﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-10-09</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 9 October 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 31 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 4 November 2024. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 8 October 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 8 October 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 4 November 2024, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Report 505: Inquiry into Policy and Program Design and Implementation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Report 506: Inquiry into Commonwealth Financial Statements 2022-23</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the reports may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Burney</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>10<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 DR HAINES: To present a Bill for an Act to reform the governance, performance and accountability of grants, Investment Mandates and use of public resources, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024 [No. 2]</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.) </inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR TAYLOR: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Supermarket and Hardware Businesses) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR LITTLEPROUD: To present a Bill for an Act to apply the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct as a mandatory industry code for large retailers and wholesalers, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Food and Grocery (Mandatory) Code of Conduct Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR VAN MANEN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Act 2001</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Corporations Amendment (Streamlining Advice Process) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS LE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Higher Education Support Act 2003</inline> and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Higher Education Support Amendment (Fair Study and Opportunity) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS SPENDER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia is currently committed to a ten-year, $120 billion infrastructure investment pipeline;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) infrastructure investment is important but does compete directly with housing for materials and skills within the construction sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) two independent inquiries, namely the Independent Review of the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects and the Independent Strategic Review of the Infrastructure Investment Program, have been critical of the processes for determining Commonwealth Government infrastructure allocations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Infrastructure Australia noted that in 2019 the construction sector was at capacity and since then infrastructure spending as a share of gross domestic product has increased 50 per cent while construction costs have increased by more than 30 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) publish a response to the independent reviews;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commit to implementing long-term investment strategies and publishing businesses cases for large-scale infrastructure projects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) identify and pause non-essential infrastructure projects until capacity has returned to the construction sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Spender</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR RAE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Government is taking decisive action to help consumers get fairer prices at supermarkets, in stores and online, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the release of an interim report from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which looks at a wide range of concerns, from land-banking to shrinkflation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) making suppliers follow the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, a mandatory code, following the recommendations of former competition minister Craig Emerson; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) revitalising the National Competition Policy to boost productivity and living standards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the Government believes that alleged misconduct in the supermarket sector is unfair, unacceptable, and it makes cost of living pressures worse for Australians, so it is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) providing $30 million package of additional funding for the ACCC to crack down on misleading pricing practices and poor conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) funding CHOICE, the consumer organisation, over three years to report on supermarket prices across Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the Government's number one priority is tackling the cost of living pressures facing hard working Australians and making sure they are paying a fair price at the checkout, and Australian farmers are getting a fair price for their goods.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Rae</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MR HAMILTON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on 15 November 2023, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced it was investigating tighter liquidity and capital requirements for smaller Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADIs);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in making this announcement, APRA did not provide any evidence to justify this change, had failed to consult with industry, provided no evidence to support the change in policy, and did not consider the impacts on competition in the Australian banking sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Australian banking sector is subject to considerable prudential regulation and is intelligent in its approach to ensuring the banking sector's resilience to financial market stress;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the changes would have required smaller ADIs on the Minimum Liquid Holding (MLH) regime to change their liquidity and capital composition, and re-value liquidity risk over both short and longer periods;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) on 24 July 2024, APRA announced it would implement two of the three proposed changes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) APRA will not proceed with changes to a phase-out of the bank debt securities, pending a holistic review of the MLH regime in 2025, ensuring smaller ADIs can continue to compete;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) these changes presented a real risk to the smaller banking sector, particularly those ADIs on the MLH regime which would have been subject to tighter liquidity requirements and reduced capital;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the changes would have resulted in less competition, less access to capital and higher costs for consumers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) mutual banks and credit unions play an important role in our economy and communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) APRA's proposed requirements will have a significant negative impact on smaller banks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) competition in the banking sector is important for the economy, consumers and for strong markets; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) unnecessary Government regulation will further erode competition in the banking sector and hinder efforts to bolster Australia's economic dynamism, particularly at a time when banks are managing 130 new regulatory changes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hamilton</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR WILKIE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that Australia has an animal welfare crisis, and that cruelty is commonplace in greyhound and horse racing, live exports, the industrial production of food and fibre, rodeos, and puppy and kitten farms;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this cruelty has been on full display recently in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) intensive commercial dog breeding facilities in Tasmania which operated under grossly inhumane and inadequate conditions, where female dogs were forced to breed at appalling rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the treatment of dogs in the greyhound racing industry, which results in unbearable cruelty, injury and even death, for example, in 2024 alone there has been almost 100 on-track deaths and 8,449 injuries Australia-wide; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) overbreeding of retired racehorses, where the aim is to produce as many foals as possible that might one day generate a return on investment—sadly, as in the case of Black Caviar, this is poorly regulated and often involves almost constant pregnancy and birthing for so-called 'retired' horses, dramatically increasing the risks of injury, infection and death; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that state and territory governments have not done enough to address this crisis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) therefore calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) establish a statutory Independent Office of Animal Welfare which will take a leadership role on animal welfare matters at a federal level, including developing a national animal welfare strategy; conducting inquiries and reviews into the effectiveness and implementation of our animal welfare laws; and providing independent, science-based advice to governments on animal welfare issues; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) work with states and territories to improve, harmonise and implement strict animal welfare standards, guidelines and laws.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Wilkie</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS COKER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That that this House acknowledges the Government's commitment and actions to build a better and fairer school education system, by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) putting an additional $16 billion of Commonwealth investment in public schools on the table as part of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, to deliver reforms focused on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) lifting student outcomes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) wellbeing for learning and engagement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a strong and sustainable workforce;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) working to address the teacher shortage through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) delivering $284.3 million to schools to improve school infrastructure through the Schools Upgrade Fund; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) providing $203.7 million in funding to support student wellbeing across every school in the country through the Student Wellbeing Boost.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 September 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Coker</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 DR WEBSTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is reviewing the approved usage levels of paraquat and diquat in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ran a story titled 'After the Harvest' on 31 August 2024 and 1 September 2024 seeking to link paraquat use to the incidence of Parkinson's Disease, claiming that children were being 'coated head to toe in chemicals' and spraying was occurring without gloves or a mask;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the APVMA responded saying such practices were 'historical' and 'do not meet current requirements for the use of agvet chemical products'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) three OECD-nation regulators in the past four years have found no causal link between paraquat and Parkinson's Disease; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls upon the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) listen to the voices of farmers who responsibly rely upon paraquat and diquat to control weeds, avoid heavy-tillage farming and retain soil and moisture in their cropping lands;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) listen to the science; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) refrain from rewarding sensationalist journalism from the national broadcaster.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 October 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Webster</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 WORKPLACE RELATIONS: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 9 September 2024</inline>) on the motion of Ms Stanley—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's workplace relations policies are getting wages moving again, with annual real wages growing for the past three consecutive quarters;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) nominal real wages grew 4.1 per cent in the year to the June quarter 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) annual real wages grew 0.3 per cent through the year to the June quarter 2024; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) this result comes off the back of inheriting a real wage decline of 3.4 per cent at the time of the election; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the Government is laying strong foundations for a better future for Australian workers, their families and communities, by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) advocating for the wages of Australia's low paid in three consecutive submissions to the Annual Wage Review that the real wages of low paid workers not go backwards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) supporting pay rises for aged care workers of up to 28 per cent through submissions to the Fair Work Commission's Aged Care Work Value Case;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) having a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood education and care workers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) getting almost half a million more workers covered by current enterprise agreements, boosting wages and conditions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) making gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act and narrowing the gender pay gap to 12 per cent, the lowest level on record.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS LANDRY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) agriculture is a cornerstone of Australia's social, economic and environmental sustainability, and plays an essential role in our nation's prosperity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the 2023-24 financial year, the agriculture sector generated over $82 billion, driving Australia's economy forward;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the agriculture sector employs 257,000 Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) over 90 per cent of the fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, milk, and eggs available in Australia are produced locally, safeguarding our nation's food security; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian agriculture sector is facing increased pressure due to this Government's destructive actions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this Government's decision to scrap the dedicated agriculture visa has left the industry with severe and widespread workforce shortages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australia's water security is being jeopardised by this Government's reckless slashing of over $7 billion from critical water infrastructure projects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) this Government's misguided agriculture policies have driven food prices up by 12 per cent, piling even more financial strain on everyday Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Landry</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT: Resumption of debate on the motion of Ms Spender—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia is currently committed to a ten-year, $120 billion infrastructure investment pipeline;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) infrastructure investment is important but does compete directly with housing for materials and skills within the construction sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) two independent inquiries, namely the Independent Review of the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects and the Independent Strategic Review of the Infrastructure Investment Program, have been critical of the processes for determining Commonwealth Government infrastructure allocations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Infrastructure Australia noted that in 2019 the construction sector was at capacity and since then infrastructure spending as a share of gross domestic product has increased 50 per cent while construction costs have increased by more than 30 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) publish a response to the independent reviews;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commit to implementing long-term investment strategies and publishing businesses cases for large-scale infrastructure projects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) identify and pause non-essential infrastructure projects until capacity has returned to the construction sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE EDUCATORS: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 19 August 2024</inline>) on the motion of Mrs Phillips—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the vital role early childhood education and care (ECEC) educators and teachers play in supporting young children's early learning and development;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) properly valuing and recognising the ECEC profession—including through fair wages—is critical to reversing attrition and growing the workforce;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paying ECEC workers fairly is a crucial step in charting the course to a truly universal ECEC system; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government's historic announcement for a two-year, 15 per cent ECEC worker retention payment for ECEC workers, phased in from December 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) one year on, the Government's cheaper child care reforms are delivering real cost of living relief to household budgets;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's child care inquiry found that out-of-pocket costs dropped 11 per cent following the introduction of the Government's cheaper child care measures; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government's ECEC worker retention payment will be tied to a commitment from early learning services to limit fee increases to 4.4 per cent, an important condition that will keep downward pressure on fees for Australian families; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) since the election, there are 860 more ECEC services, around 68,000 more children in ECEC, and around 30,000 more ECEC workers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) between 2018 and 2022, fees under the previous Government increased by 22.8 per cent compared to the OECD adjusted average of 6.2 per cent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR PEARCE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) investment in equitable access to disease prevention is critical to tackle the major diseases of our time such as cancer and heart disease;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) genetic screening provides a novel opportunity for disease prevention, especially screening for genetic risk factors for certain types of hereditary cancer and heart disease that manifest in early adulthood;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) identifying people with medically actionable genetic risk for certain diseases can allow at risk individuals to take steps to reduce risk or in some cases, avoid developing disease altogether;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in Australia, funded testing for these genetic risk factors is only available to individuals who meet narrow criteria, usually only after a person develops symptoms of disease, and this criteria-based testing fails to identify most high-risk individuals in the population, who remain unaware of their risk and are unable to access preventive measures until it is too late;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) investment in prevention will save significant downstream healthcare costs, as well as saving lives and improving the health of at-risk Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the costs of genetic testing have decreased considerably, and health economic modelling now suggests it would be cost-effective in the Australian health system to offer DNA screening to all adults for such genetic risk factors, as part of a population screening program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in August 2022, Monash University launched DNA Screen, a study funded by the Medical Research Future Fund and led by Professor Paul Lacaze and Dr Jane Tiller, which aimed to test 10,000 young adults (18 to 40 years of age) for genetic high risk of developing certain types of cancer (breast, ovarian, colorectal and others) and heart disease, that can be prevented or identified and treated early;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the study was extremely popular, with almost 10,000 people registering their interest in the first 24 hours of the study launch, and over 30,000 people registering interest to date;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the study has now completed testing of 10,263 young adults, finding 202 individuals at high, medically actionable risk of developing cancer or heart disease, and three in four of those high-risk people would not have qualified for reimbursed genetic testing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in May 2024, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs' inquiry into equitable access to diagnosis and treatment for individuals with rare and less common cancers specifically noted the potential of genetic testing for prevention and the high level of public interest and engagement in the DNA Screen study, and recommended that 'the outcomes of the study should be monitored closely, and that further investment to gauge the effectiveness and appropriateness of such screening programs should be explored further';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) strain that population DNA screening could place on the current downstream risk management pathways; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) need for genetics services and the health system to be prepared for population-scale DNA screening; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider the urgent need to leverage the preventive potential of genomic testing for adults at high, medically actionable risk of developing conditions such as cancer and heart disease; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) fund the next stage of DNA Screen to scale up testing for these medically actionable conditions, test the feasibility of a population-wide screening program, and develop and test methods for the delivery of downstream care and risk management at scale.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Pearce</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS MASCARENHAS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the commitment of the Government to Western Australia and its understanding of the specific needs of the Western Australian community;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the Government for its investment in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the future of the critical minerals industry in Western Australia, noting its support for projects such as Pilbara Minerals' Pilgangoora lithium project and International Graphite's graphite battery anode material project, as well as the announcement of the $17 billion production tax incentive for critical minerals processing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) critical infrastructure, noting the support for the following major projects:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Causeway Cyclist and Pedestrian Bridges;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Westport Project Development;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Metronet;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) Tonkin Highway Corridor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) Outback Way;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges the ongoing commitment of the Government to the goods and services tax deal for Western Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) supports the Government as it continues to pay attention to the needs of Western Australia and respond to those needs strategically and responsibly; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Opposition to support the Government's initiatives that will secure a future for all Western Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Mascarenhas</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR HAMILTON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that 3 August 2024 marked ten years since Islamic State (ISIS) militants attacked the Yazidi people of Sirijar;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the Yazidi people are one of the most ancient nations in the world, and their cultural identity, memories and practices are central to their ancient culture, yet many Yazidis have lived through unimaginable trauma and persecution;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the important role played by former Prime Minister, the Hon Tony Abbott, in enabling the resettlement in Australia of 12,000 refugees escaping the Yazidi genocide in the northern parts of Syria and Iraq;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that the electoral division of Groom is home to one of the largest groups of Yazidi people in Australia, and that their traditional language, Kurdish Kurmanji, is the second most spoken language in Groom, behind English;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) that by properly managing the immigration system, Australia was able to offer this important humanitarian assistance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) that by ensuring proper process, vetting and verification, the Government was able to reassure people on national security concerns and maintain social cohesion; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) recognise the Yazidis as a significant minority religious group in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) denounce the continuing persecution of Yazidis by ISIS militants;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) continue to provide funding for programs such as the Toowoomba Refugee and Migrant Service program that provide support to refugees and migrants; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) apologise to the Yazidis and other refugees and migrants for changing the rules to fast-track one group of people over another.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hamilton</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MS STANLEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) October is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month, and that Sunday 15 October 2024 marks Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this day acknowledges the shared loss experienced by parents, friends, and healthcare workers of those little ones lost too soon whether through miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death or any other loss;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that there is a significant impact on families who have lost a baby;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that every year 110,000 Australians experience a miscarriage, more than 2,000 experience stillbirth, and almost 700 lose a baby within the first 28 days;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that stillbirth occurrence is higher in Aboriginal and culturally diverse communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) all families who have experienced loss, either recently or over time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government for providing $5.1 million to organisations to support women and families following stillbirth or miscarriage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 19 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Stanley</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">BANKING SECTOR: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Hamilton—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on 15 November 2023, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced it was investigating tighter liquidity and capital requirements for smaller Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADIs);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in making this announcement, APRA did not provide any evidence to justify this change, had failed to consult with industry, provided no evidence to support the change in policy, and did not consider the impacts on competition in the Australian banking sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Australian banking sector is subject to considerable prudential regulation and is intelligent in its approach to ensuring the banking sector's resilience to financial market stress;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the changes would have required smaller ADIs on the Minimum Liquid Holding (MLH) regime to change their liquidity and capital composition, and re-value liquidity risk over both short and longer periods;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) on 24 July 2024, APRA announced it would implement two of the three proposed changes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) APRA will not proceed with changes to a phase-out of the bank debt securities, pending a holistic review of the MLH regime in 2025, ensuring smaller ADIs can continue to compete;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) these changes presented a real risk to the smaller banking sector, particularly those ADIs on the MLH regime which would have been subject to tighter liquidity requirements and reduced capital;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the changes would have resulted in less competition, less access to capital and higher costs for consumers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) mutual banks and credit unions play an important role in our economy and communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) APRA's proposed requirements will have a significant negative impact on smaller banks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) competition in the banking sector is important for the economy, consumers and for strong markets; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) unnecessary Government regulation will further erode competition in the banking sector and hinder efforts to bolster Australia's economic dynamism, particularly at a time when banks are managing 130 new regulatory changes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 October 2024</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>9</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolution agreed to by the House on 11 September 2024 relating to the time and order of business for the House and Federation Chamber on Wednesday, 9 October 2024 being varied to read as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the following from occurring in relation to business in the House for Wednesday, 9 October 2024:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a Minister introducing a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to companies associated with the national broadband network, and for related purposes, with the second reading debate on the bill proceeding immediately and continuing without interruption until 10 am;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at 10 am, the Speaker interrupting business before the House and calling on questions without notice;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) immediately after question time, any documents being presented by the Speaker and by Ministers, and any ministerial statements, by leave, being made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) then, a definite matter of public importance being discussed, provided that a written statement of the matter to be discussed has been given to the Speaker by 9.30 am, and the matter being dealt with in all other respects in accordance with the standing orders and the practice of the House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) immediately following the matter of public importance, the Speaker calling on Members' statements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) Members' statements continuing for no longer than 30 minutes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) government business continuing from the conclusion of Members' statements until 7.30 pm, at which point the adjournment of the House being proposed in accordance with standing order 31;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) on Wednesday, 9 October 2024, the Federation Chamber meeting from 11.30 am until no later than 7.30 pm and considering the following business:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Members' three minute constituency statements until 12 noon; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) government business and/or committee and delegation business; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.</para></quote>
<para>For the information of members, this will effectively mean that following the introduction of the NBN bill from the Minister for Communications, we would continue with debate up until question time and then the 90 second statements would happen following the MPI.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7259" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill reaffirms the Australian government's commitment to ongoing public ownership of the National Broadband Network (NBN) and to remove existing conditions that create a pathway to privatisation of this vital national infrastructure.</para>
<para>Introduction</para>
<para>The National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 (the bill) will amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 (NBN act) to recognise in legislation the government's policy that NBN Co Limited (NBN Co), the company that operates the National Broadband Network (NBN), remains in public ownership. The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to the NBN act and to the Telecommunications Act 1997.</para>
<para>Context of the Bill</para>
<para>In December 2022, the Minister for Finance and I, as joint shareholder ministers for NBN Co, issued an updated Statement of Expectations which confirms the government policy to keep NBN Co in public hands for the foreseeable future, providing the company with the certainty needed to continue delivering improvements to the network while keeping prices affordable.</para>
<para>This bill strengthens that commitment and makes it part of the legislative framework. This change will remove the existing legislative conditions which, if satisfied, enable privatisation of NBN Co.</para>
