions about the bill that is currently before the parliament, we do so from a position of experience. It is because we want to know that the bill will work. That brings me to the government's own impact analysis and some of the panicked and hyperventilating commentary from the Attorney-General. There are 165 pages of dense legislation in this bill, which businesses only saw for the first time last month. We don't know whether the bill is workable and, in the time available, we can't say how businesses will respond. But let's look at what we do know about this bill, based on the information that the government itself has provided. First, we know the costs. It's worth reading from the government's own impact analysis. It talks about the costs of implementing the reforms in this bill, which they call option 4. It says in the explanatory memorandum: Implementing Option 4 is estimated to result in an additional regulatory burden to businesses of $13.9 billion over 10 years … Let's break down those 10-year costs by sector. If you're in the financial services sector, it's an extra $84 million. If you're in gambling services, it's an extra $99 million. For bullion traders, digital currency exchange providers, remitters and gemstone dealers together, it's an extra $136 million in total. But these are the sectors at the smaller end of the impact scale. If you're a provider of trust and company services, it's an extra $1.136 billion in costs. If you're a provider of legal services, it's an extra $2.883 billion. If you're a provider of accounting services, it's $3.682 billion. For real estate it's $5.892 billion. And that's how we build up to the $13.9 billion over 10 years. Let's put it in context. The costs of this bill are almost 1½ times the cost of the Housing Australia Future Fund, and all of this money would be coming from the pockets of Australian businesses. So there are serious questions to answer here. The second thing we know about this bill is that the benefits are uncertain. The government claims that there's somewhere between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion in quantifiable benefits over 10 years as a result of improvements in combating crime. Keep in mind that none of these upside benefits flow to the businesses that pay the costs in the first place. Of the $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion, the lion's share—$1.49 billion—does not come from direct action, such as the seizure of assets. To come up with that $1.49 billion in benefits, the government has engaged in an estimation process which could be described as 'creative'. It could be described as 'speculative'. Let me describe to the House what their process involved. First, the government made an estimate of how much more money it would seize in the proceeds of crime if the bill were passed. Next, the government multiplied that estimate by a multiplier. This multiplier is meant to reflect the reduced reinvestment of criminal proceeds over time. How was this multiplier developed? As far as can be deduced, the government looked at some research done in the Netherlands 18 years ago and combined it with a study of Australian drug trafficking done in 2014. In other words, it's a guess. They multiplied the estimate by the guess and then told the Australian people that they'd be getting $1.49 billion in quantifiable benefits. It's quite extraordinary. But we're really only just getting started, because the third thing we know about this bill is that the government says that we need to pay $13.9 billion in these regulatory costs to avoid the risk of greylisting. Greylisting is an informal term. It refers to enhanced monitoring by the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF, which is the international body which monitors money-laundering and terrorism-financing standards. FATF puts a country under enhanced monitoring where it considers that there are strategic deficiencies in its money-laundering and terrorism-financing framework. In practical terms this can translate into reduced foreign investment flows into the country. The government says that greylisting may be the outcome if we don't regulate so-called tranche 2 entities and, in turn, incur the massive regulatory costs that are associated with this bill. How do we assess the risk of Australia being greylisted? Normally, risk would be assessed by multiplying likelihood and impact. But, from the outset, the government is clear in its analysis that the relative likelihood of being greylisted cannot be determined on the available evidence. So we have no idea about likelihood. If greylisting happens, there are four different scenarios the government has looked at. The costs over 10 years in these four different scenarios range between $560 million and $10.7 billion. That's more than $10 billion in variation if greylisting happens at all. In other words, we really have no idea of the impact, either. But wait—there's more. The fourth thing we know is that the Attorney-General's Department has explicitly noted that there are significant difficulties associated with quantifying the value of money laundering globally and in Australia. This means that the department is not actually in a position to make an estimate of the benefits of this legislation. Instead, they've provided what they're pleased to call a 'best-efforts analysis'. The fifth thing which is explicitly noted by the department is in the following quotes: 'There is a lack of evidence in the Australian context of the likely impact these reforms will have on the amount of money laundered per year.' The sixth thing that we know about the bill is that the regulatory costs of these reforms will depend not only on the provisions of the bill and, in due course, the act, but on AML and CTF rules that have not yet been written. To once again quote the explanatory memorandum: 'As such, the operational impact of the reforms is difficult to quantify, particularly for tranche 2 entities who have no experience with the AML/CTF regime. Estimates of regulatory burden therefore reflect the best efforts and understanding of the affected stakeholders.' These shortcomings are spelled out in black and white in the government's explanatory memorandum. They are telling us that there is a real risk that the benefits may be smaller and the costs may be larger than has been forecast. Finally, we know that, even if disregard all of that uncertainty and assume the most favourable analysis from the government, we don't achieve a break even. Businesses will pay $13.9 billion if the bill passes. In exchange, the economy as a whole on the most optimistic assumptions from the government, will benefit by $13.1 billion. But I must say that anyone looking at this explanatory memorandum with even a modicum of intelligent scepticism will be deeply unpersuaded that the benefit will get anywhere near this creatively devised $13.1 billion. What we do know, though, is that those regulatory costs are going to hit in a very significant and burdensome way. Even on the government's most optimistic assumptions, the regulatory costs of passing this bill materially outweigh its benefits. But, on any intelligent assessment, the government's most optimistic scenario is very, very unlikely to be realised. Having looked at the costs and considered the benefits, the coalition, as we examined this bill and its supporting materials, began asking ourselves some questions. Is this bill the best option on the table? Are there better ways forward? You might well think that these are perfectly reasonable questions. But, instead of responding to them in the same reasonable tone, the Attorney-General instead chose to publish an op-ed that contained one of the most bizarre tirades he's delivered in his long career—a career, I must say, which has seen more than its fair share of bizarre tirades. It is worth commenting on this particular article, because it does highlight the surprising and disappointing failure of the Attorney-General to engage in any rational intellectual argument on the merits of the reforms that he is seeking to persuade this House to implement. In his article the Attorney-General did not calmly run through the benefits he says would be realised as a consequence of passing this bill. Instead, he had this to say: Opposing these reforms means aiding and abetting the criminal abuse of our financial system by drug traffickers, human trafficking, cybercriminals, terrorists and those who exploit and abuse children. Having presumably had a pause to chew on some more read meat, he composed an additional sentence in which he described those who had the temerity to ask questions about this bill and its merits as 'standing on the side of terrorists and child abusers'. He described the changes in this bill as 'reforms that will stop criminals in their tracks'. That's a pretty bullish piece of language, and it is interesting to contrast that with the language used by his own department in the explanatory memorandum. Remember, the Attorney-General has said that these are 'reforms that will stop criminals in their tracks'. His department was just slightly more mealy-mouthed. They said, 'There is a lack of evidence in the Australian context of the likely impact of these reforms.' There is a little bit of a disconnect between those two statements. The simple fact is that the Attorney-General's op-ed piece is ludicrously overstated. There are groups across the board who are, rightly, asking questions about this bill. COSBOA, the peak body for small business organisations, noted the Attorney-General's failure to follow best practice by releasing the exposure draft and said that the bill 'leaves the door open to cost, confusion and compliance headaches for small businesses'. Presumably the Attorney-General thinks these small businesses are also aiding and abetting drug traffickers and cybercriminals, just because they had the temerity to ask these questions. The Real Estate Institute of Australia referred to experiences in New Zealand, where businesses had been slugged with between $30,000 and $60,000 each in implementation costs in exchange for an unquantified public benefit. I suspect that the Attorney-General has also put the Real Estate Institute of Australia on his list of organisations no longer to receive Christmas cards from him! He no doubt would regard them as also standing with terrorists and child abusers for being sufficiently disrespectful as to point out these inconvenient facts. The Law Council of Australia responded to this legislation as follows: The legal profession is already the most extensively regulated profession in Australia, and dual regulation of legal services remains an ongoing issue for the legal profession, not least because increases in regulatory costs inevitably put upward pressure on the cost of legal services. The proposals are estimated to cost affected businesses (including law practices) an additional $1.8 billion annually over the next 10 years in additional regulatory costs. I'd highlight here that the figures cited by the Law Council put the regulatory costs at an even higher level than those cited by the government. On the Law Council's figures, we're talking about a cost of $18 billion over 10 years. The Law Council had this to say: The Law Council is concerned about the impact increased regulatory costs will have on the viability of 93% of Australia's law practices, which are very small 1-4 partner law firms, especially those located in and supporting regional and remote communities. These are real costs that will be paid by real people who run businesses and provide services to their communities, and it is those people who are asking real questions about the costs and benefits of this legislation. But instead of responding to those questions in a dignified, courteous and fact based manner, the Attorney-General has chosen to tarnish all those Australians who are asking these perfectly reasonable questions as 'supporters of terrorism and supporters of child sexual abuse'. This kind of evidence-free tantrum detracts from the Attorney-General's credibility and diminishes his standing. He ought to know better. As I've had occasion to observe before, he's not much good without an instructing solicitor. On this side of the House, we are open to being convinced about the merits of these reforms, but inflated posturing and puerile insults are not the way to get Australians on side. We look forward to a more measured and careful consideration from those in this place, who absolutely care about money-laundering, who absolutely care about all of the rationales of the AML/CTF regime, but who also understand the real world costs that will be paid by business people, men and women around Australia, who are working hard to provide a service to their customers and their communities. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 95

Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 95 18:01 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. This is a bill that's been in the pipeline for some time, yet it is a very curious creation. It seems to have been cobbled together from a range of different parts. Each of these parts does something different. They have different objectives, and they respond to different stakeholders. They are all somehow related to privacy, but they each have their own merits and drawbacks. It just does not sit together well as a whole. All the indications are that this bill was hastily stitched together at the last minute. When, on this side of the House, we first heard that the Attorney-General wished to introduce measures along the lines of those we're considering today, the coalition anticipated that the bill would address the matters previously intended to be addressed in the Privacy Amendment and Other Measures Bill 2024 and the Privacy (Statutory Cause of Action for Serious Invasions) Bill 2024. We had not seen the first of those bills, but we assumed it was intended to make changes to the Privacy Act and introduce various other measures. We had also not seen the second of those bills, but we again assumed that this was a bill which was intended to introduce a new statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy. When the Attorney-General stood at the dispatch box on 12 September to introduce the bill being debated, he didn't introduce either of those two bills which had been foreshadowed earlier. Instead, we got this strange and confused mishmash of legislation. On analysis, there are three substantive parts to this bill. Schedule 1 is essentially a suite of what might be described as the less controversial changes to the regulatory regime in the Privacy Act. For more than a year, the government has been promising a major overhaul of the Privacy Act's regulatory regime. Some of the proposed changes were highly contentious. They included things like stripping away protections for small businesses and changing the definition of 'personal information', which is, of course, the very core of the matter that is regulated by the Privacy Act. The changes would have reached into every part of our economy and may, in turn, have required changes to the way that every Australian business handles information. Other changes that were foreshadowed went to foundational issues on which many of our modern digital businesses are built, such as data segmentation and value adding. In extreme scenarios, those changes would have had the potential to destroy existing markets and potentially to create new ones. We can only guess at the potential regulatory costs. Those changes, at least for the time being, seem to have been left on the cutting room floor, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Instead, we've been provided with a slimmed down suite of changes, set out in schedule 1 to this bill. When I say 'slimmed down', that is only in comparison to what had originally been foreshadowed, not to what might be considered the community standard of what is slim and what is not. There are still 15 different parts in schedule 1, and each part deals with a different topic. On the whole, schedule 1 avoids some of the more contentious changes to Australia's privacy regime that had been foreshadowed by this government. Instead, it focuses on issues such as the regulatory and enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner. These changes are important, but they're not foundational. Why has there been this late change in approach? That is not clear. The government has not adequately explained it. The official line, as best can be discerned, is that the government has decided to consult further on these matters before pressing ahead. It may be that the looming election has sharpened the government's focus. I can only speculate—it is up to the Attorney-General to explain why this has happened. In the meantime, some of the more radical reforms are presumably sitting in a bottom drawer in the Attorney-General's Department, no doubt in the hope that they can be dusted off in the next term of parliament. Let me turn to schedule 2 of this bill. Schedule 2 does not concern the existing regulatory regime that deals with privacy in Australia. It's not about regulation at all. It is about private disputes commenced by parties to civil litigation who seek compensation through the courts. How, then, did these unrelated reforms make their way into this bill? Again, on this side of the House, we don't know the answer to that question, but we have a theory. Our theory is that the Attorney-General must have felt somewhat embarrassed about having promised major privacy reforms for more than a year before shelving them at the last minute. There's every appearance that the Attorney was looking for something to pad out his bill and decided to jam schedules 2 and 3 into the package. That is certainly the theory that we on this side of the House have developed as to why schedule 2 contains a suite of measures to introduce a new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. The tort would allow an individual to sue, where that individual believed a person had invaded their privacy by 'intruding upon their seclusion' or 'misusing their personal information'. It has to be said that both the merits and the drafting of this statutory tort are highly contestable. The invasion of privacy must be serious, but, equally, it's actionable without proof of damage. There are exemptions in relation to journalists, law enforcement bodies, intelligence agencies and children, but there's no clarity about how well these would work in practice. Some of the definitions are extraordinarily broad. The explanatory memorandum suggests that, in some cases, merely storing data might constitute a misuse of information. Crucially, the tort is completely separate and additional to the general regulatory regime in the Privacy Act, and it appears that an individual can sue any 'person' for such a breach. The word 'person' is a defined term at Commonwealth law. It includes bodies corporate and politic, as well as natural persons. So, even though the government granted a temporary reprieve to small businesses in schedule 1, it puts those businesses straight back in the firing line in schedule 2. They will continue to be exempt from regulatory action but will instead be exposed to legal action. This raises some immediate questions. For example, what is the impact of this tort on small businesses? Are we likely to see insurance premiums go up because the government has now opened them up to a new type of legal exposure? It's not hard to imagine how this might play out. After all, your beauty salon and your mechanic deal with your personal information, just as your bank and your insurance company do. If your beauty salon's booking system were compromised, would they now be exposed to a lawsuit? Will your beauty salon now need higher levels of cover to deal with the legal risk? Do small businesses now need to change their operational procedures, or indeed the services they offer, in order to deal with this new legal risk? It is not hard to see how the impacts of this new statutory tort would flow through to higher prices for Australian consumers. Where are the stakeholders on this? Well, it turns out that the strong supporters of this proposed new statutory tort include class action law firms and litigation funders. That is not particularly surprising. They stand to make quite a lot of money out of this. We need only look at the number of Labor politicians who are former class action lawyers to know where their heart is on this matter. Of course, we'll hear some standard lines about access to justice. It's amazing how often these pious public statements dovetail with private financial gain. On the other hand, we know that in the past media organisations have been highly critical of the statutory tort—for example, Australia's Right to Know Coalition, which represents media organisations across a very diverse spectrum, from the ABC and the Guardian at one end to News Corp at the other. The Right to Know Coalition has previously warned that the proposal to have a statutory tort would be 'contrary to the public interest and result in a significant curtailing of press freedom in Australia'. They've argued that the proposal will primarily benefit wealthy and high-profile individuals and that it fails to provide any clear public benefit. The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia have said that they are highly concerned by the unexplored and unintended consequences from the broad proposed drafting of the tort. In COSBOA's words: 'Whilst the wrecking ball of the removal of the small business exemption has been narrowly avoided, the clumsy and poor approach being pursued by government in respect to schedule 2 creates high degrees of anxiety for small business.' For other groups, the changes in schedule 2 have caught them off guard. Many simply did not know they were coming. Again, that is not very surprising. Stakeholders have been asking for an exposure draft for months. The government refused and instead dropped these changes for the first time just a few weeks ago. It is very clear that this proposed statutory tort warrants careful scrutiny. That brings me, finally, to the third schedule of this bill, which creates new offences for doxxing. The term 'doxxing' refers to the practice of publishing private or identifying information on the internet about a particular individual, typically with malicious intent. We know that doxxing can expose victims to physical threats, public humiliation, discrimination, identity theft, financial fraud and other serious harms. These risks have become all too apparent since the malicious doxxing of more than 600 Jewish writers, academics, artists and small-business owners by pro-Palestinian activists and Hamas sympathisers in February this year. Like other parts of this bill, this schedule raises immediate questions. The first question to ask the government is: what on earth took you so long? Jewish groups have been calling for our criminal laws to be tightened up in this space since February. We have known for months that the current criminal laws do not cut it, and the coalition has been on the record as saying that we would work with the government to devise a legal framework that is fit for purpose. In the past eight months, as just one example of how problematic this practice of doxxing can be, we have seen reports of anti-Jewish activists distributing pictures of Jewish family trees online. This is a form of intimidation that we have not seen since the days of the Nazis. But, for whatever reason, addressing doxxing has not until now, it would seem, been a priority for the Albanese government. Now that these provisions have finally been introduced into this parliament, these doxxing laws have, however, been shoehorned into a bill which makes peripheral changes to the privacy regime and introduces a highly contestable measure to throw a bone to Labor's class action lawyer mates. If any further proof were required that the Albanese government has its priorities all wrong, this bill provides ample such proof. The coalition will treat each of the three parts of this hurriedly cobbled together bill on their merits. Firstly, in relation to doxxing, these are reforms which should have been brought forward months ago. They're criminal law reforms that make changes to the Criminal Code. They deal with an urgent and unprecedented surge in criminal behaviour. Yet, to Labor's discredit, they appear to have chosen to hold these laws hostage to unrelated reforms that change a regulatory regime and give a boost to class action lawyers, who are, of course, well-known big donors to the Labor Party. It seems that the needs of Jewish Australians have come second to Labor's sectional interests. Secondly, in relation to the reforms to the regulatory regime concerning privacy, we welcome the decision not to progress with the more contentious reforms at a time when Australians can least afford it. The remaining changes warrant scrutiny, but we are cautiously receptive. We will test them through the committee process before arriving at a final position. Thirdly, in relation to the statutory tort, there are clear and immediate issues that have been identified by several groups and stakeholders, including media organisations and small business organisations. These groups have only had the opportunity to see the drafting for a matter of weeks. They should be given the opportunity to air their concerns through the Senate committee process. To date, the process leaves everything to be desired, but the coalition are open to being convinced that the statutory tort is in Australia's best interests. We will watch carefully as the arguments play out over coming weeks and we will finalise our position in the light of the Senate inquiry. Debate adjourned. Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 97

Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024

Second Reading 97 18:17 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise today to speak in support of the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024, a significant step towards addressing a critical gap in Australia's higher education system, ensuring students have an independent, robust mechanism to hold Australian tertiary institutions to account. The establishment of the National Student Ombudsman is not just about handling complaints; it represents a long-overdue reform to safeguard student welfare, uphold the integrity of our education system and protect future generations. While supporting this bill, it's important to outline it was the coalition that first championed this cause. Whether it be student safety, deficient courses or a lack of enforcement of university policies, an ombudsman with the power to investigate and resolve student complaints is long overdue. It will protect and safeguard domestic university students when higher education providers disregard student complaints or fail to provide appropriate support or justice. This includes refunding students for deficient courses. The Minister for Education's botched Support for Students policy, following a reckless decision to abolish the 50 per cent pass rule, left university students with too few safeguards. The new National Student Ombudsman must have adequate powers to function efficiently and to throw the book at universities when required. Long before this bill reached this place, the coalition was sounding the alarm on the accountability failures within Australia's universities. In August 2023, at the Australian Financial Review Higher Education Summit, the shadow education minister, Senator Henderson, made it clear universities must be held to account for the products they sell. She said that it is unacceptable that students often find themselves burdened with incomplete courses, excessive fees and no proper mechanism to seek redress. Students must be armed with the full suite of information about the courses they enrol in, including completion rates, out-of-pocket costs and employment outcomes. Crucially, the coalition argued that students must also have access to an independent mechanism, such as a national student ombudsman, which can act decisively when institutions fail to deliver. The ability to investigate historical complaints, especially concerning past incidents of sexual harassment and assault, is a vital provision in this bill. In recent years, evidence has shown that sexual violence and harassment continues to occur in university communities at significant rates. According to the National Student Safety Survey in 2021, one in 20, or 4.5 per cent of students, had been sexual assaulted in the past 12 months, and one in six, or 16 per cent, had been sexually harassed since starting their studies. Of those who reported sexual assault in 2021, only 29.7 per cent were satisfied with their university's processes, and more than half of the students who participated in the survey knew very little or nothing about their university's sexual assault and harassment policies. Almost half knew nothing or very little about where they could seek support or assistance within the university. A Senate inquiry last year into current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia highlighted the need for universities to take much stronger action to combat sexual assault and harassment on their campuses. There have been significant advocacy campaigns focused on addressing sexual violence in university communities by Fair Agenda, End Rape on Campus, the Hunting Ground Australia Project and the National Union of Students since 2017, and their contributions deserve recognition. As part of the government's response, education ministers agreed to and released an action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education. The action plan recognises the unique role which higher education providers can and must play in driving the broader social change needed to address gender based violence as well as the distinct responsibilities they hold in relation to creating safe study, work, social and living environments. A new national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence will be developed as a new form of regulation, with the Minister for Education noting in his second reading speech that this is expected to be finalised by the end of 2024. These measures are welcome, but they've been a long time coming. It is why the National Student Ombudsman must hit the ground running if it is to sufficiently address complaints, which, under this bill's definition, can include complaints from both prospective and former students. With no time limit on the definition of 'former students', we expect there will be a significant number of historical complaints submitted, particularly for cases of historical sexual harassment and assault where former students do not feel their historical complaint was addressed. The National Student Ombudsman will also provide an important avenue to keep Jewish students safe. Within the higher education sector, and perhaps more widely in the last 12 months, we've witnessed the clearest failure of the Albanese government to act. Since the attacks by Hamas on October 7, which shocked the world, the Albanese government has, regrettably, not shown the strength of leadership to hold universities to account when they have failed to ensure they discharge their obligation to keep safe all on campus, including Jewish students and staff. This is best illustrated by the government's tone-deaf decision to engage the Australian Human Rights Commission to conduct a university racism study in which Jewish organisations have no confidence or faith, as they have made abundantly clear, particularly in light of recent controversies over the Australian Human Rights Commission's failure to address antisemitism. In its dissenting report on the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024, the coalition called for a person with experience in antisemitism to be part of the National Student Ombudsman team, ensuring this vital issue is given the attention it deserves. This is not just a symbolic gesture. Yesterday marked a poignant and deeply painful anniversary for Jewish Australians, and the commemoration services held around the nation clearly showed that more must be done to protect those of Jewish faith. The rise of antisemitic incidents on university campuses cannot be ignored. By ensuring that the National Student Ombudsman has access to an expert in antisemitism, the government is, at the very least, taking a long overdue stand in defending the rights of all students, with a view to our universities being places of learning, free from hatred and discrimination. It is not enough to establish an ombudsman. We must also ensure it is equipped to deal with the specific challenges students face, including those related to antisemitism and other forms of bigotry. While the coalition support this bill, it would be remiss not to use this opportunity to highlight Labor's deeper failings when it comes to providing Australian students with the education they deserve. The Albanese Labor government has talked a big game but has delivered very little when it comes to outcomes for Australian students and the brilliant professionals charged with teaching them. The education minister's deal to increase Commonwealth funding for schools in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania has only sparked a funding war with his own Labor counterparts in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT, all of whom have refused to sign up because they want a better deal. In the meantime, tertiary students, battling to make ends meet because of Labor's homegrown inflation, are left to contemplate crippling HELP debt. Under this government, student debts have increased by 16 per cent since June 2022. Even with the government's bill to correct their economic mismanagement, student debts will still increase by 11.1 per cent, driving up the average loan by $2,800. Meanwhile, the Minister for Education continues to preside over declining school standards, with no National School Reform Agreement. Literacy and numeracy standards are a national crisis which demand immediate action, yet Labor has failed to prioritise what matters most: ensuring every child can reach his or her highest potential. Let us not forget the ongoing impact of a deepening teacher shortage, which Labor has failed to adequately address. This bill is a step forward. It's important to recognise that it was the coalition which laid the groundwork for such crucial reform. The National Student Ombudsman will provide students with an important safeguard to ensure voices are heard and concerns addressed. While the coalition ultimately support this bill, we do have concerns about the lack of transparency concerning the availability of the National Student Ombudsman rules. These concerns are noted in the second reading amendment, which I now move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to urgently release the National Student Ombudsman Rules before passage of the Bill through the House of Representatives". The coalition supports this bill and will continue to champion reforms that ensure our universities are held to the highest standards. Together let us make our higher education system one of which we can all be proud. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rick Wilson 198084 The amendment's seconded, and I reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024 99

Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 99 18:28 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) the Government is failing to support meaningful small business tax reform, including the Opposition's plan to make the Instant Asset Write-Off permanent; (2) the Government voted eight times against delivering a bigger tax cut to small business in last year's Instant Asset Write Off; (3) the Government has burdened Australia's 72,000 tax practitioners with unnecessary new regulation and costly red tape; (4) the Government has broken promises to raise taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, personal income tax, and end small business tax incentives; and (5) that the Government's housing policy is failing to meet its supply targets and supporting forever renting, not home ownership". I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024. This bill includes modest changes to business tax administration and modifies the foreign resident capital gains withholding regime. After more than two years of pretty well neglecting small business, I commend the government for remembering that small businesses do exist. Small and family businesses are the backbone of this country and employ so many Australians. Making some minor tidy-up amendments in schedules 2, 3 and 4—I appreciate that from the government. These business focused measures were announced in the 2023 budget, however, as measures to reduce the time spent complying with tax obligations. Unfortunately, the government was not able to reduce the time spent getting these straightforward amendments drafted into parliament, because that budget—when these measures were announced—was 17 months ago. Small businesses are not a big priority for the Albanese government. They've been left waiting for too long. The government's inability to get even the simplest and most noncontroversial legislation drafted in a timely manner is disappointing. If there are sensible reforms which will help during this cost-of-living crisis and doing-business crisis, we want to see them come into parliament and legislate it as soon as possible to help all Australians. Unfortunately, the list of promised reforms in the Treasury portfolio are running out of the runway before an election [inaudible]. Even the minister's top priorities are being left to the last minute, with rushed consultation processes and unexplained delays becoming the norm. The department, in drafting resources, are constantly scapegoated by this government, but it is becoming clear there is a lack of direction and leadership coming from the top. Worse still is the lack of meaningful tax reform from the government for small businesses. The coalition's policy is to make the instant asset write-off permanent for small businesses. Labor has consistently been slow to provide certainty on the instant asset write-off, and it leaves small and family businesses in limbo and faced with uncertainty when they invest in their businesses. The coalition will end this uncertainty if given the opportunity and elected at the next election, and we'll end the annual stand-off by making the instant asset write-off permanent and lifting the threshold by another $10,000. That's opposed to the mere 12-month extension which is currently in place. We saw how disastrous this was in June, when Labor left the instant asset write-off for the 2023-24 financial year stuck in limbo with just days to go before the end of the financial year. Our position would simplify depreciation for millions of small businesses by cutting red tape, boosting investment in productive assets and lowering business costs and prices. We don't want a piecemeal approach. We would deliver substantive reform for the 98 per cent of Australian businesses who would benefit from the instant asset write-off. The coalition is committed to lower, simpler, fairer taxes for Australia's 2½ million small businesses. In contrast, Labor has opposed cutting the small business tax rate, opposed extending the instant asset write-off and clawed back business [inaudible] incentives since coming into power. The latest national accounts data shows Australia's private sector is still not growing. Small businesses need a lifeline to drive investment and boost productivity, which has fallen significantly in the last 2½ years under the Albanese government. While the government's modest fix-ups in this bill are welcomed, they do not absolve Labor's bad decisions on the instant asset write-off and failure to deliver meaningful tax reform for small businesses. Schedule 2 of this bill is described as reducing the administrative burden for employers by allowing them to make a standing declaration for their tax agents to lodge multiple, single-touch payroll forms on their behalf for up to 12 months. Tax agents report there will be a small benefit from this reform, but the ATO has permitted annual authorisations to act since the start of the single-touch payroll in 2019. But I do commend the government for making a regulatory change in relation to tax agents—that isn't aimed at destroying them, I might add. Over the last year, Australia's 72,000 tax practitioners have been subjected to a sustained attack from this government. The regulation was almost disallowed in the Senate; it was 31 to 31. These are local accountants, bookkeepers and tax agents who are some of the most trusted people in Australia. Small and family businesses go to their accountant to help them do their tax, payroll and superannuation. Rick, as a farmer, you'd know. This was a significant attack when this regulation was first made back in July. It has been widely criticised through a grassroots advocacy campaign and the united call f from the leading accounting professional bodies or the regulations to be scrapped completely. I might say: regulation is just strangling this country. The more parliaments there are, the more laws and regulation you keep putting in. You've got to unwind some of that, too, or show a bit of self-control as a minister and don't make regulations to start with. Not every law is needed. Sometimes you just need to steady the ship and actually look at unwinding poor regulation, including that of a previous government on your own side. You need to look at that to unwind it. This was a poorly targeted attempt by the minister within the Albanese government to respond to the misdeeds of a few individuals at PwC which have left 72,000 tax practitioners across Australia as collateral damage and left them with an unnecessary and burdensome compliance nightmare. What happens? Those costs, that extra regulation, gets passed onto every small business and farmer, as the member for O'Connor would know. The government's approach to consultation and stakeholder engagement has been bizarre and disrespectful. The regulation involved minimal or no consultation and was made without notice, with industry stakeholders only becoming aware of it when the Tax Practitioners Board issued a press release almost two weeks later. The regulation was originally slated to commence a month after it was made, and no regulator guidance was available. Serious concerns raised about the regulation and the lack of consultation were repeatedly dismissed by the Assistant Treasurer, who described it as 'a set of modest obligations'—really?—and said that there had been an extensive consultation period. These claims were immediately rebuffed by the leading professional associations. The Albanese government left it until the day of the disallowance motion, six weeks after the regulation was made, when they knew disallowance was imminent, to start consulting with industry and acknowledge their concerns as legitimate. It's not a way to govern. After a backflip and previous comments that changes were not required, the government rushed to rewrite the regulation and release it for a public consultation period of five business days. This means public consultation commenced 11 weeks after these obligations were made law. I had held roundtables and meetings with many of these tax practitioners, particularly more recently in South Australia. Some of them were distraught, disappointed and fed up with the Albanese government's treatment of them. Some even considered leaving the profession. I'd say to all current ministers that are here in this place: stop overregulating things. You don't always have to legislate, as I was saying. Dig down into your portfolios and actually look at reducing regulation where possible, because, at the end of the day, it will cost people more money. In a cost-of-living crisis, with 12 interest rate rises and rents and mortgages through the roof, now is not the time to add more regulation. Accountants in my own area spoke to me. Melinda from Inferno Accounting in Mango Hill said: This determination that the government has slipped through is horrific. My colleagues and I are now in panic stations because there was little time or consultation. This will decimate the accounting industry. Robyn from First Class Accountants in Sandgate, in the member for Lilley's area, said: BAS and tax agents are very concerned that people will be leaving the profession in droves due to this added pressure— and she is unsure how to charge her clients for all this added work. Rod, a chartered accountant in North Lakes, told me: Local accountants are under siege. Rod works 50 hours a week for his clients, and these new rules make him feel like he's been set up to fail by the Albanese government and the Assistant Treasurer. These tax agents do not want this red tape in any form and do not accept the government's attempt to fix this fundamentally flawed regulation. This is bad government and not a standard we should accept. It's also more costly red tape for small businesses which will be passed onto consumers at a time they can least afford it. During a cost-of-living crisis and a cost-of-doing-business crisis, the government should be doing everything to get costs down and reduce red tape. Instead, for tax practitioners, it's making even more red tape at their busiest time of the year. I'm glad that schedule 2 has one small, very minor adjustment that might help accountants after everything they've been dealt with by the Albanese government. There are minor issues with schedule 3. Schedule 3 allows small and medium businesses to self-amend their tax assessments up to four years, extending the current two-year limit. That sounds sensible. This is a sensible and welcome reform which will reduce the volume of objections lodged with the ATO. However, I note two concerns regarding the proposed application date and the scope of eligible business structures. Firstly, the application date currently applies to the amendment of the 2024-25 year and later assessments, meaning that it may not have any practical benefit to any Australian until around 2028, when the existing two-year review period would first expire. Secondly, partnerships and self-managed superannuation funds that carry on a small or medium business are not included. The new four-year assessment period is only available to an individual company or person in the capacity of a trustee of a trust estate of a small or medium business entity. In schedule 4 of this TLAB, the bill extends the circumstances in which the Commissioner of Taxation may retain a business's tax refund rather than processing it as soon as practicable. I understand the purpose of this is to encourage electronic payments of tax refunds rather than the use of cheques. This is a sensible change. In saying that, I note the possible risks associated with outbound ATO communication to obtain bank details from taxpayers in terms of ATO impersonation fraud and scams. But I know addressing these issues is a priority for the Assistant Treasurer, and I hope he will work closely with the ATO during implementation to mitigate those risks. Schedule 1 of the bill—I've left this to last—deals with the foreign capital gains tax withholding compliance burden. Schedule 1 will modify the existing foreign resident capital gains withholding regime. It makes two changes: it increases the withholding rate from 12½ per cent to 15 per cent; and it removes the threshold, which is currently $750,000, before the withholding obligation applies. The regime imposes a non-final withholding obligation on the purchaser of certain Australian real property and related interests where the property is acquired from a foreign resident vendor. The purpose of the regime is to assist with the collection of CGT liabilities owed by foreign residents. The foreign resident capital gains withholding regime was originally established by the former coalition government in 2016, first with a $2 million threshold and then down to $750,000. The government will now remove the threshold entirely and impose the burden of compliance on everyone. Schedule 1 is described by the government as complementary to housing affordability measures. This is a little bit bizarre and misleading because it will have the opposite effect, in that schedule 1 will impose a broad compliance cost by expanding the requirement to obtain and provide a capital gains withholding clearance certificate to all Australian resident vendors disposing of taxable Australian real property. If you're selling a house or a unit or a townhouse, everyone will require their solicitor to do a little bit of extra red tape, which will cost a little bit more when selling. Vendors for lower-value sales who were previously exempt under $750,000 will now have to go through this additional compliance process and be subjected to a new regulatory burden. There will also be a compliance burden for more resident purchasers and their conveyancers, who will now have to withhold and pay the ATO where the vendor is foreign. The withholding obligation is borne by the resident purchaser where it is a foreign vendor. These compliance costs are broad based and potentially significant overall, particularly with all vendors now being required to request and provide a withholding clearance certificate from the ATO prior to settlement. I don't know the actual percentage of foreign buyers, but I imagine it would be less than five per cent. It means that you've got this extra regulation for 95 per cent of Australians. It would be good if the minister and the government could look at a way to try to reduce that red tape because it will mean that everyone in our electorates that sells a property will then have to have a lawyer spend another 15 minutes doing this—and if they're charging 500 bucks an hour, that's another $125. The proportion of these properties being foreign owned is also likely much lower than properties above the existing $750,000 threshold, with the average purchase price currently $914,000. I fear it will probably represent more in regional or lower-income areas, where house prices are a bit lower. I also note there are existing issues with the timeliness of the ATO providing clearance certificates. It is likely the increase in requests because of this measure the Albanese government is putting in will compound the problem or create more of a backlog. Under current service levels, the ATO provides clearance certificates within 28 days, which can make a short settlement period impossible. This regime was originally designed to be targeted at higher value sales, and stretching it to cover the entire market will have an adverse impact. The burden of compliance should not be on Australian resident vendors and purchasers. Under this system, everyone must declare their status to weed out the few foreign resident tax avoiders. It is a bit back to front. That is my concern. The ATO should be stronger with its monitoring and enforcement, or we should place greater compliance obligations or restrictions on foreign resident investors. Labor dressing this measure up as improving housing affordability is an example of how it has failed and completely missed the point when it comes to housing and homelessness policy. As I said to the Minister for Homelessness today during the MPI, the coalition has a good record when it comes to homelessness because we reduced acute homelessness in the last census in 2021. From 2016, rough sleepers reduced under the coalition government, couch surfers reduced under the coalition government and severe overcrowding reduced under the coalition government. In the last 2½ years under the Albanese government, with 12 interest rate rises, we've seen these go through the roof in my electorate. I fear for the 2026 census that, if things aren't turned around quickly, we will see a big increase in homelessness. Under Labor, rental prices continue to surge. From August 2023 to August 2024, according to the ABS, rents rose by 6.8 per cent on average nationally. I've seen it in my own electorate of Petrie. When you drive from Brisbane City Council into the City of Moreton Bay over the Houghton Highway, the first thing that welcomes you is a tent city and campers everywhere. It's right at the site of the old Hornibrook Esplanade. This has only happened in the last two years. It was not there at the last election. I don't know where to lay the blame except on the Albanese government because of the 12 interest rate rises, although the state government has also done a really poor job there, and I'd ask that in two weeks time voters throw them out at the 26 October election and put in David Crisafulli and the Liberal National Party. The national median rental price is now exceeding $620 per week, with the regions experiencing the steepest increases. In my electorate of Petrie, some suburbs have had advertised rents increase by almost 20 per cent annually. It's not always the owner's fault, because their mortgages have gone up by $30,000 on a $750,000 loan. That's $600 a week in interest repayments alone that have gone up under the Albanese government. If you look at the former coalition government, there was one interest rate rise in nine years. This government has had 12 interest rate rises in two years. Labor continues to prioritise corporate homeownership over individual ownership. Its policies will mean more of the housing supply is owned and rented out by super funds and foreign investors, and it will make homeownership more difficult for individual Australians. All of this is at a time when we've got record-low new builds happening. They're also bringing in over 600,000 people a year, whereas pre-COVID, under the coalition, it was about 170,000. If the maths aren't adding up, you understand why. It's because the Albanese government has failed in the last 2½ years. Now the 2.4 million Australians claiming rental deductions are next in Labor's tax hit list. We know they're plotting changes to the capital gains tax and negative gearing. The Treasurer admitted that he's had the Treasury looking at the cost on this. If you were dead against it, if you said, 'My word is my bond. I'm rock solid. I'm not going to do that,' then why would you get the Treasury to do it? People aren't silly. I can tell you now that, if negative gearing were gone, rents would go up even further. We know that. If you can't negatively gear, you've got to try to put the rent up to cover the 12 interest rate rises that have happened. They say they're not going to do it, but it was policy in 2019. They said they weren't going to change stage 3 tax cuts as well—my word is my bond—but then they completely changed it, so forgive me if I'm not 100 per cent trusting in what the government is saying, when we've got a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis in my electorate and right around the country. The coalition remains steadfast in our commitment to continue to be the party of home ownership and first homebuyers. We were the party that brought in the First Home Super Saver scheme, which those members opposite who were in the parliament at the time voted against. We also did HomeBuilder, which had record investment of new homes, and we also brought in the First Home Guarantee. So we've done a lot in this space, and we did a lot through NHFIC. The current shadow minister for housing, the member for Deakin, did NHFIC, and there was a lot of investment particularly in New South Wales in community housing, unlike in my state of Queensland, where the state Labor government up there was pathetic and didn't back community housing at all. What happened in the census? New South Wales, at the last census, was the only state to reduce homelessness. They actually reduced homelessness probably because of their investment in community housing through the coalition government's NHFIC, which the Labor Party has now changed. What's it called now? I've forgotten the name of the fund. It was NHFIC, but they've changed it to something else. The coalition has a proven track record to back this up. We want Australians owning more homes, and the policies currently supporting first homebuyers are the ones Labor inherited from the former coalition government. Finding somewhere to live is getting harder under this Albanese government, and I see it every day in my area, as I said before. In conclusion, this is a government rushing to deliver the bare minimum before time runs out when an election is due in May next year. The minor changes in this bill won't hide Labor's broken promises on tax and its mismanagement of the economy. Labor inherited an economy with low unemployment, strong growth and recovering government finances. We are in the sixth consecutive quarter of negative GDP per person, and this is the longest per capita recession in 50 years. Under the Albanese Labor government, the majority of jobs created are being funded by public spending. It's not sustainable and risks higher inflation. It means that the 12 interest rate rises that we have seen under this Prime Minister and this government will be there longer, and the shadow Treasurer has said regularly that other countries in the OECD and around the world are reducing interest rates on a much more regular basis. Here, though, we are still stuck with those 12 interest rate hikes since the last election. Labor should be backing small businesses to get private sector jobs back on track. Instead, they've dished up a few modest amendments which will barely scratch the surface for small business. Australians have lost confidence in the Albanese government, and it's failing to stop surging rental prices and stagnating building approvals. It's failing to provide meaningful tax reform and red tape reduction for small and medium businesses, and it is failing to keep its promises on tax. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rick Wilson 198084 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Aged Care Bill 2024 104

Aged Care Bill 2024

Second Reading 104 18:53 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. The opposition extends a sincere offer to collaborate with the government in recognition of the urgent need for a robust, dignified and world class aged care system that can adequately support our ageing population. Since calling for and responding to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the coalition has remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve. This legislation before us today delivers on the first recommendations of the royal commission appointed by the coalition to implement a new right based Aged Care Act. Whilst in government, following the royal commission we provided more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate needs of the sector. But we knew there was a lot more work to be done to support the future of the Australian aged-care community. That is why the opposition has engaged in good-faith negotiations with the government regarding their changes to the financial framework for aged care. Aged care is not merely a sector. It reflects how we as a society value and care for our elderly. Through consistent and collegiate engagement, the coalition have held the government to account to finally introduce their package of reform and to bring all Australians into this conversation of change. It is essential that we address the challenges of change in this bill with the seriousness they deserve. That is why we pushed to have this bill immediately referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. As the committee continues its inquiry into the provisions of this bill, the coalition will continue to reserve our final position until the committee delivers its final report. This will provide the coalition with the opportunity to deliver an evidence based position on the bill—one gained through engagement with the sector and the broader community that have been excluded from this government's desired changes for too long. I'm proud to say that through our persistent negotiations the coalition achieved significant improvements to the government's proposed legislation that will protect the interests of older Australians and future generations. One of the most critical outcomes of our efforts was to introduce the grandfathering of arrangements. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care on a homecare package or assessed to be waiting for their allocated homecare package will not see any change to their existing arrangements, because it is essential that we respect the journey that these individuals have already commenced and agreed upon. It was only the coalition who stood up for Australians who were already in aged care. It's no secret that we are the party for hardworking Australians. For that matter, we advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions to ensure that those who've worked hard and saved for their retirements are dealt a fairer deal under this government. We doubled down on a fairer deal for all Australians and held the government to account for their commitment to remain the majority funder of aged care. We also fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions—a cap that this government didn't want to see implemented, which rang alarm bells for the coalition during a cost-of-living crisis. This lifetime cap will provide families with peace of mind when it comes to the costs associated with caring for their loved ones. Not only did we fight for a lifetime cap; we also introduced a lifetime contribution cap of four years for residential aged care. This ensures that older Australians will only be required to contribute to the cost of their care for a maximum of four years in a residential setting, no matter how long their journey of ageing may be. In addition to these financial safeguards,, the coalition secured an additional investment of $300,000 in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers. This funding is critical for upgrading facilities that often struggle to meet the necessary standards because of financial constraints, because it is vital that all Australians, regardless of their geographic location, have access to quality aged-care service. This is something only the coalition understands, as the party for rural and regional Australia. Our position on criminal penalties has always been clear, and so has the position of both royal commissioners. The introduction of criminal penalties was not a recommendation of the royal commission. Instead, it was an ill-considered and unconsulted election promise from this Labor government that would have held dangerous consequences. Following significant consultation with the aged-care sector, it became aware that standalone criminal penalties for aged-care workers would have forced the exit of highly capable staff from the sector. And in a sector already struggling with workforce shortages, this was an unacceptable consequence that the coalition refused to impose. Let's be clear here. By removing criminal penalties from this bill, the coalition has not given a free ticket out for providers who are in the wrong. Existing work health and safety laws, banning orders and criminal codes provide the necessary regulatory framework to hold people to account. The introduction of standalone criminal penalties was yet another example of this government's heavy-handedness when it comes to regulation. We support the need for older Australians to be safe and supported in our aged-care system, but in order for them to be safe and cared for we need the workforce to exist in the first place. This became particularly so for small and regional providers struggling to recruit the experienced workers required. We've long been the party for small business, and for that reason we have successfully eliminated provisions that would have forced unionism into every aged-care home, taking the focus away from quality care and instead increasing mandates that are felt hardest by the smallest providers. Whilst there were significant achievements by the coalition during our negotiation with the government, I want to be clear for the record that this is Labor's package of reforms. This bill has not been co-designed alongside the coalition. This government has failed to address critical issues, such workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation timelines, in this bill. They are issues that seemingly continue to go unnoticed, with 40 homes closed last year alone under this Labor government. The coalition seeks to ensure that the introduction of this bill will not force the closure of more homes but instead result in the commencement of critical new builds across the sector. We remain disappointed by the lack of transparency that the government has shown to the public throughout this entire process of reform. It is clear from the two inquiry hearings held thus far that among older Australians and the sector there is notable frustration—frustration that many of the changes proposed by the government were not consulted upon, frustration that much of the detail of their new act is to be held in delegated legislation yet to be seen, and frustration that, without this delegated legislation, Australians cannot adequately respond and prepare for the changes headed their way. On that matter, the coalition call on the government to be transparent and to publicly release rules prior to the bill's final debate so that we can fully understand the effects and requirements of this government's bill. Nevertheless, even without relevant rules and delegated legislation, it is clear this bill aims to ensure Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them today and into the future. It aims to promote dignity, independence and a meaningful life for our seniors, which the coalition remain committed to. We welcome the government's introduction of this bill and will continue to listen intently through the committee process. Debate adjourned. Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 105

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024

Second Reading 105 19:02 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. But I shouldn't be speaking on this bill, because this bill should never, ever have been put before this parliament. This is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever presented to the Australian parliament by a government. It is an appalling attack on free speech. It has no place in Australia. It belongs in the bin. We started this whole sordid story back in June, when the government published mark-1 of this misinformation bill. The reaction had very little precedent in the history of our country. Some 24,000 submissions were made to the inquiry into this bill. What did they overwhelmingly say? They overwhelmingly said that this was an attack on free speech which would mean ordinary Australians have their legitimately held opinions suppressed and censored. The overwhelming majority of the submissions said this bill must be thrown aside and never seen again. The process played out for six months, and it was an unedifying process. The bill was slammed by the Human Rights Commission, by the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, by religious bodies—frankly, by pretty much everyone—because it was such an appalling piece of legislation. No-one could quite get their head around the fact that the Albanese government had put it forward. We know the Prime Minister is not a details person, so he probably hadn't read the bill. He would haven't read the bill, but the Minister for Communications presumably did and thought it was a really good idea to put it forward. We get to November. The minister says, 'Actually, we'd better get rid of this,' and withdraws the bill. Then the government goes through a 10-month process of consulting on the bill. Rather than just saying, 'This is a terrible bill. We're not proceeding,' they've consulted on it for some 10 months. But they've come back with a bill that still betrays our democracy, still has no place in Australia and still is a shocking attack on free speech. This bill will radically alter the landscape of political communication in Australia. Do you know what the government did when they put out this bill? They did something that is very concerning. It's a very complex bill that's seeking to change political communication in Australia. How long would you normally give people to put in submissions on an issue of that complexity—a radical change to how we communicate, with the opportunity for government regulators to censor free speech? You'd give people a while to comment on that, wouldn't you? You'd especially do that if you've got an explanatory memorandum that's more than 100 pages and a bill with many, many provisions. Do you, Deputy Speaker, know how long the government gave people to put in submissions? Seven days. They closed submissions on 30 September. If you go to the website of the committee that's looking into this bill and you try and put in a submission, you can't because the submissions have closed, which is shameful. What did people say about that? What did the NSW Council for Civil Liberties say about that appalling process? They said: We strongly assert that the decision to allow only seven working days for public submissions on such a critical and complex piece of legislation is incompatible with the principles of transparent governance. This extremely short process will exclude many voices and undermines the democratic principles of participation and inclusion. That's what they said about this government's process on the bill. What about the Catholic Bishops Conference? What did they say? They said: Given the Committee has only allowed one week for the preparation of submissions, the Conference has not had time to give the Bill adequate consideration … This is the Catholic Bishops Conference, which speaks on behalf of the millions of Catholics in Australia, and they have said in their submission that they did not have adequate time to consider the bill. That is an absolute disgrace. What did the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties say? They said: … we object to the extraordinarily short period of time for the making of submissions in relation to this important Bill. Other submissions that have been published say very similar things. I would have thought that the government would show greater respect for the Catholics of Australia than have a situation where the Catholic Bishops Conference say that they were only allowed one week for the preparation of submissions, and that they have not had time to give the bill adequate consideration. You would have thought that that might concern the government. But no, because the Minister for Communications has structured this process to deny people the opportunity to participate in submissions. It is absolutely shameful. Then we get to the substance of the bill. That's where the story gets even worse. The fundamental structure of this bill is to give the government regulator ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, extraordinary powers to effectively determine what are and what are not acceptable statements online. Basically what ACMA does is say, 'Here are some rules that you, digital platforms, have to follow in relation to misinformation and disinformation, and, if you don't follow those rules, you could get fines of up to five per cent of your global revenue.' So, if you're a digital platform, that's going to get your attention, isn't it? You could get a fine of up to five per cent of your global revenue, so you're going to be listening to what ACMA say. They have the power. That gives ACMA an extraordinary power over those digital platforms. When the bill talks about digital platforms, it's not just talking about the large ones. It's not just the Metas and Googles of the world; it extends to a huge number of websites. It includes podcasts. It includes websites that aggregate news. It includes websites that aggregate other forms of material. It can include message boards and a whole a range of different things. It includes search engines and so on. So it includes most of the internet, not only Australian sites but global sites. Any global site that has operations within Australia and provides services to Australians, which is effectively all of them, has to comply with this law. ACMA is going to be telling all of these so-called digital platforms what it is they have to do to comply with this rule. What does the bill say about the sorts of things that ACMA can require? If you look at page 101 of the explanatory memorandum, it's quite clear. It says, for instance: Digital communications platform providers could be required to use automated processes and technology to detect and act appropriately on misinformation and disinformation under a misinformation code or misinformation standard. For example, they could be required to use technology or algorithms to 'downrank' or reduce the spread of misinformation … If we take out the technical talk, what does that mean? It means censoring stuff, censoring material—making sure people don't see it. If you're a digital platform and you've got ACMA hanging over your head and the threat of substantial fines, you of course are going to err on the side of ensuring you don't do anything which could fall foul of ACMA, and so you are going to censor material to make sure that you don't get fined. That's what is going to happen, and it's going to happen on a large scale. As we turn to the key provisions of the bill, we have to remember that framework: ACMA decides how it is imposed on the platforms; ACMA has the force of law; and, if digital platforms don't comply, there are very significant consequences for them. One of the key issues here is that misinformation, as defined in the bill, is incredibly broad and will include things that are said by Australians, effectively, all the time. The definition of 'misinformation' includes statements that are held in good faith. You might believe something with all your heart. You might believe that it's true, and it's something you hold dear, but, under this bill, that can be misinformation. If it complies with the definition of misinformation, then, if the platforms don't take action about that so-called misinformation, they can get in a lot of trouble. We're not talking here about things like disinformation from foreign powers seeking foreign interference; we're talking about the opinions of ordinary Australians. This is a very important point. It doesn't have to be malicious, it doesn't have to be designed to deceive; it can be something that you absolutely and strongly believe to be true. That can be misinformation under this bill. So how do you work out whether something is misinformation under this bill? There are basically two key elements to that. One is that it has to be, according to the bill, 'reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive' and the other is that is has to be 'reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm'. We'll come back to the second one later. The first limb is 'reasonably verifiable' as 'misleading'. Think about that. Often, to reasonably verify that something is misleading is an entirely subjective process. To what I might think is misleading, one of my parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House might say, 'No, that's not misleading.' To what someone in the community thinks is misleading, others may disagree. That's why what we do in a democracy is trust the superpower of the common sense of the average person. That is what democracy is all about. That common sense has served Australia incredibly well. That common sense, expressed through our democracy, has made us one of the greatest nations on earth—the greatest, I think. That's what we do in a democracy. We might disagree. Someone might have an unfashionable opinion. It might be an opinion seen as a little bit different. But that's okay, because in a democracy we're allowed to have unfashionable opinions. We're allowed to have opinions that might not accord with the so-called experts of the day. In the explanatory memorandum, the bill goes into the question, 'How do you establish if something is misleading?' The explanatory memorandum says: In practical terms, digital communications platform providers will need to identify misinformation or disinformation themselves, including identifying content on their digital communications platforms that contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, pursuant to such duties or relevant instruments. Some matters that could be considered when determining if content is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive include: whether the information has been fact-checked by a third-party organisation expert opinions or advice … These are two examples that the government's own notes to the bill provide. The digital platforms are supposed to somehow sift through the material that appears on their platforms and determine if it might be misleading, and what the government is telling them to do in order to work out if it's misleading is, effectively, ask, 'Has it been fact checked by some third-party organisation, and what do the experts say?' Let's be frank: fact checkers aren't always right. There are numerous examples of things described as fact checks which are themselves subjective, which themselves constitute an opinion. Whilst we all benefit immensely from the work of experts in all fields of endeavour, and we're fortunate to live in a country with so many people with such great expert skills, it's also true that experts are not perfect. It's also true that expert opinion can change. If we think about history, think about all the times in history where somebody came along with an idea that was different and was shunned by the experts and fact checkers of that day—'You're wrong; that's not how the sun rotates around the earth'—on whatever the scientific debate of the day was, or a debate on any topic. It's very clear that expert opinion, whilst valuable, is far from infallible. I think pretty much every expert would acknowledge that—including Dr Nick Coatsworth, who spoke about this issue very eloquently earlier this week. It is also true that fact checkers are themselves human and subjective, and they make mistakes. The notion that we're going to hold up these two bodies as somehow infallible and determining what the rest of us can and cannot say is extraordinary, but it's in the legislation put forward by the government of Australia. I should note that, if you look around the world for similar legislation to this misinformation bill, you won't find anything quite like this—certainly not in places like the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand or a whole range of places. This is a very radical proposal. The definition of 'working out if something is misleading' is plainly absurd. The second thing that the digital platforms have to do, bearing in mind that the digital platform might be a podcaster in Brunswick—it doesn't have to be some huge digital platform—is to assess nine different matters under the bill, extraordinarily, to determine if it is likely to cause or contribute to serious harm. It doesn't have to actually cause or be likely to cause harm; it only has to be likely to contribute to harm, which, again, is a very broad concept, as many people have pointed out. I will quickly read out what the digital platforms have to consider—and this is not optional; it actually says 'must' in the legislation. They have to have regard to the following matters: (a) the circumstances in which the content is disseminated; (b) the subject matter of the information in the content that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive; (c) the potential reach and speed of the dissemination; (d) the author of the information; (e) the purpose of the dissemination; (f) whether the information has been attributed to a source and, if so, the authority of the source and whether the attribution is correct; (g) other related information disseminated that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive— and my personal favourite: (h) any matter determined by the Minister … This is extraordinary. The government of Australia has put this forward. This is an extraordinary thing. I think it's particularly notable that, in this list of things, one of the things that have to be considered is the author of the information. The digital platform is effectively required to conduct an examination of who the author is. Why would that be there? Why does the identity of the author have to be interrogated? Think about that in practice. It is absurd. As I said, the platform doesn't have to believe that harm has been caused. They don't even have to believe that harm is reasonably likely to have been caused. They just have to believe that it's reasonably likely harm could have been contributed to, which is an extraordinarily broad concept. As I say, if you look at the submissions to this bill, they point these things out very, very clearly. You've still got more to do if you're the digital platform. Your job is not complete. You then have to assess whether or not the content is one of 32 categories of things that can be serious harm. These are all the various things that are covered by the bill. This is a very important point: within those 32 categories are elections and referendums. Elections are in, as are referendums. If you look at page 47 of the explanatory memorandum of the bill, it says very clearly in relation to what is captured that it includes: … false, misleading or deceptive information about electoral candidates or referendum proposals, which could have the effect of denying Australians the right to have a say in the conduct of public affairs based on informed choice. If something complies with the extraordinarily broad and convoluted definitions of misinformation in this bill and it's about an electoral candidate—it could be the Prime Minister, the Minister for Communications or anyone—then the digital platforms will need to ensure that they are taking action to ensure they don't get fined by ACMA, and it also applies to referendums. Now, I seem to recall that we had a referendum not long ago. I seem to recall that, during that referendum, many arguments were put forward that the government didn't agree with. Those arguments were put forward in good faith by Australians who strongly disagreed with the referendum proposal. It turns out that 61 per cent of Australians had serious concerns about that referendum proposal. What did the government say every day in this chamber about those arguments that they didn't like about the referendum proposal? They said they were misinformation. But they did haven't this law then. Now they would. So what happens in the next referendum? What happens when people criticise the government of the day—it might not be this government; it could be any government—and the government of the day says, 'That's misinformation and it breaches this law'? That is extraordinary. As I said, Dr Nick Coatesworth made some important contributions this week, talking about this issue in the context of public health and the fact that, whilst expert opinion on public health should of course be our guiding light, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to take exception to it or disagree from time to time. That clearly is a very sensible observation. It also includes imminent harm to the economy or a section of the economy. How broad is that? How many thing get said in this chamber every day that could be said to cause imminent harm to the economy or a section of the economy? It also requires the platforms to determine how serious the consequences of these various statements are. But there is more. Section 68 of the bill acknowledges the fact that the Minister for Communications has the power to personally order misinformation investigations and misinformation hearings. We are here in the democracy of Australia. We've got an elected politician, and we've got a bill before us that says that that elected politician should be able to order an investigation into a digital platform if, in the minister's view, that digital platform isn't doing enough about misinformation and/or disinformation. The minister can also order a public hearing on these matters—again, in one of the world's great democracies. Imagine the Voice scenario. The minister says: 'I think digital platform X has misinformation about the Voice. I am ordering an investigation into that platform and I'm also ordering public hearings.' It's extraordinary that this is being contemplated in this legislation, and there are very serious consequences. If somebody doesn't appear before those inquiries or investigations, they can be fined. There are provisions under section 202 of the act for jail time as well, if someone doesn't appear. Those powers are extraordinary. Then you also have this completely unfair situation where some Australians are exempted and others are not. Academics, scientists, artists and comedians—I have nothing against any of those groups; they all contribute immensely to our country, but they're not infallible. Under this bill, if an ordinary Australian disagrees with, say, an academic about a topic, as long as the academic is talking in the context of their job, effectively, the statement made by the academic cannot be misinformation, but the statement made by the ordinary Australian can be misinformation. How on earth can that be fair or appropriate? And that also applies if the person who isn't the academic says exactly the same thing as the academic: one can be misinformation and one can't. Finally, there's a concerning impact here on Australians of religious faith. The government has included a so-called exemption for religion, but the exemption has enormous holes in it. The Catholic Bishops Conference said: The Bill … leaves open the question of what is considered "reasonable" and whether a "religious purpose" extends beyond religious institutions to Australians practicing or sharing their religious faith. It also leaves open to a judicial authority to decide what is and is not "reasonable" when it comes to expressing a religious belief, and whether the expression of a religious belief is always for a "religious purpose." As the Conference has stated in numerous submissions on other items of legislation, it is suboptimal to have courts and tribunals adjudicate on the reasonableness of religious expression. That is very concerning for Australians of faith. This bill is a shameful attack on our democracy. It should never have been put forward. It is an appalling reflection on this government that it has been put forward. I would encourage anyone who's listening tonight to try and read this legislation. You'll be shocked by what you see in it. The coalition will fight this every step of the way because this bill belongs in the bin. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 109 ADJOURNMENT Wentworth Electorate: Schools, Wentworth Electorate: Faith Communities, Wentworth Electorate: Sport 109 19:30 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Wentworth is fortunate to have some wonderful schools, but options for a public high school education are thin on the ground. Whilst half the kids in my area attend public primary schools, less than one in five continue on to high school in the state system. This isn't because there's a lack of demand. In a 2023 survey by CLOSEast, three-quarters of parents said they'd prefer to send their kids to a co-ed public high school, but the options just aren't there, and now many families are struggling with the cost of school fees, with some even moving out of the area as a result. Whilst I'm thrilled that community pressure has delivered a $42 million investment in an upgraded co-ed public high school in Randwick, it's clear we need more options. That's why I've been working with a local architect and expert in urban school design—to develop a vision for a new high school in the east. The options are incredibly exciting, but we need the state government to back us because time is running out. Much of the available land in the east is already slated for development, and new opportunities are very hard to come by. So I urge the state government to listen to the concerns of Wentworth parents and work with me and the state member for Sydney to deliver a better future for high school public education in Sydney's east. Last month I invited leaders from every faith community in Wentworth to the Bondi surf club to discuss the issues that are most important to their communities. The meeting gave rabbis, ministers, priests and congregation leaders the opportunity to compare notes, meet each other and share the challenges they face. We discussed many of the same issues that we discuss here in parliament: the cost of living, antisemitism, hate crimes and vandalism. But we also covered spiritual issues that these leaders face every day with their communities and congregations: the lack of connection that many Australians grapple with, the pressure on the time of young families and how they find it so difficult to connect, the distorting impact of pornography on families and on young people, and the need to find different ways to discuss our different perspectives with civility and respect. I want to extend my thanks to all those who joined us from Emanuel Synagogue, Sydney Friendship Circle, Lugar Brae Uniting, church at the beach, St Margaret Mary's, Uniting Heart and Soul, Greek Orthodox Parish of St George, St Matthias, Hillsong Bondi, Bondi Mizrachi Synagogue, St Mary Magdalene, St Patrick's, St Stephen's and Wellspring Community. There has been significant national focus on the challenges we face around faith and social cohesion, and so I also want to put on the record my support for the statement made by leaders from Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and every faith in between who came together last week through the NSW Faith Affairs Council to stand united for the common humanity we all share. It has been a huge month for the oval-ball sports teams in Sydney's eastern suburbs, and I want to acknowledge the tremendous efforts across the codes this year. Easts Rugby club overcame a 55-year drought to win the nail-biting final of the men's Shute Shield with a 36-35 win over Norths. This was just one of the six grand finals that Easts Rugby were in, with the club also picking up wins in the 1st and 3rd Colts as well as the 4th grade men's. In women's rugby league, the Roosters women took out the NRLW in a hard fought grand final on Sunday, beating the Sharks 32-28. A special shout-out to Olivia Kernick, who not only scored two tries but also picked up the NRLW Dally M medal for an outstanding season. The Roosters men also had a great run this year but unfortunately bowed out in the preliminary final against Melbourne Storm. Last but not least, the Sydney Swans have had an incredible season, winning the minor premiership but ultimately unable to wrap up the grand final the weekend before last. Well done for a great year of sport, and let's do it all again in 2025. And good luck to the women's Swans team, who are still going in their season. Sikh Volunteers Australia, Parliament in Schools Program 110 19:34 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley On Sunday 29 September I had the absolute pleasure of attending the opening of Sikh Volunteers Australia's brand-new kitchen and community centre in Langwarrin in my electorate. I was joined by my colleagues the member for Holt and the Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, along with a number of state colleagues— Mr Hill 86256 And Woody! Mr Wood E0F I was there! Ms BELYEA 309484 And Woody. This project was funded jointly by the Australian government, the Victorian government and Sikh Volunteers Australia, with the Australian government investing $700,000 into the project. This was a particularly important project for my predecessor Peta Murphy, who supported the investment by the federal government for Sikh Volunteers. I was honoured to be at the celebration for the opening of the new project with the community. Sikh Volunteers Australia live by the principle of sewa: service above self. The principle has resulted in significant contributions to the community. Since 2014, Sikh Volunteers Australia have supported thousands of people experiencing disadvantage or impacted by natural disasters through the delivery of free hot meals. Their work was instrumental during COVID, with many of my friends from the Dunkley community volunteering to support them. The objective of the project was to upgrade Sikh Volunteers' Langwarrin facility so that it could serve as a community hub and provide commercial kitchen facilities to increase the volume of meals it could prepare for the community and for emergency service workers as required during natural disasters. To achieve this, major renovations were undertaken on their current facility in Langwarrin, including upgrading the electricity supply, upgrading cooking equipment to large, commercial-grade appliances and constructing a food packaging area. The improved kitchen facilities mean that volunteers are able to produce 8,000 meals in one shift. At its maximum capacity, the kitchen can produce 24,000 meals across 24 hours. That is a colossal number of meals for those in need in our communities. The facility will improve the organisational capacity to provide relief in emergency situations in the region and more expansive area. To be at the event to celebrate the opening with my federal and state colleagues and the Sikh community was a momentous cultural celebration. Thank you to Jaswinder and the Sikh Volunteers Australia community. Your exceptional contribution to Australian society is immeasurable. Last month it was a pleasure to welcome the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Milton Dick, to the Dunkley electorate to visit three fantastic schools as part of his Parliament in Schools program. We visited Banyan Fields Primary School in Carrum Downs, Woodlands Primary School in Langwarrin and Kingsley Park Primary School in Frankston. The Speaker brought a replica of the mace, elected students into the Speaker role and provided them with appropriate costumes for their role. The students also heard firsthand from the Speaker about what a typical day looks like for an MP in their electorate and when they are in Parliament House for sitting weeks. Students from years 5 and 6 were engaged in lively presentations on federation, democracy and the Australian parliament. The students from each school were involved in making a very important decision: whether to make it a law to have or not have pineapple on your pizza. Most of the students decided not to legislate pineapple on pizza, which I was very happy about. Teaching our young people, through activities like this, about Australia's democracy and decision-making and our federation is so important. We need more Australians to understand the structure and role of government, both young and old. Thank you for visiting Dunkley, Mr Speaker. The students and the teachers loved you. I cannot wait to bring the parliamentary flag to Dunkley and visit some more schools with you soon. The SPEAKER 53517 Well said by the member for Dunkley. North Sydney Bears 111 19:39 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak about the North Sydney Bears, a team which has had a very important role in the history of rugby league in Australia and in the electorate of Bradfield. The Bears were established in 1908 and were a foundation club of the New South Wales rugby football league. For decades, they were a powerhouse in the competition, supported very widely across the North Shore and beyond. North Sydney Oval, the home of the Bears, was a den providing players and fans alike with a first-class spectacle. Sadly, as history records, the North Sydney Bears played their last season in the National Rugby League in 1999 due to the league prioritising financial considerations over community sentiment and depth of community support. Since that time, the North Sydney Bears have been an active participant in the New South Wales Cup competition, and they continue to nurture talented players. But over the last 25 years, debate around the club's re-introduction to top-flight rugby league has been continuing, vigorous and lively, with a range of different proposals canvassed but ultimately, to the great detriment of the game and its fans, rejected. Therefore, I joined in the excitement of many of my constituents when it was reported in August that the North Sydney Bears had signed a deal with a consortium of WA business people, including the Cash Converters founders, the Cumins family, on an agreement to lodge an application for the Western Bears to enter a team in the 2027 NRL season—an arrangement which would see the heritage of the North Sydney Bears returning to the NRL and, of course, drawing on additional community support in Western Australia. There are hurdles which need to be overcome before this long awaited goal can be achieved, but, at face value, this certainly looks to be good news. It's important that North Sydney Oval be maintained as a premier sports venue—not merely maintained but upgraded. In my view, North Sydney Oval should absolutely remain a venue for elite sporting contests and somewhere that is, of course, easily accessible to people from across northern Sydney. I must say I have been troubled to see proposals from some North Sydney councillors to go in the opposite direction and downgrade North Sydney Oval. I strongly oppose that proposal. It is my view, and it's a view shared by many in my community, that bringing back one of the original NRL teams will be seen as a highly appropriate move by all who love rugby league. It will strengthen the NRL by adding a new team and a team which will be able to draw on strong support across a large part of Sydney in addition, of course, to the new support that will come in WA. I do want to acknowledge the impressive feeder program that the Bears have, including the Asquith Magpies. Magpies Waitara, located in my electorate—sadly, I'll lose it following the redistribution, but for the moment it's in my electorate—is an important and much loved community institution. If the Bears return to the NRL, it will have flow-on benefits for community sport on the North Shore and will over time foster a new generation of rugby league representatives from the North Shore. I attended a lunch at Norths Cammeray on Friday organised by the Bears, and it was a significant event. I must say that I was very concerned to see comments from Peter V'landys over the weekend and again this afternoon suggesting that the bids received by the NRL, including the Western Bears bid, were not sufficiently financially strong. This is a troubling development, and I hope it is simply a piece of negotiation. It would be a tragedy if the NRL were to miss this opportunity to tap into strong community support—to love—of the Bears. It would be a tragedy if that opportunity were missed—if the NRL were to make the same mistake as it made in the late nineties when the Bears were excluded to once again exclude a club which has strong community support on the basis of these vaguely described financial considerations. So I call on the NRL to get on with it, do the right thing and back the Bears, and there will be very strong community support if the NRL does that. Northern Territory: Albanese Government 111 19:44 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The federal Albanese Labor government is delivering for Australia, for northern Australia and for the Northern Territory. We are a united NT team, with Senator Malarndirri McCarthy as the Minister for Indigenous Australians; my colleague Marion Scrymgour, the member for Lingiari, as the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia; and myself as the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Northern Australia. We are delivering significant investment in my electorate in Darwin and Palmerston, in the Northern Territory and in northern Australia. Let's start by looking at defence, the first responsibility of government. We have committed $14 billion over the next decade in the Integrated Investment Program to bolster Australia's northern bases, contributing enhanced security not only to Australia but also to the Indo-Pacific, with our partners and allies. This is creating jobs and great economic benefit not only for Territorians and Territory businesses but also for others across northern Australia. We are delivering education for Territorians. On the weekend the minister for infrastructure and I opened Danala, the new Charles Darwin University education and community precinct campus in Darwin. This $239.8 million project was supported with a $97.3 million grant from the federal government and a further $126.5 million loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. It was a great event. Our government is also delivering on the long-term