<para>The NBN is critical national infrastructure</para>
<para>The NBN was established by the Labor government because of the failure of the former coalition government to foresee and plan for the digital transformation of the economy. The sale of Telstra by the coalition sold out communities, particularly in rural and regional Australia, both in terms of critical infrastructure investment and service quality for consumers. Crucially, the Telstra sale also deprived the government of strategic levers to drive the investment necessary for Australians to fully access reliable high-speed broadband and the productivity and digital inclusion benefits that delivers.</para>
<para>That is why it remains vital that the ongoing mission and focus of the NBN to deliver affordable, accessible high-speed broadband to all Australians be guided by the public interest, rather than the commercial interests of a privileged few.</para>
<para>We will retain strong regulatory oversight of the pricing of NBN wholesale products by the ACCC, and the government will continue to act in the interests of regional communities to narrow the digital communications divide.</para>
<para>The NBN is Australia's digital backbone, carrying the majority of the download traffic for Australian households, and the NBN also carries a significant proportion of voice traffic for consumers. It is critical for this national infrastructure to be reliable, resilient and secure. In a time of rising risks of cybersecurity we will ensure that the NBN stays in the ownership of the Australian people.</para>
<para>The NBN reaches over 12.4 million premises across Australia. Currently, more than 8.6 million homes and businesses in Australia are connected to the NBN.</para>
<para>The government has been making ongoing investment in the NBN to bring the benefits of high-speed broadband to more Australians. This government support includes a commitment of $2.4 billion to replace the deteriorating copper network with fibre, which provides 90 per cent of Australians—around 10 million premises in the NBN fixed-line footprint—with access to faster and more reliable broadband.</para>
<para>This investment is already delivering benefits with increased reliability, fewer faults and access to higher speeds.</para>
<para>In addition, the government and NBN Co are delivering a $750 million investment to upgrade services in the NBN fixed-wireless network, which has flow-on benefits to NBN satellite services. This investment has already delivered uplifted speeds on existing plans and has introduced new fixed-wireless high-speed tiers, with wholesale peak download speeds that range from 200 megabits per second up to 400 megabits per second.</para>
<para>The upgrade has also enabled unlimited data to be introduced for NBN satellite plans with download speeds of up to 100 megabits per second.</para>
<para>The NBN is vital nation-building infrastructure, essential to the wellbeing, safety and prosperity of Australians. An NBN that provides fast, reliable and affordable connectivity is critical to Australian households and businesses having access to key services to drive productivity growth and support digital inclusion and equitable access.</para>
<para>Keeping NBN Co in public hands is better for Australia</para>
<para>Keeping NBN Co in public hands will ensure the company has the certainty necessary for its investment planning and operational decisions, which are needed to maximise the economic and social benefits of the NBN. This is in contrast to a privately owned NBN Co, which would be focussed on maximising the profits of its owners and would not have strong incentives to make the investments needed to keep prices affordable and connect Australians in regional and remote Australia, including First Nations communities.</para>
<para>There will be no conditions or stepping stones to privatisation</para>
<para>The NBN act currently sets out conditions that, once satisfied, would enable a future government to initiate privatisation of the company. Once these conditions are met and a sale scheme completed, there would no longer be whole public ownership of NBN Co.</para>
<para>Since the government has no intention to sell the NBN, there is no requirement for a legislative sale scheme. Other government business enterprises, for example Australia Post, do not have provisions for sale in their enabling legislation.</para>
<para>This bill removes that pathway to privatisation and commits to keeping the NBN wholly owned by the Australian people. A new section 43A will be introduced in the NBN act to make clear parliament's intention that NBN Co would remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth.</para>
<para>The b ill would not change the operation of the NBN</para>
<para>It is proposed that the bill will commence on the day after the royal assent.</para>
<para>Importantly, the amendments proposed by the bill are largely mechanical in nature and do not change the operations of the NBN. These are proportionate and balanced amendments consistent with the government's policy to keep the NBN in public hands.</para>
<para>The proposed new statement of parliamentary intent would, in recognition of the national significance and nationwide accessibility of the NBN, further reaffirm the importance of NBN Co remaining in public hands, and safeguard Australia's long term economic and security interests.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>Through this bill, the <inline font-style="italic">National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011</inline> will be amended to remove conditions enabling a future government to privatise NBN Co. These changes reinforce in legislation the government's commitment.</para>
<para>The bill provides certainty to stakeholders, including broadband consumers, the wider telecommunications industry, broadband retailers, and NBN Co, that the Commonwealth will continue to retain ownership of NBN Co. This certainty supports the government commitment for NBN Co to provide high-speed and reliable broadband connectivity for Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a sad little stunt this is. This has a real last-days-of-empire feeling to it. The government is getting desperate. It's getting hammered from basically all directions. So they think, 'Let's try to come up with some distractions so that people look over there.' Don't look at what this government is doing on a daily basis and the catastrophic failures that it is putting onto the Australian people. Don't look at that; look at various distractions! The government just moved a suspension of standing orders to say how urgent it is that we debate this matter right now. It's odd, then, that in the entire 2½ years since the election the Prime Minister has only mentioned the NBN in this parliament six times, which suggests that it wasn't an overly urgent issue in his mind until then.</para>
<para>It's also interesting, isn't it, when we think about other policy areas in the communications portfolio. You might have heard, Deputy Speaker, that there's been something of a debate about the regulation of gambling advertising in Australia. Many people listening or watching today would be aware that, for a very long time, this government has failed to act on the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into gambling advertising. In fact, that inquiry reported—what is it now?—some 16 or 17 months ago. And what have we heard from the government in response to this issue? It's been nothing at all. The only thing we hear from the government is that a response on gambling advertising is imminent. We will have to consult the Oxford dictionary. Perhaps the definition of the word 'imminent' has to change! If something is imminent but takes 16 or 17 months, then the dictionary must be kind of wrong! It is comical. So many people want clarity from the government on this issue of gambling advertising. Back in May 2023, the Leader of the Opposition stood at this dispatch box. You know what he did? He said something with commitment. He said that the coalition would ban gambling advertising from one hour before a live sporting event to one hour after. Why did he do that? He believes it's the right thing to do. He believes that gambling advertising is being integrated with sporting content in a way which is very bad for our nation. This is a very important point. In this portfolio, there is an atmosphere of indecision and malaise. We see it most comically in gambling advertising but we see it in other areas as well, of course. We see it in relation to the News Media Bargaining Code.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Shadow Minister, I'm just going to remind you of bringing your thoughts back to the bill before the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Certainly. I think it's a very important point, Deputy Speaker.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you're four minutes in, so I'm keen to hear about the bill before you, the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Very happy to do that, Deputy Speaker. So this proposal, as I say, is the sort of thing you put forward when you're completely out of ideas. The government's proposal is to change the 2010 law related to the ownership of the NBN. Of course, that's law that came into place when Labor were in power, so this is Labor law that they are seeking to change. The Prime Minister back then, of course, was a cabinet minister—he was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport—and Leader of the House, and it's his law that he's now seeking to change. He's now saying that he seeks urgently to change it, despite not acting on so many other areas of policy.</para>
<para>We haven't been briefed on this law as yet, Deputy Speaker. That's going to happen, I believe, later today, so we'll respond in the usual way once we've reviewed the legislation. But what this is about is an attempt to distract from the catastrophic failures of this government relating to many things, including the NBN. When we look at the NBN we see we have the quite extraordinary situation whereby the government has cheered on price rises for the NBN that have absolutely smashed Australian consumers. We saw the extraordinary situation earlier this year whereby six million families were hit by this government with massive NBN price rises. They were hit first in November 2023 and again in July 2024. The government may welcome those price rises. In fact, they do welcome the price rises, because the Minister for Communications infamously described the decision that led to those price rises as 'great news for consumers'. It's in the press release, so it's very hard to unwind now. The minister described as 'great news for consumers' price rises of 14 per cent for people who use NBN products. Do you know what else, Deputy Speaker? The people who have suffered the greatest price rises under this government are the people who are on the lowest cost, most affordable plans, the people who can afford those price rises the least.</para>
<para>What we saw back in November 2023 was an initial price increase. Then we saw, in July of 2024, another price increase. So, in total, there have been price increases of 11 to 14 per cent in just eight months under this government. The bottom line is: how are people supposed to pay for them? How are they supposed to find the money for those additional NBN price rises? But that's what they have to do, because under this government that is what has happened. This government should apologise for those price rises and for enthusiastically welcoming those price rises and describing them as great news for customers.</para>
<para>That is just one of many things that are going so terribly wrong when it comes to the NBN. Under this government, we have seen a collapse in the satellite business of the NBN. People are literally running away from the NBN product because it is so bad. That is what is happening, Deputy Speaker. When this government came into power there were about 120,000 people who subscribed to the NBN satellite product. Now the number is down below 85,000 people. The NBN has seen a massive loss of customers. At the same time, Starlink, the competitive satellite product, which had virtually no customers two years ago, now has 270,000 customers. What is the government's response? It's to convene a roundtable of academics to discuss the issue, because this is a government and this is a minister that never met a roundtable they didn't like. The atmosphere of indecision, malaise and failure to take action to stand up for Australian consumers is on very proud display when it comes to the NBN.</para>
<para>We're also seeing a further deterioration in the financial position of NBN. In the last 12 months, NBN's cash outflow was negative $1.4 billion, $300 million worse than the negative $1.1 billion result in the previous financial year under this government. So things are getting worse and worse. The prices are going up. Satellite customers are leaving.</para>
<para>Do you know who else is leaving the NBN, Deputy Speaker Claydon? It's people who live in existing homes—what they call brownfields customers. People who live in normal homes are leaving the NBN. One of the big reasons they're leaving the NBN is that prices have gone up by so much under this government, and this is happening in the middle of the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis. So it's not only the NBN prices that are going up; everything's going up.</para>
<para>Since the election, people have seen the cost of health go up by more than 10 per cent, the cost of education by more than 11 per cent, the cost of food by more than 12 per cent and the cost of electricity by 14 per cent. Housing's gone up by 13 per cent. Rents have gone up by 16 per cent. Financial products and insurance have gone up by 17 per cent. Gas has gone up by 33 per cent. Fruit and vegetable prices have seen their highest rise since December 2022.</para>
<para>So what the government should be doing is urgently bringing forward measures to address the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are dealing with at the moment. But do they do that? No, they don't. They don't do that. They don't bring forward something to address that issue. They bring forward something to address an issue related to the ownership of NBN, despite basically never having spoken about the issue in parliament in the entire two years that the government has been in position. It is an extraordinary failure.</para>
<para>If you look at the communications portfolio, it is notable that the government seeks to bring on a debate about this issue, but what about the media bargaining code? What about the fact that Australian media companies have been absolutely smashed by Meta's withdrawal from paying for the intellectual property of Australian media? On 1 March, 7½ months ago, the Minister for Communications said that she and her colleague the Assistant Treasurer had made their expectations clear to the media companies—that this was just unacceptable and that the government would be taking firm action. That was 7½ months ago. What's happened since? Nothing, except—I'll tell you what has happened—large-scale job losses in the media industry. We've seen very substantial job losses. The minister might not think that's important, but I do. I do think it's important. We've seen very substantial job losses at Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment, Associated Press and News Corp, and those groups have all made it very clear that a key part of the reason for those job losses is Meta's refusal to pay under the news media bargaining code administered by this minister.</para>
<para>So does the minister bring a proposal to this government to actually solve the problem? No. The government doesn't do anything on that issue, which is so fundamental to the Australian media sector. Despite the clear powers that exist in the news media bargaining code, the government does absolutely nothing about that but seeks to artificially bring on a debate about the ownership of NBN, despite never talking about the issue in two years. It's kind of sad, transparent and pathetic as a political tactic.</para>
<para>That's why Australians have worked this government out, and they've worked this Prime Minister out. They've worked out that he doesn't stand for anything, that he's weak, that he's indecisive and that he's presiding over a cost-of-living crisis that is smashing the average Australian family, as well as record insolvencies. So, the human cost of this government's inaction is very disturbing. That's what the government should be trying to address. But the government is instead putting on a confected display to seek to have a debate about the ownership of the NBN, despite the fact that, back in 2021, the government said that the NBN would be kept in public hands.</para>
<para>This is not an issue that is new, not an issue that is urgent but an issue that is designed simply to bring forward a political debate. But that's not going to prevail, because people are smarter than that. People have seen through this government. They know that this government is desperate. They know that this government is weak, that it's indecisive, that it's presiding over some of the worst cost-of-living conditions Australians have ever seen. And rather than respond to that, rather than bring forward something to deal with these measures, the government does this.</para>
<para>You have to ask the Minister for Communications: why doesn't the minister bring forward anything about gambling advertising?</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a very serious question. Why doesn't the Minister for Communications address this issue? I mean, she can't say she's not aware it's an issue of public concern. She can't say it's not an issue that worries Australians. And she can't say it's an issue that she's not had plenty of time to address. But she can't bring forward anything on that. She brings forward a piece of legislation that is not urgent in order to simply have a confected political debate.</para>
<para>We'll review that legislation once we've been briefed on it, but what we will never, ever do is behave in the fashion of this government in presiding over a shocking cost-of-living crisis, of being weak and indecisive, of failing the Australian people and of putting politics before the substance of assisting Australians. That's something we will never do. This government should and must be held to account for its shocking failures.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The shadow minister for communications, in just a 17-minute speech, failed to talk about the National Broadband Network. And it's not surprising, because their record is so shocking when it comes to that. But he also had the temerity to suggest that the government should be doing cost-of-living measures. Cost-of-living measures that have been brought forward by this government have all been opposed by the opposition of which he is a part.</para>
<para>We brought forward measures to give tax cuts to all Australians. They said there should be an election over it. We brought forward energy price relief. They opposed it. We put caps on gas and coal prices. They rejected it and said that that was 'command economy' and taking over from where the market should be left alone. We brought forward cheaper medicines. They said it would ruin the pharmacy industry.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rob Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hey stupid! You brought it up!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Casey on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Violi</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen made an unparliamentary remark. I'd ask him to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I did not hear anything, I'm sorry. I heard the interjections from you earlier on, but I didn't hear that. Is there any reason for the member for McEwen to withdraw?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rob Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely not.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We brought forward cheaper childcare measures, opposed by those opposite. This legislation is also about the cost of living, because it's about making sure that the National Broadband Network can stay in public hands. It will not be a for-profit provider, which would have, by definition, an obligation to its shareholders—not the Australian people but its shareholders, people who buy shares on the stock market—and therefore would be obligated to maximise profits. This would mean that people in regional and in less densely populated areas of Australia, in particular, would suffer—just as we had to deal with the consequences of the privatisation of Telstra. One of the reasons why we put the National Broadband Network in public hands is that we didn't have a communications provider in the public sector to be able to roll out high-speed broadband for Australians, regardless of where they live.</para>
<para>The National Broadband Network is a vital national asset. It delivers an essential public service. It was built by Australians for Australians. It belongs to every Australian citizen, and it belongs in public hands. That's what this legislation is about. It's about safeguarding the future of the NBN, making sure it cannot be privatised and can't be hollowed out or sold off to overseas interests. This legislation is making sure that every Australian—whether they live in the city, in the regions or in the outer suburbs—can count on the affordable, reliable and fast internet that they need and deserve, publicly owned and affordable for all.</para>
<para>Prime Minister Gough Whitlam once said that his definition of equality was every child in Australia having a quiet room in which to study and a desk with a lamp to read by. That was in the 1970s. In 2024, every Australian child needs to be sitting at their desk with access to the NBN. That's true for school, for TAFE and for university—and every household needs it too. The NBN makes telehealth possible. It makes working from home possible as well. I remember being in the electorate of the member for Richmond, where telehealth services were being delivered, making an enormous difference—something that was written off by the coalition, who argued that it was all about watching videos. It's about delivery of services—health and education services—to wherever people live. It connects us with loved ones, interstate and overseas. It brings together communities of faith. It enables Australians to launch a startup or take their small business idea to a national market. It's what farmers, growers and producers use to monitor weather, soil, feed and water. It helps secure our supply chains, transport, freight and logistics. It supports our national security infrastructure, our banking system and our energy grid.</para>
<para>In every facet of our dynamic, outward-looking economy, in every element of our modern society, the NBN is fundamental to the way that we work, learn, trade and communicate. It's critical to our economic growth as well. A faster, better NBN will contribute $400 billion to GDP by 2030, and that's why our government has invested $2.4 billion to bring full-fibre NBN to an additional 1.5 million homes, including 660,000 in rural and regional centres. We're bringing free wi-fi to remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across the continent. We're helping 30,000 families with children in school with a free internet connection. I visited one of those schools in the minister's electorate, and it's making such an enormous difference to those children in Western Sydney, who would be without were it not for the commitment that the government has made. From next year, broadband speed will be up to five times faster at no extra cost, and today we are acting to safeguard the NBN for the future.</para>
<para>Since 2011, if a government wanted to sell the NBN, there were four steps they would have to take. In 2020 the Liberals took the first step: they declared the NBN was complete. 'Job done,' they said. Never mind the millions of households that were stuck without fibre or decent service, they wanted to get step 1 done. Then in 2022 they tried to jack up wholesale prices for high-speed broadband so every Australian would have to pay more. It's all about fattening the pig for market day and very similar to what occurred with Telstra under the former government. The ACCC rejected that attempt, but we know that this risk remains because there has never been a public service or a public asset that the coalition didn't want to flog off. It's in their DNA.</para>
<para>When the Leader of the Opposition is looking around for the billions that he needs in the lead-up to PEFO and beyond of how he will fund these nuclear reactors, the most expensive form of energy, he will look at the $315 billion of expenditure that they say is waste. But cuts to the pension, cuts to Medicare, cuts to wages and the sacking of public servants won't be enough to cover all the costs, and he will look towards selling the NBN. He will look at selling a service that virtually every Australian uses to build nuclear reactors that will provide less than four per cent of our energy. And the Liberal Party won't care that there are no Australian buyers. They'd be happy to sell off this national asset and sell out the national interest in a heartbeat. For those opposite it's always the same: let the market rip, and, if people are disadvantaged and miss out, so be it. Remember that their model was that those who could afford the best speeds could get the best speeds because everyone else just wanted to watch videos faster.</para>
<para>With this, we will make sure that people, particularly in regional and rural Australia, are looked after because the advances that are made in health, agriculture, small business, education and emergency communications are too important to be put at risk. Our government is fixing mobile blackspots in the bush that were left by those opposite. A privatised NBN would create internet black holes. In 2008 I was proud to introduce the legislation into this House that created the National Broadband Network. I was proud, as the then infrastructure minister, to do important work along with the then minister for communications Stephen Conroy. We couldn't know that a once-in-a-century pandemic would make remote work and remote learning a necessity for millions overnight, which it did. We didn't know at that time that machine learning, cloud computing and AI would drive exponential demand for faster internet speeds. But we did know that high-speed broadband would be critical for a stronger economy and that affordable broadband would be crucial for a fairer society.</para>
<para>Remember this: those opposite opposed at every level the creation of the National Broadband Network. They regarded it as waste and unnecessary. They regarded it as some obscure technology thing out there that was about watching videos. Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister, is these days known as 50 per cent of the Leader of the Opposition's brains trust, along with his former chief of staff. This is what he had to say in 2013:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… do we really want to invest $50 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money in what is essentially a video entertainment system?</para></quote>
<para>That was the approach of those opposite. They pledged to rip up Labor's fibre broadband network, which they did. They said the maximum internet speed a household would ever need would be 25 megabits per second. Next year, households across Australia will have access to broadband with speeds up to 80 times faster than that. That's how quickly technology overtakes you when you're stuck in the past and afraid of the future. That's how foolish and frightened the Liberals always look when they try and drag the rest of Australia back to the past, just to keep them company.</para>
<para>The Liberals wasted a decade turning their back on a first-rate fibre network that was already being rolled out. Instead, they bought 60,000 kilometres of copper—enough to wrap around the entire planet 1½ times—to build a slow, third-rate network that was out of date before it was operational. They said it'd cost $29.5 billion, then $41 billion, then $49 billion, then $51 billion and then $58 billion. They derailed progress to impose the wrong technology, which was out of date and redundant before it was built, and signed the country up for something that took longer to build, delivered a less reliable and more expensive service and inflicted massive cost blowouts in construction. If this sounds familiar, imagine trusting this mob to build nuclear reactors. They couldn't build car parks next to train stations for commuters, but they would have you believe that the mob that thought copper was better than fibre in this century could be trusted to build nuclear reactors.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to an NBN that provides fast broadband that every Australian can afford. That means an NBN that every Australian owns. This legislation is our promise and our guarantee to all Australians. Under Labor, the NBN will be affordable, reliable, fast and safe in public hands. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We finally had the question answered as to why we had to rush this bill forward and why it's been placed in the House two hours before the shadow minister's briefing. We need to go through the timeline of the last 24 hours to understand why the PM just stood on his feet to give that speech. We saw yesterday, in question time, a disgraceful, personal attack against the shadow Treasurer. It was an insult to many and to everyone in the disability community. Many in the disability community are outraged, rightly, about the attack that the PM made yesterday on the shadow Treasurer. We didn't hear anything from the Prime Minister until—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! You've had an introduction.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm about to link it to this bill.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not about linking; you need to talk about the bill.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm about to talk about the bill and why the bill has been brought forward and rushed in today, which is so the PM could stand there and talk about it right now. But, yesterday, when he came in at 7.59 pm, he didn't have support behind him. He was very happy to scurry in, but we had to rush the bill forward to create a distraction for the PM. We know from the words of the Minister for Communications herself that it is there to create a distraction. This is a complete stunt and a complete distraction. In her speech, she said the bill does 'not change the operations of the NBN'. It's not going to make any changes to those members of my community that can't access the NBN. It's not going to make any changes to the NBN for the victims of the June 2021 storms, who went months and months without their NBN, because the operation wasn't up to speed.</para>
<para>That's why the timing is relevant. There is nothing in this bill to improve the performance of the NBN. There is nothing in this bill to help the community of Casey in the Dandenong Ranges, in the Upper Yarra or in the Yarra Valley, which is struggling with its NBN. It's silence from the government on that, but they will rush this bill through so the Prime Minister can stand at the dispatch box and talk about his legacy and the NBN to distract from his disgraceful actions yesterday. That is why he was standing at that dispatch box. That is why this bill is being rushed through. It's pure politics and pure spin, because, in the minister's own words, this is not going to change the operation of the NBN.</para>
<para>In my community we know that the NBN is not delivering as it needs to. Just recently, at the Kalorama Chestnut Festival in the Dandenong Ranges, the NBN dropped out completely. No trader was able to use tap and go to collect money. Even worse than that was the danger created by phone communication not being accessible. The Dandenong Ranges is a dangerous area. It's a dangerous area for bushfires. It's a dangerous area, as we know, for storms. We've had three storm events in the last 18 months directly impacting the communications of our residents, including the NBN. It is an insult to my community that the government is rushing this bill through, even though, in the minister's own words, it will not change the operation of the NBN. It's all to give the PM a platform to distract from his actions yesterday. It's amazing that he can get everyone in the chamber today for his speech but he couldn't get anyone in the chamber last night when he came to apologise to those with disabilities and their families. It says a lot—who comes in when there's a stump speech to give and who turns up when there's an apology to give.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Casey, you were warned about the relevance matter by the Speaker just minutes ago. I bring you back to the subject of the bill.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll come straight back to the NBN. Let's look at the NBN and the Prime Minister talking about how great the NBN is. Well, it's not great for my community. Prices have gone up by 14 per cent since October last year, and the Prime Minister doesn't want to impact on the operations of the NBN.</para>
<para>Let's have a look at the performance of the NBN satellite. What are the consumers telling us about the NBN satellite? About 85,000 people have taken up the NBN through satellite. What are the other options? What are they saying? How do consumers react? Starlink is another satellite option. How many people in Australia have taken up Starlink? Around 270,000 Australians have chosen to take up Starlink. People are speaking with their money and with their feet. If you're the minister, or the Prime Minister, and you look at those results, it pretty much tells you there's an issue there. But they're not looking to make operational changes; they're just looking to have a stump speech and a bit of political spin.</para>
<para>Then we get the Prime Minister passionately defending the NBN and its public ownership, saying that it needs to stay public. I don't think he quite understood what he was doing, because in the same speech he then spoke about nuclear energy. The Prime Minister has stood at that dispatch box in question time, time after time, criticising the opposition because we want to invest in the energy system—another essential service. The Prime Minister talked about how important the NBN is as an essential service, and I agree with him on that. He says the NBN needs to be publicly owned, as an essential service, but we can't have publicly owned energy—we can't have an energy system that is reliable. Why not? The complete lack of logic in the Prime Minister's own words should concern every Australian. Supposedly it is vital that we have public ownership of the NBN because it's an essential service—I agree with that—but it's not vital that we have a strong, reliable electricity network underpinned by the only technology that is zero emission, provides reliable baseload power and is backed by many people, including the former Chief Scientist Alan Finkel. What that shows is that this is all about ideology. It's not actually about a fundamental belief in anything.</para>
<para>This is the challenge with this Prime Minister and this government. They don't stand for anything. They don't believe in anything. They're prepared to spin their performance. They're prepared to say what they need to say, trying to ride both sides of the fence. We saw it just then. We've seen a PM under pressure who is looking to distract. We've got a minister who is rushing through a bill that has no change to the operation of the NBN.</para>
<para>Yet, for months and months, we have been waiting for a response on gambling reform, which sits in the minister's portfolio. Last year, the opposition leader, in his budget in-reply speech, committed to banning gambling ads during sporting events and an hour before and after. That legislation could have been through this House already and people could have been able to watch sport with their families without having to see gambling ads if the minister and the Prime Minister had wanted to act. At that time, they said that they couldn't act because they needed to finish the Murphy report and they wanted to see that. We are now months and months and months from a response on that.</para>
<para>So it's this juxtaposition that we have, of a minister and a government that are suddenly prepared to rush through legislation that is symbolic—legislation that makes no changes at all, doesn't improve the operations of the NBN, doesn't bring prices down for the community and doesn't improve reliability for my community and for regional communities. It does none of that. But we've got to rush it through because it's symbolic.</para>
<para>In many ways, this bill sums up everything that is wrong with this government. It sums up the political spin of a government that is making it worse for the Australian people. They're not making a tangible difference. Two and a half years in, there's not one Australian who's feeling better today than they were 2½ years ago.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister promised he had solutions to the cost of living challenges that the Australian people faced; he promised that in May 2022. He hasn't delivered on that, because there's not an Australian that's feeling better. The Prime Minister promised energy bills would be reduced by $275, and they've gone up significantly in those 2½ years.</para>
<para>The reason that this bill is symbolic of that is: the reality is that you can't spin your way out of the challenges the Australian people face. You can't bring in a bill that makes no difference and think that the lives of the Australian people are going to be improved. I can understand—I've got a little bit of empathy for the Prime Minister, in the sense that he's been in this House since 1996. He's spent his whole life here. This is what he knows; this is what he understands. The Treasurer brags about being involved in delivering 18 budgets, either as a Treasurer, a staffer or an MP. So I'm sure they genuinely think that a bill like this makes a difference; I'm sure they do. But it doesn't.</para>
<para>Unless you are delivering on the root causes of what the Australian people face, you are not going to solve the challenges that we face. We've seen it with energy. We've seen it with interest rates. We've seen it with housing. We're now seeing it with the NBN.</para>
<para>This bill will make no difference for the Australian people. It will not improve performance at all. Yet the Prime Minister of this country deemed it so important to speak on a bill that makes no tangible difference to the Australian people that he came down from his office and sat here and he mandated that every member of his team turn up and sit in the back so he gets a good camera shot. They needed the great optics of the Prime Minister standing at the dispatch box with everyone behind him instead of talking to constituents and doing the work they were doing. They were here to nod heads for the Prime Minister on a bill that, in the minister's own words, will not change the operations of the NBN. It will not improve the services for the residents of Casey. It will not improve services for the Dandenongs. It will not help those businesses that lost so much money in Kalorama. This is the frustration that we feel. It's all the spin. We can get everyone together for the spin. Two and a half weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with what we refer to as the captains on the hill. Up at Kalorama, there was the Kalorama Mount Dandenong CFA and the Sassafras-Ferny Creek CFA. Olinda CFA were represented as well. We spoke to the Kallista CFA about the communications challenges that they face. They haven't been resolved 2½ years later. They need to be resolved.</para>
<para>Let's understand, when we talk about this, how important this is. In the June storms of 2021, for Sarah, who is involved at the Sassafras-Ferny Creek CFA, the only way to communicate with other CFA volunteers putting their lives on the line was through text message. But she had to leave her phone on her desk at the station and try to text. Sometimes it would work, and sometimes it wouldn't. It's the middle of the night, and we are asking residents of our community to volunteer their time to keep us safe. They do that willingly, but we need to give them the communications that they need and deserve for our emergency services. That is what they need.</para>
<para>Two and a half years into the Albanese Labor government, we don't get a solution to those challenges, but we get a bill that makes no difference and does not improve the communications for the CFAs or residents in my community. We get a bill that is a stunt. It is a bill to allow the Prime Minister to distract from his character failings yesterday. That's what it's about. Ultimately, this bill is so symbolic of the Albanese Labor government. It's all about spin and optics; it's not about delivering for the Australian people. You can spin for a little while, but, after 2½ years, the Australian people know they've been abandoned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm the fifth person to speak on the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill. However, I am only the third to talk about the NBN! The member for Casey and the member for Banks are incredible. That's half an hour of my life that I will never get back because I had to listen to them—and they can't even spell NBN! Unbelievable! It reminded me—I'm actually old enough to remember; the member for Casey probably isn't—that we used to have this thing where we would dial up to get the internet. Your speeches were like that sound—I could just hear it in my head—when you didn't get through. You tried to get a connection, but it just didn't work. Your horse-and-buggy copper is really last century. Unfortunately, the NBN needed to be of this century.</para>
<para>I was here in the 43rd parliament. I've been around for a while. In fact, I ran for the election 20 years ago today. I got a second prize. I see Tony Burke, Chris Bowen, Justine Elliot and Steve Georganas. I wish them all well for their 20-year anniversaries. I remember what it was like in the 43rd parliament and how a farmer called Tony Windsor, a great man who served this country, understood the benefits of the NBN for farmers. He actually said, 'This will be a benefit for the modern-day farmer, for the modern-day miner and for education,' as the Prime Minister touched on. Every modern-day student will benefit from having a fibre network where they're sitting doing their homework or where they're at university—even if they're sitting and doing university work beside the Brisbane River or wherever it is. That's what the NBN enables.</para>
<para>I just wanted to point out to the member for Casey and the member for Banks that this NBN is a National Broadband Network. Why is it national? That's because we saw that we couldn't let the market do it. Prime Minister Rudd, a Queenslander, and Treasurer Swan—I think we particularly understood because we come from a decentralised state, where half of the people of Queensland live outside the south-east corner. Those Queenslanders understood the benefits of that fibre network. I know you all want to hear my speech, and I will have a lot more to say about it later today.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 11 September 2024 and varied on 9 October 2024. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>18</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> has this morning reported that the Albanese government granted a visa to Fayez Elhasani, an individual proudly and openly linked to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad—both listed terrorist organisations in this country—and that Elhasani is now living in Australia. Prime Minister, has the visa for this individual been cancelled?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The process for all visas for people who have come from Palestine has been exactly the same for every one of them. They all come into the same process, and the engagement with the security agencies has been the same the whole way through. And I have to say, if it's a choice about who I'll take advice from between the shadow minister who asked the question or the director-general of ASIO, I'm sorry, but I'm going to listen to the director-general of ASIO.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The leader will pause. Members on my right are going to cease interjecting—the member for Spence is now warned—so I can hear the point of order from the member for Wannon.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on relevance, Speaker. The question was a very direct one. Has the visa of this individual been cancelled?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can appreciate the member would like—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Wannon will not interject.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gippsland is not helping things. The minister was asked a question. He needs to remain directly relevant. He has been talking about ASIO. I'm going to listen carefully to make sure he is being directly relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The process that they go through is this. Every single applicant is first of all checked against the Movement Alert List. The Movement Alert List is updated every 24 hours, involving ASIO's information. Then, if additional flags are raised at any point, separate referrals happen to ASIO. Then, people who were getting out of that part of the world had to go through a border that was controlled by both Egypt and Israel with the relevant checks that would happen at that point as well. In addition to that, it is now public that there was a further check that was made in March of every single visa holder within this case load either onshore or offshore. All of those checks have been made.</para>
<para>If at any point our security agencies gave advice to the government that a visa should be cancelled, then the government of course would take that advice seriously. But the concept that we should abandon our security agencies and defer instead to Google searches from the opposition is not something this government will do.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. How will keeping the National Broadband Network in public ownership deliver productivity, connectivity and cost-of-living benefits for Australians, and what are alternative positions on NBN ownership?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. Labor founded the National Broadband Network to provide fast, reliable and affordable broadband to all Australians, and we are delivering on that vision for a world-class fibre network. Only by keeping the NBN in public ownership can that vision continue to be delivered. The NBN is critical infrastructure that reaches over 12.4 million premises across Australia. Currently more than 8.6 million homes and businesses are connected to the NBN. Ongoing government ownership of the NBN will help keep wholesale broadband prices more affordable for consumers than if the company was in private ownership.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is investing $2.4 billion over four years to give more households and businesses full fibre access. More than 70,000 kilometres of new fibre has been rolled out, and over 2,300 fixed wireless towers have been upgraded. For the first time, this work is progressing on time and on budget. Fibre can deliver speeds 18 times faster than the average copper connection and is less likely to drop out. From next year, the NBN will be boosting download speeds by up to five times current speeds, at no extra wholesale cost. The productivity and efficiency gains are significant. Research commissioned by NBN shows that Australians save more than 100 hours and $2,580 per year in avoided travel time and costs in working from home and undertaking tasks online.</para>
<para>We know the coalition want to sell the NBN, just like they sold Telstra. In fact, the former minister declared in 2020 that the NBN was built and fully operational. 'Mission accomplished,' he declared, despite the fact that there were still millions of Australians in the fixed line footprint stranded on deteriorating coalition copper. They took the first step in the NBN sale process. This was a legacy of their ill-founded copper experiment. It blew out the cost of the NBN from $29 billion to $41 billion, then $49 billion, then $57 billion. We know the Liberals have form, selling off assets and leaving ordinary Australians with higher prices and poorer services, and the Nationals are too weak to stand up to them.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There was far too much noise while the minister was on her feet. That wall of noise is completely disrespectful. Everyone on the front bench just completely yelling, including the member for Barker and the member for O'Connor, is unparliamentary. It's also disrespectful, particularly when a female minister is on her feet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Barker will leave the chamber under 94(a). I mean it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker will come back and apologise to the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I apologise.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The member for Barker then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East: Migration</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese government granted a visa to Fayez Al-Hassani, an individual openly linked to terrorist organisations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In 2019 Al-Hassani reportedly hosted a summit of terror organisation leaders, which he opened by stating they must 'confront the occupation by all possible means'. Prime Minister, has the visa of this individual been cancelled?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is not different to the last one, and the answer is not different to the last one, either. If at any point we receive advice from our security agencies that a visa should be cancelled, that is what will happen. This concept that shadow ministers should be the proxies for our security agencies is just a bizarre way to operate. Our security agencies work through the evidence that they have. They never stop collecting information, even after people are here. And this government stands with full confidence in our security agencies. I'm not sure what the position of the opposition is on that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring Australians have access to affordable broadband now and into the future? Are there any threats to a publicly owned and affordable NBN?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. Indeed, the NBN was built by Australians for Australians, and it belongs to Australians. And it belongs in public hands, because it should be affordable and accessible to all Australians. We've introduced legislation into the House today that safeguards the future of the NBN, making sure it can't be privatised, sold off or hollowed out, because there has never been a public service or asset that the Liberal Party didn't want to carve up and sell off. That is what they do. And they had this to say when they vehemently opposed the creation of the NBN. Of course, Malcolm Turnbull was then the shadow minister for broadband. I used to say 'the shadow minister for fraud-band and the copper economy'; that's what I called him at the time. He said there was probably no Gillard government policy more inexcusably or needlessly reckless than the construction of the National Broadband Network. We know as well that Tony Abbott, the former prime minister, is one of the key advisers of the current Leader of the Opposition. He had this to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's pretty obvious that the main usage for the NBN is going to be internet-based television, video entertainment and gaming … do we really want to invest $50 billion worth of hard-earned taxpayers' money in what is essentially a video entertainment system?</para></quote>
<para>They didn't get it. They didn't get the role that the NBN plays in education services delivery for every child and every student, the role that it plays in the delivery of health services, the role that it plays in agriculture and the critical role that it plays in our national security system as well. They spent a decade trying to destroy the NBN. They introduced 60,000 kilometres of copper to roll out an inferior network, replacing fibre with copper that was redundant before it was even finished. The cost blew out from $29 billion to $57 billion. It was out of date before it was operational.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left! The Minister for Infrastructure!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, they show their opposition to this through their reactions. They show their hatred of a system that they opposed from the beginning and that they undermined when they were in government. They don't understand as well that this is a part of creating equity for every Australian.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>21</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Piper, the Hon. Greg MP, Minnican, Ms Helen, Gutwein, the Hon. Peter, headspace, Work Exposure in Government Program</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the honourable member for the next question, I'd like to make some acknowledgements. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Hon. Greg Piper MP, Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, and Ms Helen Minnican, the Clerk of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly.</para>
<para>I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Hon. Peter Gutwein, a former premier of Tasmania. Mr Gutwein arrived in Canberra today after walking 330 kilometres to raise awareness of the importance of multicultural Australia, with the walk a symbol that, when it comes to diversity and inclusion, every step forward together makes us better.</para>
<para>Also in the gallery are representatives from headspace, who are in Parliament House today to celebrate headspace Day 2024 to remind young people and their families that they are not alone.</para>
<para>I also welcome members from the Work Exposure in Government—or WEX—program. They are in Canberra visiting departments and agencies to learn about careers in the Australian public service. Welcome to you all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—This morning I had the privilege of meeting with the former premier of Tasmania Peter Gutwein. He's on a mission: walking to celebrate the role that migrants have played in Australians' story up to now and will play in Australia 's future. Mr Gutwein has, through his experience and concern that he had in Tasmania, wanted to reaffirm the important role of multiculturalism in this country—in who we are in 2024. He spoke to me today about the extraordinary contribution that people, particularly from the subcontinent, are making in the delivery of health services in Tasmania. We spoke about the range of services and the role that migrants are playing, essentially, in agriculture and in the great story that is modern Australia. I certainly reaffirmed my government's commitment to social inclusion and support for multiculturalism and cohesion as well. It's one of the reasons why I appointed Peter Khalil as the Special Envoy for Social Cohesion, because we can't take it for granted.</para>
<para>I congratulate Mr Gutwein on his leadership in undertaking this big journey. His journey, his walk, is similar to the walk that Australia has taken towards this modern, vibrant, dynamic, multicultural society that we are. We can't take it for granted. We need to cherish it and we need to nurture it. I thank Mr Gutwein for his contribution—post parliamentary life, his ongoing contribution—to public life. Well done!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I join the Prime Minister, endorse his fine words and welcome Peter Gutwein to the parliament. I look forward to catching up with him later today. As the Prime Minister points out, it's an incredibly important objective that he has in his heart, and the way in which he's been able to embrace people across Australian communities, from Tasmania to Canberra, is a great credit to him. The message that he spreads and that he seeks to be adopted by all Australians is one that is incredibly important for the fabric of our country today and into the future as well.</para>
<para>Peter, thank you so much for the sacrifice and the awareness that you create. We welcome you as a most honoured guest here today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>21</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a question for the Minister for Home Affairs. To respond to the housing crisis, we need more construction workers and tradies to build more homes, but the building industry recruited only half of the additional workers it needed in the first half of this year. The government has proposed a fast-tracked specialist skills pathway for skilled migrants. Given this housing crisis, why have you specifically excluded construction workers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Curtin for the question. In terms of the different priorities that we have in managing the migration program, the principle should always be that our migration program, particularly the skills stream, needs to be tailored to the needs of the nation, and there is a very clear need of the nation at the moment with respect to the building of houses. I'm alarmed when I hear some of the comments that come from those opposite, where they seem to be willing to cut the numbers, including cutting numbers of people who would in fact be involved in building houses, as somehow trying to help deal with a challenge in having enough houses.</para>
<para>The legislation that's before the parliament creates a number of different priority pathways. There is one that will largely be used by IT workers, where there's a threshold of over 135,000. It's a specialist skills pathway that trades are not part of, and that's the one that the member for Curtin refers to. The core skills pathway, though, does include trades if they are listed on the core skills occupation list, and I'll be making decisions on the core skills occupation list soon. The draft list that was put out, which I can refer to because it was put out as a draft list and is public, did include the various occupations: electricians, carpenters and joiners, plumbers, roof tilers.</para>
<para>Making sure that we have enough people to be able to build homes is a critical role of the immigration system, and the member for Curtin is right when she says we haven't been able to get the number of people that industry want to get at the moment—that's true. It's also true that last year the number of skilled construction workers who were granted visas was 10,000, and that was the highest number in a decade. So, in terms of the government trying to turn the system around to respond to the crisis in making sure that we've got enough workers in construction, that is being done. I have had the member for Curtin and other members of the crossbench raise with me this exact issue that for all the skills priorities, there is a big public interest right now in making sure that we get the people we need to build the houses that we need. The government agrees with that, and the core skills pathway should be able to do that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government securing the future of the National Broadband Network as a driver of a stronger economy? How does this compare to other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Swan is an engineer from WA. She knows her stuff, and she's a terrific local member. I appreciate her question because the National Broadband Network is a key piece of economic infrastructure. It drives opportunity for Australians and prosperity for businesses and local communities, and that's why it needs to be publicly owned so it's affordable for all. High speed, affordable broadband transforms every part of our economy. It enables revolutions in e-commerce, telehealth, education and training, remote collaboration, and government services. The Liberals should understand this, but they don't. It also has vast potential connecting our regions, which suffered under the glacial Howard-era internet speeds for too long. The Nationals should understand this, but they don't.</para>
<para>The coalition's NBN was half as good for twice the cost. Their waste and mismanagement saw the NBN blow out by $29 billion. I want to pay tribute to the communications minister for her hard work in getting the NBN back on track with the support of this prime minister and his government. In our first budget, we invested $2.4 billion in the NBN to give 1½ million more homes and businesses access to the full fibre network, including over 660,000 in regional communities. One of the things we're really proud of is that we're reducing the digital divide through our School Student Broadband Initiative, which helps up to 30,000 families who didn't have internet access get free broadband, saving them $1,000 a year when they really need it. Because of all of our efforts, more than 10 million premises will have access to fast, full fibre by the end of next year.</para>
<para>This is how we help make our economy more productive and more dynamic. It's how we make our people and businesses and communities beneficiaries, not victims, of all of the churn and change we see in our economy. It's not by making them work longer for less but by investing in technology and human capital and adapting and adopting that technology. This investment is not optional; it's essential, and that side has never understood this. They have never understood the NBN and what it means for our economy. They squandered billions of dollars, and they made a total mess of its management, and we are turning it around—this Albanese government, this minister and her colleagues. We are making sure that the NBN is publicly owned and affordable for all because this helps make our communities and our economy stronger as a consequence.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East: Migration</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Have any of the tourist visas granted to those coming from the terrorist controlled Gaza war zone since 7 October 2023 been cancelled?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll deal with the question in two parts—firstly, specifically with reference to the issue of visa cancellations and, secondly, with the concept of visas coming from war zones. First of all, with respect to cancellations, the situation is the same as when I last advised the parliament, which is that some cancellations have occurred and they have all occurred offshore. But that does not change the fact that the security agencies never stop collecting information, as has happened no matter who is in government, and we continue to conduct various checks on people who have visas, whether they are onshore or offshore. But, specific to the question, the cancellations so far have been offshore.</para>
<para>The issue which was raised in the preface to the question—and it has been raised a number of times in this House—was about the use of visitor visas from people coming from war zones. Because the Syrians who came on humanitarian visas were separately interviewed, there's been a presumption that they were the only people who came from the war zone during that time. It's to be remembered that, during the period those opposite were in office, for a large part of that time the Leader of the Opposition was the minister in charge of these programs. Large parts of Afghanistan were controlled by the Taliban, and did the then government put a ban on visitor visas from Afghanistan? No. One thousand nine hundred and ninety-one visitor visas were granted from Afghanistan during that period. From Iraq and Syria during the period that Islamic State controlled large parts of Iraq and Syria, did they put a ban on visitor visas from the region? No. Four thousand nine hundred and ninety-four visitor visas were granted from Iraq and 1,505 visitor visas were granted from Syria. Similarly, during the entire period when the Gaza Strip was controlled by Hamas, 864 visitor visas were granted from the Palestinian territories.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will keeping public ownership of the National Broadband Network benefit regional Australians, and what are the threats to this?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bendigo for the question. She and I, as proud regional members of this place, know how important the NBN is for our regions. In fact, when we were previously in government we deliberately started the rollout of fibre to the home in the regions. All of the regional areas of Tasmania were to be included. Ballarat was first, and Bendigo was scheduled to be included as well. Regional Australia was benefiting, and it was a game changer and remains a game changer for our regions. New businesses started in our communities. We saw people for the first time being able to access the internet at speeds that allowed them to actually study online. It was a game changer for the regions and it remains so today.</para>
<para>The National Broadband Network is a critical piece of infrastructure and it is absolutely vital to ensuring that communities remain connected, our kids can learn and our businesses in regional Australia can continue to deliver and sell their goods and services to the rest of the world. We know that high-speed broadband is essential to modern life. It allows Australians to work remotely, run their businesses more productively and enjoy leisure with their families. That is why Labor has delivered the NBN, and it is Labor that is committed to ensuring that it remains in public hands—and that is important for the affordability of the NBN, particularly in our regions. If we want to make sure it remains affordable and accessible to all, having it in public hands is the only way to ensure that. Right now, more than 8.6 million homes and businesses are connected to the NBN, including many in our regions. It's a great equaliser, ensuring those living in our regions have the same access to affordable high-speed broadband that those living in our cities often take for granted.</para>
<para>The bill introduced today by the Minister for Communications, the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024, will make this commitment law. It removes existing legislative conditions which would allow for the privatisation of the NBN, keeping it in public hands. We know, frankly, if the coalition had its way, the NBN would be privatised, putting at risk affordable high-speed broadband for families and businesses in regional Australia. Those opposite have form when it comes to this privatisation. When in government—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business gets a lot of latitude because of the position he holds, but simply yelling nonstop while the minister's on her feet is unparliamentary and, I'll say again, is disrespectful. To assist the House, and so I and all members can hear the answer, the Manager of Opposition Business will cease the interjections for the remainder of this answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, when in government, they rushed to declare that the NBN was complete so that they could flog it off. They supported significant price rises across the NBN products to fatten up income streams in preparation for sale. And I was here when they privatised Telstra. We had Kay Hull here just yesterday. I remember arguing with her in the corridors, asking, 'Why on earth did the National Party vote for the privatisation of Telstra?' We know what that has meant for trying to get services into the regions and what it has meant for affordable pricing of telecommunications. You have form on privatisation. You sold the regions out when it came to Telstra, and you'll do it again.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would just remind the minister to direct her remarks through the chair and not use the term 'you'.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East: Migration</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, does supporting Hamas pass the character test for an Australian visa?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The questions with respect to character and the different flags that are put forward by ASIO have been answered by Mike Burgess. They've been answered clearly. I'm not going to change a word of what has been said with respect to that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Why is ongoing public ownership of the NBN important for our regions? And what other approaches are there?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I want to thank the member for Paterson for the question. She knows the value of access to affordable, high-speed NBN in our regions. Regional communities just like mine and just like hers rely on the NBN to access health care, to access education, for our businesses and to remain connected to each other. It was a Labor government that established the NBN, because there was a digital transformation happening across the world and we didn't want Australians to be left behind.</para>
<para>In this term of government, we've invested $2.4 billion to expand access to full-fibre NBN to 1.5 million homes across the nation. That includes 660,000 across our regions. We're building on that investment through the bill introduced today, which will ensure that the NBN is owned by people across Australia. We know in 2024 that connectivity is not a 'nice to have'; it's an absolute necessity, particularly for people in our regions. That is why only an Albanese Labor government will ensure that the NBN stays in government hands. Keeping it in government hands means we can retain oversight on pricing, on infrastructure investment and on service quality for all consumers.</para>
<para>I know firsthand, as a regional small-business owner, that reliable and affordable broadband impacts our bottom line. Without reliable connectivity to high-speed broadband, our business stops. We lose control of invoicing, inventory, payroll and remote staff access. When the wreckers opposite came to power in 2013 and started ripping fibre out of the ground they created a digital divide. That is not an analogy; it is literally a real-world example that happened 15 minutes over the border in my electorate, in Jerrabomberra, where half the suburb had access to full-fibre, first-rate, high-speed internet while the other half had to suffer through the ridiculous coalition copper dropout system for more than a decade.</para>
<para>It took a Labor government to provide high-speed connectivity to the rest of the suburb. Earlier this term, the Minister for Communications and I stood with the Jerrabomberra community to celebrate their final full connection to fibre broadband. Those opposite go into our regions making promises on what they'll deliver, but what they've delivered is a privatised Telstra and a second-rate NBN which has left our regions behind. Just as they sold Telstra, they'll sell the NBN. Given half a chance, they'd sell your grandma's couch—except they'd have to do the work of lifting it, so that might be a bit too hard!</para>