call from Territorians for Charles Darwin University to establish a medical school in the Territory. This will revolutionise medical and health training in the Territory. It will grow homegrown doctors and will attract and retain more doctors to provide much needed health care in the Top End. With the NT government, the Albanese government has committed $1 billion to fully fund the Northern Territory's public schools, with the most disadvantaged schools being prioritised first—and fee-free TAFE as well. In terms of housing, we are delivering housing for the Northern Territory. With the Northern Territory government, we are jointly investing a landmark $4 billion in housing in remote communities across the Northern Territory to help close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Albanese Labor government is investing in more housing that will benefit Territorians. Today we re-introduced our Help to Buy Bill in the House, and that shared equity scheme, if we can get the support of the opposition or the Greens, will help everyday Territorians own their own home. It is disappointing it doesn't have bipartisan support yet, but I'm hoping that'll change. We are determined to put homeownership back into the reach of Territorians. Health is a very important focus for our government. We are delivering improved health care for the Territory. We delivered the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre at the Royal Darwin Hospital. We campaigned hard and got the PET scanners for the Northern Territory and the cyclotron that was required to get these PET scanners working as effectively as possible. Now Territorians have everything they need for cancer treatment in the Territory either because of our advocacy in opposition or because of our direct leadership in this area in government. It is the health care that Territorians deserve. Through my advocacy, the Palmerston Regional Hospital received additional funding so that we could have the hospital that people in Palmerston and the region deserve. We have made sure that that is a priority—as well as endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across all states and territories, including the one that I advocated for in Darwin and that I visited recently. Territorians deserve access to better health care, and the urgent care clinic that opened in Palmerston a year ago and increased bulk-billing services have helped—as well as cheaper medicines. Every day we're doing everything we can to strengthen health outcomes for our fellow Territorians, and that will continue. (Time expired) Parkes Electorate: Rural Newspapers 112 19:49 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes On 1 October a significant event happened in the north-west part of New South Wales, in my electorate: the Narrabri Courier—originally the North Western Courier—changed hands after 104 years. It has been in the Dunnet family since 1920, when it was purchased by JS Dunnet. Since then, various members of that family, most recently the third generation, Wanda and Ian Dunnet, have been managing that newspaper. It is an institution not only in Narrabri but in Wee Waa, where they run the Wee Waa News, and more recently in Gunnedah, where they have the Gunnedah Times and the North West Magazine. The Dunnets have shown the importance of having a newspaper that is connected to the community and understands the community, one that does not run an agenda but shares the highs and the lows of the community through the newspaper and deals with contentious issues from time to time. I'm really pleased that Mark and Susie Slack-Smith have purchased the Courier, and I welcome them. I know that the residents of the towns that are serviced by these newspapers are really pleased that Mark and Susie have taken on the ownership and that they will see those papers continue. Over the years there have been some contentious issues that the Courier has not been afraid to be involved in. The first one in my memory would probably be the introduction of irrigated cotton and the change in the landscape in Narrabri and the Namoi Valley, from grazing, largely, to more intensive irrigation. The introduction of the coal seam gas industry in the Pilliga forest is an issue that is still bubbling away. More recent has been the route of the inland rail through Narrabri. The Courier has been instrumental in allowing opinions from all sides of the arguments to be voiced. When the Namoi Valley Independent closed down, Ian and Wanda Dunnet started a new newspaper in Gunnedah, and the Gunnedah Times is now a very solid newspaper servicing that community. I want to touch on that time. During the pandemic, ACM received significant funds from the Commonwealth government to keep their newspapers going and their journalists employed. During that time, ACM closed down the Namoi Valley Independent. They gutted out the Moree Champion. The Dubbo Daily Liberal, which services a community of over 50,000 people, now only has a paper on Saturday, and that has gone largely online. ACM have gone through rural newspapers like a mob of locusts. They've hollowed them out, sold their real estate and left a shell behind. It's so important that we are seeing these newspapers in private hands. In my electorate, we've got newspaper owners like Lucy Peart, who is not only based in Gilgandra but now has newspapers in Narromine, Warren and Nyngan, and Lee O'Connor, who runs the Coonamble Times. These people are committed to their communities. They understand the importance of journalism and are committed to it. I am so disappointed at the actions of ACM. They have treated the people of regional Australia with contempt, and that's unforgivable. I'm looking forward to catching up with country newspaper proprietors, editors and journalists next week in Dubbo for their awards. They need the support. Journalism has been dealt a shocking blow by these corporate takeovers. The Narrabri Courier and others are now in safe hands, and I thank the Dunnets for what they've done in 104 years. Cost of Living 113 19:54 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston We know that Australians are doing it tough currently, including many people in my electorate of Aston. That's why we're implementing measures to help ease the cost of living for Australians and their families. We acknowledge that people are under pressure, and we're doing something about it. We've provided a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. We've provided energy relief for every household. We're getting wages moving again. We've increased the minimum wage. We've given a pay rise to aged-care workers, and we're getting a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators. We've made medicines cheaper. We've made early childhood education cheaper. We're taking decisive action to help Australians get fairer prices at the supermarket checkout. We've boosted the Commonwealth rent assistance twice in a row because we want to help people, especially, in that instance, because people are doing it tough in the rental market. This side of the parliament is trying to help people. Those opposite would do more harm to people, with $315 billion in secret cuts to Medicare, pensions and payments, and that would be a recipe for recession. If we listened to their free advice, Australia would be in recession. Wages would be lower, and there would be no help at all with the cost of living. The Albanese Labor government's focus is on making sure that hardworking members of our community, including our early childhood educators and other essential workers, earn more and keep more of what they earn. Additionally, a number of weeks back I sent out the latest edition of my newsletter to every household in Aston, which included information on our cost-of-living measures. My office has received numerous calls and messages from constituents, and they were wrapped to hear about the $300 energy rebate and the fact that it will apply automatically with four quarterly instalments of $75 over the year. We know that applying for rebates isn't easy for everyone, and it's why we're making it apply automatically. It's just one less thing for Australians to worry about, and it's real cost-of-living relief. I'm so glad to see that our government's cost-of-living measures are making a real difference to the lives of people in Aston. This is because the Albanese Labor government is committed to helping people and delivering real cost-of-living relief. Our government is taking decisive action to help consumers get fairer prices at the supermarket checkout, in stores and online. The government released a new mandatory food and grocery code for consultation, which would ensure Aldi, Coles, Woolworths and Metcash are subject to multimillion dollar penalties for serious breaches of the code. CHOICE has also released it's second Albanese government funded price-monitoring report, giving Australians accurate data on where to get the cheapest groceries. We've banned unfair terms and increased penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law, and we are delivering the most significant merger reforms in Australia in almost 50 years. We are working with the states and territories to revitalise national competition policy. The next phase of the ACCC supermarkets inquiry will see the ACCC conduct public hearings with the supermarket sector later in the year. As the Prime Minister said last week, we don't want to see ordinary Australians, families and pensioners being taken for a ride by the supermarkets, and we're taking steps to make sure they get a fair go at the checkout. The Albanese Labor government has placed a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines, which is another of our measures to help ease the cost of living. This freeze means that people across the country, including thousands of my constituents in Aston, won't pay more on their PBS medications than they are currently. For many Australians, this means that the maximum PBS script stays at the current price of $31.60 for another year, and for pensioners and concession card holders the current price of $7.70 won't increase for another five years. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 114 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Questions Without Notice 114 19:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—Today in question time I made comments that were unkind and hurtful. I knew it was wrong as soon as I made the comment. I apologised and I withdrew as soon as I said it, but it shouldn't have happened. I also want to apologise to all Australians who suffer from this disability. I regret saying it. It was wrong. It was insensitive, and I apologise. House adjourned at 19 : 59 NOTICES 114 NOTICES Presentation 114

Tuesday, 8 October 2024

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 119 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Youth Voice In Parliament Week, Cost of Living 119 16:00 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Thank you to all the young people who submitted speeches for Youth Raise Our Voice in Parliament. This is a speech from Ammar: I envision a community where young people are not just heard but are empowered to make a real change—a place where our voices shape the future we will inherit. Lowering the voting age to 16 is a critical step towards this vision. Today, young people face challenges that are deeply intertwined with the decisions made by those in power. Yet, we are often left out of the process. By allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, we can channel the energy and passion of youth into positive community change. This engagement could lead to a decrease in youth crime as more young people feel that their voices matter and that they have a stake in their community's future. When young people are given the opportunity to contribute meaningfully, they are more likely to invest in their own futures and the well-being of their communities. The next parliament can achieve this by lowering the voting age, expanding civic education and creating more opportunities for young people to engage in decision-making processes. By doing so, we can create a community that values, supports and benefits from the energy and ideas of its youth—a community where everyone, regardless of age, has the power to shape their future. Thank you, Ammar. Ten dollars for Vegemite. Hundreds of dollars more per week in rent. Soaring mortgages. If you're worried about the cost of living, you're not alone. Millions of people across the country are struggling. But at the same time the profits of the big corporations, like big supermarkets and the big banks, have increased, and that is no accident. I hear from parents who are worried that they or their kids or grandkids will never be able to buy a house, no matter how hard they work. This is more than just a cost-of-living crisis; it's becoming a full-blown economic crisis. It's happening while one in three big corporations pay no tax. When a nurse pays more tax than a multinational, something is wrong. But instead of trying to fix this mess and deliver real outcomes for people, Labor and the Liberals are performing confected fights in question time while quietly agreeing to the status quo of more supermarket price gouging, more unlimited rent rises and more corporate profiteering. No wonder everyone is getting sick of politics. They've lost sight of why they were elected in the first place—to deliver real outcomes that will make everyday people's lives better. The Greens have already announced our plan to make price gouging illegal, fund a freeze and cap on rent increases and build more public housing. We announced our plan to ensure you can see your GP, psychologist, dentist or nurse for free with your Medicare card. No-one should be putting off essential health care because they can't afford it. And you can trust us to do things like this because we don't take political donations from the big corporations fuelling these crises. This is just the start. We know these reforms won't happen overnight, but if we keep voting for the same two parties nothing will change. Change is possible. This election, you have to vote for it. Tasmania: Cost of Living, Far South Mobile Community Hub, Geeveston Early Learning and Care Centre 119 16:03 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I was recently able to go and visit Australia's southernmost town, Southport, which also happens to be in the great electorate of Franklin that I represent. It was a terrific opportunity to have a cuppa and a bickie with some of my community members and hear about the issues impacting their daily lives. As we all know, no-one is immune to what's happening globally and, indeed, in Australia with cost-of-living pressures—and that includes those in the Southport community and surrounds. I was able to discuss with them the cost-of-living relief that the Albanese Labor government is delivering right now to those who need it most, including: a tax cut for every taxpayer; energy bill relief for every household and eligible small businesses; a pay rise for some of Tasmania's lowest-paid workers—77,000 of them on minimum wage have received a pay rise; our cheaper-medicines policy and Strengthening Medicare; and our GP rebate increases. This has had a significant impact in my electorate, particularly the tripling of the bulk-bill incentive. It has meant that in Tasmania we've seen some of the highest increases in bulk-billing—which we needed to, frankly, because under the former government it was very difficult to get a bulk-billing appointment anywhere in Tasmania. And we've got four urgent care clinics, with a fifth one on the way. During this visit down in Southport I was also able to see the good work of the Far South Mobile Community Hub, which is being run by the Geeveston community neighbourhood centre, GeCo. That community centre runs this hub that is fully equipped and versatile, on wheels, and it aims to provide the community with a range of health, wellbeing, social and essential government services. So, it was terrific to be able to partner with them to do the morning tea in the local community. They also provide emergency food relief. They provide a safe space for vulnerable people to seek support and to share their stories and concern. I know that this mobile hub has really been making a difference in the Southport and Dover communities in the south of my electorate. I particularly want to thank Trish and Kathryn for running this important service, which strengthens connections between support services and rural and remote communities as well as providing an overall improvement in people's lives in those communities. Speaking of improving the lives of those in rural and remote communities—when I was travelling back into town, I stopped into the Geeveston Early Learning and Care Centre. This centre is one of five or six in my electorate that recently received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Albanese Labor government's Community Child Care Fund. The local mayor, Sally Doyle, came with us. She told me how important this funding is to keep these services open and operating in regional communities. I understand there are 45 services across Tasmania that have received one of the grants. In my electorate, Cygnet, Dover, Geeveston, Huonville and South Arm are in receipt of almost $900,000. Nicholls Electorate: Rail Infrastructure 120 16:06 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls If there's something that frustrates the people in my electorate more than anything—particularly the people who live in the northern part, the Goulburn Valley—it's the historically poor rail service between Shepparton and Melbourne. Long before I came into this place, I was an advocate for better rail services between Greater Shepparton and Melbourne. There were not enough services, and the services that were there were very slow and uncomfortable. The previous government, the coalition government, funded stage 3 of the Shepparton rail corridor plan to the tune of $320 million. That meant that we'd go from five return services to Melbourne per day to nine services. It was a great investment by the previous government. We funded it at 80-20 and not at the 50-50 that the current government's talking about in relation to state projects. Promises were made by the state government when delivering this program with the federal government money. Jacinta Allan, now Premier, then said: … using the expertise in place on the Shepparton Line is allowing works on Stage 3 to commence sooner, with a targeted completion date of 2023. In a further media release on 10 November 2021, she said: Stage 2 of the upgrade is targeted for completion late next year, while Stage 3 is scheduled for completion in 2023. We're in the back end of 2024, and the project still hasn't been delivered. Not only that—the federal government was asked for and was required to commit an extra $11 million, which was announced in the May 2024 federal budget. So, when perfectly reasonable questions were asked to the state government about what's going on, why the delay and why the cost blowout, a government spokesman—not a minister; it would be nice to have had a minister put their name to it—said, 'We won't take lectures from the Liberals and Nationals.' Well, if it weren't for the Liberals and Nationals, including the former deputy prime minister, Mr McCormack, there wouldn't be the funding for the project. The project's funded, but it hasn't been delivered. The people, my constituents—this is a constituency statement—are asking, 'Why hasn't this been delivered?' It's very frustrating when federal governments put money towards projects only to have state governments have continual blowouts and delays. The people of Greater Shepparton and the whole of the Goulburn Valley want to be able to get on one of the nine services between Shepparton and Melbourne that were promised. They don't want to have to get up early and pick between only five services. The question remains for the Victorian government. We're at the back end of 2024, and you promised them by the end of 2023. When are we going to get the extra services? Shortland Electorate: Vocational Education and Training 120 16:09 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I'm pleased to provide an update on how people in my community are benefiting from the Albanese Labor government's fee-free TAFE initiative. Through this program, not only are we helping Australians get ahead while easing cost-of-living pressures, we are also supporting training places in areas of high demand like the care, construction and early childhood and education sectors. I was delighted to welcome the brilliant Minister for Skills and Training, Andrew Giles, to the Hunter recently, where we announced that over 150,000 Australians enrolled in a fee-free TAFE course in the first half of 2024. This takes the total number of enrolments in fee-free TAFE courses since January 2023 to almost 509,000 people and shows what a massive success this initiative has already been. I said on the day, 'Fee-free TAFE is changing people's lives.' While he was visiting my community, I took Minister Giles to a Belmont TAFE where we spoke with students studying fee-free TAFE courses, including 21-year-old Nikita, a local tradie, who is studying to become a boilermaker and who was full of praise for fee-free TAFE. Nikita said, 'It is actually amazing being able to not have the stress of paying anything but still being able to learn and get all the knowledge I possibly can.' That endorsement from Nikita demonstrates that fee-free TAFE courses are changing people's lives for the better and helping them with the cost of living. Not only that but they are boosting jobs in critical sectors like manufacturing, ensuring we are meeting the challenges of the skills shortages in our country. As the Minister for Defence Industry, I know how critical it is to grow the manufacturing workforce in our country and I thank Nikita for her enthusiasm in becoming a boilermaker. This approach contrasts strongly with that of the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition. The Leader of the Opposition has not said the word 'TAFE' in parliament since 2004. For context, this was the year that Shrek 2 came out. We have heard nothing from him about how TAFE changes people's lives and nothing about how it is helping our country. Instead, we just hear about his obsession with his fantasy to build nuclear reactors around the country, including in the Hunter. Since the Leader of the Opposition announced his policy in June there have been a series of earthquakes around Denman and Muswellbrook, right next to the proposed site of one of the coalition's nuclear reactors. You would think that would give them pause to reconsider this policy but it appears not. Much like in Shrek, where kingdom is caught up in a fairytale, the Leader of the Opposition seems stuck on this fantasy of his own. But unlike a fairytale, his nuclear dreams will not end happily ever after for the people in my community. Labor's fee-free TAFE, in contrast, is a real-life solution to a real-life problem. Nicole Fitzsimmons Foundation, Marine Rescue New South Wales 121 16:12 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook I would like to acknowledge a great foundation in the electorate of Cook, the Nicole Fitzsimmons Foundation but, before that, I would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to Nicole. Nicole tragically lost her life in a motorbike accident in Thailand in 2012. She was 24 years old, a passionate ballet dancer and an aspiring journalist. Her parents and her sister took a situation that no parent or sibling should ever experience and turned that into a positive force for so many people in our electorate and right across Sydney. I had the opportunity to talk to Nicole's mother, father and sister at the foundation and thank them for all that they do in the community. This foundation does two things. Firstly, it presents travel safety education to young adults and young school children. Secondly, it runs programs for those who experience physical or financial hardship to aspire for their dreams in performing arts or sports. Over the past 11 years the foundation has given 40 grants and over $100,000 to members of my community. I was fortunate enough to attend their yearly fundraiser, Bubbles by the Bay, at St George Sailing Club. It was a well-attended event with over $9,000 raised and with two recipients of the 'follow your heart' grants being announced: Jack Howell, a para-triathlete who competed in the Paris Olympics; and Holli Niland, who is pursuing her life dream of dance and who performed on the day. I invite community members to donate to the Nicole Fitzsimons Foundation website; donations are tax deductible. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge another amazing organisation in the electorate of Cook: Marine Rescue New South Wales. They keep the waterways of Bate Bay, Port Hacking, Georges River and Botany Bay safe. One thing community members in Cook never take for granted whether they are jet skiing or sailing is that you are assured, if something does go wrong, the volunteers of Marine Rescue Botany Bay and Port Hacking are on the other side of the radio. Marine Rescue's capabilities are primarily made of well-trained, dedicated and passionate volunteers. I had the privilege of visiting their operations on the Hacking River, where they look after Botany Bay as well, and met a number of volunteers who operate the radios, deploy rescue vessel crews and help to manage accidents, breakdowns and emergencies. These volunteers take time out of their week, week on week, to keep us safe, sometimes undertaking dangerous work and committing to constant training. The understated commitment of Marine Rescue is fantastic and I want to thank them. I would also like to pay tribute to Ian Baker, who received an Emergency Services Medal in the 2024 King's Birthday Honours. Ian has been volunteering for this organisation since 1975 and has participated in over 400 operations. Cost of Living 122 16:15 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston Our government's No. 1 priority is helping Australians with the cost of living and that is why we've announced that we're cracking down on supermarkets to help Australians get a fair price at the checkout. It was fantastic to invite the Prime Minister to Montano's Patisserie in Bayswater last week to talk to some members of my community about the announcement and about our government's crackdown on unfair supermarket pricing practices. One such practice is known as shrinkflation, where there's less product but the price is the same or sometimes higher. Cracking down on this type of dodgy practice will help people save more on their regular shopping trip. At Montano's, the PM and I shared coffee and treats with some Aston locals: Katie, who's a single mum to her teenage daughter; and Xavier and Natalie, parents to three little girls. These parents shared their concerns about the cost of raising their kids with rising supermarket prices. The feedback from this chat and many others like it that I'm having lately around my community is that people are feeling the pinch at supermarket checkouts, and this is having a detrimental effect on many households throughout Aston. The Albanese Labor government is committed to fighting shrinkflation in our supermarkets and the retail sector by strengthening the Unit Pricing Code to make it easier for Australians to make accurate and timely price comparisons. Our government is boosting funding to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, so it can undertake a crackdown on misleading and deceptive pricing practices, and unconscionable conduct in the supermarket and retail sector. Funding of around $30 million will help the ACCC conduct more investigations and enforcement in the supermarket and retail sectors. This will enhance the regulator's ability to proactively monitor behaviour and investigate pricing practices where there are concerns about supermarkets and retailers falsely justifying higher prices. We're going to make sure that all supermarkets put unit pricing on items to help shoppers know if what they're seeing on the ticket means they're getting a good deal or not. Unit pricing helps consumers spot good value for money by being able to see the price of products by their volume, weight or per unit so they aren't tricked by changed packaging hiding less product. We must continue to fight hard for all Australians because we know that under Peter Dutton and the coalition, Australians will work longer for less, whilst we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's why I was proud to support the supermarket crackdown announcement which will help people like Katie, Xavier, Nat and their families in my community of Aston. I would also like to thank Nick and Helen Montano for their hospitality at their patisserie. They showed us, the Prime Minister, me and my constituents, such wonderful hospitality. Covid-19: Response 122 16:18 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash It's a pleasure for me to speak today on a critical issue that has been an issue for me for some time. Today I hosted in the House, from the Australian Medical Professionals' Society, AMPS, Dr Chris Neal, Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan and Kara Thomas. With them were Professor Angus Dalgleish and Dr Paul Marik. Professor Dalgleish is an imminent virologist; immunologist; medical oncologist; general physician; professor at St Georges, University of London; fellow of both the UK and Australian Royal Colleges of Physicians; and fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists. He has over 500 publications in peer reviewed literature and over 25,000 citations. Dr Paul Marik is a former tenured professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. His training is in internal medicine, critical care, pharmacology and anaesthesia. He has over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters and four critical care books. He's been cited over 54,000 times in peer-reviewed publications and is a founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. These two gentlemen have an amazing message for us. They are eminent doctors who have made significant contributions to medicine and the advancement of patient care over the decades of their lives. We would do well to pay attention to their message. But the problem is that their message, if given out only a few short months ago, would be deemed as misinformation or disinformation under the bill that's coming before the House, which is further censorship of scientists, censorship of health professionals and censorship of doctors and nurses. It's been a pleasure to have them in the House and hear the message that such eminent people gave around the whole history of the COVID response, not only the COVID response but the effect it's had on so many millions of people across the world. We would do well to listen to such eminent people, to change the way we're going about things and change the narrative—I say again: change the narrative—so that we can help vax-injured people like Kara Thomas, who this morning, out on the front lawns of the parliament, had the face of the fallen, and all those who have been severely affected by vaccine injuries. Thank you, Professor Dalgleish and Dr Paul Marik, for coming to this parliament today. It is greatly appreciated. Cunningham Highway 123 16:21 Mr HVO Blair NEUMANN () (): Last week, I was pleased to join the federal infrastructure minister, the member for Ballarat, and the Queensland transport minister, Bart Mellish, along with the state Labor candidate for Ipswich West, Wendy Bourne, to announce a joint $20 million budgeted funding commitment towards the business cases and planning for the vital upgrades along the Cunningham Highway in my electorate, including the Amberley Interchange and the Swanbank and Ripley interchanges. The Cunningham Highway is a major national highway and freight route and a key commuter corridor in one of the fastest growing regions in the country. It includes the Amberley Interchange, which is a notorious blackspot and bottleneck during peak hours, partly because it's a main access point to the biggest Air Force base in the country, the RAAF Base Amberley. Tens of thousands of vehicles, including heavy vehicles, go through the interchange every day. Along with others, I've been advocating for a long-term solution to fix the Amberley Interchange and planning for the Swanbank and Ripley interchanges, which have traffic congestion problems. The local community has made it very clear that the previous interim plans and short-term fixes that were put forward for the interchange just won't work. Roundabouts and traffic lights simply won't work on a national highway. The Amberley Interchange is getting upgraded. The Albanese and Miles Labor governments have listened and acted with $20 million of real funding—not an election promise—to look at real solutions for the interchange; to bust congestion; for futureproofing the Cunningham Highway, including options like a bypass, a flyover and highway duplication; and for the growing traffic congestion problems at Swanbank and Ripley. This is part of our $170 million budgeted commitment to the Cunningham Highway. Local residents I've spoken to, including the local Ipswich City councillors, have contacted me by text and by phone and told me they're very pleased with the announcement. However, after calling for money for the Amberley Interchange, instead of welcoming this $20 million commitment, the LNP mayor of Ipswich has criticised the plan in the local media, mischievously and deceptively. I've told her—and she knows very well—that we need a proper business case for a long-term solution. It's never been done before. Still, she plays party politics and can't rise above it. She is happy to stand beside any LNP candidate for any business case pre-election LNP commitment. Interestingly, one of the first things the Ipswich City Council did when I secured $20 million in federal funding for the North Ipswich Reserve was ask for $500,000 for a business case before doing the redevelopment, which I was very happy to secure and to agree to and so was the Albanese Labor government. They also asked for money for a business case for the Ipswich-to-Springfield transport corridor, and we put in millions of dollars, along with the state Labor government. Have the council complained about that? Not at all. Queensland State Election 123 16:24 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright In Queensland, at this very moment, the state election is underway. Within my great seat of Wright, I've had the privilege of working with a number of LNP MPs, including John Krause, Ros Bates, Jim McDonald and Mark Boothman. All have worked hard to achieve much for our shared communities. However Queensland, once the state of opportunity, has been led astray by the Palaszczuk-Miles Labor government after a decade in power. Here in my community crime is rampant; ambulance ramping is at record highs, and that ramping is affecting people in my community; housing shortages have driven up rents and property prices; and in Queensland the cost of living is rising faster than anywhere else in Australia. Labor has squandered our state's potential, creating a crisis without offering any solutions. When I'm out on the ground with our LNP state team, we hear from all of our local residents. They're voicing their concerns at town halls, at crime forums, at small-business meetings and through community engagements. People are calling for real change. The LNP has listened and has crafted the right plan for Queensland's future. This plan aims to restore safety, improve access to health services, make housing more affordable by addressing the supply issues and ensure that strong, prudent financial responsibility is restored in the state. The LNP is ready to reimagine government and returning Queensland to its full potential. The time for Labor's failures is over. I would like to take this opportunity to wish the best of luck to our incumbent state members, including the member for Mudgeeraba, Ros Bates; the member for Theodore, Mark Boothman; member for Scenic Rim, Jon Krause; and member for Lockyer, Jim McDonald. I'd also like to acknowledge the LNP candidates in my electorate that have a tough job in front of them, but who are working hard and are on the ground every day to earn the trust and the support of the communities they are asking to represent: Kevin Burns, the LNP candidate for Jordan; Mathew Owens, the LNP candidate for Logan; Jitendra Prasad, the LNP candidate for Algester; and Bianca Stone, the LNP candidate for Gaven. I have a very clear message for my community: only by changing the government in Queensland can we get our state back on track. And you can only have a change of government if you vote for LNP. If you vote for an independent or for minor parties, it's not a vote for change; it will be a vote for the same government. Voting for independents and minor parties is simply a vote for another four years of Steven Miles and Labor. We simply can't afford another four years of hard labour in Queensland. The LNP stands ready with a team, a fresh start, the right plan and the solutions for Queensland. (Time expired) Women in Sport: Surfing Australia 124 16:27 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond Recently I announced that the Albanese government will be delivering $1 million to Surfing Australia for the New Wave of Female Boardriders project. This is an exciting new project, which aims to increase boardrider club membership for women in surfing, access to more surfing equipment and facilities and also increase the women in official and senior positions within surfing. Through this process, Surfing Australia will create another 50 women's focused boardrider clubs across the country to provide coaching and training sessions. They'll also host an annual women's training and development conference at the High Performance Centre in Casuarina, which is in my electorate, and they'll be hosting that every year. The High Performance Centre in Casuarina was delivered by the previous Labor government. I was very proud to open that centre in 2012. We delivered the $2 million to build it. It was the first surfing high-performance centre within the country. Since that time, it has gone from strength to strength. That's why it's so exciting to now be announcing the million dollars in funding for this really exciting new project. This funding is from the Play Our Way program, which is designed to remove barriers to women and girls participating in sport and physical activity. It was a wonderful occasion at the opening, with many great surfers and coaches there. In fact, Surfing Australia Chief of Sport, Luke Madden, said on the day: This investment— the investment from our government— is a game-changer for women's surfing. We're creating a pathway that will see more women involved in surfing at every level—from beginners in local boardrider clubs to female coaches on the beach. It's … about opening doors for more women to embrace surfing and stay connected, making the sport more inclusive for everyone. We had a whole range of great speakers, including Hannah Jessup, who's the co-founder of the first all-female boardriders clubs on the Gold Coast, just to the north of us. Her club is called Surf Witches Boardriders Club. Hannah said: We've seen a huge growth in women's surfing, especially on the Gold Coast. Our memberships sell out every year, which reflects the demand for more clubs like ours. Women from all over Australia reach out to us, asking how they can start their own clubs, so I think this grant will have an incredible impact on the women's surf community across the country. Since we announced it, we've had a huge number of people across the country reaching out to Surfing Australia. On the day, we also had Jade Wheatley, who is the president of the Currumbin Alley Boardriders club and a surf coach, speaking. She said: As a female surf coach, I've had amazing support from male coaches, but now I see little girls who want to follow in my footsteps. She said that so many young girls come up to her and say, 'I want to be a surfing coach just like you.' That's at the heart of what this grant is all about: encouraging more women and girls to get involved in surf lifesaving and have these clubs where they feel comfortable to get involved, learn new skills and have access to new training and mentorship. We're very proud to be delivering on this important funding commitment. Mayo Electorate: Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Research Centre 124 16:30 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Earlier this year, I was pleased to attend the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Research Centre in Goolwa, and it was great to see that the research centre was brimming with activity. It was a very proud moment for me and for our community, who had advocated for the centre since the lead-up to the 2018 Mayo by-election. At that time—and it is still relevant today—we recognised that even with a fully executed Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which we're still a long way from realising, we still had to deal with the short-term variations of water flows and water quality. We have internationally recognised critical wetlands and other important regions, relied upon by local communities for economic, environmental and social wellbeing, that needed and deserved a scientific approach to the management of our most precious river system. In December 2020, the federal government recognised this need and announced $8 million in funding for the centre, and the centre was officially opened in July last year. In its first year of operation, it placed an emphasis on communication and engagement to ensure a strong presence and clear understanding of its functions, and in that time it's achieved 83 targeted community meetings. There have been 12 events, with more than 400 people in attendance, and it's engaged over 60 organisations. There have been school visits and a volunteer program, and students from schools have assisted with the development of an education program. Of course, it's now building a real presence in our community and a social media presence. The centre has undertaken similar communication and engagement programs for other program elements, including Indigenous communities; recognising and utilising local knowledge and culture; and the science program. Events such as Science in the Pub and community conversations have been a huge hit and a unique way for science to inform and to be informed. The CLLMM Research Centre is an asset to the local and scientific community in my electorate. Their achievements in just 12 months are astonishing, and I'm very proud to see them. I now seek leave to table their one-year progress report so that everyone in this place and beyond can appreciate the work and value of this incredibly important scientific and community led organisation. Leave granted. Ms SHARKIE 265980 I thank the Chamber, and I table the document. Coalition 125 16:32 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck As we approach election season, we're seeing the same tired old tricks from the opposition, the coalition con job: ignore a problem, deny responsibility and then later blame someone else. While in government, they sat on their hands for a decade, ignoring growing problems until they could blame someone else. House prices were steadily increasing, supply did not keep up with demand and homeownership decreased, particularly among young Australians, yet the coalition government did nothing. For years they didn't even have a housing minister. While the supermarket duopoly grew in Australia for over a decade, the coalition government did nothing. The coalition ignored—indeed, hid—the worsening state of Australia's environment until they could pass on the responsibility and blame someone else. Now in Hasluck we see Senator Reynolds fronting up with coalition candidates and trying to campaign on environmental matters, matters that are deeply important to the people in my community, while conveniently forgetting the inaction of the coalition over the last decade. The Albanese government is a government of action. We will not shirk our responsibility or waste time in government. The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 is before the Senate, and we are one vote away from establishing an environmental protection agency. I challenge Senator Reynolds to put her vote where it matters—one vote away—and to vote for this legislation to bring some comfort to my community, not the cold comfort that she brings. Hasluck people are fed up with being ripped off at the supermarket, and so they are glad that we are listening, taking action on supermarket price gouging and looking for ways to ensure that both shoppers and farmers see a fair price. The coalition talk about competition and productivity a lot, but they were never prepared to take the hard decisions to ensure that we get good outcomes in this space. On the environment, my constituents want to see environmental laws passed. They don't understand why the Senate is holding up the establishment of the first independent environmental protection authority, and neither do I. My constituents want more action on housing, like the Housing Australia Future Fund, which the opposition opposed, and the Help to Buy Bill, which they continue to oppose. We managed to get the future fund passed and are delivering the first round of 4,200 social housing homes and more than 9½ thousand affordable homes. This includes 1,200 homes for women and children escaping domestic violence. It's more help than the Liberals and Nationals delivered in almost 10 years, and they're still in it. They're still playing that blocking game, along with the Greens. They've managed to find common ground, unholy ground, to block housing supply. They are holding up the delivery of support to 40,000 Australians that Labor wants to assist with an equity contribution for a home for themselves. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 125 16:36 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack The Raise Our Voice campaign is working to increase the number of young women and gender diverse voices from all backgrounds who lead conversations in politics, domestic policy and foreign policy. This year, Raise Our Voice Australia posed this question: what do you want your community to look like in the next 10 years, and what can the next parliament do to achieve that? Lei from my electorate of Durack submitted a speech, and it is my pleasure to read that now on behalf of Lei: My name is Lei, I am a 16-year-old girl in northern regional WA. I am also the member for Kimberley for Western Australia's Youth Parliament 2024. One of my speeches was my adjournment debate. I was scrolling through the news to find something to talk about. I had come across an article published in February. 12 women came out to sue their previous employer company for counts of sexual harassment and assault. It broke my heart reading it and I had decided that this is what I was going to talk about. So I will echo what I said in Western Australia's Youth Parliament. Sexual harassment and assault has had a lifelong negative impact on 1.3 million women and nearly half a million men in the 5 years leading up to 2022. Sexual harassment and Assault is not only inappropriate touching but also comments on one's gender, body or, worse, actually making advances on the victim. I call the Federal Parliament a call to action. I want EVERYBODY in Australia not only my community in 10 years or sooner to feel safe working for their living especially in these trying times where our cost of living has been growing exponentially. Educate our Youth on what is sexual harassment, what to do if you become a victim and that it's okay to speak out. There is a lack of education on this topic in the curriculum all over the country. I want there to be promotions on this topic at every careers class, health class and even in a generalised topic to talk about. It breaks my heart that this topic has to be normalised to break the stigma around it because we cannot stop predators. If we have to normalise this topic so that people are not afraid to speak out then so be it. Speaker and the Members of Federal Parliament, I am a Year 10 student and I am afraid. I am afraid that when I enter the workforce as a YOUTH will I be subjected to being one out of three Australians who experience workplace sexual harassment. This is such an important issue. Thank you, Lei. A division having been called in the House of Representatives — Sitting suspended from 16:38 to 16:51 Swan Young Changemakers Conference 126 16:51 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Young people can change the world. With this idea in mind, on Tuesday 17 September, I hosted the first Swan Young Changemakers Conference to bring young people from across the electorate of Swan together. It was a day designed by young people and led by young people. Over 40 student leaders from 10 different high schools came together. It was a diverse group, but everyone agreed that they wanted to change their community for the better. The truth is that, when the students first rocked up to Pawsey, the supercomputing centre in my electorate, they were a bit daunted. All these students from different high schools! But when they spoke to each other—and we broke people up into different groups—they came up with some incredible ideas. They discussed key societal challenges and priority areas for them. They also had valuable opportunities to collaborate with young leaders who are making an incredible impact in their respective fields. They explored the reasons why change is necessary, the barriers that stand in the way and solutions based recommendations. Each topic was inspired by young people. The topics they discussed included climate change and, in particular, the structures of governance that are preventing action, the psychology of the climate crisis, the socioeconomically disproportionate spread of its effects and the disparities in infrastructure and health resources. They talked about education inequality and, in particular, the inequality between public and private schools and their funding, as well as the lack of resources in remote areas and Indigenous communities. They also talked about reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous people and, in particular, the limited acknowledgement of historical injustices in media and the school curriculum, the passive enabling of prejudiced attitudes, the lack of recognition of the failures in the justice system and the lack of connection to culture. There were also discussions about the housing crisis, the rapid price increase, the impact of generational inequality and the removal of housing stock for short-term rental affordability. They also talked about artificial intelligence: AIR is U-G-L-Y—ugly! As another student explained, it has no soul. They also discussed mental health challenges. As this generation is facing some really challenging issues, they are concerned and want to see changes. I want to thank Emily, Maisarah, Denzel, Dan, Jemima and Molly for their impact in leading some incredibly complex discussions. They were fantastic. Penrith Panthers Rugby League Club 126 16:54 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay It is with immense pride and excitement that I stand here today to congratulate the mighty Penrith Panthers on their remarkable achievement in winning their fourth consecutive NRL grand final. We're talking about the four-peat dream team here! Ivan Cleary led the team, captained by Issah Yeo, with Nathan Cleary, and they are the first team in six decades to achieve this. What an extraordinary feat for our team. What a special moment for our entire community. The day started early, with around 3½ thousand fans and more than 1,000 vehicles meeting at Jamison Park for a car convoy travelling through the streets of Penrith. It was fantastic to see so many families decorate their cars, kids and even dogs in their finest Panthers gear to show their team our whole community's support. After the grand final win the party continued well into the early hours, as fans filled the Panthers Leagues Club and surrounding streets to celebrate. This victory is not just a testament to the hard work, dedication and talent of the players, the coaches and staff of the Panthers but also a reflection of the spirit of the Penrith community. The significance of this victory goes beyond the scoreboard. It represents hard work, perseverance and the rewards that come from working together towards a shared goal. The Panthers' journey to this grand final serves as a powerful lesson for young people in our community. It shows them that, with discipline, hard work and teamwork, dreams can be turned into reality. Our Panthers are role models for the next generation, and their success will undoubtedly inspire young people right across Penrith and beyond. It's not just about being a great athlete; it's about the values they exemplify as a team. When young people see the Panthers succeed, they see that anything is possible when you put in the effort. This impact is immeasurable. I highlight the positive influence this victory has on promoting healthy, active lifestyles for kids in our community. Sport plays a crucial role in the development of young people, teaching them teamwork, leadership and responsibility. The Panthers' win will spark even greater enthusiasm for rugby league, encouraging more kids to get outside and stay active and engaged. Having a strong, successful local team inspires our kids to get involved and stay physically active, helping build healthy habits that will benefit them throughout their lives. Whether they dream of playing in the NRL one day or just running around with their friends, our children are learning that physical fitness and perseverance are key to both personal and community success. As we celebrate the Panthers' victory, let's also celebrate the lasting impact this has on our community's future—motivating the next generation, participating in sport, contributing to our community. Once again, congratulations to the Penrith Panthers on this incredible achievement. You've made history. We couldn't be more proud. Here's to many more victories to come. Dunkley Electorate: Youth, Youth Voice In Parliament Week 127 16:57 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley When I was elected to parliament earlier this year, I spoke in my first speech about my passion for supporting young people. Due to my experiences as a mum of an 18-year-old son, and as a youth worker in Frankston some years back, I am committed to supporting young people in the Dunkley community to have a future. In my seven months as the member for Dunkley I have met with young people and visited programs and services that help them—services like the Brotherhood of St Laurence, who opened their Thrive Hub in Frankston to meet the unique needs of individuals from one place, combining access to employment and training opportunities and connection to mental health, drug and alcohol and homelessness services. Other critical services include the Salvation Army youth service. Last week I attended a session where young people were finishing an incredible mural of native animals—a creative project to engage young people, giving them meaning and purpose. A key strategy for supporting young people is also hearing directly from them, hearing their voice. I will now share a speech from Chris, a student from Woodleigh School in Dunkley, who was selected through the Raise Our Voice program: Dear Parliament, My name is Chris and I am 12 years old, I am from Dunkley and I attend Woodleigh School. We need more help saving native animals. There are cats, dogs and birds killing native animals and their precious ecosystems. Hunting cats kill more than three animals every week. On average, over a year, each roaming and hunting pet cat in Australia kills 186 animals. This number includes 110 native animals (reptiles, birds and mammals). These are just some of the numbers. This needs to change! These animals can't help it but if we have more facilities, we can stop this problem by making more pounds, aviaries and changing regulations around releasing and keeping these animals. We need more facilities in Australia, as there are only 370 animal shelters. This may seem like a lot but there are 29 million pets in Australia. Thanks, Chris, for your recommendations. I will continue to meet and connect with you and other young people from Dunkley, bring your voice and the issues that you care about to light, and bring suggestions and recommendations to parliament to create positive change for young people who are members of the Dunkley community. Youth Voice in Parliament Week, Israel Attacks: First Anniversary 128 17:00 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I have a statement, as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, from Miley, a student in Mallee. She says: I envision a future where every child has the freedom to express themselves authentically and confidently. This vision includes schools where individuality is celebrated and creativity is nurtured. One way we can move toward this future is by reevaluating the role of school uniforms in our education system. While uniforms are intended to create equality and reduce distractions, they can also suppress students' individuality and self-expression. Imagine a classroom where students are free to choose their attire based on their personal style, preferences, and cultural backgrounds. This freedom can foster a sense of belonging and boost self-esteem, leading to a more engaged and motivated student body. The next parliament has an opportunity to champion this change by supporting policies that allow schools the flexibility to adopt dress codes that embrace individuality while maintaining a focus on respect and inclusivity. By doing so, we can create an educational environment that not only prepares students for academic success but also respects and celebrates who they are. Thank you, Miley, for your contribution. Today is the first sitting day after 7 October, the first anniversary of the horrific attacks on Israeli and other civilians by Hamas backed militants, claiming 1,200 Israeli lives, the most deaths of Jewish people since the Holocaust. Yet, to my horror, there are some people here in Australia who have celebrated the attack, not only immediately in the aftermath but in protests up to this weekend and today. I attended the Israeli embassy last night for a very moving tribute service for the innocent lives lost. The seventh of October should forever be etched in our memories as a time of morning, yet activists have turned it into a day of division. After Israel's retaliatory strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon, brazen individuals in Australia raise the Hezbollah banner, in solidarity with a listed terrorist organisation and in breach of our laws. Not one terrorist sympathiser should remain on a visa in our country. Shamefully, the Labor government, politically stuck between a rock and a Greens place, has lacked leadership and the ticker to stand up to the antisemitic sentiment and to terrorist sympathisers and their political enablers here and across Australia. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 128 17:03 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm delighted to read excerpts from two speeches by young people in the Macquarie electorate for the Raise Our Voice campaign. The first is from Delaney Grima, a year 5 student, and I note that I'm sharing this on a day when koala habitat is being destroyed in the Hawkesbury, to the dismay of many in my community. Delaney writes: For years now, our environment has been wiped out of some wonderful and unique species, such as Koalas and Platypus. Just recently we've seen these animals out in the wild, but not like we used to see them. Now you're lucky if you catch a glimpse of one. The Black Summer bushfires of 2020 wiped out over 75% of the Koala habitat in the Hawkesbury, leaving them with little remaining habitat, making them nearly impossible to see in the wild. The little habitat they have left is being devastatingly lost to land clearing and development. There is currently no Koala Management Plan in the Hawkesbury, even though we have one of the most genetically diverse populations of these breathtaking, unique species. These amazing creatures are now classified as endangered. That's why I believe the Koala population in the Hawkesbury should be mapped for the first time, to protect them and enable us to identify where they are, and when they are there. To do this, groups like the HEN need funding. Last year, your government gave one million dollars to the Hawkesbury Environment Network and Western Sydney University to help protect the Hawkesbury River platypus population by making sure they have a safe, healthy habitat. The future of Hawkesbury's platypus is safe. Let's make sure their iconic buddies, Hawkesbury's Koalas, are also safe and protected for future generations to enjoy. If we work together, we could make the Hawkesbury a leader in the protection of our endangered species. They are Delaney's words, and I was very pleased to deliver that million-dollar election commitment for preserving platypus and improving the platypus habitat. The second speech from the Raise Our Voice entrants comes from Katya. It's her vision for the Blue Mountains. Katya is 17. She writes: Over the past few years, we've seen dramatic changes in the Blue Mountains. The vibrant streets we once knew are now lined with empty shop fronts, victims of skyrocketing rental prices. Our sense of community has been eroding since COVID and the devastating bushfires. Now, we're watching helplessly as long-standing business struggle to stay afloat. The challenges are real, but so is our resilience. As I look to the future, I see our towns renewed, not just recovered. In ten years, I envision a Blue Mountains that reclaims its character—a place where local business thrive, where community spirit flourishes and where young people like me can see a future. She talks about balancing our reliance on tourism with new opportunities, and I endorse her comments. Lyne Electorate: Community Events 129 17:06 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to bring to the attention of the House a bicentennial festival that was held at Rollands Plains, north-west of Port Macquarie. It was one of the earliest agricultural centres of production north of the Sydney basin in early colonial times. Two hundred years of families have lived and worked in the area, first in the sugar cane industry, which was started in the Hastings River and rapidly moved up to the Wilson River and to Rollands Plains. There were historical mementos from multiple generations and multiple families. Hundreds of people returned from around the country, as many people have moved to other places in New South Wales, Queensland and overseas. As well, there were many items of historical memorabilia. The committee put on a wonderful celebration. After that I had the opportunity of attending the wonderful Old Bar Beach Festival, which gets stronger and stronger every year. The Old Bar Beach Festival is held on the October long weekend, and I would like to congratulate the committee for all their efforts to get together a variety of displays. It's obviously well known for its kombi festival with its restored kombi vans—VW Kombis, an icon of car design—as well as many other classic cars and small bikes, all assembled. There are literally hundreds of old cars that have been restored amazingly, and the very best of them are on show at the Old Bar Beach Festival. Also there are megamarkets, fireworks and acrobatics. This year, they even had a movie festival on the Friday night, including a recent movie about kombis and an adventure. Herbie, the old beetle, was also present—the exact replica from the 'Love Bug' movies of the 1960s—and we had the latest electric kombi on display. This committee has done an amazing job. It's a not-for-profit community group. They all do it for the benefit of people who are car nuts and for the communities that live on the coast at Old Bar, west of Taree on the banks of the Manning River. Old Bar has got the nearest beach to this area. So we had people from north and south staying in the district and contributing to the tourism spend. I congratulate all the committee members who put on the bicentennial festival at Rollands Plains and this year's Old Bar Beach Festival. Israel 129 17:09 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Yesterday I joined members of Sydney's Jewish community in the eastern suburbs to commemorate the first anniversary of the shocking 7 October attacks. Together we paused to reflect on the horrific terrorist atrocity that reverberated around the globe a year ago. For our Jewish community, 7 October is a day that carries terrible pain. Over 1,200 innocent people died, and 250 people were taken hostage from their home, 97 of whom remain in tunnels under Gaza today. I unequivocally condemn Hamas's actions on 7 October, and we call for the hostages to be released immediately. This— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:09 to 17:20 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 We all want an end to hostilities in the Middle East, but that cannot occur until the hostages are released. We unequivocally condemn all prejudice and hatred and the antisemitism that has unfortunately sprung up in Australia in the wake of the atrocity, and that includes, unfortunately, in the community that I represent. Kingsford-Smith is home to two synagogues, Coogee Synagogue and Mount Sinai. Coogee has been led by Rabbi Elozer Gestetner and Rebbetzin Miri Gestetner for over 40 years; Rabbi Gestetner is the longest continuously serving rabbi in Australia. The Coogee shul, known as the great little central synagogue by the sea, was founded in 1950 by Holocaust survivors who left the devastation of postwar Europe for a new beginning in our community. And then there's Mount Sinai in Maroubra, which was, again, established by Holocaust survivors. Holocaust survivors are key volunteers at B'nai B'rith Courage to Care in Kensington. Since 1999, this organisation has had a travelling exhibition inspired by many stories of rescue and courage displayed by non-Jews who saved and helped Jews during the Holocaust. The living historians, survivors from the Holocaust including Miryam Wise and Ernie Freelander, share their story of the rescue and survival and explain the support they were given by others. Yet, in 2024, we still have cases of antisemitism in our country. Jewish parents who send their kids to schools such as Mount Sinai in Maroubra should not have to watch their kids go to school surrounded by security guards and fences. We know that local consequences since the Hamas led attacks on October 7 have damaged already strained social cohesion here at home. Whatever your view of the Middle East conflict is, don't bring it back here. Don't bring hatred to Australia. We condemn the antisemitism that has arisen in our society. It must stop. These are acts against our national values. Every Australian deserves to live in peace, free from hatred. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. Sitting suspended from 17:23 to 17:25 BILLS 130 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 130