<para>Labor governments build things. We created the NBN. We created Medicare. We created the NDIS. And we'll keep it in government hands. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East: Migration</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese government granted a visa to Fayez Al-Hassani, an individual openly linked to listed terrorist organisations, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that his government has not granted visas to any other individuals from the terrorist-controlled Gaza war zone who have links to listed terrorist organisations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are seven or eight different ways of asking the same question so I guess we get the same answer, which is that our security agencies never stop collecting information, and that's exactly as it should be. When people first apply for a visa, the movement alert list represents the information that we already have. The different alerts that can then result in an ASIO referral—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The leader has concluded his answer.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! When the House comes to order, we'll hear from the member for Lyons.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support students and to build a better and fairer education system?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my friend the legendary member for Lyons for his question. We're wiping $3 billion of student debt for more than three million Australians. The legislation to do that is in the House right now and will be debated this afternoon.</para>
<para>The big hike in student debt that happened last year hit a lot of Australians hard—a lot of young Australians in particular. They made their voices heard and we have heard them. It's why I asked the Australian Universities Accord team to look at this last year. They recommended that we change the current system and set indexation of student debt at either inflation or wages—whichever is the lowest. The legislation that's in the House does that, and it goes further than that. It backdates this to June last year, which means that it'll wipe out what happened last year and make sure that it never happens again. This will happen once the bill is passed by this parliament.</para>
<para>After that happens, the ATO will automatically apply this to your student loan. It means that, for someone with a student debt of, say, $26,000, their debt will be cut by about $1,200. For someone with a HECS debt of, say, $45,000, their debt will be cut by about $2,000. It's an important reform to make HECS fairer, and it's just one of the things that we're doing to make our education system better and fairer.</para>
<para>We're also introducing, for the first time, paid prac for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students, to provide them with a bit of cost-of-living support while they do the practical part of their degree. We're also massively expanding the fee-free university ready courses that help young Australians get the skills they need to take on a uni degree. We're also introducing an independent, national student ombudsman to give university students a stronger voice when the worst happens and to make sure their universities are held accountable. All of this is in the parliament right now.</para>
<para>Also in the parliament is legislation to deliver a 15 per cent pay rise to our early educators—people who do some of the most important work in this country. Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation to increase funding for our public schools and to tie that funding to real, practical reform to turn around the drop in the number of students finishing high school. For about 10 years the Liberal Party neglected education. Worse than that, they ripped the guts out of it. This is about fixing that. That's what these reforms are all about.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>25</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>BAPS Cranbourne</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to invite leaders from the BAPS community, from Cranbourne, who are here as guests of the member for Holt.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>25</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. During my doorknocking in the past six months my community of Fowler have told me that they have seen unprecedented increases in their energy bills under your Labor government. What will your government do to reform the electricity market and provide meaningful and real relief for households and businesses who are hurting, instead of offering small, temporary handouts, which we all know are short-term solutions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fowler for her question. I note that she would have been doorknocking for the local government elections that were held, and I congratulate her on her election to Fairfield City Council in the elections that were held in September.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Bell</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Donating her wage.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Moncrieff does not need to interject while the Prime Minister is congratulating a member.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was indeed also in her electorate last Friday, in Cabramatta with my friend Tu Le, walking through the electorate and talking to constituents. I must say that it was a very warm welcome that I received in that wonderful multicultural community that she represents in this place.</para>
<para>With the issue of energy relief, the recent figures show a decrease, a drop, that has occurred. The member, from memory, also voted for energy bill relief that we introduced into this chamber. It was for $300. In addition to that, you've had the New South Wales government, under the former coalition, which, unlike this coalition here, actually supported energy bill relief. They also supported the unprecedented action that we took to put a cap on gas and coal prices. We understood that, because of those global factors, there was a need for intervention. That was something that was opposed by those opposite but was supported overwhelmingly by the crossbench both in this House and in the Senate. We'll continue to address cost-of-living relief, whether it be energy, the medicine price relief that her constituents would have benefited from, the cheaper child care that they would have benefited from and the fee-free TAFE that they would have benefited from.</para>
<para>I look forward to visiting the electorate of Fowler regularly over the coming months, where, no doubt, I will talk with her constituents about the needs that they have in that important part of south-west Sydney.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersecurity</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Cyber Security. How will the Albanese Labor government's cybersecurity reforms help keep Australians safe?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bean for the question. This afternoon I'll be introducing a package of cybersecurity legislation. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Housing, who was involved in a whole lot of the development of what will be introduced in the House later today. There are a number of measures in there, but I want to focus on just a few of them. There's one about smart devices, there's one about ransomware and there's one about limited use.</para>
<para>With respect to smart devices, one of the things that many of us will have in our own homes is a series of devices connected to the internet which, if hacked, provide access into our homes. Some of us will have smart speakers. Some of us, for example, will have robotic vacuum cleaners. Many would have seen the story that was published on the ABC online during the week of a robotic vacuum cleaner capable of being hacked and that can, effectively, provide video coverage inside somebody's home.</para>
<para>At the moment, we have no way as a government to be able to provide minimum standards that provide consumer protection and that also provide protection nationally in terms of cybersecurity if any of these items are hacked. Sometimes the hacking of one item can actually provide a gateway through to everything else within a household. Some items, for example, are still sold where the default password is the word 'password', which, if somebody doesn't bother to change, creates an obvious problem in terms of the security of everything that might be connected to the internet in that house. So the legislation today will allow the government, for the first time, to be able to provide minimum standards that will provide that protection that the nation needs in terms of cybersecurity. But also, realistically, the same sort of protection delivers for households, in terms of their own privacy.</para>
<para>As for ransomware, there are a couple of ways that ransomware attacks occur. Sometimes, it's the theft of information and a threat to publish it and sell it on the dark web. On other occasions, it's where a ransom attack in fact gets hold of a system and locks it down. In either situation, the government's advice is always against the payment of ransomware attacks, but we would now at least have, where people decide that they will pay the ransom, a mandatory reporting process, so that the government is better able to monitor and get on top of where those attacks are coming from.</para>
<para>The limited use provisions are about, when a business has an attack, making sure that the business—when they provide information to the government, which we might seek to help them with the cyberattack—doesn't think the government is then going to use that information for a series of other purposes.</para>
<para>The bill, of course, because of its national security nature, will go to the intelligence committee. There have been briefings that have happened in advance with the opposition as well. It's one of those examples of cybersecurity which is very much in the national interest.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister guarantee his government has not granted a visa to any individual from the terrorist-controlled Gaza war zone who has links to a listed terrorist organisation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I said earlier, in terms of terrorist organisations, that I didn't want to add to the words of Mike Burgess or vary them. I've got the quote, so I'll read it directly: 'If you think terrorism is okay, if you think the destruction of the state of Israel is okay, if you think Hamas and what they did on 7 October is okay, I can tell you: that is not okay, and, from an ASIO security assessment point of view, you will not pass muster.' That is the test. That is the security test that's provided.</para>
<para>Now, the member asks what guarantee can be provided. I'll tell you: the guarantee is the guarantee of our security agencies being responsible and a government that has confidence in them—which, I might say, is the same guarantee the Leader of the Opposition would have provided with respect to 1,991 people coming from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. It's the same guarantee—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The leader will pause. The member for Wannon on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Speaker. On relevance: how can this individual be here, then, given that advice from—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. It's a point of relevance made; it's not an opportunity to ask an additional question or a reframe of the question. The Leader of the House, in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So the guarantee that this government gives and the guarantee of confidence in our security agencies is the same guarantee the Leader of the Opposition would have given when he let in, on visitor visas, 4,994 people from an Iraq controlled by Islamic State, described by the people who then stood here as a 'death cult'. It is the same guarantee that the Leader of the Opposition would have given, when he held my job, about 1,505 people he let in from Syria on visitor visas and the same guarantee the Leader of the Opposition would have given with respect to 864 people who came here from the Palestinian territories.</para>
<para>If you want to be on this side of the chamber and you don't have confidence in our security agencies, say so, because this government has confidence in our security agencies, and those opposite are now wanting to demand a whole lot of examples on which, tested against their record, they would fail dismally, every single time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government's responsible economic management repairing the budget and making room for cost-of-living relief? What are the alternatives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Boothby for her really important question and for all of her work. Once again, we're getting questions on budget repair and the cost of living from this side of the House but not from that side of the House, and that's because we're focused on the economy and they're not. And it's because, since the last time the parliament met, we've released the Final Budget Outcome for the year just finished, and that showed the first back-to-back surpluses in almost two decades. This is a very important demonstration of our responsible economic management, and responsible economic management is a defining feature of the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>We've been here for two years and we've delivered two surpluses. In the first year, it was a $22 billion surplus, which was a $100 billion turnaround from what we inherited from those opposite. In our second year, it was a $15.8 billion surplus, which was a $72 billion turnaround from what we inherited from those opposite. That $172 billion turnaround in just two years is the biggest ever nominal improvement in a parliamentary term. The second surplus is bigger than anticipated at budget time because spending is lower, not because revenue was higher than expected.</para>
<para>It's important to say that we do not see a surplus as an end in itself. We see the surplus as a way to fight inflation, to make room for our cost-of-living help, to buffer this country against global economic uncertainty and to pay down Liberal debt so that we pay less interest on that debt, and, by paying down $150 billion of their debt, we're saving around $80 billion in interest over the next decade.</para>
<para>Those opposite promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter, and they delivered exactly none. They printed the mugs, but they never printed a surplus. We've gone back in black back to back. We've gone back in black back to back by deliberately banking revenue and methodically finding the savings. We've turned their two huge Liberal deficits into two substantial Labor surpluses. We've done this while providing cost-of-living relief, not instead of providing cost-of-living relief, to people who need it because we know people are doing it tough. That's what responsible economic management looks like. It would be unrecognisable to those opposite, and that's why they don't ask me any questions about it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Emissions are higher under your government than under the previous, Morrison government. Yesterday you told the Global Nature Positive Summit—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, the member for Ryan will begin her question again. Everyone knows my position during question time. It's about the individual being respected and heard with their question, so no interjections while the member for Ryan begins her question again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's to the environment minister. Emissions are higher under your government than under the previous, Morrison government. Yesterday you told the Global Nature Positive Summit that you want to protect nature and the climate. Why, then, do you keep approving new coal and gas projects, including one that will operate until 2080?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I might leave a little bit of time for the Minister for Climate and Energy to add to my answer, but I would say to the Greens political party that every one of the projects that the member is referring to—the three extensions that she's referring to—is measured against our safeguard mechanism. That's a mechanism that you helped design and that you voted for that will get Australia to net zero by 2050. You agreed to those laws because, you said, these will get carbon pollution down.</para>
<para>I know that the Greens are a bit embarrassed about their history in this area because, of course, last time we were in government, they voted with the Liberals and Nationals to block action on carbon pollution reduction, and, because of that, 80 million extra tonnes of carbon pollution was emitted into our atmosphere. Under Labor, by contrast, we've now got renewable energy proceeding apace. I have already approved 63 renewable energy projects, enough to power seven million Australian homes. We've got renewable energy in our grid up to 42 per cent, and on a very happy half-hour last week there was 72 per cent renewable energy in our grid.</para>
<para>What is the biggest risk to this transition to renewable energy? Well, the biggest risk is those opposite and their fanciful approach to suggest that nuclear power, the most expensive form of electricity generation, might help out in 20 years time. What absolutely blows me away is that I never hear anything from the Greens political party pointing out that nuclear power is the biggest risk to the transition to renewable energy in this country. I remind the chamber that I'm the first minister in Australian history ever to actually block a coalmine, but I did that because of its impact on water and the Great Barrier Reef. Coal projects aren't assessed for their emissions under environment laws; they're assessed under the safeguard mechanism, which you helped design and deliver and voted for.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to report to the House, in support of the Minister for the Environment and Water, that emissions are down in the year to March 2024 by 2.7 million tonnes. That's what real policy achieves—not rolling around Newcastle Harbour. That doesn't bring emissions down; real policies bring emissions down.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How are the Albanese government's actions to strengthen Medicare making it easier for Australians to see a bulk-billing doctor, after a decade of cuts and neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question and for joining us this morning at the terrific mental health expo in the Mural Hall that Mental Health Australia convened, along with the member for North Sydney and a number of members across the chamber.</para>
<para>When we came to government, bulk-billing was in freefall, as the member said, after a decade of cuts and neglect to Medicare. The member promised that a Labor government would turn that around, and we're delivering on that promise. The Treasurer just talked about the two surpluses he's delivered. At the same time, he delivered the two biggest increases to the Medicare rebate in 30 years. In two budgets he's increased the Medicare rebate by more than those opposite managed in nine budgets. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive for visits to the GP. Not only has that stopped the slide in bulk-billing that we inherited from those opposite; it's also seen a rebound in bulk-billing in every single state and territory. In less than 12 months we've seen almost five million additional free visits to the GP. Yesterday's health of the nation report, delivered by the college of GPs, found that one in four GPs are bulk-billing more now than they were last year. The chair of the college's rural faculty, Dr Michael Clements, said the bulk-billing changes did shift the dial from one of despair to one of hope.</para>
<para>I know, as the member for Macquarie knows, that these measures are making a real difference—they're making a real difference—but we also know that it's still tough to access doctors when people need them. We need to do more to keep strengthening Medicare, and we will do more. I'm also aware that I'm not the only member of this House who's been out and about recently talking about bulk-billing. I also notice that the Leader of the Opposition, in the seat of Lindsay recently, was trumpeting his proud record as a health minister. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… when I was Health Minister … we put a record amount of money into health. When I was Health Minister, the bulk-billing rate was much higher than what it is today.</para></quote>
<para>Let's remember, Mr Speaker, that this is the same health minister who said there were 'too many free Medicare services'. He then tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether and, when he couldn't do that, imposed a six-year freeze to the Medicare rebate that started the slide in bulk-billing that we inherited. As for 'more money', this is also the health minister who tried to cut $50 billion from our hardworking public hospitals, tried to jack up the price of scripts by up to $5 per prescription and tried to make parents pay to get their child vaccinated. It's no wonder the Australian doctors voted this man the worst health minister in the history of Medicare.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>29</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations: Australia and South-East Asia</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, in a very short period of time, I will be heading to Laos to attend meetings of ASEAN and the East Asia Summit. While there, I will be meeting with Chinese Premier Li, building on the patient, deliberate and calibrated work that this government has done to stabilise the relationship with China. There will also be bilateral meetings, including with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada, Prime Minister Luxon of New Zealand, Prime Minister Chinh of Vietnam and President Yoon of the Republic of Korea.</para>
<para>As well, I will be meeting for the first time with new prime ministers. I congratulate Prime Minister Ishiba on his election as the Prime Minister of Japan. That is a critical relationship. I rang him and had a good conversation with him initially. The relationship with Japan is not just an economic one; it's increasingly one that's important for our national security cooperation well. I will also be meeting the new Prime Minister of Thailand, Prime Minister Shinawatra, as well as having other meetings with leaders from our region.</para>
<para>The nations of South-East Asia combined will represent the fourth-largest economy in the world by 2040. South-East Asia is Australia's second-largest two-way trading partner. Half a million jobs in Australia are linked directly to trade with South-East Asia, and it is home, of course, to a market that is 10 times bigger than Australia's. South-East Asia is where Australia's economic destiny lies, yet less than four per cent of Australia's international investment goes to South-East Asia.</para>
<para>One of the meetings that will be held on Friday morning will be led by Nicholas Moore, the former head of Macquarie Bank who has done an extraordinary job as our Special Envoy for Southeast Asia, producing the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040 that outlines the opportunities that are here in Australia for Australian business with businesses in each of the ASEAN nations. It follows the successful summit and business meetings that we hosted in Melbourne in March. This will be an important event and will be attended by other businesses as well. The important hosting of another event is one that Prime Minister Ishiba of Japan is hosting about how our economies move towards net zero together and the cooperation that the Japanese Prime Minister is interested in developing with hydrogen and other areas that we have discussed. I look forward to the importance of that.</para>
<para>National security in our region is obviously critical, and we remain concerned about the events in the South China Sea. I'm sure I will discuss that with the President of the Philippines Bongbong Marcos, who we hosted here in Parliament House earlier this year. That is increasingly an important relationship for us.</para>
<para>I thank all of the DFAT people who've assisted with this visit. I note that Nicholas Moore is someone who is a very successful businessman. He is not remunerated. He's not doing this out of any personal interest. He's contributing back to Australia, an Australia that's been good to him. It's a great example of philanthropy, if you like, through the human capital being produced that he's engaged. He's been there; he's visited every single country in ASEAN. He's been there in advance of the visit, organising Friday's forum. I think it is a great example of someone from the private sector making a contribution to public life, and I thank him for it. I look forward to a successful summit being hosted over the next two days.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, we wish the Prime Minister safe travels to a very important gathering of countries and leaders with whom we share a common interest and a desire to see the best for our region. I echo the comments in relation to Nicholas Moore, with whom we worked very closely on matters relating to PNG when we were in government. He did an exceptional job for his country and, as you say, Prime Minister, giving back to a country that has given him so much. The strategic relationships, the trade and all of the issues raised by the Prime Minister are very important, as part of those discussions, and we wish him well in his trip in our country's name. Perhaps on the sidelines, Prime Minister, you'll take the opportunity to trumpet the government's world-leading NBN program!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister's Prizes for Science: 25th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night we celebrated 25 years of Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. We recognised that science matters. We recognised that it helps us lead healthier lives and helps us understand the origins of life itself, preserving and protecting our precious environment and improving the way we get things done. Last night we were able to properly recognise the fact that Australian scientists lead the world. We have many of last night's winners here in the gallery. I'd like to acknowledge them and their remarkable work. Thank you very much.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Briefly, astrophysicist Professor Matthew Bailes took out the top prize. His world-first discovery of fast radio bursts is helping unlock humanity's understanding of matter in the universe. Professor Andrew Wilks and Dr Chris Burns shared the Prime Minister's Prize for Innovation for inventing and then commercialising a new drug for treating myelofibrosis, a rare form of blood cancer. The Frank Fenner Prize for Life Scientist of the Year went to Professor Britta Regli-von Ungern-Sternberg, whose pioneering work is reducing the risks for children needing anaesthesia in surgeries. RMIT distinguished professor Tianyi Ma was recognised as the Malcolm McIntosh Physical Scientist of the Year for his groundbreaking work on renewable energy. The Prize for New Innovators went to Dr Andrew Horsley, the co-founder of Quantum Brilliance, who's developing groundbreaking quantum technologies, particularly using synthetic diamonds in quantum microscopes.</para>
<para>Every one of these winners has one thing in common: a teacher who sparked and nurtured their curiosity. That's why I was proud the Prime Minister announced last night that the prizes for teaching have been elevated to exactly the same level as our prizes for top scientists. Briefly, Daniel Edwards from Montello Primary School in Burnie, in Tasmania, took the Prime Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools. He has coached a range of teams from the school to excellent results in not only national but international science competitions. Alice Leung from Concord High School, in Sydney, took the Prime Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Secondary Schools. A self-professed tech nerd who uses social media to inspire and interact with current and former students, she has nurtured students from a huge range of backgrounds into careers in STEM over her 16-year career. Well done to you.</para>
<para>I'm also pleased to inform the House we've announced that, from next year, there will be a new category in the prizes, recognising the contribution of First Nations knowledge systems. For 65,000 years our First Nations people have been developing unique knowledge through their connection with land, sky and water. We hope that by including this new category a new generation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scientists will be inspired to follow in their footsteps.</para>
<para>I'll say again: the people that were recognised last night and over 25 years have made an incredible contribution to improving the quality of life in this nation. They have done so through great moments of doubt, wondering whether or not their ideas would come to fruition. We are deeply grateful that they never gave up and that they continued to be determined in pursuing their ideas, because their success has enabled our own and helped our quality of life immeasurably. Thank you for your work.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I join with the minister in congratulating all the winners of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science in the function that was held last night in the Great Hall. I must say it's one of the best occasions that you get to be part of as Prime Minister—to give due credit to the extraordinary capacity of Australian scientists and these remarkable individuals who are nominated but also the winners of these prizes, including the prizes where we have upped the reward for teachers of both primary school and secondary school. It's not about the money; it's about sending that message that it's valued. In addition to my congratulations to all the winners and all those who participated last night, I want to add that it's very daunting, I've got to say, to be in the Great Hall with these extraordinarily intelligent Australians—and politicians! It's just daunting to hear what they are able to achieve.</para>
<para>I want to pay tribute as well, as I did last night, to Dr Cathy Foley, our Chief Scientist, who has done a remarkable job. Her term will finish at the end of this year. One of the best things I do as Prime Minister is attend the regular meetings of the roundtable that I chair. I've attended every single one of those meetings because, at every single one of those meetings, I learn a lot, and the engagement and the knowledge that I receive about what Australia's scientists are doing is worthy of applause and worthy of support from everyone in this parliament but more importantly from everyone in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the coalition I join in extending congratulations to all of the winners of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science last night. As the Prime Minister and the minister have rightly said, these awards have been running for 25 years, with strong bipartisan support under prime ministers from both major political parties. I have no doubt that a future prime minister Dutton would similarly be strongly supportive of and committed to science. I congratulate Professor Matthew Bailes, Professor Andrew Wilks, Dr Chris Burns, Professor Regli-von Ungern-Sternberg, Professor Tianyi Ma and the science teaching recipients Daniel Edwards and Alice Leung, and I particularly call out Dr Andrew Horsley of Quantum Brilliance and say how great it is to see an Australian quantum company getting recognised.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>31</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Questions Without Notice</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister ended question time in less than an hour. Could you advise the House: when was the last time that that occurred and is this setting a precedent for question times to come? I cannot remember in my time here question time being less than an hour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>31</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>31</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wannon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This Government's mismanagement of the immigration portfolio.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Members of this House might remember that on 22 August two questions were asked of the Prime Minister. They were put to him in very clear terms. They went to the heart of the issue that we've been asking questions about today. The question was: Prime Minister, does supporting Hamas pass the character test for an Australian visa? Sadly, on 22 August he was asked that question twice but refused to answer, and now we know why. He didn't want to answer that question, because he knew that what the government had done, in issuing tourist visas for those fleeing the Gaza war zone, was rushed, botched and put Australia's national security at risk. And what have we found out today? That that is exactly what has happened. A visa has been granted to Fayez Elhasani, an individual openly linked to listed terrorist organisations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.</para>
<para>The biggest concern that we've seen today is: now that this has come to light, what guarantees have been given from those opposite that this individual will be booted from the country? None. Do you think the Prime Minister, who wouldn't come to the dispatch box and answer one question asked of him today, would give a guarantee that he would make sure that this individual was removed from this country today? No, he would not. Do you think the new Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs would give such a guarantee? No, he would not—nothing of the kind.</para>
<para>Let's remember what happened. We saw tourist visas issued to these individuals fleeing the Gaza war zone. At least 1,300 people have arrived in this country on those tourist visas. We raised serious questions at the time about whether the proper security checks had been put in place. I'm sure all members on our side remember when we asked those questions. They remember that the Prime Minister verballed the Director-General of Security of ASIO. Do you think that the Prime Minister came in, apologised for doing that and corrected the record? No, he did not. Yet here we are now, where they are now saying, 'Oh, we are just hiding behind the Director-General of Security of ASIO.'</para>
<para>When are we going to see leadership from this Prime Minister on any issue? When are we going to see leadership from the Prime Minister, in particular on his No. 1 responsibility, keeping the Australian people safe? Once again, he refused to front up to the dispatch box today and answer important questions that the Australian people want answered. Not only that; he cut question time short. It didn't even go for an hour. I cannot remember the last time question time was cut short to less than an hour. The reason why he wanted to cut it short was that he didn't want to answer any more questions on this issue. Sadly, it's true. He is running scared.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Running away!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He is not only running scared; as the shadow Treasurer says, he's running away. That is despicable. That is a disgrace because the No. 1 responsibility of any prime minister is to keep the Australian community safe.</para>
<para>What is even more deeply concerning about the revelations that we've seen today in the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> is the fact that we know that a large number of those people who came from the Gaza war zone on tourist visas have now claimed asylum. So, my view—and it's one that wasn't repudiated by the immigration minister, and of course we didn't even hear from the Prime Minister—is that they are deeply concerned that this individual, or other individuals potentially linked to Hamas, have claimed protection. How much more can you botch immigration and national security in this nation? We've got a new minister, but it's the same old story: immigration is a complete and utter mess under this government.</para>
<para>An opposition member: Surely not!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, you would think, 'Surely not!' You would think, surely the government is putting in place measures to stop this happening. But I don't know whether we remember—because with everything they've botched, so much has happened that it's hard to keep up with it—how we rushed into this place because there was legislation that was going to help address NZYQ and the cascading effects. It was important legislation—legislation that required passage that day. That went to the Senate. What do you think has happened to it? Has it seen the light of day since? No, it hasn't. It has been pulled. It's sitting somewhere up there in the Senate—this great urgency, and we cannot see the government even now putting it on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Such was the urgency that was required for that piece of legislation. It is a farce. You couldn't make this stuff up.</para>
<para>Then, of course—and I'm going to run out of time, and it's such a shame, because the list is so long—there is what is happening with the issuing of visas. Net overseas migration has gone to over a million in two years under this government—in a housing and rental crisis. And the issuing of visas continues apace. There is no way known that this government is going to be able to meet any of its net overseas migration targets. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer on a Friday afternoon quietly admitted that he wasn't going to be able to do it.</para>
<para>Everywhere you look, when it comes to this government, national security and immigration is a complete and utter mess. Not only that but, as we have seen in this place today, you are putting the security of the Australian people at risk because you have botched it so badly.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not even an hour ago here in the chamber we acknowledged former Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein, who had walked from Tasmania to Canberra to share an important message on behalf of the Migrant Resource Centre of Tasmania about being an inclusive, respectful country—a country where we recognise the great contribution of migration.</para>
<para>Former premier Gutwein said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australians from a migrant and refugee background contribute to every sector of the economy and community, and by sharing positive stories, we can build a deeper understanding that as Australians—regardless of colour, race, circumstance or background—we are simply, better together.</para></quote>
<para>I, too, share a commitment to a strong, multicultural Australia where we benefit from all of the talents, insights and experiences of those who have chosen to make that country their home. Almost all in this place go to citizenship ceremonies, welcoming people from across the globe. It is what has made us an economic powerhouse. That was outlined in the Parkinson report, with the former secretary of Treasury noting the huge economic contribution migration has made. While there are large differences in views across this chamber about how that system should be managed, I want to note at the start of this important debate just how important migration is to Australia and how proud we should be of being a welcoming, multicultural nation.</para>
<para>I think it's why so many who rely on our migration system get so angry when they see just what a mess was created under the former government, just how inefficiently government resources—public resources—were being used and just how rorted our migration system had become. You only need to look at the headlines of what was said about the migration system when those opposite were in control. You had international investigations and a report in the<inline font-style="italic"> Sydney Morning Herald </inline>which said, 'Crime ring trafficked women like cattle.' It reported on a global human trafficking syndicate that exploited flaws in Australia's border security system to enable a national illegal sex trafficking scheme in Australia. Under the watchful eye of the Leader of the Opposition, you saw reports of rogue agents offering fake visas for $500 a month. This was just happening. The government at the time apparently knew nothing about it, but maybe some of the cuts they made had a little bit of an impact there. You saw reports of repulsive abuses of human rights within a human trafficking system happening under the former government.</para>
<para>It wasn't just human exploitation happening at mass scale under those opposite; you also saw the migration system being completely rorted through close, personal relationships with Liberal ministers. You have one story where the headline is, 'The migration agent and the Liberal ministers: How one man gamed Australia's system.' He went to dinner after dinner and fundraiser after fundraiser, boasting of cosy meals with coalition ministers and donating more than $25,000 to the campaign of the former Liberal Assistant Minister for Home Affairs. That is what we had under those opposite. It goes on. We had the Albanian mafia infiltrating our visa system. One report in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> about the system run under those opposite said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Violent crime syndicates run by Albanian immigrants on temporary visas have so successfully exploited holes in the country's border security and migration system they are now challenging bikie gangs for control of Australia's lucrative cocaine market.</para></quote>
<para>Again, that happened under those opposite.</para>
<para>We just had a speech from the shadow minister, the member for Wannon, talking about the release of individuals and the granting of visas. I want to note the Leader of the Opposition's record, which he proudly tells us about. We heard earlier that he was proud of his record as the former Minister for Health, which gave even some on that side a chuckle. But he also says he's proud of his time as the minister in charge of the Department of Home Affairs, when he released not 100—not 200, not 500—but 1,300 criminals from immigration detention. That included two men who had been convicted of being accessories to murder. The now Leader of the Opposition released 102 convicted sex offenders, among those 64 child sex offenders. There were 1,300 criminals released by the Leader of the Opposition on his watch. Those are decisions he and his delegates made.</para>
<para>Let's give a bit of flavour to the sort of people we're talking about, who were released by the Leader of the Opposition. We have one individual, born in the United Kingdom in 1947, who was convicted in 2016 of being an accessory to the stabbing murder of an associate of an illegal drug ring. He helped another man carry the victim's body to the boot of a car and dump it in a makeshift grave. He was released by the Leader of the Opposition. Another, born in the United Kingdom in 1945, was convicted in 1986 of being an accessory to murder when a drug associate shot another man in what was described as a gangland execution. Again, that individual was released by the Leader of the Opposition. And the standard the Leader of the Opposition set when he released these 1,300 criminals was that there was no electronic monitoring—not on a single one of them. Of the 1,300 criminals released by Leader of the Opposition, not a single one had electronic monitoring. There were no curfews and no other conditions. And there was no Australian Border Force or AFP operation to monitor them. We know that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like being questioned about releasing these individuals.</para>
<para>We have been and continue to be a country that welcomes people who are fleeing war zones, fleeing conflict, and coming to safe havens such as Australia. I note that those opposite were strong supporters of that when 1,991 individuals from Afghanistan—at that point controlled by the Taliban—came here on visas. They also welcomed 4,994 individuals from Iraq and 1,505 people from Syria, with large parts of Iraq and Syria being controlled by Islamic State at the time. They were welcoming those individuals in because, again, Australia and our security agencies find a way to give people safe haven in times of crisis, something we should be incredibly proud of as Australians.</para>
<para>I did think it was interesting that the shadow minister for immigration, who put this MPI forward, was telling us about how he would like to clamp down on immigration. A colleague pointed out a very interesting piece to me. Just before the former government went into caretaker mode prior to the 2022 election, one of the last acts, one of the last announcements, by the member for Wannon as the minister for trade and tourism was to ensure a new visa pathway for Indian yoga teachers. He was so proud of the new visa pathway for up to a thousand yoga teachers that he put out a press release. They were the sorts of priorities they had. While he was out there putting out press releases about all the great visas he was providing, we had the absolutely broken system sitting beyond that. Maybe he should have spent a little less time on his media releases and a little bit more time on actually fixing the migration system.</para>
<para>The Parkinson report tells us just how broken it was—a '10-year rebuild'. This is not something you could do quickly, because it was so badly broken. It was a deliberate decision under those opposite to neglect the system. Then we get to the rorted visa system. We had the review by Christine Nixon, which noted that the visa system under the now Leader of the Opposition paved the way for foreign organised crime syndicates, including the Albanian mafia, to infiltrate the country and engage in illicit activities, including but not limited to drug trafficking, money laundering, violence, modern slavery, sexual exploitation and corruption. That's what happened on their watch.</para>
<para>Then there was the absolute mess when it came to offshore processing contracts, which required the Richardson review. That review noted that, again, under the now Leader of the Opposition, when he was the minister in charge of that department, there was a lack of proper due diligence. Individuals and businesses were suspected of seeking to circumvent US sanctions against Iran. We saw money laundering, bribery, drugs and arms smuggling into Australia, and, again, corruption—under those opposite.</para>
<para>I would hope that by the end of this MPI we'd have some clarity on whether those opposite take any responsibility for the mess they left, any responsibility for any of the 1,300 criminals that the now Leader of the Opposition released and any responsibility for any single thing that happened in any portfolio when you were in office.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll start with a three 'I's that I was talking to my colleagues about this morning, the three 'I's that will bring down the Labor government—they really will. The first one is intermittent power. Intermittent power underpins the cost-of-living crisis, with electricity prices going through the roof. Food prices and the grocery prices they're attached to are going through the roof. Manufacturing jobs—if the grand plan of the Labor Party was so evident, manufacturers such as Boeing, Rolls-Royce, BMW, Mitsubishi and Hitachi would say, 'This gentleman who sits over here, Mr Bowen, is a genius, and we should all get to Australia in a big hurry to be part of this new nirvana.' Of course, no-one wants to come here. In fact, they're all lined up to go.</para>
<para>Then, of course, there's immigration—I'll come back to that. The third 'I' is the incumbent. Tick-tock, tick-tock, we can hear the clock. We've got Cameron Milner winding it up, so it gets to the alarm clock even quicker. This man, Cameron Milner, is writing some marvellous pieces in the paper. I bet they're not solo efforts; I bet they're thought out in a tactics group. The Prime Minister is rattled. He's like a man who has dived out of a plane and the first parachute didn't work, and he's desperately searching for the second one. Today, the second parachute was the NBN sale. Where did this come from? Why don't we have a motion that we're not going to sell Uluru or the beaches? I don't know.</para>
<para>Back to immigration, because it underpins so much. We've seen from Abul Rizvi, who was the deputy secretary of the immigration department, that between 450,000 and 475,000 people are going to move to Australia, or have moved to Australia, in the 2023-24 year. That's twice the size of Hobart, the size of Canberra, six Tamworths or 1½ Geelongs. So it's not just the people. Where are the dams that will support these people? Where are the roads to support these people? Where are the schools that you would expect to find in two Hobarts or in a Canberra?</para>
<para>Look at what Canberra has: two universities, parks and houses. Have we built a Canberra in the last 12 months? Have we built the universities? This goes through to the hospitals, the TAFEs and the police. You're spreading the police so thin because you just haven't got the infrastructure there. The doctors—I know the member for Mallee understands medical issues so much, with her husband, Phil, who does a great job in that part of the world. This is all part and parcel of what we're getting with this chaotic approach. I truly believe that the three 'I's—intermittent power, immigration and the incumbent—are so detrimental to the current government. There is a gentleman on the other side, the Treasurer, and I don't think he's fully in support of the current incumbent. I think he's sitting out there, waiting in the wings.</para>
<para>To close on one final thing, in my area—as with the member for Riverina—we have the Ezidi community. Immigration doesn't mean no immigration; it means selective immigration. Recently, in Gaza, one lady—one young girl—was liberated. She had been abducted as a young girl 10 years ago in the war by ISIS, and she's appeared in Gaza. She has been a sex slave for over 10 years. We should be aware of this. These people need our help. I share this story just to give people an understanding. On the most serious note, one Ezidi lady and her child were taken to Syria by ISIS. The child wouldn't stop screaming because the child was hungry, and so was she. ISIS said to her, 'You must stop that child screaming.' She said: 'I can't. We're both hungry.' So they took the child from her. Later on, they gave her something to eat and then they asked her if she still felt hungry. She said, 'No, thank you.' They said, 'Well, you've just eaten your child.'</para>
<para>This is the barbarity of how the Ezidi people have been treated. As a compassionate nation, we must retain our capacity to let these people, as genuine refugees, come to this nation. I call for the government to clearly understand the plight of the Ezidi people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm actually quite flabbergasted that the opposition would have the audacity to put up an MPI that talks about mismanagement of the immigration system. All they really need to do is look back at the nine years they were in government to see clearly the classic template of mismanagement and incompetence. I think what they're doing here is classic projection. They are projecting. They're trying to deflect from the fact that their track record over nine years in government was the exact essence of mismanagement.</para>
<para>They've got an impressive capacity to be in denial and deflect, and we've heard from previous speakers what sounds almost like a rap sheet of mismanagement. There's the fact that, when they were in government and Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, was the minister, they released some 1,300 criminals from immigration detention. We've heard about the two men convicted of being accessories to murder and the 102 convicted sex offenders that were released, 64 of which were child sex offenders. They did this without any electronic monitoring, without any curfews or conditions and without any Australian Border Force or Australian Federal Police operations to monitor those persons that were released. Of course there was a man who was released from detention in early 2020 who then went on to be one of the three men who assaulted Ninette Simons in her home in Perth in April last year.</para>
<para>So, clearly, there is this legacy of mismanagement. But what they also did is they starved the Department of Home Affairs of the resources necessary for the proper functioning of the immigration system. Under their watch, there was an almost 50 per cent reduction in the number of compliance officers employed there. What impact do we think that's going to have? The Nixon review showed a rampant lack of integrity in our migration system that went unchecked for years under the previous government and for six years under the Leader of the Opposition while he was responsible as minister for immigration and for home affairs. For nearly a decade we witnessed not just mismanagement. It was more than the mismanagement they have in the title of this MPI. It was also negligence, neglect, underinvestment and, of course, incompetence by that former government.</para>
<para>As well as all of those things, there was also the politicisation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal appointments. The largest division of the AAT is the Migration and Refugee Division. By the end of last year this division had—wait for it—more than 54,000 cases on hand. They built up this backlog while they were in government. They appointed 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates onto the AAT without any merit based selection process. These were individuals with no relevant experience or expertise, and that fatally compromised that system. They left behind a shameful backlog of people who had been waiting for years and years for decisions and who were handed incorrectly determined and undercooked decisions they had to appeal through the lengthy and expensive judicial process. That is their legacy, and they have the audacity to bring an MPI here and say there's mismanagement of the migration system. The facts speak for themselves. It was this government in the past two years that had to clean up their mess. It was the Labor government that had to start all over again and create a new administrative review body, the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, which is more efficient, more transparent and most importantly more fair.</para>
<para>Those opposite are busy attacking this government about visitor visas. But, as we've heard, we have the same security checks that existed back then when they actually took in 1,991 people from Afghanistan and thousands of people from Iraq, Syria and the Palestinian territories. The same security checks exist today as did back then. In conclusion, the audacity of the opposition to raise an MPI around mismanagement means that they need to look back at their record and see exactly what it means to be mismanaging, to be neglectful, to be negligent and to underinvest, because they did all of that over a period of nine years. This portfolio is too important. It is too important to be securitised and politicised, because the public policy importance of social and economic elements of this portfolio are what makes a difference to this country—our immigration which we've been built on. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Imagine this. You decide to set up a business to bring in international students. You name it the Australian College of Business and Trade. You have all the approvals granted to you. You know it's going to be a viable business, and you're approved for 512 students. Obviously, you need to go and put a lease in place. You get a four-year lease for a premises to host all your teachers and students. You want to make sure you're focused on those involved in hospitality, so you hire out a cookery course workshop, which is $6,000 or $7,000 a month—make it $8,000—and then a mechanical workshop for $6,000 a month. Then you have your lease, which is another $6,000. In total, it's $20,000 a month. It sounds like a heavy investment for a few individuals getting together.</para>
<para>Then, on 6 September, without any notice, the Albanese Labor government's Department of Employment and Workplace Relations sends out a letter reducing that figure of 513 students that you're approved for. Remember, you already have a lease in place, costing $20,000 per month. The number of students has gone down not to 400, 300 or even 100; it has now gone down to one student.</para>
<para>Sadly, this has happened right across the country when it comes to the VET sector. People have put their heart and soul into creating a business—putting leases in place and hiring staff—and their dreams are now completely shattered. It is absolutely heartbreaking and disgraceful that the Albanese Labor government would treat people this way. There are so many people from the Indian community in this very situation, who have these small businesses. They came to speak to me in my office in parliament. I also hear about it when I speak to my friends in the Chinese community.</para>
<para>Then we have immigration agents being served with notices from OMARA, the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority. There have been potentially hundreds of these notices issued. They have been asked to please explain why a person has come to Australia on some sort of visa and then applied for protection. The migration agents have to explain why this has occurred. At the same time, I've met education providers who have had people come into their classes and remove students. And this is not a one-off; this is happening all the time. The simple reason is that Labor has made a complete mess of immigration, and they're taking it out on the VET providers and the immigration agents. If you look at the ABS data, net overseas migration was at 133,000 in the March quarter of 2024. That's the second highest, beaten only by Labor's previous record of 165,000 in 2023. This has put huge pressure Australians looking for rentals.</para>
<para>It gets worse. On 23 January 2023, the then immigration minister, Andrew Giles, signed direction 99, replacing previous directions. That stated that the AAT must take into account the strength, nature and duration of the individual's ties to Australia—not their criminal background. Sadly, in 2,800 cases, the AAT has released an individual who should not have been released.</para>
<para>Then we go back to the greatest of Labor's failings: the NZYQ court case. Only one person had to be released, but Labor went on to release 178 detainees, including seven murderers, 36 sex offenders and 72 violent offenders. Then they said: 'Trust us'—this was all through the previous minister, Minister Giles, in question time—'We have in place a board to make sure these people have surveillance and electronic monitoring on them.' But it just didn't take place. Sadly, we've seen many of these people go and reoffend. Innocent Australians have been attacked, victims of the Albanese Labor government's incompetence when it comes to managing the immigration system. It's an absolute disgrace, what the Prime Minister has done. It's hurting Australians, it's hurting the VET sector and it's hurting immigration agents. It's a disgrace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In our parliament, we see the absolute best and worst of Australia, and today is no different. This morning I was really inspired to attend a parliamentary breakfast to celebrate the International Day of the Girl Child, which is an international day started by the UN to recognise the challenges faced by girl children around the world, particularly those living in poverty. This breakfast was organised by World Vision as part of their campaign of 1,000 voices for 1,000 girls, wanting Australians to sponsor 1,000 girl children. They've actually already met that target before the day, which is 11 October, so they're now aiming for 3,000.</para>
<para>I was particularly moved to hear from Akec Makur Chuot, who was the first African to be drafted into the AFLW. After a successful career in the AFL, she is now a commentator for Channel 7. Her sister, Ayor Makur Chuot, is a member of the WA Legislative Council and the first WA state MP of an African background. Akec was born in war-torn South Sudan in the same year that her father was killed there. She lived for 12 years in the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya. It was inspiring to hear that coming to Australia as a refugee meant that she escaped a likely future of being married as a child, as one of her half sisters was. She also talked about how, as a girl, she wasn't able to play sports at all growing up there. But when she came to Australia she was able to pursue that through her school and ended up playing for the AFLW for four different clubs. Her story is like so many of refugees who have found their home in Australia. For us who have not experienced that journey, it really is hard to fathom what people like Akec have experience and what they have overcome in order to live their lives here.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, we also see the absolute worst in this place from those opposite, who are politicising something that should well be above this. I'm not surprised to see it, but I remain disappointed that there is no gutter that those opposite won't get down into and no issue that they will not exploit for political gain and to create division in our community. I'm disappointed to see that the misinformation about immigration continues to flow from those opposite, and I'm concerned that the alternative government of this country continues to weaponise a decision of the High Court of Australia and this issue of immigration. They are happy to pretend that they don't understand the separation of powers or our constitution and that our government is not taking immigration very seriously and doing the things that we should be doing. Now, as they continue to stoke fear around immigration and division, they are also saying that they do not trust our systems—systems that they want to be in government to run. They set tests for our government that they never would have passed when they were in government.</para>
<para>If you want to talk about incompetence when it comes to the home affairs portfolio, you don't need to look any further than the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister for Immigration and the member for Mitchell. During his tenure, the Leader of the Opposition released 1,300 criminals from immigration detention, including 102 convicted sex offenders, 64 of whom committed their offences against children. The Leader of the Opposition likes to talk tough on immigration, but on his watch we saw neglect of this important portfolio. The truth is that Australia has a long and proud history of humanitarian resettlement and that refugees from all around the world have made such an important contribution to building our nation, economy and communities as we know them today. The truth is that diversity is a strength and something that should be celebrated. Some of our most successful and respected citizens came as refugees fleeing war and persecution. These are people like Frank Lowy, Harry Triguboff, Anh Do, Les Murray and Dr Karl. Just today in the parliament, we've seen former Liberal Premier of Tasmania Peter Gutwein here. He has done a walk to shine a light on the contribution of migrants to our country. It will be interesting to know how his discussion goes with the Leader of the Opposition later today, when this federal opposition cannot recognise this and instead politicise it for— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Canberra, nobody denies that there have been success stories of people who have come to this nation, people who have been granted humanitarian visas, people who have contributed mightily to our nation. But to say that we are politicising and weaponising this and that there's no gutter into which we won't stoop is I think a bridge too far. I think that is just putting the divisive nature of this whole topic where it doesn't need to go.</para>
<para>There is a front-page story in the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> today, and the heading is 'Who vetted his visa'—it needs a question mark, but we'll let that go through to the keeper. And Clare Armstrong, who is a very balanced journalist, has written an article with the kicker heading 'Coalition demands to know why this man was let in'. 'This man' is visual artist Fayez Al-Hassani. He has been granted a visa to Australia. He has previously hosted political members of Hamas and other terrorist organisations at his Gaza Art Institute, and he's had brothers and sons affiliated with the same violent groups. Three of his deceased brothers and two of his sons participated in groups designated as terror organisations by Australia or its allies. This man should be on the first plane out of here.</para>
<para>Today the immigration minister, the member for Watson, when the member for Wannon, the shadow immigration minister, was asking questions—of the Prime Minister, I might add, but answered by the minister; I appreciate that it is his portfolio—kept saying, 'Well, this is the department; this is our officials.' Yes, that is true, but Labor are the government, and this is on their watch. And it is not just the member for Wannon who is asking the questions. He is asking on behalf of the people of Australia.</para>
<para>Right at the end of question time there was an interjection—'running scared'—and there was this back and forth about running scared. I'll tell you who's running scared. It is not just that the Prime Minister, running away from the questions. The Australian public are very worried. The Australian public are very scared about their safety. Cast your mind back 2½ years. The question remains: are Australians better off now than they were 2½ years ago? Are Australians safer now than they were 2½ years ago? The answer to both questions is, unfortunately, a resounding 'no'. Australians are not better off, and Australians certainly don't feel safer.</para>
<para>I know that the member for Wills is a man of good intent, a man of good heart. He was Prime Minister Rudd's national principal, national security adviser. He's been put in a role as the special envoy for social cohesion. He's filled that position since July—and it's a big ask, a big demand on him. We should not need a special envoy for social cohesion, but, unfortunately, we've got types like this Fayez Al-Hassani, who has been let into the country wrongly, and he should be on the first plane out of here. But unfortunately it's the likes of him, and others who are now in this country—on visas granted on this government's watch—who are causing social disruption, social incohesion, and it is causing people to feel unsafe in their homes.</para>
<para>Why is it right that aged-care centres that have many Holocaust victims now have to put security in place? Why is it right that Jewish schools have to have armed guards protecting their children—our children, Australian children who were born here, who know no different? These children have lived the Australian lifestyle. They are Australians. Then we've got mongrels like this bloke who've come into this country and who should be on the first plane out of here but unfortunately are not. They've been let in by this government. They are causing social disruption. It is just wrong. The Australian people have had a gutful and are demanding to know: why is this so? Why is this the case? And Labor, the minister and the Prime Minister, cannot give those answers. They cannot provide the social cohesion that should be the first order of government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am just going to remind people: I know the member for Riverina brings a lot of passion to this debate, but I do not need yelling in this chamber, or finger-pointing. So I'm going to give you the call, Member for Hawke, and I ask you to dial the volume down.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It's a message that should resonate throughout this debate more generally. The Leader of the Opposition is an angry and divisive politician, and this debate and the tone that he seeks to infect this debate with, within our communities, are absolutely emblematic of that anger and that divisiveness that he seeks for all Australians to be infected with, as we discuss these important issues. This is not a matter for petty politics, and it should not be the Leader of the Opposition's express intention to inflame concern within our community where it is not warranted.</para>
<para>Australia has a long and proud history of successful migration. Along with First Nations people here in our country, a huge number of our community are either migrants themselves or descended from migrants. Migration has yielded enormous social and economic benefits for our community and our country.</para>
<para>Australians, sadly, are used to seeing this: the Liberal Party speak very little about migration and they do very little to encourage and support sustainable migration while they are in government. But, as soon as they find themselves on the opposition benches, notwithstanding that many of the fundamental policy frameworks of Australia's migration program are effectively managed on a bipartisan basis, such that there aren't fundamental changes to our migration systems between governments—and I'll come to that in a moment because, unfortunately, the last government did a very poor job of maintaining that migration system, but nevertheless—they immediately switch gears. The Liberal Party switches gears—and the Leader of the Opposition himself is the spear-chucker for this approach—to incite anger and incite division within the Australian community, as they seek to drive the wedge of fear into our communities.</para>
<para>I represent one of the fastest-growing communities in our country, and migration is a key contributor to that growth. I can assure this House that my community values that migration very highly. It has brought enormous social and economic benefits to our community directly.</para>
<para>It is an attack on our community and on Australian values when the Leader of the Opposition stands up and seeks to undermine our national harmony and the social cohesion that underpins our success as a nation, in order to score his cheap political points at the expense of our broader migration program.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just a moment; I'm taking a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conaghan</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Section 90, 'Reflection on Members':</para>