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

Second Reading 130 17:25 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—let's just call it 'the agreement'—eliminates 98 per cent of tariffs in the trans-Pacific zone. That materially affects the lives of about 580 million people, and now, on 15 December 2024, the United Kingdom will become a member of this partnership. The agreement first came into force on 30 December 2018. Getting countries to agree on the broader issues of trade is, of course, immensely important to us all. Trade is, after all, what makes the world go round, and the world is a complicated place where people have different interests and perspectives and their interests, perspectives and leaderships change, sometimes very rapidly and in unexpected directions. Successful trade between nations depends on a long-term perspective and quick wits. In fact, that's true of all kinds of trade. Trading partners need to find ways to agree so that they can derive mutual benefits. In July 2023 the United Kingdom signed an ascension protocol. The UK had applied for membership in 2021 after its withdrawal from the EU in 2020. It had already begun exploring membership in 2018, holding informal discussions. These discussions raised important points, problems and possibilities. At the time, the UK already exported almost 98 billion pounds worth of goods to the agreement member countries. It was already economically involved with them. This bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to allow the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership to enter into force between Australia and the United Kingdom. With the timely passage of this bill, we will be able to ratify the protocol to ensure that businesses and consumers can immediately benefit from the UK's ascension. With the inclusion of the UK, the agreement will have that material effect on the supply chain across countries as diverse as Brunei, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, as well as, of course, Australia and New Zealand. It is a group of nations who have chosen to agree on important matters that affect them all. Together, we carry significant global economic weight, with more than half a billion people and a combined GDP of US$14.6 trillion. Any state or separate customs territory can actually join us, provided it commits itself to agreement with our collective standards, rules and objectives, and they are impressive. The agreement speaks of creating new opportunities for workers and businesses and contributing to raising living standards. It speaks of reducing poverty and promoting sustainable growth, and it recognises differences in levels of development and diversity of economies. It means what it says and doesn't shy away from the sensitive subjects or possible areas of disagreement. It specifically affirms, for instance, that state owned enterprise can play a legitimate role in the diverse economies, but it adds that fair and open trade and investment should not be undermined by the provision of unfair advantages to them. There is no attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all model. The agreement supports the growth and development of micro, small and medium-sized businesses. Healthy economies not only have a space for them all; they are responsive to the possibilities of innovation such businesses present. The agreement also promotes high levels of environmental protection and declares its support for the protection and enforcement of labour rights and the improvement of working conditions. It promotes transparency, good governance and the rule of law. One of the first requirements and duties of good governance is the elimination of bribery and corruption in trade and investment. Where trade and investment are rigged, economies stand on unsound foundations. Good governance does not mean the enforcement of one set of cultural conceptions over another. The agreement states that trade and investment can expand opportunities to enrich cultural identity and diversity at home and abroad. We can share fundamental principles of essential values and the ideas of human rights without expressing them in exactly the same way. The rule of law does not stand in opposition to diversity. It can and should protect it. The agreement has an objective of contributing to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade. It sees that as a means of providing a catalyst to broader regional and international cooperation, and I believe that's true. If we develop and expand world trade harmoniously we are on the way to understanding how to live together with all our differences. And if we can live together we can cooperate in facing the problems we share. A little over 50 years ago the Whitlam government helped open up the Australian economy to the world. In its 1973 budget, that government implemented a 25 per cent cut in tariffs across the board. All subsequent Australian governments have benefited from the insights of that government and the decisiveness of that leader. Their eyes were set firmly on a better future for Australia—and so are ours. The framers of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership also believed in addressing the future. They spoke of addressing future trade and investment challenges and opportunities and expanding their partnership by encouraging the ascension of other states or separate customs territories in order to further enhance regional economic integration. Prospective members are advised they must have a track record of complying with international trade agreements and they need the consensus support of the existing membership. The UK will indeed become a member on 15 December this year. Passing this bill expeditiously will give Australian business the opportunity to be among the first to benefit from its inclusion. We already have a bilateral free trade agreement with the UK, and that agreement brings us strong and positive market outcomes. To this, we will be adding significant supply chain benefits. Australian manufacturers will be able to use components made in the UK in their production processes and then export the finished goods to other agreement members at preferential tariff rates. There is a great range of choice for Australian manufacturing in its production processes and greater opportunities for export. Greater ranges of choice and greater opportunities are fundamental to national wellbeing and to sustainable futures. The Albanese Labor government wants greater ranges of choice and greater opportunities for Australians of all ages, from early childhood to the oldest of all our people. We want it regardless of career paths and choices and people's individual gifts and talents. We want it regardless of location. One part of Australia should not be privileged over another. We want it for all Australians whether they are born here or choose to make Australia their home. Smart, intelligent trade relationships are fundamental to the future for all of us. The amendments in this bill are needed to finalise Australia's ratification of the protocol on the ascension of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The bill will insert preferential customs duty rates into the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Those rates will only apply to originating goods from the UK. The bill will also insert a method for identifying such goods and provisions to restore general rates of duty for certain goods when and if the UK has in place a safeguard provision applying to equivalent Australian goods. In other words, we're ensuring that this is a mature agreement between independent nations which respects each other's positions and interests. It's smart, it's intelligent and it works for us all. I commend the bill to this House. 17:35 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to support the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill. The coalition are absolutely delighted with the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I will note today in the House we saw former British Prime Minister Liz Truss. She was the trade minister for the UK when she and the member for Wannon, Mr Dan Tehan, negotiated the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has been of great benefit to this country. The UK is a great trading nation. It has a long history of trading around the world and a strong track record of compliance with the trade commitments that all CPTPP members must abide by. The CPTPP is a plurilateral free trade agreement—that's a word I haven't come across previously, but I'm sure Hansard will confirm that it is actually a word—between Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. This is one of the world's most comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreements, eliminating 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone that represents a combined GDP of US$14.6 trillion and a population of 580 million people. The original agreement was signed on 8 March 2018, and entered into force for Australia on 30 December 2018. The United Kingdom is the first non-original member and European country to join the CPTPP and is now set to become the 12th member, and the agreement is expected to enter into force in the second half of 2024—I believe December is the target month. Their addition builds on the foundations of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on 31 May 2023. The UK are a welcome addition to a network of countries committed to free and rules based trade. The accession of the UK will most benefit countries that do not have their own FTA agreement with the UK and there are strategic benefits of the UK's greater engagement in the Indo-Pacific. JSCOT received only three submissions to its inquiry, and they were all supportive. I want to touch on the coalition's record on trade. While acknowledging that most of the free trade agreements have been bipartisan, it was certainly the coalition that negotiated the bulk of our free trade agreements. We're very proud of our record backing Australian businesses to sell their goods and services to the world. We have long led an ambitious trade agenda. Of 16 free trade agreements signed, 13 of them were entered into force under the coalition government. One in five Australian jobs is trade related and, on average, export businesses employ more staff, pay higher wages and achieve higher productivity compared to non-exporters. Between 2013 and 2022, the Liberal-National government finalised 11 trade agreements, including the FTA with the UK and the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement. We implemented nine trade agreements in government, lifting the share of trade covered by FTAs from 27 per cent in 2013 to over 70 per cent by 2022—and this figure lifted to almost 80 per cent when India and the UK FTAs were ratified in 2023. We ratified the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the world's largest free trade agreement. The 15 RCEP signatory states account for around 30 per cent of the world's population and GDP. We signed FTAs with Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Peru and Indonesia as well as regional agreements across the Indo-Pacific and a comprehensive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership, which we're discussing here today. We've actively supported our exporters to diversify export markets to create jobs and economic activity in regional, rural and remote communities, many of which are in my electorate of O'Connor. The rules based multilateral trade system underpins the global economy and bonds country-to-country relations. Moving on from the customs tariff amendment bill that we're discussing here today, I want to touch on the Australia-United Arab Emirates comprehensive economic partnership agreement, which Minister Farrell is in the process of finalising. It's scheduled to be signed off in mid-October and scheduled to come into force in mid-2025. Of course, it has bipartisan support, and the coalition congratulates Minister Farrell and the government on bringing this deal to a close. We also thank our good friends in the United Arab Emirates for their cooperation and assistance in finalising this deal. It is worth $9.96 billion in two-way trade, which is very significant. The main beneficiaries will be alumina producers and farmers from my electorate in Western Australia. That is a great result and, as I say, I applaud Minister Farrell for his work. There is also $20.6 billion in two-way investment—that's from the year 2023—which is a very significant investment between our two countries. I have less applause for the progress on the Australia-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade agreement which has stalled and has not moved in any particular direction recently. That includes the countries of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Kuwait is important. I visited Kuwait in May of this year and had some very interesting conversations. I visited the Al Mawashi feedlot, abattoirs and showrooms, and was hosted by the CEO, Osama Boodai. Mr Boodai showed me their state-of-the-art facilities—their feedlot and abattoir—all ESCAS compliant of course. As the largest importer of Australian live sheep they were very concerned, of course, at the trade implications of the impending—at that stage—government ban and the future of the industry. Of course, it's not just sheep that the Kuwaitis import from Australia. We visited Kuwait flour mills; Australian grain dominates. There's not a loaf of bread or any flour based product in Kuwait that doesn't contain Australian grain. The bulk of that grain comes out of Western Australia, most probably out of my electorate of O'Connor. So, there were great concerns. The Undersecretary of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Mr Ziad Abdullah Alnajem, met with me and expressed his concern about the current government's policy in relation to the import of live sheep for Kuwait. It's a major issue for their country in terms of food security. Of course, they were very concerned about that. While I was in Kuwait I was able to pass on a letter signed by the two largest farm organisations in Western Australia—the Western Australian Farmers Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia—to the Kuwaiti government saying that they did not support the Australian government's position on live exports and that, as the representatives of the Western Australian livestock industry, they were keen to continue what had been a long and prosperous relationship between our two countries. Of course, that message was well received by the Kuwaitis. However, subsequent to that visit, legislation was passed in this place to restrict that trade, a very important trade to the farmers of Western Australia. On that note I will conclude that some progress has been made and the government has achieved some positive outcomes, particularly in relation to the UAE free-trade agreement, live exports and the greater Gulf Cooperation Council. Most of the countries I listed previously are currently importers of live sheep from Western Australia. Of course, Saudi Arabia, which is the largest live sheep export market in the world, earlier this year started to receive Australian sheep for the first time since 2011. So there is enormous opportunity which is potentially going begging in those Gulf countries. The relationships that we have built up, particularly with Kuwait, over many years of that trade stand us in very good stead, as I said. They almost exclusively import Australian wheat for their breadmaking and Australian barley to feed their livestock. These important trade relationships are being put at risk by the current government. If the coalition is successful at the next election to be held in May 2025, we have made it very clear we will be reinstating that trade. I know that the shadow minister, who is with us here today, will be leading the charge to visit those Middle Eastern countries, reinstate that trade and rebuild our trade relationships. 17:46 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I want to commend the member for O'Connor for his contribution, particularly the part at the end about live sheep export. Serving on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I have seen the work he has done advocating for his local community. A true fighter for his industry and his community, I want to commend the member for O'Connor. Trade is such an important part of our country and all of our industries. Agriculture is a large part of my community in Casey and trade is key to that. Australia has a population of around 27 million people. We are a small market in the world. There is a lot of conversation about that small market. When you look at supermarkets and at the 67 per cent market concentration between Woolworths and Coles, there is a lot we need to do. The risk of divestiture is a key part of holding the supermarkets to account, but the government is not prepared to take strong action. Another opportunity we must exploit is trade and that's why this agreement is such great news, because, by having strong free trade agreements, we open up the world. We give suppliers, farmers and businesses an opportunity to diversify and move away from that reliance on the majors. But one of the key elements of trade that makes Australia such a great producer for the world is the clean, green products that we grow and produce here, and a key element of that is our biosecurity regime. One issue that many communities in Victoria have is the risk of fruit fly. As I said, we are well-known for our high-quality foods, we are well-known for being pest free, but we are at risk Queensland fruit fly coming into our community. Just recently, the Victorian Labor government made a decision to abandon the fruit and vegetable industries across our state, putting many families and many farms at risk not only in the short term but also in the long term. The reason that they have put the program at risk is that they have decided to defund the program that was to manage and control Queensland fruit fly until June 2025. Queensland fruit fly is a major pest of concern for our trading partners, particularly those where there are specific biosecurity protocols. Queensland fruit fly, like all other pests and diseases, needs to be effectively managed at the source. If we are not able to do that, if we are not able to control the fruit fly at the source, if it gets into regions like the Yarra Valley and out into Shepparton and other parts of Victoria, it will put those export opportunities at risk. It would diminish the value of free trade agreements and would diminish the value of adding the UK to a free trade agreement. We need to protect it, and that is why I'm calling on the Victorian government and the federal government to work with industry to ensure the future management and control of the Queensland fruit fly, to ensure our horticulture industry continues to grow and export our world-class produce. Make no mistake: this is a test for the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister going to step in and support the fruit industries of Victoria to ensure they stay fruit-fly free? Is she going to hold the Victorian Labor government to account? Is she going to look to fill the funding gap that now exists to ensure that our agricultural industries can take advantage of these agreements? This is a test for the minister. Many on our side will be watching what action this minister takes closely. Will she proactively step in, or will she leave it to the Victorian Labor government, who have failed the agricultural communities of Casey and of Victoria? We will hold her to account to see whether she really understands the agricultural industry and the importance of agriculture in our community. The importance in Casey is more than just the economic importance. I'm proud to say that my family made their lives in Australia when they came from Italy in 1953, establishing a farm in Silvan, in the electorate of Casey. I wouldn't be here today. I wouldn't have the opportunities I have, not just as the member for Casey but as a person, without farming. My uncle Sam recently sold the farm and got out. He's retired, although farmers never retire. His new house looks just like a farm. He spent decades as the president of the Victorian Strawberry Growers Association and the national strawberry growers association. He understands and my community understands that this isn't just about farming and economics. This is about community, and this is about family. Many Italian families created a life for themselves in the Yarra Valley, particularly through strawberry growing but also many other produce markets. Last week we gathered at St Patrick's in Lilydale to pay tribute to one of those leaders in our industry, who tragically passed away. He passed away after a life well lived. We paid tribute to Antonio Molluso. Antonio Molluso was born on 1 January 1934. Like my family, he arrived in Australia in 1953. He passed away on 16 September 2024. While there was some sadness as we paid tribute to Antonio, it was a celebration of a life well lived and a life that continues on through his children and through his grandchildren who I have the honour of knowing and working with. One grandchild in particular, Paul Molluso, works in my office. The Molluso family have made a significant contribution to the community of Casey—the farming community and the wider community. I want to pay my respects to Antonio Molluso for everything that he has given to our community in Casey and everything he has given to his family and the farmers of our area. As we gather this weekend on Friday and Saturday at the Wandin Silvan Field Days, I know many people that were at Antonio's funeral will also be there. We will make sure we pay tribute to him. This Friday and Saturday are the 55th annual Wandin Silvan Field Days. We'll be at the Wandin East Recreation Reserve, which is a wonderful event for locals and farmers to come together. For many in the strawberry industry and the wider fruit industries, it's the last weekend while they're still working that they can have a bit of downtime with their friends before the season actually starts and it's seven days a week 24 hours a day, because strawberries and other fruits don't care if it's Christmas Day. When they need to be picked, they need to be picked. It's an opportunity to get together. We'll also look at farming machinery, technology and industry developments. There's something there for the whole family as well. My kids love coming down. I'll be there with my team to talk to locals, so, if you are there, please come and say hello. I look forward to catching up with many of the farmers of our community, because it is a crucial part of the electorate of Casey and it is a crucial part of my family and many other families in Casey. That's why we're delighted that the United Kingdom has joined the CPTPP, because the UK is a great trading nation within the rules based multilateral trade system and it has a strong track record of compliance, as have all other CPTPP members. This free trade agreement will spread and open new opportunities in the UK for Australian farmers, Australian businesses and Australian food producers, and it builds on the foundation of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement, which started on 31 May 2023 but was entered into and established under the coalition. The coalition has a strong, proud record of backing Australian businesses to allow them to sell their goods and services all over the world, and we've long had an ambitious trade agenda. Of Australia's 16 free trade agreements, 13 were entered into under the coalition, and we know as a trading nation how important that is. As I said at the start, we're a small market, with one in five Australian jobs being trade related. On average, businesses that export their products employ more staff, pay higher wages and achieve higher productivity than non-exporters, and they also have the amazing opportunity to diversify away from the small market and the duopoly in the supermarket business. For many small market players, exporting allows them to build diversification into their business and secure their financial future. Between 2013 and 2022, the coalition finalised 11 free trade agreements, including the FTA with the UK and the economic cooperation and trade agreement with India. The other nine agreements lifted the share of trade covered by FTAs from 27 per cent in 2013 to over 70 per cent. If you include India and the UK, that takes us to 80 per cent, and it's a tribute to that government that it was able to achieve long-lasting economic opportunities for Australia. It shows Australia's standing in the world. If you look at these free trade agreements, at the AUKUS agreement, at the Quad and at the many other global agreements established and maintained under the coalition, it shows the standing that Australia has in the world. We ratified the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the world's largest free trade agreement. The 15 signatories account for around 30 per cent of the world's population and GDP. As I've said, we've actively supported our exporters to diversify export markets and create jobs and economic activity in regional, rural and remote communities. While I've spoken about the importance of trade and free trade agreements, let's be very, very clear: we should never enter into a free trade agreement for the sake of saying we have done so. The conditions that we agree to have to be in Australia's interests and the interests of our farmers and our businesses. I talk not exclusively but specifically about geographic indicators, and I'm going to talk specifically about the issue of Prosecco. I had many in my community and many in the King Valley reach out to me, devastated and outraged about the threat that they were under from Prosecco being included in the European free trade agreement. We as an opposition, and I personally, lobbied the minister for trade not to do that agreement if it included GIs, geographic indicators, that would not only cause challenges to our industry but also create a precedent that would continue to cascade for generations to come. I want to pay tribute, in a genuine and bipartisan way, to the minister for trade for standing strong in those negotiations to make sure we didn't sign that agreement, because it wasn't in the best interests of our country. It wasn't in the best interests of the wineries of the Yarra Valley or the King Valley or any winery across our country, or any agricultural product within our country, because of the precedent it would set. So, while we must always look to expand our trade opportunities as a country, we should only ever do so on the proviso that it is in our best interests. We cannot afford to sell our farmers out for the sake of a free trade agreement. We didn't do it at this time, and every day that I am in this House and in this role, when free-trade agreements come up, I will continue to make sure that the issue of geographic indicators is given the scrutiny it deserves, because they can have such significant ramifications in the short and long term for our community. I am glad we have added the UK to this agreement. Trade is the lifeblood of so many businesses in our country. We need to continue to do more, and I'll make sure I'm always backing greater trade opportunities for Australia and for Casey, as long as it's on our terms and we benefit. 18:01 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I join my colleague the member for Casey and other coalition speakers in welcoming the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, indicating our support for it and, I suppose, also welcoming the United Kingdom to the world of having sovereignty over their own trade policy, because, indeed, it has only become an option for them in the last few years, since they left the European Common Market, to make decisions like entering the TPP framework. Teddy Heath's decision in 1973, from memory, to enter the European Common Market was a really dark day for the Commonwealth of Nations and particularly for this great country and the economic relationship that we had with the United Kingdom. Many Australians, and particularly Australian businesses, saw that decision of the United Kingdom as one that saw them turning their backs on Commonwealth nations like Australia that had had a very deeply intertwined economic relationship with the UK until that point. My grandfather was the general manager of Mount Isa Mines, and in the fifties, sixties and seventies Australian companies, particularly mining companies, transacted all their sales through London. The London Metal Exchange was where Australians sold copper to the Japanese and so on and so forth. We were very interlinked with London, and, whilst we are happy to have the economic independence that we have today, it was disappointing to see the UK market closed off to so many Australian producers through the UK's decision to enter the European Common Market. What that has been for decades is a complete protection racket for poor-quality producers against efficient producers like Australia. For decades and decades, Australian produce, particularly agricultural produce, struggled to compete in the European market, including in the United Kingdom, because it wasn't a level playing field. The protectionism, the tariff situation, the subsidy situation and the rationing of production—all of the various instruments that were available under that Common Agricultural Policy to all members of the European Economic Community, which became the EU and still operates to this day as a common market—conspired against Australian producers. Then, of course, we had the situation where trade wars would start to occur between North America and Europe, and it was a race to see who could protect their industries the most. Australia often got deeply caught in the crossfire of that and was majorly impacted by that crossfire. To be fair, governments of the Labor persuasion, like the Hawke government, really called that out quite effectively, with things like the formation of the Cairns Group—which Australia led, of course, which is why it is called the Cairns Group—a group of like-minded nations that wanted to see trade liberalisation and see things like the TPP come to fruition but, more importantly than that, see the World Trade Organization come into its establishment. That happened with the Uruguay Round from 1986 to 1993 and the signing of the GATT in 1994. In 1995, the WTO finally came into existence, superseding the GATT 1947 regime, which had been relatively ineffective in achieving what everyone, particularly Australia, wanted it to, which was a fair and even playing field for the free trade of goods. This country has never been frightened of competing out there in a free, deregulated global marketplace. In fact, we know, as a nation of—I think we're about to tick up to 27 million people in population. We are a comparatively small country with great abundance and the ability to produce certain commodities, in particular, in dramatic surplus to our domestic needs. That means that we need export markets and the opportunity to sell what we produce here not just to ourselves but to any nation around the world that wants to trade with us. We've agreed that the reciprocity of that means us equally not protecting industries in our country that might struggle to compete on a level playing field with others. The breakdown of that protected trade tariff structure that commenced in the 1980s caused some collateral damage and some challenges to certain sectors in this country, and I worked in one of them myself, in the textile sector. We lost an enormous amount of textile manufacturing here in this country. As soon as the tariff walls fell, that obviously meant that countries with a comparative advantage in textile manufacturing—which in particular, regrettably, is the cost of labour—were able to easily compete and provide the same goods at a lower cost than Australian manufacturing. But we recognised—in particular, the Hawke and Keating government recognised—that the trade-off was going to increase the wealth of this country. Whilst we wouldn't sew together as many T-shirts as we had in the past and we might not, unfortunately, have the scale in our economy to maintain an unprotected whitegoods sector, for example—we've even lost the car industry in the decades since—the economic dividend of free trade would still mean that Australians would be wealthier. That has proved to be absolutely 100 per cent true. The economy that we are in right now, the strength of our economy and the abundance that we have in this nation are thanks to free trade and not being fearful of competition but embracing it. This legislation that we have before us provides an opportunity for us to make the changes in our domestic legislation that we need to to accommodate United Kingdom joining the TPP. Some might wonder at the United Kingdom joining a Pacific trade forum, but it's always been the principle of the TPP that, where people seek to join it and where they are prepared to sign up to the framework that the TPP has in place, absolutely anyone is welcome. It's regrettable, frankly, that there aren't more people in the TPP than there currently are. It's regrettable that there are parts of the world, particularly our great friend the United States—in their politics, both Democrats and Republicans have really shifted quite a bit from what their attitudes to free and open markets were in the years and decades gone by. Both sides of politics in the United States have gone down a path of embracing increased protectionism. We in this country, thankfully, have not had the same intent or inclination from our political discourse—quite the reverse. There hopefully is consensus amongst the major parties in our national politics that free trade and open markets have been an overwhelmingly good thing for Australian industry, Australian jobs and Australian wealth, in particular in our resources sector and our agricultural sector. We are one of the few nations on the planet to have a trade surplus with China. It is quite remarkable. There are hardly any countries that can say they have a trade surplus with China, and we have an enormous one with China. That's in an environment where we import a lot of product from China. So immense and so significant are our exports to China that they dramatically outweigh what we buy from China, and that's an overwhelmingly good thing. We've had strong trade surpluses for a long time now, particularly under the previous coalition government, that have endured, so far, under this government. Trade surpluses clearly, obviously and patently provide a dramatic uplift of wealth to our nation because we're selling more product to other markets than we're purchasing into our economy from other markets. The wealth of this nation is dramatically served by us embracing and achieving the dividend of free open markets. This bill welcomes the United Kingdom into the TPP. It doesn't have a dramatic impact on our economic relationship with the United Kingdom because we have a free trade agreement directly with them, but it brings them into this community and this vehicle, the TPP. That is a big opportunity to continue to have its membership expanded. It would be great to have other genuine membership candidates come into the TPP—membership candidates that understand, respect and want to embrace the principles of the TPP. It would also be good—I might indulge in my final few remarks—to see the World Trade Organization process and the next round of negotiations have some life breathed back into them. It is very disappointing that we haven't had any significant progress when it comes to the WTO rules and framework and further liberalisation of the multilateral system since the Uruguay Round. There's not been that significant progress we hoped would have happened in the intervening 30 years since the WTO came into existence with the successful conclusion of Uruguay. There have been some unsuccessful rounds and unsuccessful attempts to see further liberalisation of trade. We in Australia are consistent and have a very strong record of always seeking and embracing opportunities in good faith to engage in trade liberalisation. We know it's good for the wealth of this nation. We know that free trade, open markets and open economies also provide a great collateral benefit of peace. When we're trading with each other and when we're integrated from an economic point of view, there is dramatically less incentive for conflict. So many conflicts were caused because of protected markets and a lack of free and open interaction economically between nations, and we know that trade liberalisation will achieve the reverse impact there. I welcome the entry of the United Kingdom. I commend them for joining the TPP. I hope there are other opportunities for similar bills to be brought to us when other good-faith negotiations or applications to be in the TPP progress to this stage. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House. 18:13 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I echo the fine words by the member for Sturt, who, as he explained, is very much across these issues and the importance generally of trade. I'm glad that we also have in the chamber, as I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, the member for Hinkler, who was the assistant trade minister between 19 July 2016 and 20 December 2017, following on from the former member for Moncrieff, Steven Ciobo. In his time he worked hard on negotiations for ACCEP and he was involved heavily in what was a year of tourism with China, our largest trading partner. He did a lot of negotiation in the Pacific, such as in Tonga and elsewhere, and I commend him for the work he did in that trade role. Of course, we had the former member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, follow on in that role, along with the current member for Parkes as an assistant trade minister. I also want to acknowledge the efforts, whilst we were in coalition government between 2013 and 2022, of former member for Goldstein Andrew Robb. I've mentioned the former member for Moncrieff, Steven Ciobo, and I also want to mention Senator Simon Birmingham and the current member for Wannon in particular. Trade is important. When we concluded our terms in office, 71.3 per cent of trade and exports were covered by free trade agreements. When we took office in 2013, that number was around a quarter, 25 per cent. When we left office, it was nearly three-quarters. What does that mean? If you believe in the concept that around one in five jobs in Australia are dependent on trade—it's probably more likely one in four—it underpins the Australian economy. I know the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, in his budget last year couldn't bring himself to talk about coal and iron ore and those wonderful mining exports. He just talked about 'the things we sell overseas', but it's critical that we acknowledge that what those exports have done is to help us to reach a budget surplus twice. The high price that is being paid globally for iron ore and coal, in particular, has helped us reach budget surplus twice. It has very little to do with the member for Rankin and Labor's policies but a lot to do with what we do in regional areas. I note that today the former British Prime Minister—albeit briefly—Liz Truss was on the floor of the parliament, and I certainly went over and welcomed her. I actually felt sorry for her. While she was Prime Minister, I think she got the raw end of the pineapple, which is very much an Australian colloquialism. She came in at a difficult time and received no help from some of her colleagues. She worked with the then trade minister, the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan, to work through trade relations with Australia before she took over the high office at No. 10 Downing Street. It's important to note that while in office we undertook 1,230 major transport projects which supported 100,000 jobs—100,000 jobs which were also underpinned largely by trade. If you have the right infrastructure, like road networks, rail support systems and seaports—and obviously we invested heavily in airports as well—you can boost trade. Any self-respecting member, and certainly every regional member, knows that only too well, because it's regional areas which before, during and after COVID—not that we're out of the woods yet by any means—have supported our trade, our balance of payments, and this is what this bill is about. When you think about the more than 1,200 mobile black spot base stations funded by the former coalition government, these are also critical for trade. The reason they're critical for trade is that, particularly with the deregulation of the wheat industry, so many of our farmers are now reliant on making their own trade deals and their own market deals, so they need good mobile phone coverage, and they've got it. We're certainly working on improving access for our farmers to markets all around the world. The opposition is supportive of this particular legislation. We understand that this involves a plurilateral free trade arrangement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. The agreement was signed on 8 March 2018, back when we were in government, and entered into force for Australia on 30 December 2018. Our relations in the Pacific and our wider trade agreements have never been more critical than right now. As coalition members, as members who understand trade, as members who fostered trade, as members who want to see more trade with more partners, we appreciate this agreement is one of the world's most comprehensive and ambitious trade agreements. It eliminates all but two per cent of tariffs in the trade zone, which represents a combined GDP of US$14.6 trillion and a population of 580 million people. That is a lot of people. We are absolutely delighted with the accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP. The UK, as the member for Sturt outlined, has long been, has always been, a great trading nation. It started back in the late 1700s. With the rules based multilateral trade system obviously having a big say on this, the UK possesses a strong track record of compliance with trade commitments that all CPTPP members must have in place. The UK is the first non-original member and European country to join the CPTPP and is now set to become the 12th member, and we welcome that. Australia once traded on the back of our sheep, our wool, our sheepmeat. We very much were largely riding on our luck; our fortune rode on the back of a sheep. That is not the case anymore; although our sheep farmers are very important to us, and, certainly as the member for Riverina, I know that full well. While I talk about sheep, I am disappointed about the ban of the live sheep export trade because I think that it sends a very bad message to the Gulf states, to the Middle East, about trade. It does. The phasing out of that trade up to 2028 is a bad move and it will be reversed when next we get into government, and hopefully that will be if not later this year—a certain feeling in the air today—then maybe next year. I hear the little laugh from the member for Hasluck there. You can sense there's something in the offing. I think Labor are clearing the decks, and hopefully the voters will clear the decks at the next election. But as I say, the UK's addition builds on the foundations of the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on 31 May 2023. I want to pay special tribute to the member for Wannon for the negotiations that he did with Ms Truss and others to bring about stronger trade relations with the UK. When I say 'stronger', they've always been strong, but he enhanced them. He further developed them. This arrangement that this bill helps us to enter into and that puts Australia's seal on it will enhance the UK's engagement in the Indo Pacific in support of shared prosperity, security and regional stability. The transpacific area is very volatile at the moment. It is very important that we get the geopolitical balance right, and we are. When we talk about the Pacific, I would like to think Australia speaks as one. I have been to Pacific areas with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, with the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and certainly with Senator Birmingham to ensure that the Pacific Islands know, as the Prime Minister has put many times, that we are their first nation of choice, that we are their preferred partner. I don't agree with everything the Prime Minister utters, but I do agree with him very much on that score. The UK is a welcome addition to a network of countries committed to free and rules based trade. That phrase, 'free and rules based trade', in itself is very important, because not everybody always plays by the rules. I know we have the World Trade Organization, which is very much there as the referee or umpire, but Australia always plays by the rules. As the member for Sturt said and as the member for Hinkler knows, we produce the finest quality food and fibre, and we do expect to be treated, when we sell our wares overseas, in a free and rules based order. When we aren't, we will complain and take action, because Australia deserves no less. As I say, we, the Liberals and Nationals, have a very proud track record of backing Australian farmers, businesses and Australian miners to be able to sell to the world, because we've always been a trading nation. We have been in the past, we are now and we will certainly be that in the future, irrespective of whatever policies are put in place by those opposite to potentially shut down a lot of our mining interests. We as a government had an ambitious trade agenda. Of Australia's 16 free trade agreements in place at the moment, 13, all but three, entered into force under coalition governments. That was due to the hard work of the member for Hinkler, who is behind me, and those others I mentioned. As I said, one in five Australian jobs is trade related. I'd almost say it's higher. On average, exporting businesses employ more staff, pay higher wages and achieve higher productivity than those which are just domestic suppliers and non-exporters. Between 2013 and 2022, the coalition government finalised 11 trade agreements, including the FTA with the UK and the economic cooperation and trade agreement with India, and they weren't easy to do. You would think that the UK one would almost be a tick and flick, but indeed the Australia deal, when it was finalised, was described as one of Ms Truss's aides as the hardest thing she had ever got through. That's according to Wikipedia—and, of course, Wikipedia's always right! But it would be accurate on that score. I know, having spoken to the member for Wannon, that it wasn't easy or straightforward, but it was achieved, and it was achieved because of the good work of the coalition and because the world knows that we produce the best food and fibre anywhere. We implemented nine trade agreements in government, lifting the share of trade covered by such agreements from about a quarter—the figure was 27 per cent in 2013—to more than 70 per cent. When you take into account the India and UK FTAs, that takes it above 80 per cent, so we had a good track record. I'm very supportive of whatever Labor can do to build on that. Indeed, that is why this bill is important. It's important as a representation to our farmers that the government supports them. On many issues, unfortunately, the government have shown by their policies that they don't. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 138 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Housing 138 18:29 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The housing crisis currently affecting millions of people across Australia is not new; it has been brewing for decades. It is a direct result of policy failure, poor planning and neglect by successive governments. It's extraordinary that in one of the least populated countries in the world we have some of the world's most expensive housing. For too long housing has been treated as a commodity, as something to be bought or sold for profit rather than as a basic human right. This approach has left many Australians without access to secure, affordable, stable housing. The consequences of this crisis are devastating—rising homelessness, housing stress and entire generations shut out of homeownership. Property speculation and a market oriented approach to housing have driven prices to record highs while wages have failed to keep pace. Young people, low-income earners and older single women are among those disproportionately impacted, with many facing the very real prospect of never being able to own their own home and struggling to find a rental they can afford. At the heart of the housing crisis is a critical shortage of supply. Australia has one of the lowest rates of housing stock per capita in the developed world. This government has a target to build 1.2 million new homes by 2030, but at the current pace of construction we're not going to get anywhere near that mark. Over the years we've seen a raft of bad bandaid solutions floated to address the issue—policies like suggesting young people raid their superannuation to put together a deposit. That would just increase the competition for entry-level homes, put up house prices and only help investors. Governments are entrenching intergenerational inequity by expecting young people to bear the brunt of the housing crisis. The reality is that the market, left to its own devices, cannot and will not meet the housing needs of all Australians. We need federal, state and local government to see this as the crisis that it is and to work on it together. We need a housing accord with more forward planning and cooperation and less arguing and politicking. Social and public housing is essential to solving the housing crisis. Unlike the profit-driven private market, it provides stable and affordable homes for vulnerable Australians, including low-income earners, older adults, people with disability and those who are fleeing domestic violence. Increased investment in social and public housing would also develop and deliver cost-effective economic benefits via job creation and increased productivity. People in stable housing are healthier. They are able to participate more in the workforce and are less reliant on public services. Right now, more than 100,000 Australians are on social housing waitlists. But that's an underestimation because we know many don't even bother to apply; they know the waitlist is just too long. Meanwhile, the private rental market continues to fail those who rely on it. Rental vacancies are at historic lows. Rents have risen dramatically, which is putting pressure on renters who are already struggling with the cost of living. Far too many people are putting too much of their income into rent. They're in rental stress and at constant risk of eviction. It's time that we increase the stock of social and public housing in Australia. This shouldn't be seen as a short-term fix; it should be seen as a long-term investment in the health and wellbeing of our country. Building more public housing will reduce homelessness. It will alleviate pressure on the private rental market. It will also ensure that essential workers—nurses, teachers, aged-care workers and childcare workers—can live near their places of work without being priced out of the market. In addition to the increasing number of public housing units that we need, we also need to improve the condition of existing social housing stock. Much of Australia's public housing is in dire need of maintenance and upgrades. Investment in refurbishment of these homes will give tenants a better quality of life while also making housing more energy efficient and sustainable. There are clear solutions to this crisis. The federal government's recent commitment to the Housing Australia Future Fund was just a small step in the right direction. We need a bolder and more ambitious plan to significantly expand the availability of housing in this country. This could include working with state and local governments to identify suitable land for new developments and then offering incentives to build well-designed and affordable homes in areas of high demand. A perfect opportunity lies in the 2.5 hectares of Crown land at the former VicRoads site in Kew, in my electorate of Kooyong. This disused site is ideally suited for a sustainable high-quality development, but the Victorian state government has not yet committed to mandating a significant portion of social and affordable housing in that development. Secondly, we need to implement policies that discourage property speculation, empty homes and land banking. We just can't have developers sitting on approvals for housing projects waiting for prices to rise while Australians are struggling to find homes. As many as 15 per cent of homes in many suburbs are empty. Vacant properties and unused developmental sites could be put to use immediately to alleviate the critical housing shortage. Thirdly, government should consider innovative approaches to housing policy. For example, extending tax incentives to build-to-rent projects, which could increase the availability of affordable rental housing. Similarly, encouraging private investors to partner with community housing providers, which will then help deliver more homes for those who are in need. We need that development to be done right, transparently and with input from communities. Again, residents in my electorate of Kooyong have recently expressed real apprehension about the state government's plan to construct as many as 10,000 additional homes within Camberwell Junction and Camberwell Junction Activity Centre. Those residents have voiced very appropriate concerns about the potential impact on local community, on heritage, on infrastructure, on services, on green spaces and on amenity. Residents in my part of the world understand that Camberwell potentially offers a really appropriate suite of infrastructure, amenity and services—and it could well support additional housing. They overwhelmingly agree on the need for additional social, affordable and public housing in our community. There's considerable concern within Kooyong about the lack of housing for low-income households in the state government's plans for development of the Camberwell Junction area. We have been given no assurance that a significant proportion of the proposed dwellings will be affordable, and the recent changes to the local building codes that have been put through by the state government, again without transparency, raise significant concerns about the potential for mass production of poorly designed and unsustainable units built for rapid sale by developers, not for long-term owner-occupiers. Given the very significant land, labour and material costs and the existing skill shortages in the building industry, social and affordable housing could be provided in this and in adjacent suburbs, but only with significant government subsidies. Residents in my electorate suburbs of Camberwell, Kew, Hawthorn, Canterbury, East Hawthorn—all areas affected by this potential development—feel that we need a significant and genuine commitment to the inclusion of affordable housing by the state government. We don't want a token gesture of insignificant proportions. The Victorian government had a real opportunity on this occasion to involve local communities in the journey towards greater density and diversification of housing options in our community, but this was an opportunity that it failed to pursue. It failed to consult the community and is now experiencing significant backlash and a loss of social licence. The major parties have failed to plan for Australia's housing needs, and now a whole generation of Australians is losing hope of ever being able to afford their own home. This is not just a matter of policy; it is a matter of fairness and of justice. Everyone deserves the dignity of safe, secure and affordable housing. Australians know that the housing crisis can only be addressed by sweeping reform, not by bandaid solutions. Every policy lever needs to be pulled, including government investment in public and social housing, addressing skilled labour shortages in the construction trades, reducing disincentives for downsizing, solving the problems of vacant properties and land banking, and building more homes in areas close to public transport, jobs and schools. The political parties, the major parties need to stop tinkering on the margins of this problem and stop bickering for political points. They need to get on with the job of making housing affordable for all Australians. Grocery Prices, Housing 140 18:39 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Australia has one of the most concentrated grocery markets in the world. The duopoly of Coles and Woolworths account for 70 per cent of all supermarket sales in Australia, and Australian consumers and producers know that they have got a bad deal. The move by the ACCC to launch legal proceedings against both Coles and Woolworths alleging breaches of the Consumer Law paints a picture of some of the dodgy practices that the supermarket duopoly may have used. People feel angry and I think they have every right to. If these allegations are true, it is incredibly disappointing to see how Coles and Woolworths have conned consumers into thinking that items were on sale when they were not. At the same time as they have been making consumers pay more, they have driven down prices for Australian producers. The duopoly of Coles and Woolworths is not a recent phenomenon. They have had significant market share now for decades. While the coalition were in government for almost a decade, they did little to alleviate this duopoly squeeze on households and producers. But what are we doing about it? The Albanese Labor government is doing something to stop the squeeze on Australian consumers and producers. We have released draft new legislation to tighten regulations and a draft mandatory code of conduct, essentially the rulebooks by which these supermarkets must play by. What we inherited from the former government was a toothless and ineffective voluntary code of conduct. Under the voluntary code, supermarkets were able to appoint their own arbiters, so you question their independence. Supermarkets could opt out of provisions of the code by overwriting them in their grocery supply agreements. There was very little recourse for retributive actions taken by supermarkets against producers, so you could imagine if you were growing apples in Bilpin New South Wales and one of the major supermarkets breached the voluntary code of conduct, it would be very unlikely that you would make a complaint, because who else would you be able to sell your apples to? We know that this voluntary code of conduct was ineffective because there were only five complaints made by suppliers in four years from 2021 until 2024. However, the mandatory code of conduct that we are proposing will be binding on all supermarkets with annual revenues exceeding $5 billion, so that will include Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and Metcash. There will be a minimum standard that cannot be contracted out in grocery supply agreements. It will contain—and this is an important point—provisions to guard against retribution against suppliers. So if you are an Australian producer getting a bad deal, you can make a complaint and know that the supermarkets will not be able to retaliate. There will be a direct and confidential complaint mechanism to the ACCC and, importantly, strong financial penalties. Under the voluntary code it was penalties in the thousands, little more than a slap on the wrist. What we are proposing is penalties of $10 million per incident or 10 per cent of turnover. We are also implementing the recommendations of the review of the food and grocery code of conduct. We have funded Choice to monitor grocery prices and have directed the ACCC to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the supermarket sector. So the contrast is clear: while the coalition did nothing for nine years, they are now dramatically over-correcting, with a senior coalition member, Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie, saying that supermarkets should be forced to divest themselves, which would only make the problem worse. If one supermarket was forced to divest, the only likely buyer in the market would be the other major supermarket, therefore providing a greater concentration of market power here. It is a populist notion that will make the situation worse. Supermarkets need to do the right thing by Australians, and the Albanese government is committed to improving the food and grocery sector so it works for families and farmers. While the coalition have sat on their hands about trying to alleviate the cost of living for my constituents, both the Greens and the coalition are now actively preventing the Labor government from getting 40,000 more people into homes during a housing crisis under our proposed shared equity scheme. Today, the Albanese government brought back into parliament our bill to make it easier for low- and middle-income Aussies to buy their own home. Labor has a simple belief that ordinary Australians should be able to own their own homes. The coalition, on the other hand, doesn't see a role for government in helping Australians into homes. They would rather stay at arm's length and wait for an entirely market based solution to materialise. The Greens, on the other hand, seem to oppose people owning homes altogether, and they appear to want to build homes everywhere except in their own electorates, with Greens members at the council, state and federal levels coming out in vocal opposition to new homes being built in their local areas. The Greens are the ultimate NIMBYs. They are making a lot of noise about making homes more affordable, but it all adds up to a lot of nothing, because, for the Greens, the grievance of nothing is always better than the practical solution of something. The Help to Buy scheme isn't everything, it's not going to solve the housing crisis, but it is a part of the solution. We've had a number of attempts to reach agreement with the coalition and the Greens to help people who need it the most, but the truth is the Greens, in particular, don't want to see this bill pass parliament. Every time they've had a chance to help renters or potential buyers, they have rejected it. They would prefer to have a fight because it suits them politically. My parents were able to buy a home within five years of arriving in this country. They live in that same house today, and it was the foundation that allowed my family to thrive here. That foundation ought to be made available to all Australians, but, unfortunately, it is not. It is getting harder for so many to put a roof over their heads. I'm proud of the work the Albanese Labor government has done to increase housing supply. In the last budget alone, we provided more funding to build homes than the coalition government did in their entire nine years in power. The contrast there could not be more stark. We provided more funding in the last budget alone than the coalition were able to do in their entire nine years in power. Housing affordability is at a genuine crisis point, and we must find solutions to ensure all Australians have a place to call home. We should support planning reforms and strengthening the rights of renters, but the real answer to improving housing affordability is supply. Building more homes of any type, market or non-market, the government stepping in to build homes and the private sector stepping into built homes—it should all be part of the mix, so it is incredibly frustrating when the Greens, the Liberals and the Nats join up in the Senate to block the legislation we've put forward to reduce the cost of housing for our most vulnerable homeowners. My message to the Liberals, the Nats and the Greens is to back the Help to Buy Bill, because 40,000 Australians can't afford to wait while you play politics with their future. Cost of Living 141 18:48 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Deputy Speaker Wilkie, you've been around this place for a while. I know you're a member of parliament that would be in tune with your community. We have the pleasure of having the member for Hinkler in the chamber as well, and I know he's very much in tune with the people in his community. I know that you're hearing, the member for Hinkler's hearing and I'm hearing that issue No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10— I could keep going, but you get the idea—issue 1 to 10 and on, is cost of living. We have families who are really, really doing it tough. They're really worried every day about their family budget, worried every day about how much money they've got to spend on food for their family, for their children, worried if they can afford to send their children on an excursion, worried if they've got enough money to put petrol in the car for where they need to go this week and the list goes on and on. The disappointing thing about this is that this government is a bit late to the party in seeing that this is an issue. I say this to people in the community, and the people under pressure believe me, but sometimes I'll talk to members of the press and say, 'The average family is about $35,000 a year worse off.' They go: 'How do you come up with that? That's obviously the typical thing that an opposition would say.' I then refer them to the people who do this analysis. They then work it out and go, 'Oh, yes.' Over $20,000 of that figure is in mortgage repayments. The average mortgage in Australia is around $700,000 to $800,000. Some people have more. I probably shouldn't name him, but my son has a bigger mortgage than that. He's a 27-year-old. He's just bought a place in Sydney for a lot of money. There are a lot of people with more than a $700,000 or $800,000 mortgage. Under this government, we've had interest rates go up 11 times. They'll make up a whole lot of reasons, blame other people or not accept responsibility—'Don't look here. It's got nothing to do with us'—but mortgage rates have gone up 11 times under them. You can say, 'They can't help that,' but the thing is that before the election in 2022, Deputy Speaker—I'm sure you remember this—they said that mortgages would be cheaper under them. Work that out. The other things that have made the other $10,000 are that health costs are up, education's up, food's up, housing's up, rents are up, finance and insurance are up and energy costs are up. Gas alone is up 33 per cent, but energy costs are up an enormous amount of money too. You might say, 'Why is that the government's fault?' It's the government's fault because the government misled the Australian public before the election. You might say, 'Everyone gets it wrong,' but before the election, on 90-odd occasions, the Prime Minister said that your electricity bill was going to go down by $275. Not only did he say that, but he actually said that that was the most modelled government policy in the history of the country from opposition. Not only was he saying it was going to go down, but he was saying, 'We're going to stand by this because the modelling we have on this is the most sophisticated by an opposition in Australian political history. Even after the election he was saying this for a little while, but then about two months after the election, suddenly he was like, 'Uh-oh, maybe this isn't going to happen,' and they won't mention the figure again. Then they have the hide—because they don't accept responsibility and they don't say, 'We got it wrong'—to blame other things or other people. In this case, for a while, they were blaming the Ukraine war, but the timing was unfortunate for them. The Ukraine war had started well before the election. Yet, pre the election and post the election, they were still saying that they were going to bring down energy prices. The other thing that we don't hear from the government is—the Reserve Bank is under a lot of pressure. 