<quote><para class="block">All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.</para></quote>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm aware of that standing order. I'm listening very carefully. He might have made some similar interjections earlier on. But I am listening. I've just made a statement to this parliament about having a more respectful debate. We've stopped the yelling and finger-pointing, and I will be listening to imputations as well.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Labor government inherited a dysfunctional migration program. We can remember how the Leader of the Opposition self-styled himself as the Sheriff of Nottingham in his former role as home affairs minister—a ministry that he pulled together by using his political power within the government of the time. The reality is that he now seeks to undermine that social cohesion—those very fundamental Australian values of social cohesion and harmony across our communities—by politicising this debate. This is anger and division from the Leader of the Opposition, and our communities should rightly reject it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I listened carefully to all those who have spoken on both sides. They did speak with great passion. Those on the other side who spoke are some of the members that I hold in high regard and consider more than colleagues; some of them are friends. But when I listened to the contributions to this debate, I saw an example of how their deference to the discipline of the talking points of their party takes over. It's a formula that we see again and again. When an argument comes up that you don't like, you call it 'misinformation'. When it's a topic that you'd rather we not talk about, you attack the person and not the idea. You say, 'This is engaged in the wrong tone,' or it's 'an exercise in anger and division'. They don't even go to the topic. But this topic of competence in our immigration system is a fundamental one, because it goes to more than just our economy; it goes to who we are.</para>
<para>The last census told us a lot about who we are. It told us that more than 50 per cent of Australians have either one or two parents who were born overseas, or they themselves were. In electorates that are closer to the city, like mine, it's even higher. In my electorate, 70 per cent of people are first- or second-generation migrants. I am a migrant myself; I wasn't born here. I remember sitting with my dad—in fact, lying on a bed while it was raining—and he was telling me stories about his travels in the world. The place that he spoke most fondly of was Australia. He said that one day we might get to go there, and we did, because of the generosity of Australians then. That generosity was founded not just on a sense of compassion and self-interest—that's a given—but also on a belief that the system is run well. We can't have a generous and compassionate migration scheme if it's not run competently. Those two go together. So, when we stand up and have a matter of public importance and put to the government that the system is not being run competently, the government should take notice. If they don't, we may not have a generous, compassionate migration scheme going forward, because we must have public legitimacy behind it. In fact, it's the only thing that has ever backed it up.</para>
<para>We have a housing crisis at the moment. There is no silver bullet or lever that we can pull that will instantly solve it. There is one that comes close, and that is having a proportionate migration scheme. A proportionate migration scheme means that the numbers of people that come here are proportionate to our interests, what the economy needs and what our society can cope with at that time.</para>
<para>I come from the great city of Melbourne, and much of our migration system sees people go to that city because it is one of the world's great cities. I'm very proud of it, but it is struggling right now. It is struggling to build enough schools, enough hospitals and enough infrastructure. It's even struggling to keep clean. For those of you who land in Tullamarine, go down the Eastern Freeway; it is covered in graffiti and rubbish, and trees are cut down. It's not the city I remember. It's not at its best; it's unwell, because it's struggling to cope. When we ask this government whether they are running a migration scheme that is proportionate to our capacity to build all of the things that we need to preserve green space, the answer is no. When the government tries to address those questions, they engage in rhetorical devices and straw man devices. Australians deserve better than that. The government will resort to that old tactic that they use against this side all the time, which is to tear down the character of whoever is sitting in that chair for the Liberal Party. It's easier than engaging in the ideas. It's easier than actually doing the hard work and actually running a competent system that is in the national interest of this country and that Australians want and desperately deserve. Right now, our immigration system is broken. We are calling on the government to at least recognise it, to turn up here and have the debate, and to not just say, 'Well, what did you do in the last 10 years?' because we are well past that. This term is almost up, and it is time that this government showed up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Menzies for not yelling and screaming like a lot of his idiot colleagues did—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You will withdraw that comment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Deputy Speaker; I withdraw. But many of his colleagues in their previous contributions did use, as you yourself reflected on, Deputy Speaker, incredible volume. I think not only the member for Wannon but others mistake volume and confected outrage for rational argument. I find it offensive, frankly, that at a time when the heads of our security agencies have called for calm and rational discussion, at a time when there are fractures in social cohesion because of significant issues happening, they are deliberately ramping up the volume, deliberately trying to increase the amount of anxiety in the community. I find that offensive. They should reflect on that confected outrage and have a good look at themselves.</para>
<para>I could provide a long speech. I could rant and rave like they did about the previous government's record of releasing 1,300 criminals from detention. I could go on for minutes and minutes about that. I could then go on to talk about how they were released without electronic monitoring, curfews or other conditions. There were no joint ABF or AFP operations to monitor those criminals that were released by those opposite under the Leader of the Opposition's watch. I could do that and speak for the rest of the speech on how badly they ran that process.</para>
<para>Instead I will focus on the Albanese government's positive achievements in the immigration portfolio and give some reflections from my part of the world. Its efforts to provide sanctuary for people fleeing war zones is particularly worth reflecting on: 1,200 Syrians and Iraqis were resettled in Australia as part of an increased dedicated intake under the humanitarian program; and almost 90 per cent of the 6,317 Afghan evacuees who arrived in Australia on a temporary humanitarian stay have transitioned to a permanent humanitarian visa. We are helping people getting out of war zones and, at the same time, supporting our national security organisations and ensuring that it is done well and effectively.</para>
<para>We are delivering a better planned migration system that works for the whole nation. We have heard from the previous speaker and others about how some of our major cities are under some stress when it comes to their infrastructure, but there is a lot more to our nation than just a couple of big cities; there is regional Australia. From my vantage point as the member for Darwin and Palmerston in the Northern Territory, and in particular in my new role as Special Envoy for Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Northern Australia, I know the integral role that the North is playing in Australia's future. A properly balanced migration system and a better planned migration system is about the important issue for our whole nation of growing the north of our country by transitioning to net zero, developing our critical minerals industry and implementing the government's National Defence Strategy, with $14 billion to $18 billion spent on upgrading bases across northern Australia to ensure our proper preparations for the defence of our nation but also our role with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific.</para>
<para>For Territory businesses, our migration strategy means skilled workers to make our Top End more productive. We need people in health care, people in the digital economy and people to help in the net zero transition to becoming the renewable energy superpower that we can be. On the weekend, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and I opened a new campus for Charles Darwin University in the city of Darwin. We're going to welcome more international students into the Territory but we understand that we need to make sure that overall immigration is better planned, and that's what our government is doing.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. The time for discussion has now concluded. In accordance with the resolution agreed by the House on 11 September 2024 and varied on 9 October 2024, I call on members' statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hughes Electorate: Meals on Wheels</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'More than just a meal' is, of course, the handle for Meals on Wheels, a tremendous service organisation existing throughout our nation. It provides nutritious, affordable meals, fresh and frozen, delivered by volunteers, to anyone who is no longer able to prepare meals or has difficulty preparing meals due to age, disability or a temporary condition. Within my electorate of Hughes, deliveries are made throughout the Sutherland shire and the Liverpool and Campbelltown local government areas. I recently met with the wonderful staff and volunteers at Liverpool Meals on Wheels at their AGM, and I give a special shout-out to President Vince Tripodina and Maryann Harris, the Service Manager there. Meals on Wheels Liverpool will be celebrating its 60th birthday at the end of this month; however, it has asked that the funding cap which has been imposed by Minister Butler be lifted so that it can continue with its existing clients and expand its services.</para>
<para>I'm also delighted to announce that I've worked with the local Bundeena community, led by Dr Ron Sekel and Sutherland Food Services, over the last few months to establish Bundeena Meals on Wheels. It has a team of volunteers, is now fully operational and just last week made its first deliveries to its customers.</para>
<para>I'm also looking forward to visiting Campbelltown Meals on Wheels, which has a range of wonderful community programs, including over-65s barbecues, dancing and exercise classes, and a 'knitters and natters' program—more than just a meal.</para>
<para>Thank you very much to everyone with Meals on Wheels.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cunningham Electorate: Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that Australians are under pressure right now, and our No. 1 priority is helping Australians with the cost of living. That's why last Thursday I joined with my local state colleagues—Ryan Park, the member for Keira, and Paul Scully, the member for Wollongong—to deliver the Illawarra region's first cost-of-living help hub. We had 31 service providers from across government and the not-for-profit sector come together under one roof to offer assistance to those in our community who are doing it tough.</para>
<para>Easing cost-of-living pressure is at the centre of everything we do as a Labor government. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Since 1 July we have delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some; $300 energy bill relief for every Australian household and $325 for eligible small businesses; a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian; a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers on the minimum wage; and more funding to build more homes in every part of the country. And that's not all. Labor have already delivered cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing, and now we're delivering a better deal for Aussies at the checkout. We're cracking down on dodgy supermarket discounts, introducing hefty fines and fighting against shrinkflation, because paying more for air just isn't fair.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medical Workforce</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is no secret that we have a critical general practitioner shortage in regional Australia. In my community of Bowen, three GPs have left or retired within a month. As a result, what happens? Patients go longer without treatment and medication, scripts don't get filled on time, bed shortages within hospitals happen, residents go for longer periods without seeing their doctor, and strain is put on people's finances because they must travel to other towns to see a doctor. Australians get sicker and—I fear the absolute worst—Australians die.</para>
<para>Seeing a doctor should not be a luxury. Murroona Gardens aged-care facility is at breaking point. They now have up to 11 residents without an assigned GP. This has diminished their ability to take on new residents, leaving vulnerable aged Australians with nowhere to go. The Department of Health and Aged Care has warned this government that we are in unprecedented times. GP shortages are at an all-time high. It is getting worse. This Albanese Labor government has failed our elderly. I don't see this government doing anything about GPs, nor do I have the confidence that they know what to do. The Albanese Labor government needs to do better for our ageing population.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently visited Church Street Children's Centre in West Footscray. I spoke to passionate early childhood educators, including director Daljit and assistant director Adriana, who are a part of more than 1,000 workers employed by the early childhood care sector in my electorate of Fraser. Every day, parents trust Daljit, Adriana and other childhood educators with one of the most important jobs in Australia. They explained that they love their jobs and have truly found their calling in helping young children to learn, build confidence and realise their unique personalities.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is making sure that early childhood educators are fairly paid and has committed to funding a 15 per cent wage increase for these workers. In December 2024 early childhood educators will receive a pay rise of at least $103 a week, increasing to $155 a week in December 2025. This will see the highly feminised workforce be recognised for their work and receive cost-of-living relief, particularly in conjunction with our revised tax cuts. This will not be passed on to families, as childcare centres will not be able to increase their fees by more than 4.4 per cent over the next 12 months. This is a long overdue workplace reform, but it's also a social reform and an important economic reform that will boost labour force participation. I also acknowledge the important and sustained work of the United Workers Union and their dedication in advocating for their members for a very much deserved pay rise.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week is Youth Voice in Parliament Week, and I feel privileged to read a speech by 17-year-old Alison from my electorate of Indi. It's about regional health care, an issue that's very close to my heart. Alison says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The basis of anyone's life is our health, and in rural and farming communities we suffer a severe lack of access to healthcare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Within my area, I know of many people waiting months for a doctor's appointment. Emergency Departments are no better with extensive wait times even for those arriving by ambulance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For my community, and the Australian public I wish to see this amended: to have greater level of access to adequate healthcare when needed and to enable those of us that live regionally to live full and healthy lives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To achieve this, I ask that the government provide incentives for doctors to relocate to regional communities and grants to help with the expansion and improvement of regional practices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This would give us in rural spaces the flexibility and quality in our medical centres we need to keep our lives running. This is a problem of all Australians; our healthcare system is supposed to serve all and currently it does not. Our Farmers are the lifeblood of our great country, feeding us, clothing us and looking after our land. It is time we look after them.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week, Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is Youth Voice in Parliament Week, and I'm privileged to share the words of a young Moreton constituent, Ava. Ava wants to access tertiary education but is concerned about the cost. She says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Higher education is of great value and demand in Australian society but in recent years university attendance rates are dropping. With the addition of the cost-of-living crisis, university and higher education is becoming unaffordable and for many young people, further education is falling out of the picture.</para></quote>
<para>She also outlines how HELP debts can make it difficult for graduates to access other loans.</para>
<para>Labor understands how daunting HELP debts are and the pressures that students are under. That's why we're wiping $3 billion off HELP debts for more than three million Australians and we've taken action to ensure that indexation never rises faster than wages in the future; we're supporting student nurses, midwives, social workers and teachers with the Commonwealth Prac Payment to assist with the mandatory prac elements of their degrees; and we are making uni more accessible for more people with the expansion of the fee-free uni-ready courses, which are a bridge between school and university. We know there is more work to do, but these measures will assist with Ava's goal to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… start the change that can make universities accessible and affordable not only for our generation but future the generations of Australia.</para></quote>
<para>This is a great goal, Ava, and one I truly and fully support.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Housing affordability is at a crisis point. Renters face huge challenges in Warringah, with under one per cent of availability and 33 per cent of renters spending more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. The type of housing we need is also changing. Single-person households now make up to 26½ per cent of Warringah households; and the population is ageing, with many of our future residents expected to be over 55. Of the 81,000 workers in Warringah, under 10 per cent are registered as essential workers. Essential workers need to be able to afford to live locally, otherwise our community will have a shortfall of local police, medical, teaching and caring professionals.</para>
<para>We must find a balance between the supply side solutions, such as increased housing targets and accelerated construction, and demand side measures, such as addressing short-term accommodation, improving rent security and reforms to taxation policies, such as negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, which remain politically sensitive yet crucial to long-term sustainability of housing. I also encourage the government to look at incentivising retirees to downsize but also to be able to rent spare rooms without incurring capital gains tax on the family home as a result of producing an income. We must look for multiple solutions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor is delivering. Labor is delivering for everyday Aussies like me who want a better future for our children, for our seniors who want to retire in dignity. Labor is delivering a future that is sustainable, a future that is safe, a future with promise, a future with opportunity. Labor is delivering tangible, helpful, responsible measures to help everyday Aussies. How? Labor's approach is clear, and it's about earning more and keeping more of what you earn. Fairer tax cuts, a fairer work place, a fairer country—Labor is delivering. Creating a fairer Australia, creating a more prosperous Australia, creating a better Australia not just for a few but for everyone.</para>
<para>In Swan I see it every day when I am back in WA. People say to me that they are very grateful for getting $700 off their electricity bill thanks to the Cook and Albanese Labor governments working together. It is making a big difference. Students are saying they are thrilled to see their student debt has gone down thanks to our changes to indexation. This is what Labor does; we deliver for everyday Aussies day in, day out. We are indeed delivering.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Small Business</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker, I want you to put yourself in the shoes of small-business owners. More often than not, they are someone who was not born here. More often than not, they are someone who is first in, last to leave. More often than not, they are someone who is not even making a profit—we know that 46 per cent of small businesses don't earn one, and that is because they pay their employees first and they pay their bills first. What sort of bills are they seeing coming in? They are seeing additional ATO bills from the federal government. They are seeing extra bills from the state government in Victoria for increased land tax and increased payroll. They are opening their insurance bills and seeing many multiple increases to the point where they are asking whether they can continue to stay open. They are seeing their rent increase, they are seeing interest rates go up and, when they open their energy bills, they really wonder how they are going to survive.</para>
<para>The numbers show it. We see that 11,000 insolvencies occurred last year, with more in Victoria than anywhere else. When we look at the other end, at new businesses opening, there is a statistic that matters, and it is devastating for my state. For every 1,000 businesses that exist, only 80 are opening in Victoria. That figure is 99 in South Australia, 98 in Queensland and 95 in New South Wales. Organised labour have representatives looking after them here. Big businesses have their own lobbyists; small businesses have us. We need to fight for them because the government does not.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know we're not allowed props, but this is not a prop; this is Birriwal, and I'd like to introduce her to the House and to you here in federal parliament. She's from the Seastar room at Salamander Early Education in my electorate. She is an on-country dolly who is going across many, many countries in our beautiful land, experiencing what it means. She's from the land of the Worimi. She's also teaching our wonderful young people between the ages of one and two at Salamander Early Education about reconciliation, about our Indigenous laws and about what it means to have great adventures right across Australia. I'm so delighted to bring Birriwal here to Parliament House, and I'm so proud to be part of a government that recognises early education. It is so critical. We're not only recognising the value of early education for our bright young people but also recognising the value in paying early educators more. That's why we've given them a 15 per cent pay rise.</para>
<para>I don't know about you, but I love kids. But I couldn't eat a whole one, and I don't know that I could educate one either in a formal setting. That's why I'm so pleased that we have these wonderful educators, and I'm so pleased to have Birriwal. She's looking particularly good. Don't worry, by the end of the day she'll look a bit frazzled like me, because we know how busy it is in parliament. But thank you to those early educators. Thanks, Birriwal.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7259" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CALDWELL</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Today we've seen one of the greatest political smokescreens that have ever been created in the history of this place. The NBN bill introduced today is a shameless stunt. The Prime Minister walked out of the chamber at 8 pm last night having given his apology to the Australian people at 7.59 and thought, 'Well, that day didn't go well.' I suspect he'd been playing Jenga over the weekend and was inspired to be a destructor actor. So he picked up the phone to some of his ministers, wanting to know what they had in the drawer. He phoned his friend Minister Giles first, but we know he had absolutely nothing to offer. He phoned the Minister for Education, but all the Prime Minister got was a long-winded story and then had to hang up. He phoned the Minister for Communications, and she said, 'Well, I've got this Mediscare kind of thing about the NBN and public ownership and creating a false story about how it might be sold and that sort of thing.' Bingo!</para>
<para>So all of today we've had a bunch of Labor talking points based on this: six pages of amending legislation. Do you think this is the priority for Australians during a cost-of-living crisis? This government could not be more out of touch.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For 30 years, Andy and Katrina have lived, worked and raised their family off grid on a rural property in my electorate of Gilmore. They grow their own food, have solar power, collect rainwater and do all they can to reduce their environmental footprint. In 2021, one year after losing their catering business Caterina Catering in the Black Summer bushfires, the couple reopened their commercial kitchen and shopfront in nearby Kangaroo Valley Village. Their speciality catering business rose from the ashes and now continues to nourish the local community with fresh and healthy produce.</para>
<para>When I dropped in to see the couple last week, Andy was moved to tears by the help they had received from me and this government to get their business up and running again. They were excited to give me a tour of the new kitchen and to show off the four fantastic new high-tech energy-efficient appliances they purchased thanks to a Commonwealth energy efficiency grant. The $21,800 grant meant that Andy and Katrina could replace old, second-hand equipment with a new energy-efficient, commercial-grade freezer, wine fridge and microwave oven as well as a new air-conditioner. A self-confessed energy nerd, Andy said that in the first month of installation the freezer alone had cut the business's power bill by around 27 per cent. He expects to see even greater savings on the next power bill.</para>
<para>Along with energy bill relief for households and small businesses and a tax cut for every taxpayer, these are just some of the ways we're providing cost-of-living relief while fighting inflation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Small Business</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> today has the headlines 'Record business collapses' and 'Record number of small businesses go to the wall'. Company insolvencies have hit a record high, with over 6,600 firms collapsing in the last six months. Shame! Since Labor came to power in 2022 more than 22,000 businesses have faltered, especially in construction, hospitality and retail—the backbone of our economy. Small businesses—the engine room of our nation—are being crushed under some of the soaring inflation, crippling interest rates and mounting red tape which are escalating under Labor's watch. This Labor government has failed to protect them from skyrocketing costs, industrial relations chaos and growing cyberthreats. Labor's inaction has driven hardworking small business owners to the brink, forcing many to dig into their personal savings just to stay afloat and putting local jobs at risk. Most of these small businesses secure the loans that they get from their bank with their homes. I don't have the data to share with the House on how many small businesses have lost their homes, but I will inform the House when I get that information. Small businesses are struggling under Labor's government and feel that they are being left behind.</para>
<para>The coalition stands with these hardworking Australians, fighting for a stronger and more supportive environment where small businesses can thrive and not just survive. Let's not allow Labor's neglect to destroy the backbone of our economy. The LNP is the only party of the small business, and my heart goes out to all those businesses that have closed under this terrible government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This government is focused on helping Australians with the cost of living, while fighting inflation, by bringing down costs to households, getting wages up and by delivering two consecutive surpluses through responsible management. This is what Bean constituents want.</para>
<para>Since 1 July we've delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just for some; energy bill relief for every Australian household and small business; a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian; a third consecutive pay increase for 2.6 million workers; and more funding to build more homes in every part of the country. We've already delivered cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanded bulk-billing. We're delivering a better deal for Aussies at the checkout, cracking down on dodgy supermarket discounts, making sure supermarkets that do the wrong thing face multimillion-dollar fines and fighting against companies that are shrinking products. Paying more for air just isn't fair.</para>
<para>In contrast, the opposition are suffering from their own form of shrinkflation. When you open up any of their policy packets, you'll find that it's either 90 per cent nothing, or negativity. But if you poke around at the bottom of the packet, you'll find the same thing in every packet. You'll find that they want to make Australians work longer for less.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Araminta from Rochedale State High School in my electorate was asked the question, 'What do you want your community to look like in the next 10 years and what can the next parliament do to achieve it?' Araminta replied:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My answer is simple, In the next 10 years, I want our community to be a place where mental health is openly discussed, where everyone feels supported. My name is Araminta, and this is a piece of my story.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For years, I struggled with anxiety and depression, feeling lost in a world too complex for me to comprehend.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I thought there was something wrong with me.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I'd wake up feeling like a lead weight was on my chest, and my mind would race with worries all day long.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sometimes the world felt like it was closing in, and I just wanted to disappear for a while.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But here's something crucial: I wasn't alone.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Youth mental health has been an ongoing crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the last year, 38.8% of Australians aged 16 to 24 have experienced a mental health disorder.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Suicide is the leading cause of death among young Australians, more than 350 young people aged 18 to 24 take their own lives every year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I want people to understand, these are not just figures, not just numbers, these are people, these are children, with real lives, and real struggles.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They are our classmates, our friends, our family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This issue is more prevalent than we often acknowledge or wish to believe and should deeply concern us all.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I want people to understand, mental health is not just crucial—</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his contribution.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe a healthy society is a rich society, and I am so proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government, which has done so much to improve access to medical care around Australia in the short time it's been in power after 10 years of Liberal-National coalition neglect. Take our cheaper medicines policy. We've halved the costs for medicines for people on regular treatments. Our 60-day prescribing has dramatically improved access to medicines for many, many people around Australia. Our strengthening Medicare package of over $3.5 billion has made a dramatic difference to the inexorable slide in bulk-billing rates that occurred under the coalition government. It has now reversed that dramatically, and more people are now able to access fully Medicare-funded doctor's appointments. Also, with our fully bulk-billed urgent care clinics, we've taken a lot of pressure off our emergency departments around Australia, particularly in my electorate of Macarthur and adjoining electorates, where the emergency departments have been under so much pressure. Labor believes people need to keep more of what they earn and be able to access healthcare services at a rate that they can afford. As I've said, a healthy society is a rich society. I congratulate the health minister for all he's done in that regard. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Page Electorate: Sport</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to congratulate and acknowledge Karri Williams from my community, who was recently named the best open women's regional rugby league player of the year. At a local level, Karri plays halfback for the Northern United Dirawongs from Lismore. In 2021, Karri was selected to play for the First Nations Gems to compete in the NRL Women's National Championships. This was an incredible achievement and shows how talented she is. Coach Chris Binge has said that Karri is the best country women's football player he has seen, as shown through her recent award and recognition. I'd like to congratulate her for getting the best open women's regional rugby league player of the year. I also congratulate Jadha King from the Northern United Dirawongs, who finished in the top five of the best open women's regional rugby league players. I'd also like to extend my acknowledgements to the Northern United Dirawongs, who are the 2024 women's rugby league champions from Lismore, and their coach, Chris Binge, for all his support and dedication.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been 12 months since the Cessnock Medicare urgent care clinic opened. That's 12 months of free, accessible healthcare. It's one year of the people of Cessnock being able to get the health care they need when they need it. Already this clinic has had more than 10,000 patients through the doors. It's not just that. We also have a Medicare mental health clinic in Cessnock and one in Muswellbrook. This clinic has been just as busy providing the people of Muswellbrook with affordable and accessible health care.</para>