'Bully' is a bit strong, I suppose, but the Treasurer and others in the government are really pressuring the Reserve Bank to bring down interest rates. As the Reserve Bank has said, a lot of this is homegrown inflation. This isn't inflation necessarily because of external issues. The Australian government has increased spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. That's inflationary. Some of the results of the industrial relations legislation—you can say, 'People need higher wages to keep up with inflation,' but it can be a revolving circle of one trying to catch the other. A lot of the decisions by the government are going to mean that inflation in this country is going to stay higher for longer. That's not me saying that. That's professional financial analysts and economists saying that. Here we are in Australia with a government that was misleading about when before the election they said that mortgages were going to be cheaper and energy was going to be cheaper, and then suddenly all bets are off once they win, and none of that happens. I was being misleading too. I said at the start that they're a bit late coming to the party on this. Interest rates were going up from almost the first month they were in—they were going up and up. For the first year, the government wasn't talking about cost-of-living increases. We were. Very early on, we were saying to the government: 'Cost of living is going up. You need to get on this. You need to get on it early. You need to make decisions that are going to make life easier for families in Australia.' But for 18 months they were distracted by a whole lot of other things. They weren't talking about the cost of living at this time last year, and the cost of living was raw this time last year. This time last year, they'd just spent $450 million and were dividing the country on a race referendum, the Voice referendum. There was no talk about the cost of living then. They were distracted by a whole lot of other issues. As to energy, I'm here with the member for Hinkler, and I almost feel humbled speaking about energy in front of him. He's forgotten more about energy, how it works and what drives its prices and production than most people in this chamber know about energy. The government's energy policies, with their reckless renewables-only policy, mean that energy prices have gone up. The countries who have the most reliance on renewables have the highest prices. This reckless policy the government have means that our energy prices have gone up in the last two years, and some of this is on the back of the government's policies. One thing they never want to talk about is some of the costs associated with this, but let's talk about one of them. Intuitively, you think: 'Okay, the sun shines and the wind blows, and that's free, right? You don't have to generate it.' The member for Hinkler just shook his head, because it's a fallacy. And why is it a fallacy? It's because the wind doesn't blow all the time. Member for Hinkler, please interject if I'm wrong, but I think the wind blows 30 to 40 per cent of the time. Mr Pitt 148150 That's correct. Mr HOGAN 218019 There you go. I knew that it's lower for solar. How much is solar? You can bet on how much? Mr 148150 Twenty-two per cent. Mr HOGAN 218019 Twenty-two per cent. I was going to say that it was higher than that. It's lower than I thought. So when the sun's shining you can rely on the sun for—let's round it to 25 per cent of the time. The wind's blowing for just over 30 per cent of the time. The issue that makes renewables expensive is that you need a backup, whether that's battery technology that doesn't even exist yet; gas, which we will obviously need to look at; or a baseload that needs to be ready to go when they're not working. All that adds to the cost of your energy. The other thing they don't like talking about or never mention is, of course, the 28,000 kilometres of new transmission systems, poles and wires that you're going to have to build. Of course, when we were in government, we had a solar program for solar panels for people's roofs. It's pretty simple. Those are connected to the poles-and-wires system right now. But where you need to build these wind turbines and solar panels on mass scale is where there are no poles, wires and transmission systems. That's, we think, $100 billion, and probably more, to build that. That seems to be an off-balance-sheet consideration. We're not really taking that into account when we're looking at people's prices. Again, there's a whole lot of fallacies around that, so don't expect your energy bills to be coming down under this lot. In fact, unfortunately, not only should you not expect your energy bills to be coming down; you should expect the lights to be potentially going out soon as well. Again, there have been lots of bad decisions by this government. Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I know you agree with me on issues 1 to 10. You might not agree with everything else I said today, but I know you agree with me on that. Unfortunately there are many, many decisions and many, many policies that this government is making that are accentuating the cost-of-living crisis in this country. I didn't even get onto the housing issue. I didn't even mention the 1.2 million people who have come into the country over the last few years, without enough houses to house them, which gives us our rent and housing crisis as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Page. I would agree it would be within 1 to 10, but maybe not 1 to 10 inclusive. Future Made in Australia, Youth Voice in Parliament Week, Australian Capital Territory Election 143 18:58 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean For a moment I was concerned that we might have daylight saving to blame for the reliability of solar power as well! I rise this evening to bring a number of issues to the House's attention. Firstly, I want to speak on the important work this government is doing to build a future made in Australia. I am aggrieved that this is a controversial topic being held up in the other place. The plan for a future made in Australia is about attracting and enabling investment; making Australia a renewable energy superpower; value-adding to our resources and strengthening economic security; backing Australian ideas, innovation, digital technology and science; and investing in people and places. These are not controversial matters, you would think. This country has critical and abundant natural endowments and a highly skilled workforce. It is well positioned to strengthen priority supply chains and become an indispensable part of the net zero global economy. This isn't about government replacing private investment. This is about government being a catalyst for investment, unlocking the private capital to build new projects, create new jobs and drive growth and prosperity. This will be complemented by a reform that holds no-one back and drives progress that leaves no-one behind, doing so in a way that better aligns our national security with our economic security. Just as the US, UK, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Canada and so many nations around the world are safeguarding themselves against the next global shock, whether it's conflict, a pandemic, a cyberattack or another international energy crisis, Australia must follow suit. To do this, the government is investing $91 million over the next five years to accelerate the development of the clean energy workforce through expanded access to the New Energy Apprenticeship Program and investments in VET clean energy courses. It will mean investing in our people and in places like the CIT in Woden, in the heart of my electorate of Bean. We are expanding support for women training in male-dominated industries through $55.6 million for the Building Women's Careers Program and $38.2 million to support diversity in science, technology, engineering and maths. It's a part of the government's targeted approach to meeting skills needed for a future made in Australia, including $68.4 million to attract and retain the skilled industrial workforce needed to support Defence industrial priorities. I had the privilege of joining the Prime Minister a number of weeks ago on his visit to Geoscience Australia in my electorate—he is the first Prime Minister to visit Geoscience Australia, if you can believe that!—to see how we are making the most of our natural resources. We learnt how minerals such as copper, lithium, nickel and cobalt are essential components in many clean energy technologies, from wind turbines and solar panels to electric vehicles. We were treated to a demonstration of how lithium is used to power batteries, along with the sediment exhibition, an ores map with samples and an opal. What can I say but this visit rocked! Mr 276714 Apologies, Member for Werriwa. It was a reminder that we have a unique opportunity to build on our vast minerals to fuel not only Australia's transition to net zero but the world's. Making more things here in Australia, making our nation a renewable energy superpower and making our economy more resilient and more secure is something that we should all be able to support. It shouldn't be controversial to ensure that we seize those opportunities and share them with people and communities in every part of our nation. I urge those in the Senate to support our government's plans for a future made in Australia. This year, I'm participating in Raise Our Voice's Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, and tonight I am proud to read out some speeches, or grievances, if you like, written by three students from the Charles Weston School in Coombs. Angela, aged 11, says: My name is Angela, and I am a student at Charles Weston. I am writing to express my concerns about the health and well-being of teenagers, particularly regarding smoking and vaping. I frequently see teens engaging in these activities, which worries me because of the potential health risks, including lung cancer, asthma, and other respiratory issues. Many teenagers are influenced by peer pressure, online content, and even family and friends, leading them to smoke or vape. If this trend continues, we could see a significant increase in the number of young people who smoke or vape, which would have serious public health implications. I urge the Parliament to take action to address this issue, online and at all schools tell teens about the health risk, to protect the health of our youth and the future of our country. Shreyam, also 11, says: Respected Members of Parliament, I am Shreyam, a concerned student from Charles Weston School in Coombs. At only 11 years old, I am deeply troubled by the escalating issue of cybercrimes and cyberbullying. It's time to take decisive action to tackle this growing threat. Every day, people are falling victim to online harassment and hacking, and it's an imperative that we put an end to it. Recent research has revealed that the likelihood of being hacked online is a staggering one in five. This unsettling statistic is a cause for great concern, and it's clear that immediate action is needed. Furthermore, the presence of hackers within online communities is deeply alarming and has led to a pervasive sense of fear and vulnerability among internet users, myself included. If we fail to address this issue now, we risk a future where online spaces are overrun by hackers and viruses. Finally, Sahasra, says: Hello, my name is Sahasra and I am 11 years old. I am writing from Charles Weston School Coombs. Deforestation is an important matter that needs to be discussed as it impacts many people and creatures. My hope is that in the next 10 years, parliament will do its best to plant trees, as a replacement for the chopped down ones. This impacts us humans as we will have good oxygen to breathe through. This will also impact animals in good ways by having a habitat to live in. This is an important matter because we and animals depend on trees as a source of good, fresh oxygen. Parliament can help by encouraging people and maybe even schools to plant trees. Thank you, Angela, Shreyam and Sahasra, for taking the time, sharing your concerns and raising your voice to parliament. You have raised issues which have been incredibly relevant this year and the subject of much ongoing debate. Finally, tonight concludes the first day of pre-poll voting for the ACT election. It marks the beginning of the end of the 2024 ACT election. The voters could not have starker choices. I want to raise the importance of having a strong Labor government on a federal and territory level and what happens when they work together. Our Labor Prime Minister is one that knows and understands Canberra. He doesn't use this city's name as a punching bag. Canberra should serve as a beacon to the nation, not an easy put-down for politicians to play one group of Australians off against another. Australia very much remains a federation, and this Prime Minister has proven that. He leads this Labor government from the Lodge. He walks up Mount Ainslie, Red Hill and even Mount Taylor in my electorate of Bean, like thousands of Canberrans do every day. He leads a government that works with Labor and coalition territory and state governments, in our case ensuring that our national capital gets the investment that is befitting of a national capital. That's why after a decade of neglect of the national capital by the previous government, this federal Labor government is working with Andrew Barr, the Chief Minister of the ACT, investing in Canberra to support a more livable, connected and thriving city. We know that the Canberra Liberals do not represent the progressive identity that territorians have forged for ourselves. We must not run the risk of having a territory Labor government lose re-election. We have seen in the last two years what federal and territory Labor governments can do for Canberra. Thanks to these two Labor governments working together, Canberra in the ACT is getting the funding it deserves, from infrastructure to services and education. Andrew Barr and Anthony Albanese continue to work together to deliver for Canberrans. In my part of Canberra, the electorate of Bean overlaps with Murrumbidgee and Brindabella and, in 2024, has produced some excellent candidates. In Brindabella, Labor candidates include Brendan Forde, Caitlin Tough, Louise Crossman, Taimus Werner-Gibbings and Minister Mick Gentleman. In Murrumbidgee, Labor candidates include Minister Chris Steel, Marisa Paterson MLA, Nelson Tang, Anna Whitty and Noor El-Asadi. They would all make excellent members in an ACT government post the election in a couple of weeks time. To Joy Burch, who's using this opportunity to retire: thank you for all you have done, not just for the government and for your electorate but as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the longest period. Grey Electorate: First Nations Australians 145 19:08 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I've been the member for Grey for 17 years—well, it will be 17 years in November. I have announced my retirement, so I won't be coming back after the next election, whenever that might be. Mr RAMSEY HWS I appreciate your concern. Thank you, member for McEwen. I've worked hard with my electorate, to stay in touch. Grey is not an easy electorate. Many say, 'How do you manage the travel?' It's difficult. I think the range of subject matter is a more difficult issue; it's enormous across an electorate like Grey. I've worked particularly hard to try and stay in touch with my Indigenous community. Around 7½ per cent of Grey is Indigenous. By my estimate, about 40 per cent of those live in remote Indigenous communities. It is there that I see the biggest gap, as it were. Generally, in urban areas Indigenous people are going okay, with some exceeding and others failing but a great number who are well adjusted, employed, raising families and participating in mainstream Australia. There's still a gap, but we're closing that gap. But this is why I visited the APY Lands. I try to get up there about twice a year, and it's quite an effort to do so. I tell people it's a thousand kilometres from my gate to the turn-off, without going out of the electorate, and then it's another eight hours through to the Western Australian border. So, when I go, it takes me a week. I try to always drive. I could fly, because the taxpayers are good enough to fund charter flights for you, but when I land there the first thing I need is a car. I need to travel from community to community; find the leaders, the people, the workers and the programs; and see how it's going on the ground. I tend to go unannounced. The census says there are about 2,400 people living on the Lands. I think there are more than that, and it's not surprising that the census may not be completely accurate up there. By the 2022 figures—I can't find anything more recent—there are 568 enrolled in school. It's difficult to pin down, but the general estimate is that we think somewhere between $250 million and $350 million is spent by the taxpayer each year in maintaining that population. That's enormous, but I don't begrudge that money, because nowhere is that gap between Indigenous Australia and mainstream Australia so obvious as in places like the APY Lands and some other remote Indigenous settlements that I have. But I think the bigger question is: what do we get for our money? We have better housing, even though I was just up there two weeks ago and I regret to inform the House that there are currently seven burnt-out million-dollar-plus houses up there. We are getting three new police stations again, and I think that'll take it up to about eight under construction at the moment. They are about $5 million a throw. There are health centres, and they're very good health centres. I take my hat off to those people who work there and bring great services to that area. There is investment in shops. In my time, there have been new shops in Fregon and Amata. There are swimming pools—a new swimming pool was just built at Ernabella—and a youth centre, which I estimate to be worth about $6 million. Sadly, I have to report—and this is the story of the APY Lands—that the youth centre is closed due to vandalism. The toilets have been destroyed. The swimming pool supervisor has left. The swimming pool has never been used, and it's full of rocks and has gone green. We put $106 million into turning the main access road on the APY Lands into all-weather. Some of that's bitumen. We fund the Indigenous rangers. We fund art centres. It goes on and on. After 17 years, I would say the place is physically in far better shape but the outcomes are worse. That's a tragedy, and it's something that really upsets me. We spend more than half a billion dollars a year there, and it's getting worse. So, clearly, something's not working. Everywhere we have government workers, NGOs and charities, and when I speak to them they all try to convince me of what a great job they're doing: 'This program is really making a difference.' They all tell me that. I think, 'Oh, that sounds pretty good,' but I challenge them back and say, 'If your program's doing such a good job, why is the place getting worse?' You can almost see the blood run from their faces. No-one's ever thought of that question before. So my conclusion is that the model is failing. I struggle to think of a program where maintaining and even expanding a population in a remote area, with no natural economy to support them, could be more guaranteed to destroy a culture than what we're doing. For the men, especially, everything they did traditionally is now superfluous to their living. It is replaced by the government. It's no wonder that there's no respect for the elders anymore. It's no wonder that young people are bored and they turn to drugs and alcohol. Unfortunately the next outcome of that is violence, including domestic violence, and abuse of children. There are horrific stories. We have heard Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price tell those stories in the other place. There has been a debasement of traditional values. For instance—sounds good—we have sorry camp. I have been to a sorry camp that had been going for two months. During sorry camp, they vacate the houses. They live down in a creek bed or wherever amongst the flies, with babies crawling around, no sanitation. It is not possible to believe that traditionally they did not bury their dead within two days. It is a hot part of the world; there would be nothing left after two weeks. Yet now they go for weeks. They disrupt school. They disrupt the whole community. I have a good friend who has been through business who says it's getting more and more violent and he doesn't like what's happening. I said, 'Why do you do it?' He said, 'I go along to try and moderate.' I asked: 'Would you like your children to go?' He said, 'Absolutely not.' Old people—the tjilpis, the minas—speak to me almost crying, telling me what has become of their families from the domestic violence, crime, child abuse, children in kinship care, which is failing; it is overloaded. It cannot continue indefinitely. I'm going to have to round this up; I'm running out of time. I said to the member as we came in, 'We need longer speeches in this place to put down more important stories.' But the do-gooders in the city think they're doing a good job in these remote lands. I regret to inform this place: they are not; we are on the wrong track. Senator Nampijinpa Price has called for an audit of all these programs and I fully support it. It is absolutely what needs to happen. There are a whole lot of programs not doing any good. The people on them believe they are doing good, and I don't blame them personally, but it is not cutting the mustard. We need to bring back mutual responsibility. We had a work for the dole program, the community development program. There is no longer any compunction to work. We had, in Ceduna at least and a few other places, the cashless debit card. It made an enormous difference. It needs to be rolled out over a much wider footprint. There needs to be mutual responsibility. We need to make people—parents—responsible for sending their children to school. The problem is, when the government moves in, it then becomes the government's job to get the children to school. I know we need to children well fed to think and function in school, but once the school takes over the breakfast program and then the lunch program, guess who owns it? It becomes the school's job to feed the kids and those same kids will go hungry in school holidays and on weekends. It's not the answer. The answer is we need to build responsibility. Noel Pearson says we need these people to be able to walk in two worlds, and I fully support that. We need the schools to function at a level that will enable children to go away, to participate in the wider world where there is an economy, where there's a chance to get a job, where they can join their urban cousins, which I talked about at the beginning of the speech, and actually have a chance of success in life. Because when I see a three-, four-, five- or six-year-old up there, I just think, 'You poor bugger. How are you ever going to get out of this?' We send them away to school for a while. Parents will let them to go down to a school in Adelaide but, by and large, they want them to come home. You can understand why people want their kids to come home, but home isn't a place where they can thrive; home is a place of disaster. It is going the wrong way. It is one of my great sorrows, the fact that I'm winding up a 17-year career and I have not made a significant difference in that area. I have tried but I feel that, at the end of it, we are actually worse off than when I began. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Grey for sharing his insights. Raise Our Voice Australia, Liverpool City Council 146 19:18 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa All around the country over the last few years, peaceful elections have been held to allow the peaceful exchange of ideas. Legislation on all manner of things gets debated in this parliament, for instance, and each member or senator from every part of this continent stands here to give our constituents a voice. We speak on their behalf, to champion the issues that matter the most for them, to express their aspirations and fears and to draw to attention matters of public policy that may impact their lives. In truth, we all come with our own life experiences to this place. Our voices and opinions vary widely but in here we all stand equal and have the right to be heard. But in reality, with 151 of us in this chamber and 76 in the other, the number of voices is limited. This week I'm delighted to participate in the Raise Our Voice program. Young Australians have written speeches to have their voices heard. I'm pleased to present two speeches on behalf of young constituents in Werriwa. Joanna writes: "The more we can empower women in sports, the more we can change the world." This quote by Billie Jean King shows the power of supporting female athletes. Yet, in our community, many young women and girls encounter significant barriers to participating in sports. My name is Joanna, I am 15 years old from the electorate of Werriwa. Over the past few years, there has been a decrease in female participation in sports within our community. Many young women and girls face challenges related to gender inequality and safety concerns. Females have limited opportunities in our community to play sports in male-dominated spaces, where they often feel unsupported. We must create an environment where a young woman has the opportunity to succeed in sports. So, what can Parliament do to lead to this change? We need to ensure all sports environments are safe and protect all athletes, particularly women, from harassment and discrimination. Furthermore, we need to change the idea of gender stereotypes in sports that discourage female participation. This includes promoting gender-neutral language, so that sports are simply referred to as "sports" without gendered labels like "men sports" or "women sports". Australia has always been a land of opportunity and equality. By acting now, we can create the next generation where young women are supported and given equal opportunities in sports. Brilliantly said, Joanna. The second young person's voice is Zartasha: In a nation that prides itself on justice and equality, how can we ignore the glaring overrepresentation of Indigenous voices in our criminal justice system? Statistics from BOCSAR and ABS reveals that 66.4% of young offenders in remand or detention are Indigenous Australians, an alarming figure that demands urgent action. The disproportionate rates of crime in rural and remote areas highlight the severe lack of accessibility to essential services, exacerbating the problem. Over the next decade, I call on parliament to intensify research into the underlying causes of crimes committed by Indigenous people and to prioritise strategies that reduce incarceration rates and promote rehabilitation. Successful initiatives such as the Justice Reinvestment NSW program in Bourke, which significantly reduced driving offences and domestic violence, demonstrate the power of culturally-informed counselling services tailored to Indigenous needs. Additionally, expanding the use of youth justice conferences for broader ranges of offences can make a profound difference, as seen in Victoria, where recidivism rates for young Indigenous offenders are notably lower than in NSW. These approaches offer a clear path forward. We must confront this injustice head-on, committing to a future where the criminal justice system protects and serves all citizens, not just the privileged few. The time to act is now. Thank you for this thoughtful contribution, Zartasha. Sadly, time doesn't permit me to present the voices of other young people who contributed to this year's Raise Our Voice program in Werriwa in parliament, but I thank Tamirirashe, Ena, Anshka, Zainab, Daisy, Rianna, Archit, Josleen, Rick, Bella, Aiden, Kabir, Ethan, Myriam, Tudor Abdullah, Stefan, Liam, Kobe, Zayyan, Alanah and Minh Nhat for their contributions. I read and enjoyed all their speeches, and, more importantly, I heard their voices. Having highlighted two young Australians' voices in this chamber, I now add my own. I mentioned earlier that each of us bring our constituents' concerns to this place. In my part of south-west Sydney, the truth is that, for all the improvements to public transport, cars still dominate. Sadly, however, roads to accommodate vehicles have not kept pace. The problem has been exacerbated by unprecedented population growth. In these areas just a few short years ago, you found tomato and chicken farms and cows and horses. You now find houses there. Further exacerbating the situation is the complete lack of effort by Liverpool City Council to help ease the situation. In short, they've failed residents and my constituents. I could choose any number of examples, but the one I give my voice to today on behalf of the constituents who have contacted my office is the suburb of Middleton Grange. Not to overstate it, but the local road network is a disaster; I know because I also use it. In response to this situation, at the last election I advocated for my constituents to secure $6 million from the Albanese Labor government to address the issues in the suburb of Middleton Grange. The remaining $6 million to complete the works was to come from Liverpool City Council. But, to my frustration and that of my constituents, nothing has started—nothing at all. I'm currently being overwhelmed by responses to my petition in the local area, confirming just how concerned local road users are, especially in peak times. The petition is still open if you want to add your voice. Another concern of mine is multiple rounds of black spot funding that is still to be used by Liverpool council. The inertia of the council on this and other infrastructure projects is appalling, and my community are paying the price every day when they get home late from work, miss their appointments or have to leave for work earlier, all because Liverpool council is not meeting its end of the bargain. Recently, a number of new councillors were elected to Liverpool council. It's my earnest hope that they'll start asking what the problem is and why projects such as the improvement in the Middleton Grange area have not yet commenced. In the meantime, I'd like to voice in this place the concerns of my constituents and hold organisations like the council to account. At the recent council election, a number of councillors retired or did not re-stand. I acknowledge the Hon. Charishma Kaliyanda, who, since her election to the New South Wales state parliament, has been serving in both roles with distinction. Thankfully, the people of Liverpool will continue to be well served by her understanding of our local community and her care and passion, but I acknowledge all the work she did on Liverpool council since 2016. Also retiring at this election was Ali Karnib, who gave 29 years of service to the people of Liverpool as a councillor. Ali served on Liverpool Council with distinction, and it was my great privilege to serve with him for eight years before coming to this place. I learned many things from him: dedication, commitment and how to represent the community and help them with their issues. A former teacher, Ali settled in Liverpool in 1984 and subsequently raised his family there. In the ensuing years, Ali has been a champion for our area and our local community. Ali also served for decades as the president of the Lebanese Community Council. Ali always put others front and centre in his mind and his community work. Liverpool council is better for the presence of people like Ali Karnib, and I place on record my sincere thanks to Ali for his friendship and support over many years and wish him all the very best for the future. Thankfully, the legacy of Ali will continue with the election of his son, Sam Karnib, to Liverpool council. I'm certain Sam will continue his father's outstanding work and ensure that Liverpool residents continue to have a strong voice. I also congratulate Ethan Monaghan on his election to council, and I congratulate Dr Betty Green, who has been returned for another term. I look forward to working with the new council into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28