<para>But let me remind you: if those opposite were in government, this would never have happened. As with everything else that has gone through this parliament, they oppose these urgent care clinics. In their opinion, if you can't afford health care, you don't deserve health care. They don't care how hard you work or how sick you are. To those opposite, how much money you have in your wallet decides whether you have or don't have access to health care when you need it. This is where the Labor Party is different. We believe in universal health care. We believe that in this country, if you are sick, you should be able to get the same high-quality, affordable, accessible health care, regardless of how much you make. That's what we've delivered in Cessnock and Muswellbrook with the Medicare urgent care clinic and the Medicare mental health clinics.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Conduct, Disability</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our words in this place have consequences, and a dear friend of mine of more than 20 years texted me last night to say this: 'We are currently in crisis mode at our home with a 12-year-old son who has Tourette's syndrome, and we are at breaking point. For the leader of our country to show such ignorance regarding this condition in front of the whole nation when it's already such a stigmatised and misunderstood disability has caused our family so much pain.'</para>
<para>My friend also passed on these words from her beautiful son: 'It makes me so sad when people make fun of me or tell me to stop the tics when I can't. I know my tics can be annoying and frustrating for other people to put up with, but I wish people knew how annoying, frustrating, painful and embarrassing they are for me. Other people can walk away from me when my tics get too much. But I can't escape. For me, they never stop, they never go away, and I can never get a break from them.'</para>
<para>I know the Prime Minister has apologised for his insensitive comments in question time yesterday, but I want to remind all members that our words in this place have consequences for all Australians. Tourette's is incurable. Treatment can help. I just want to say to my friend, to her son and to all Australians living with this condition, we love you, and this place let you down yesterday. People living with Tourette's can't control their tics, but we can control what we say in this place. Our words have consequences, and we have to do better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This goes without saying, and it goes to the core of Labor values: proper working conditions, and a proper pay to match, are central to our national economy and central to taking financial pressure off everyday Aussies. It also goes without saying that a Labor government will always back those everyday Aussies and always back measures to fight the cost of living. And we're doing that. We're lifting wages across the country, with a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million Australian workers. Make no mistake: Australians will always have a fairer go in the workplace under Labor, and those workers, who are now earning more and keeping more of what they earn, are lifting productivity in this country, to help keep inflation down. Their work is lifting our economy back onto its feet. Backed by better pay and conditions under our government, our workers are a huge reason why inflation is getting back to where it should be. It's back to being far lower than it was under the 'great economic managers' opposite, because—unlike those opposite—there is no 'leaning' from Australian workers, only lifting for the good of the nation. And a Labor government will have their backs, to ensure that an Aussie's pay matches an Aussie's day's work.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 11 September and then varied on 9 October 2024, the time for these statements has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've received a letter from the honourable member for Wills resigning his position on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and advise that the honourable Prime Minister has nominated a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Ms Swanson be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Orders of the Day</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that Federation Chamber order of the day No. 1, government business, Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, is returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The matter will be set down for consideration at a later hour this day.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cyber Security Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7250" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cyber Security Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>46</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>In introducing this legislation, I acknowledge the work done in its development from the former Minister for Home Affairs, now the Minister for Housing, and also acknowledge the work of the very large number of members of the Department of Home Affairs in the cybersecurity section, who have worked for some years in the development of the legislation in the national interest that I present to the House today.</para>
<para>This bill, alongside the Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill and the Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill, form the cybersecurity legislative reforms package. This package will collectively strengthen our national cyber defences and build cyber-resilience across the Australian economy.</para>
<para>This suite of legislative reforms will implement key initiatives under the 2023-2030 Australian Cyber Security Strategy. This is a significant step in achieving the Australian government's vision of becoming a world leader in cybersecurity by 2030.</para>
<para>To achieve this vision, Australia needs a clear legislative framework that addresses whole-of-economy cybersecurity issues and positions us to respond to new and emerging threats. We need a framework that enables individuals to trust the products they use every day. We need a framework that enhances our ability to counter ransomware and cyberextortion. We need a framework that enhances protections for victims of cyber incidents and encourages them to engage with government, and we need a framework that enables us to learn lessons from significant cybersecurity incidents so that we can be better prepared going forward.</para>
<para>The Cyber Security Bill provides this framework under one holistic piece of legislation.</para>
<para>The first measure under this bill will ensure that Australians can trust their digital products by enabling the government to establish mandatory security standards for smart devices. Australians love the convenience of smart devices at home, but consumers need to know that smart devices are still safe devices. These devices currently often lack basic cybersecurity protections. To date, smart devices have not been subject to mandatory cybersecurity standards or regulation in Australia. We've fallen behind our international counterparts in this regard. This measure not only will bring us into line with international best practice but also will provide Australians with peace of mind that the smart devices we've come to rely on also meet our expectations around security. Standards implemented under this power will be designed to enhance consumer security, such as prohibiting the use of universal default passwords on smart devices, not to create backdoors for government agencies.</para>
<para>The bill's second measure will help build our understanding of the ransomware threat that continues to cause large-scale harm to the Australian economy and national security. In 2023 it was estimated that Australian businesses who paid in response to ransomware attacks paid an average of $9.27 million. This issue needs to be tackled. Mandatory reporting of ransomware payments will crystalise our picture of how much is being extorted from businesses via ransomware attacks, whom these payments are being made to and how. With these timely and comprehensive insights, the government will be better able to develop the resources, tools and supports that are most useful to industry and help break the ransomware business model. Together, we can work to prevent future ransomware crises and equip businesses to bounce back following an incident.</para>
<para>The Cyber Security Bill's third measure seeks to support and assure Australian organisations as they respond to a cybersecurity incident.</para>
<para>Close cooperation between government and industry is one of our greatest defences against malicious cyber activity.In the wake of a cybersecurity incident, businesses need to know that they can call on government to quickly get the support they need. However, we understand that businesses can also be anxious to ensure that the information they provide isn't going to be inappropriately on-shared or, worse, used against them.</para>
<para>This bill affirms the role of the National Cyber Security Coordinator to coordinate whole-of-government cyber incident response efforts. It also seeks to increase trust and engagement between business and government during an incident by limiting the circumstances under which the coordinator can use and share information that has been voluntarily provided by an affected entity. This measure complements the limited-use measure that was put in place for the Australian Signals Directorate through theIntelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill, which I'll introduce in a moment. With these measures, businesses will have greater comfort to report cyber incidents and gain the assistance they need in order to respond to and recover from cyber incidents.</para>
<para>The fourth measure in the Cyber Security Bill establishes the Cyber Incident Review Board. This board will be an independent advisory body able to conduct no-fault postincident reviews of significant cybersecurity incidents. The Optus and Medibank breaches of 2022 and the more recent MediSecure data breach demonstrate the urgent need for government and industry to collectively learn lessons from high-impact cybersecurity incidents and to prepare contingencies for future attacks. Building upon the success of the United States Cyber Safety Review Board, the Cyber Incident Review Board will review the circumstances that led to a significant cybersecurity incident, form findings and provide recommendations for both government and industry to enhance our nation's cyber resilience. The board will ensure that we're learning from these cyber incidents and improving Australian organisations' practices, policies and procedures.</para>
<para>These four measures form the Cyber Security Bill. Together with the other bills in this package, this bill will equip both government and industry with the awareness and resilience to better protect Australians from cybersecurity threats. It will provide a cohesive legislative toolbox for Australia to move forward with clarity and confidence in the face of an ever changing cybersecurity landscape.</para>
<para>The government will refer this bill and the others in the package to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and will consider any recommendations that the committee makes.</para>
<para>In forming the measures within this bill and the broader package, significant stakeholder consultation has been undertaken. After releasing the cyber legislative reforms consultation paper on 19 December 2023, the Department of Home Affairs led over 30 public town hall meetings, deep-dive sessions and bilateral engagements. The department received over 130 written submissions in response to the consultation paper, detailing feedback on the measures proposed. This robust co-design process has ensured the measures detailed within the bills in this package strike the right balance to achieve our security outcomes without placing undue burden on business.</para>
<para>I extend my thanks to all the staff at the Department of Home Affairs for their incredibly hard work in developing this bill. I'm pleased that a number of them are able to be in the chamber to see it presented to the parliament. I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7252" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>47</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>47</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill is the second in the cybersecurity legislative package. It seeks to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to legislate a limited-use obligation on the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD). This provision is similar to the limited-use obligation to be imposed on the National Cyber Security Coordinator under the Cyber Security Bill.</para>
<para>We're all aware of the realities of our strategic environment. Malicious cyberactors are quick to exploit critical vulnerabilities and consistently adapt their already disruptive tactics to extract maximum gains. The speed with which cyberthreats spread and evolve means that no single organisation or person can effectively defend against all threats alone.</para>
<para>The ASD is the first point of contact for organisations experiencing a cybersecurity incident. However, the ASD has observed a lack of trust from entities that the information provided to them will be used to assist industry in responding to, mitigating or resolving a cybersecurity incident, rather than for regulatory purposes. The limited-use obligation in this bill provides industry with the legal assurance that they can engage and provide information to the very agencies the government has established to help them prepare for and respond to cybersecurity incidents.</para>
<para>The limited-use obligation in this bill will protect the information voluntarily provided to, or acquired or prepared by, ASD during an impacted entity's engagement in relation to a cybersecurity incident or vulnerability.</para>
<para>The limited-use obligation will make it clear that the ASD may only on-share this information for a permitted purpose and that on-shared recipients can only use that information for a permitted purpose. The obligation is not a safe harbour for industry. It won't exempt an organisation from complying with their existing legal and regulatory obligations.</para>
<para>However with this measure, alongside the establishment and clarification of the role of the National Cyber Security Coordinator, we will ensure government and industry can work together to communicate with transparency and confidence, making our responses more efficient and based on real-time insights. Cooperation on a national scale is one of Australia's greatest advantages against malicious cyberactors.</para>
<para>The government will refer this bill and the others in the package to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and will consider any recommendations that committee makes.</para>
<para>I extend my thanks to staff at the Australian Signals Directorate for their diligence in developing this bill and I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7255" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>48</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>48</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This is the third bill in the cybersecurity legislative package. This bill seeks to amend the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018(the SOCI Act) to strengthen existing security obligations on critical infrastructure sectors to address gaps identified following recent major cybersecurity incidents.</para>
<para>Australia currently faces heightened geopolitical and cyber threats, which means that our critical infrastructure is increasingly at risk. The risk to our sovereignty, defence, and security has never been more present, especially for the critical infrastructure providing essential services crucial to our way of life.</para>
<para>Recent incidents illustrate that threats to the operation of Australia's critical infrastructure continue to be significant and far-reaching. From natural hazards through to human-induced threats—all have the potential to significantly disrupt critical infrastructure. Indeed, the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has stated, 'malign foreign powers will consider using sabotage to coerce, disrupt or retaliate during times of escalating geopolitical tensions. Pre-positioning malicious code in Australia's critical infrastructure is the most likely means.'</para>
<para>An attack on a single critical infrastructure entity can quickly create catastrophic cascading consequences across critical infrastructure and Australia's socioeconomic stability, defence and national security.</para>
<para>This bill will build upon previous reforms to the SOCI Act to uplift and enhance the security, resilience and agility of critical infrastructure in the face of an increasingly hostile and complex threat and risk landscape.</para>
<para>The bill contains six measures in total:</para>
<list>First, the bill seeks to clarify the application of the SOCI Act to data systems associated with a critical infrastructure asset. This recognises and protects the integrity of data held on the asset's secondary systems to reduce the risk of widespread disruptions caused by a successful attack or breach of a secondary system or lateral transfer to operational technology.</list>
<list>Second, the bill will put in place a more effective government assistance framework to respond to second and third order consequences across all incidents, regardless of their origin, including non-cyber incidents. This will facilitate the government in addressing and managing multi-asset events and cascading impacts.</list>
<list>Third, the bill will clarify the definition of protected information and the operation of the disclosure provisions to allow greater cross-industry collaboration and intra-government sharing, including in response to major incidents.</list>
<list>Fourth, the bill will empower regulators to compel a critical infrastructure entity to remedy a seriously deficient risk management program where there is a risk to national security, the defence of, or the social or economic stability of Australia.</list>
<list>Fifth, this bill will bring appropriate elements of the Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms (TSSR), including security and notification obligations, from part 14 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Telecommunications Act) into the SOCI Act. These transferred obligations will include enhancements to align the regulatory frameworks and clarify telecommunications-specific obligations, including through delegated legislation.</list>
<list>Finally, the bill removes direct interest holders from reporting obligations associated with systems of national significance. This will reduce administrative burden without compromising security.</list>
<para>Together with the other bills in this package, this bill will help to strengthen our responses to the dynamic, cascading consequences of serious incidents that impact our critical infrastructure, and more broadly, the Australian community.</para>
<para>The government will refer this bill and the others in the package to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and will consider any recommendations that committee makes.</para>
<para>I extend my thanks to staff at the Department of Home Affairs for their incredibly hard work developing this bill. I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7256" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>49</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>49</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Albanese government is undertaking the most significant reforms to Australian aviation in a decade to drive competition, to improve consumer outcomes and to boost resilience. This bill takes the next step in that reform process.</para>
<para>In February this year, I announced a major package of reforms to the Sydney airport demand management scheme, improving the use of this significant piece of national infrastructure while maintaining community protections.</para>
<para>Since announcing these reforms, we have begun the work of implementation.</para>
<para>The first slot audit is well underway, with findings to be released in coming months.</para>
<para>And, importantly, an open tender is underway to contract the slot manager, including stronger independence requirements to manage real and perceived conflicts of interest.</para>
<para>This bill takes the next step in implementing our Sydney airport reforms to better deliver outcomes for the Australian travelling public.</para>
<para>Australia's busiest airport, Sydney airport, is our major international gateway to the world and it is a critical hub for the national aviation network.</para>
<para>Located in the heart of Australia's biggest city, Sydney airport poses a number of challenges and community impacts that are not shared with other Australian airports.</para>
<para>It's capacity constrained, it has no room to expand, and it is located close to dense residential communities.</para>
<para>Since the opening of the parallel runway in 1997, the airport has operated under a unique demand management framework that balances managing operational capacity at the airport, community concerns about aircraft noise and ensuring access for regional New South Wales cities and towns.</para>
<para>Over time, however, this framework has fallen out of date. It is harming productivity, resilience and competition.</para>
<para>It is essential that this framework enables the airport to perform to its fullest potential, while still ensuring that communities on the ground are not unduly impacted.</para>
<para>That is what these reforms I'm introducing today will deliver.</para>
<para>Taken together, our reforms will encourage competition. By moving the responsibility for making the slot management scheme from the slot manager to the minister, we will be able to update the demand management system so that it better aligns with modern international standards, while significantly increasing transparency about how slots are allocated. Airlines will be required to provide regular information on how they use slots, such as reasons for cancellations or major delays, and this monitoring information will be regularly published through independent audits.</para>
<para>These reforms will crack down on slot misuse by modernising the compliance regime to include new civil penalties for failing to use a slot, for no-slot and off-slot movements, for flight operations conducted not in accordance with slot requirements, for applying for slots with no reasonable prospects of using them and for failing to return or transfer unused slots, along with updated and strengthened enforcement tools for the government to watch airlines more closely and take effective legal action where necessary.</para>
<para>New transparency powers are being introduced to support the strengthened compliance regime. This will include a power for the minister to compel airlines to produce information on slot usage and a requirement for the slot manager to regularly publish information about how slots are issued to airlines, how the airlines use them (such as information about cancellations and delays), and information about airlines that lose slots when they break the rules on slot misuse. This will help make sure that consumers have better information about airline performance.</para>
<para>These reforms will improve connectivity for regional communities by allowing regional New South Wales services to apply to use any slot during peak period hours, not just the slots that are already set aside for priority access for regional New South Wales services. In addition, when allocating slots to airlines, the slot manager will be required to consider giving priority to regional New South Wales airlines asking for peak period slots among the other priorities for slot allocation.</para>
<para>The reforms will also boost resilience of our entire aviation network by introducing a 'recovery period'. This strictly controlled 'recovery period' will be implemented after severe weather events or other major disruptions (for example; security issues) to temporarily allow up to 85 movements per hour for a maximum of two hours on the same day following the disruption. This change will not increase noise impacts on communities, but it will mean more travellers can reach their destinations and spend the night at home rather than on a terminal floor or in a hotel room.</para>
<para>This package of reforms will benefit the flying public and include strong protections for communities affected by aircraft noise and those in regional areas.</para>
<para>Those better outcomes for the travelling public are at the heart of the significant reforms that we are taking across aviation.</para>
<para>From better monitoring airline performance and pricing to improving outcomes for travellers with disabilities and creating the first Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme—the government is undertaking the most significant aviation reform agenda in a decade, delivering reforms that were, frankly, left to linger and were seen as too hard by those opposite.</para>
<para>Along with the opening of the Western Sydney International Airport in 2026, this reform package will enable a more competitive, transparent and productive aviation network for years to come.</para>
<para>I particularly want to thank my staff; Nick Beaver, who has done a terrific job on working through these issues; as well as staff from the department. This is a really complex area of reform. It takes time to get this right. And I do want to thank them very much for working with the drafters to get this legislation right and to get it before the parliament. I thank them very much for the work that they have done, of course, on the aviation white paper.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 [No. 2]</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7251" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 [No. 2]</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>50</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>50</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill makes consequential amendments to support the establishment of the Help to Buy scheme, to clarify how it interacts with the Housing Australia Act 2018 and to reflect the broader remit of Housing Australia.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>50</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Standards Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>50</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That in accordance with section 59F of the P<inline font-style="italic">arliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023</inline> (the Act) matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards shall be as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) members appointed in accordance with subsections 59B(2) and (3) of the Act be nominated by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition or any crossbench Senator in the Senate; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government Whip or Whips, Opposition Whip or Whips, or any crossbench Member in the House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) in addition to the chair elected in accordance with subsection 59C(1) of the Act, the committee elect a deputy chair in accordance with subsection 59CA(1) who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) when acting as chair, the deputy chair or other member presiding at a meeting of the committee shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) the committee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) sit in public or in private;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) report from time to time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Question agreed to.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Standing and Sessional Orders</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That standing order no. 216 be amended as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">216 Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) A Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests shall be appointed to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) inquire into and report on complaints of breach of privilege or contempt which may be referred to it by the House under standing order 51 or by the Speaker under standing order 52, or any other related matter referred to it by or in accordance with a resolution of the House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) consider and report on serious breach findings which may be referred to it by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) inquire into and report on the arrangements made for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of a Register of Members' Interests;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) consider proposals by Members and others on the form and content of the Register of Members' Interests;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) consider specific complaints about registering or declaring interests; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) consider possible changes to any code of conduct adopted by the House; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) consider whether specified persons (other than Members) ought to be required to register and declare their interests.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The committee shall consist of 13 members: the Leader of the House or his or her nominee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or his or her nominee and 11 other members (six government Members, four opposition Members and one crossbench Member). When the Opposition is composed of two parties, the non-government Members shall consist of at least one member of the smaller opposition party.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The committee may call for witnesses and documents, but when considering a matter concerning the registration or declaration of Members' interests it must not exercise that power or undertake an investigation of a person's private interests unless the action is approved by at least seven members of the committee other than the Chair.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) The committee may report when it sees fit, and must report to the House on its operations in connection with the registration and declaration of Members' interests during the year as soon as possible after 31 December each year.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>52</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Migration</inline><inline font-style="italic">,</inline><inline font-style="italic">pathway to nation building</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Today I rise to table the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Migration, pathway to nation building</inline>. The report is the culmination of a nearly two-year inquiry into Australia's migration system and provides 73 recommendations on how the system can be improved. It is my hope that these recommendations complement the government's ongoing reforms of the migration system to ensure that migration continues to serve the best interests of the nation for decades to come.</para>
<para>As we move into the 80th year of our modern migration system, it is a good time to reflect on its history and consider its future. On 2 August 1945, in the dying days of the Second World War, Australia's inaugural Minister for Immigration, and the namesake of my electorate, Arthur Calwell, instituted a policy of 'populate or perish' to encourage the large-scale migration of Europeans, British and Irish into Australia as a means of enhancing Australia's national security. As well as national security, Calwell also saw migration as a driver of national growth and prosperity, saying that it was 'something essential to our national welfare'. Calwell welcomed thousands of refugees fleeing the war, widened the scope of immigration into Australia beyond the British Isles and promoted reforms for the greater acceptance of Chinese Australians. His pioneering reforms transformed the fabric of Australian society and laid the foundations for our modern multiculturalism.</para>
<para>The point of this historical background is that, from its inception, Australia's migration program was an endeavour of grand-scale nation building. Arguably, in important ways, modern Australia started with Calwell's speech on 2 August 1945. At the time, we were a nation of 7½ million people, overwhelmingly of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic heritage; in another 30 years, the population had almost doubled, and its cultural diversity increased dramatically.</para>
<para>Over recent years, by contrast, the migration system has been neglected. It has been used to address issues in other policy areas, be it filling ad hoc gaps in the labour market or acting as a source of revenue for higher education, and, too often, as a political tool for short-term partisan gain by successive governments. Migration policy has for too long been relegated to an afterthought. While migration can, and should, infuse our labour market with vitally needed skills and provide international students an opportunity to study at our universities, these aspects of the system should be part of a consolidated migration policy based on a larger nation-building vision. And while the Labor government has taken great steps towards this end with the migration review and migration strategy, more can be done to provide a solid basis for migration policy for the coming years.</para>
<para>The committee has produced a comprehensive report for this inquiry, covering virtually every aspect of the system. As a matter of priority, the committee recommends that the capacity of government to research migration issues be rebuilt through the establishment of a national research institute of migration studies. Only then can we hope to see the implementation of migration policy that is fit for purpose, integrated into a nation-building project and reactive to evidence.</para>
<para>Secondly, the committee heard convincing evidence that our migration system has been degraded by the amalgamation of the immigration, multicultural affairs and citizenship functions with border and national security and policing functions within the Department of Home Affairs. To deliver a migration system of world-class standing, the committee recommends that the migration system be delivered by a department dedicated to that purpose alone.</para>
<para>Further, the committee heard that the migration system is failing Australia's regions, which face severe labour shortages and difficulties in retaining population. And, while the company provides a number of recommendations on regional migration, the committee felt that the issues are so important that it recommends that the government refer a further inquiry on a focused regional migration priority topic to the committee.</para>
<para>The report makes many other recommendations related to improving the visa application system; attracting and retaining skilled migration; better accounting for the skills and experience of secondary applicants; expanding eligibility for settlement services; more effective recognition of migrants' qualifications; as well as improving outcomes for refugees and their families. I encourage any interested person to read the report to understand how these recommendations can complement the government's current migration reform agenda.</para>
<para>Finally, there are many people who must be thanked for their diligence and commitment in aiding this inquiry, including submitters to the inquiry and witnesses who appeared at hearings. I especially want to thank the deputy chair of the committee, the member for Mallee, for her support and collegiality as we work towards achieving a bipartisan consensus on issues vital to Australia's national interests. I want to thank the secretariat, Jeff Norris, Danton Leary, Nicole McLellan, and Lachlan Wilson, for their support and acknowledge their incredible capacity and competence, which was of the highest standard.</para>
<para>Finally, I also want to thank the Hon. Clare O'Neil, the then Minister for Home Affairs, for referring this inquiry and I commend the report to the parliament.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The <inline font-style="italic">Migration, </inline><inline font-style="italic">pathway to </inline><inline font-style="italic">nation </inline><inline font-style="italic">building</inline> report concludes almost two years of effort, as the chair, the member for Calwell, and I well know. The committee conducted as many hearings as we could to hear from those in our regions. I was delighted to take the committee to Robinvale in my electorate and speak to horticultural farmers and those who employ people who come from overseas to enjoy our prosperity but also to participate in building it. I also commend the member for Calwell and the committee secretariat team in achieving the outcome that we have.</para>
<para>I have to, however, record that I want to begin with one reservation I and my coalition colleagues have about two recommendations in the report. I communicated in the committee that I hold concerns about recommendations 75 and 76. These recommendations propose:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Australian Government develop and implement the establishment of a fully funded, independent collaborative institution for research and data collection and analysis related to migration policy, and associated policy impacts in social cohesion, employment, health, and any other relevant policy and portfolio considerations.</para></quote>
<para>The establishment of such an institution with such a broad range of responsibilities will be a financial cost to the government and taxpayers on an ongoing basis. No details of the cost to establish and operate such an institution and the advisory panel of eminent experts has been calculated in this report. Such an institution would also duplicate activities that are already undertaken by the government and existing bodies such as the Grattan Institute, the Australian Population Research Institute, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, most Australian universities and the Centre for Population. An alternative recommendation is that the government reviews the operation of the Centre for Population, which is part of the Department of the Treasury, to determine if its objectives could be broadened to provide additional data and information to government concerning migration policy.</para>
<para>Having said that, as the member for Mallee and shadow assistant minister for regional health, I agree with the chair very much that Australia has always depended on migration to grow our nation in size and capabilities. It is in Australia's DNA to welcome migrants to our country. Migrants have brought aspects of their culture, their cuisine, their faiths and their skills, which have added to our multicultural richness. However, we have a responsibility to ensure our migration settings are right and that they benefit our country, not just in economic terms but also in cultural terms. What we're seeing in our streets currently, I believe, shows that we have not necessarily got those settings completely right. People desire to come to our country for many reasons, but our social cohesion, opportunities to prosper, democratic principles and rule of law, which bring a respectful order to our way of life, are foundational to who we are as Australians. These are currently under threat, and we must do more to ensure that what has brought people here is not lost.</para>
<para>Regarding the public inquiry into migration and nation-building, I was, as I said, proud to take the committee to Robinvale to hear from local farmers about the desperate state they repeatedly find themselves in regarding workforce shortages. Migrants play a key role in getting food from paddock to plate for all Australians and, indeed, the world. The visa system is not fit for purpose, and there are many opportunities for improvement in our current migrant workforce settings. Mallee and the Murray-Darling Basin depend on a workforce for manual picking.</para>
<para>I note that the report did not recommend removing the agricultural visa established by the former government. The National Party has fought long and hard to establish the ag visa. Farmers tell me over and over again that this particular visa will meet their needs, especially in the horticultural space. This visa, which has not been implemented by the current government, will be returned under a coalition government. There are some fruits that need particular skills in harvesting. I have never done that, so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert; however, it is not a case of one size fits all.</para>
<para>As to skills shortages in the regions in general, even this last week a local business in Mallee was trying to hire a physiotherapist, as we deal with our dire health workforce shortages. He was shocked at the fees he had to pay for the privilege of bringing someone in. I've met with GP practices across my electorate and have heard the same thing over and over. The cost for visa approvals is prohibitive. It needs to be addressed. In fact, Master Builders Australia have made the case that regions and small businesses which dominate regional economies should be exempt from paying the Skilling Australians Fund levy. There is some force to that point but it's not one made in this report.</para>
<para>On health workforce shortages, the committee recently went to New Zealand and Vanuatu. There are two points from that trip relevant to this report. New Zealand accepts doctors from 24 countries. We accept graduates from five. Vanuatu and PALM workers we will discuss another time, but they are an essential part of our agricultural sector.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<para>That the House take note of the report.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>54</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7243" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>54</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>54</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>54</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report <inline font-style="italic">'Are we there yet?</inline><inline font-style="italic">':</inline><inline font-style="italic">f</inline><inline font-style="italic">rom recovery to resilience</inline><inline font-style="italic">—o</inline><inline font-style="italic">pportunities and challenges for Australia</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline><inline font-style="italic">s tourism sector</inline>, the final report for the inquiry into Australia's tourism and international education sectors.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and as deputy chair of the Trade Subcommittee, I previously presented the interim report of this inquiry entitled '<inline font-style="italic">Quality and integrity</inline><inline font-style="italic">—the quest for sustainable growth</inline><inline font-style="italic">': interim report into international education</inline>. With 29 recommendations, the report explored the future of Australia's international education sector post COVID—and I appreciate that we're not out of the COVID situation yet. People are still dying, and we mourn their loss, but hopefully the worst of this terrible global pandemic is past us. This report looked at the options for sustainable growth in the sectors I mentioned. While that interim report focused on the international education aspect of the inquiry, it laid the foundation for the broader consideration and discussion of the significant intersection that exists between international education and tourism in modern Australia.</para>
<para>In 2019, international students contributed $40.3 billion to the Australian economy, including through education related travel, tuition fees and living expenses. The pandemic saw this number almost halve to $22.5 billion in 2021. Since international borders reopened in December 2021, there have been gradual signs of recovery towards prepandemic levels of enrolments and commencements.</para>
<para>Beyond its contribution to the Australian economy, international education is an important soft-power initiative. Our educational alumni who return home are our greatest ambassadors and ideas brokers in both official and unofficial capacities. In this way the international education market provides Australia with an invaluable opportunity to educate the future leaders of our many neighbouring countries and contribute to the development of an informed and critical mindset.</para>
<para>The study experience of international students has a substantial impact upon Australia's overall reputation, including its position as a high-quality higher education provider. In order to remain competitive with other countries, Australia must deliver a world-class education accompanied by a positive student experience. The relatively high cost of living and the availability of affordable housing were some of the factors raised as negatively affecting the experience of international students studying here in Australia. To address the issues raised, the committee has recommended that the government encourage the expansion of domestic investment into purpose built student accommodation and that it work with local and state government authorities in developing appropriate local accommodation models, including homestay. Further clarification of the roles and responsibilities across the Commonwealth, state and local governments may further enhance the oversight of areas impacting upon international student experiences.</para>
<para>The first half of this inquiry demonstrated that international students make significant contributions to the communities in which they stay, and as a regional member I can guarantee that. This is particularly the case, as I say, in regional Australia, where the committee heard that international students play an important role in supporting industries such as tourism as consumers and can help to fill critical skills shortages in sectors including, importantly, health. Noting that only four per cent of all international students are in regional Australia, the committee believes that the government should consider additional incentives to support the promotion of non-metropolitan areas as study destinations.</para>
<para>In relation to marketing Australia's higher education system abroad, the committee believes that the international education sector would be well served by adopting a 'team Australia' approach to marketing and branding. The committee hopes that this recommended initiative will not only build and maintain a national platform for the promotion of the quality education offered in our country but also address the issues of fragmentation, duplication and divisive competition that currently exist in the marketing of Australian education to the world. Keeping in mind the current issues that the sector faces around the high concentration of students from a handful of source markets, the committee believes the 'team Australia' approach, as proposed, should take the lead in prioritising the development of a diversification plan.</para>
<para>The committee heard concerning reports of fraud and criminal activity in the international education sector, including the misuse of the visa system. It cannot be denied that a minority of providers, particularly at the bottom end of the private VET sector, have systematically exploited Australia's education system and broken migration law to funnel vulnerable and unwilling international students into sophisticated operations that in almost all cases lead to labour exploitation and, in the worst circumstances, indentured slave labour and sex trafficking.</para>
<para>Noting the recent announcement of reforms to curb the exploitations of the international education system, this report has put forward a number of measures to further assist the Australian government in stamping out unscrupulous providers and non-genuine students. These measures include reviewing the settings and frameworks for the international education regulatory bodies to ensure that they empower proactive risk analysis and on-the-ground quality assurance practices. The committee understand that, in addition to the fragmentation of regulatory arrangements, the lack of coherent information sharing and analysis hampers the ability of Commonwealth agencies to detect and respond to fraud and criminal activities. It is the committee's opinion that the government should look to implement a more substantial information- and data-sharing platform that has the capability of identifying potential trends and supports forward planning across agency risk mitigation.</para>
<para>Finally, given that the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations together have policy oversight of the higher education system, it is the committee's view that both departments should be empowered to take the lead role in advising the Minister for Education and the Minister for Skills and Training, respectively, on whether policy objectives are being achieved in full, including those dependent on actions in other Commonwealth portfolios and agencies. Both departments should ensure that appropriate and holistic measures are included in its annual performance statement.</para>
<para>On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to the many stakeholders and submitters, right across the country, who contributed their time and experience to the inquiry. In particular, I thank the international students who engaged with the committee for this inquiry. I also thank the chair, Senator Deborah O'Neill, and all the committee members for their collegiate approach. I thank the secretariat, in particular, for its support throughout the inquiry. I commend this report to the House and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaties Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present <inline font-style="italic">Report 221:</inline><inline font-style="italic">BBNJ </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic">greement</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am pleased to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport 221</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> BBNJ </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic">greement</inline>. The report focuses on the JSCOT inquiry into the agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.</para>
<para>This landmark agreement, also known as the high seas treaty, will improve ocean conservation efforts and provide for the sustainable and fair use of our oceans. By addressing conservation gaps in areas beyond national jurisdictions, this treaty will help maintain the oceans' potential to provide for current and future generations. The high seas treaty addresses these conservation gaps, establishing area-based management tools, requiring environmental impact assessments for any planned activities, managing genetic resources collected from the high seas, and creating a framework for the transfer of marine technology to developing states.</para>
<para>Australia has long been an advocate for this treaty and a member of the High Ambitions Coalition for Nature and People, a group of nations committed to achieving ambitious outcomes for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Australia has encouraged other countries to ratify this particular agreement to achieve the 60 ratifications needed for it to enter into force by the September 2025 deadline. Ratification will make Australia party to the agreement and will allow contributions to decision-making processes and the maintenance of international rules based law.</para>
<para>This treaty not only is crucial for supporting Australia's maritime industries, such as tourism, fishing and agriculture, but also reflects the government's commitments to international environmental leadership and nature positive agendas. This treaty aligns with Australia's interests, including bolstering international rules based order, enhancing domestic environmental protection, improving scientific endeavours and supporting foreign policy objectives. Ratification of the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty will complement existing domestic ocean conservation commitments made by Australia. It is 20 years in the making. Marine protection areas established under the treaty could broaden areas already protected within our own jurisdiction. It will enhance conservation outcomes and allow for regional collaboration for marine protection. This treaty is a priority for many nations within our region, the Indo-Pacific, and Australia's participation could play a leading role in its contribution to a secure, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.</para>
<para>The committee supports the major treaty action considered in the report and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. Finally, I would like to thank and acknowledge the work of the JSCOT secretariat, the witnesses who participated in the hearing and the many people who made a submission. In particular I'd like to acknowledge the work of civil society environmental organisations and their members for their honest and passionate engagement. On behalf of the committee I commend the report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7242" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm rising to support the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024. I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone that the opposition will be supporting this bill. The context of this, Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure you're aware and as I'm sure most people in the chamber would be aware, is that this reflects a lot of the work being done in this space by the UK since Brexit. Since Brexit the UK itself has been doing bilateral free trade agreements with a number of countries. We did a bilateral deal with the UK when we were still in government. The minister at the time, Dan Tehan, did a wonderful bilateral free trade agreement with the UK that's now been brought into force by the present government.</para>
<para>The UK is the 12th country to join the CPTPP. The CPTPP is known as a comprehensive, progressive transpacific partnership agreement. It's a multilateral trade agreement. Eleven countries were members before the UK joined. Those countries are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK will be the 12th country to join the transpacific partnership. This is obviously the first country that will be joining that isn't actually part of the Pacific, but we welcome them anyway because the more people involved in this the better it is for all countries involved. All 11 countries have to agree to the accession of the UK to the multilateral free trade agreement and to the changes in our Customs Tariff Act. This bill is to do what we need to do domestically. I think it's a good day for the CPTPP, for the current members and obviously for the UK as well.</para>
<para>I'll go to some broader trade issues. Global trade as a total figure has gone from something like US$6 trillion a year to over US$30 trillion a year over the last 20 years. Interestingly enough, at the same time, global poverty as a percentage of the world's total population has gone from 30 per cent of the world's population to 10 per cent. Now, let's get a reality on that figure. We're saying that 20 per cent of the world's population over the last 20 years has come out of poverty, as measured by a number of agencies. That is an enormous statistic. That means there are literally over a billion people throughout the world who have a much better lifestyle and quality of life than they did 20 years ago. I'm happy to have the debate, but I would tie the growth in global trade intrinsically to that outcome.</para>
<para>What does that mean? It means that anyone who wants to improve the economic outcomes for the poor throughout the world should be a vehement trade advocate. I think that's counterintuitive for some of those people, but I would argue that quite strongly, and the economic statistics over the last few years back that up. It's interesting that countries still have the debate. It's never unhealthy to have a debate on anything.</para>
<para>I'm an avid history person and, since I became a politician, I've been a very engaged and active reader of Australian political history, as well as the political history of other countries. The Labor Party wasn't big when we became a nation at Federation in 1901—with all due respect to my colleagues opposite. The National Party didn't exist. The forerunner of the National Party was the Country Party, which didn't exist until the 1920s.</para>
<para>There were two major themes at that time. One major political theme that carried on for quite a while was the free traders versus the protectionists. That was the hot political debate in this country for many, many years. In fact, political parties and political operators were defined by that issue. I think that over time Australia has gone from more protectionist to less protectionist. Again, I would say that, like the global stats, our trade stats have greatly enhanced because we are now very much an open trading economy. I think we are much wealthier, and our quality of life is much better and higher because of that.</para>
<para>I know that there'll be a TV show about the Labor Party when they lose and leave government—hopefully soon, with all due respect. When we had lost government, from 2013 to 2022, a show was done about that—<inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline>; members opposite might have watched it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've got a quote sheet if you think that will help.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't need it. Those programs always look at the drama of what happened when people were in government. But one thing that I think was a great achievement of the coalition government between 2013 and 2022 and which I always remind people of was in the area of trade. We did five or six bilateral agreements and a number of other agreements, including joining the CPTPP. That meant that in 2013 about 25 per cent of the goods and services that we exported were covered by a free trade agreement. By the time we left, the last two agreements we made in government were the bilateral agreement with the UK and the agreement with India. The percentage was at 80 per cent of goods and services by then, so those free trade agreements were great achievements of the coalition government between 2013 and 2022. We're the party of free trade and the party of trade which has increased the wealth of our country. We're exceptionally proud of that.</para>
<para>Why do I say that's been great for our country? When a country is selling stuff, wealth basically gets generated on what they sell. So exports are an exceptionally important part of generating wealth in our country. When we get markets for our food, for our mining, for education and for our services, we are better off. In my local community, people will sometimes come to me and mention the biggest employer in their area. It might be health or a big base hospital. Someone came to me the other day in my local community and said, 'The NDIS providers are a big employer and a big provider of jobs in our community.' That's true, but, before that, you need to be making money from the sector or an industry you collect tax from. That money then filters through to those public or government jobs. The biggest, most important employer in my area, is the Casino Food Co-op, which is a meat processing facility in my region. They're the biggest by a long way. They were here last night as part of the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat group. They employ over 1,000 people. At any time, they have up to 1,200 employees. They have a facility in Casino predominantly for beef, and they have another facility in Booyong, not far from where I live, which is a pig processor. They are the biggest private employer in our region, and that makes them very important to me and to our region. Why have I brought them up when I'm talking about the CPTPP and trade? It's because they export 70 per cent of what they process. Again, that is why free trade agreements and the CPTPP are really important. Part of the bilateral deal we did with the UK and the UK joining the CPTPP means that I—I'm a very modest beef producer myself—and all our beef farmers and the people that work within that processing facility have more markets to sell to.</para>
<para>I see my colleague the member for Nicholls over there. I always get lost on the previous name of the member for Nicholls. We regional MPs very much know, understand and respect how important trade is. If I were to go through the four major trading items and group them, food ag is a big one of them. I think we're approaching around $70 billion. The other big three exports that fund our country, jobs, effectively the NDIS, our health system and a whole lot of stuff—because they're private jobs that we collect taxes from to pay for those public services—are iron ore, coal and gas, each of which we sell a lot of. Those three, combined with food and the ag sector, are the four export sectors that fund our country. Where are all those sectors? The member for Nicholls knows that those four sectors are all in regional Australia. You don't see, with all due respect to our city cousins, a lot of farms in our cities. You don't see a lot of coal mines in the cities. You don't see a lot of iron ore mines in the cities. And you don't see a lot of gas wells in the cities either. We in the regions understand that. We in the regions respect that those four commodities are very important in our trade world and our trade life and fund very much of what we do.</para>
<para>I know, Deputy Speaker, that you understand that, because you're a Western Australian. As the shadow trade minister, I had the great privilege to go to the Pilbara. To get there, obviously, I had to go to Perth Airport. I was at the Perth Airport. I'm sure you've been there many times, Deputy Speaker. It was about 5.30 am. It is packed at that time with wall-to-wall high vis. You didn't mess around going through security. Everyone had their high vis on. Everyone was getting on a plane. They did this very regularly. Everyone was just going, 'ching, ching, ching,' as they went through security. Everyone knew what to do. You didn't hesitate, because it was like a filing system. Then we got on the plane, shut the windows and put the Air Pods in, and off we flew. I'd encourage anyone to look at that. It's a great eye-opener and reminder, if anyone is ever in Western Australia, to go to Perth Airport and look at that. It is a great reminder of those important sectors. Those mining jobs that those people are going to are very important. They're well-paying jobs. One of four jobs in this country is dependent on trade and on what we sell, and they're higher-paying jobs. If you work for a company that exports, that is a trading company selling things overseas, you are higher paid, on average, than if you were in a company that is not involved in the trade industry. Again, it really accentuates how important trade and those jobs are to our region.</para>
<para>To close, one of the great achievements of the coalition government from 2013 to 2022 were the free trade agreements that we did. In 2013, 25 per cent of goods and services we exported were covered by a trade agreement; by 2022, that had gone to 80 per cent. That has grown markets across a whole lot of sectors—many more sectors than the ones I just mentioned. There is a whole lot of wonderful health providers, education providers and other services and goods as well; I have just really focused on the major ones and the big-volume ones. The CPTPP is an important part of our trading relationships with countries around the Pacific. It's great to see the UK join that. It's going to strengthen the CPTPP. As I said at the beginning, I am very happy to support this bill.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, and I thank the member for Page for his contribution and his commitment to this bill. As he said, we in regional Australia understand the importance of trade. It is such a key to our economy.</para>
<para>Not one hour ago, I was in my office making a contribution to a publication called the <inline font-style="italic">Locky News</inline>, which is a small community newspaper for a town called Lockington. In the contribution that I made, I spoke about Lockington, a town of 800 people in a small region and what impact it has around the world. It has a great dairy industry, and a lot of the milk that is produced in Lockington finds its way to Fonterra in Stanhope. Fonterra is Australia's largest producer of mozzarella cheese, and that gets exported all around the world. I said this to make sure the people of Lockington understand how important they are: there is a good chance that if you are having a pizza somewhere in South-East Asia that the mozzarella started life as milk produced in the Lockington region. Also it is a great producer of processing tomatoes that go to Kagome or over to Shepparton for SPC, so there is also a chance that, if someone is making the pasta sauce somewhere around the world, the tomatoes were grown in this rich agricultural area. Trade has facilitated that.</para>
<para>If you go a bit further east in my electorate, the Goulburn Valley that surrounds the city of Shepparton really is built on trade. Obviously people will know my passion for a company called SPC. Everyone in this place is welcome to go and get a snack pack of Australian peaches from my office. Not only do we grow the peaches and manufacture them in the Shepparton factory—long may that continue; there is new ownership of SPC that is doing some great things in that space—but a lot of that fruit gets sent overseas for people to enjoy. There is nothing like some clean, green Australian fruit on the table. Fresh fruit also gets exported. The apple industry has massively increased in the Shepparton and Goulburn Valley region as a result of being able to trade apples overseas. The dairy industry and the fruit industry in my part of the world indicate how important trade is.</para>
<para>The accession of the United Kingdom to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—we call it the CPTPP—is something we're very pleased with. The United Kingdom are a great trading nation within a rules based multilateral trade system, and they possess a strong track record of compliance with trade commitments that all CPTPP members must have. The CPTPP, to recap, is a free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK is the first member to be added to the agreement and the first European country to join.</para>
<para>Entry builds on that Australia-UK free trade agreement which entered into force on 31 May 2023. The free trade agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was the first to be negotiated post-Brexit. Australia and the UK have a long and fruitful relationship, and the FTA is an extension of the ties that bind our two nations. There's nothing like walking through a Sainsbury's or a Tesco or any of the other supermarkets in the UK and seeing Australian produce whether it be fresh fruit from my electorate, processed fruit from my electorate or cheese or infant formula products that have the Australian flag in those supermarkets. It's wonderful to see. It's good for us, it's good for our farmers and it's good for the people who we trade with because they are getting the benefit of our fantastic agricultural produce.</para>
<para>In trade terms overall, the UK impact assessment suggested the agreement could increase bilateral trade in the long run by 10.4 billion pounds—more than A$18 billion—assuming a 53 per cent increase in trade resulting from reductions in regulatory restrictions to goods and services, trade tariff reductions, income and supply chain effects and UK economic growth. Almost all the Australian goods exported, by value, now enter the UK without tariffs, and this agreement really does put the 'free' in free trade. This continues the coalition's really strong track record on free trade agreements. Of Australia's 16 free trade agreements, 13 of them entered into force under coalition governments. One in five Australian jobs is trade related. On average, businesses that export employ more staff, pay higher wages and achieve higher productivity compared to non-exporters, and nowhere is that more true than in the electorate of Nicholls.</para>
<para>I'd just like to give some credit to various areas. Firstly, I'll go back to the eighties and the Hawke-Keating government that focused on tariff reduction and opened up Australia to more trade. I think that was a good thing for Australia to do in the eighties. It was a business-friendly government, and I'd like to see this Labor government be a little bit more business friendly in its aspirations. Be that as it may, between 2013 and 2022, the Liberals and Nationals in government finalised 11 trade agreements, including the FTA with the UK and the economic cooperation and trade agreement with India. We raised the share of trade covered by FTAs from 27 per cent in 2013 to over 70 per cent, and we actively supported our exporters to diversify export markets and create jobs and economic activity in regional, rural and remote communities, and I'll say especially in that great food bowl, the Goulburn Valley, which is in the electorate of Nicholls.</para>
<para>I also want to give a lot of credit to some of the former trade ministers who were involved in those free trade agreements. I've seen that the member for Wannon has just walked in. I want to congratulate the member for Wannon for his fine efforts as trade minister in helping to negotiate a number of those free trade agreements. The people of Nicholls, whose economic future relies on our ability to trade, thank him for that. I also want to thank the former member for Goldstein Andrew Robb who was also a trade minister and very effective in the area of free trade agreements.</para>
<para>The upshot is that the coalition believes in free and fair trade, and it's got to be fair. Some of the trade around the world isn't, and that's why some of these free trade agreements are so important. The rules based multilateral trade system underpins the global economy, and it's critical to regional economies, including the people I represent. The CPTPP membership will enhance the United Kingdom's engagement in the Indo-Pacific in support of shared prosperity, security and regional stability. This is critically important. We want people in the Indo-Pacific to be trading with us because if we're having trade relationships, we can have other relationships. We can have defence relationships. We can have cultural relationships. It's all built on trade, and trade is a critical part of global security—a lot more than people think. People think global security is about who's got the biggest weapons or who's projecting force. While those things are important, if we trade with each other, we reduce the chance of regional conflict. So I commend this bill to the House, and I support a bipartisan approach to trade agreements into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend the member for Nicholls for his fine speech, and I say to the member, I know that your constituents appreciate the focus you have on trade, on making sure they can grow and produce what this country needs as well as what the world needs and on making sure we can effectively and efficiently get that produce out to the rest of the world. I know your passion for making sure that what's grown in your area can also be exported and can be exported efficiently and effectively. And I commend you for the work you do on behalf of the industries in your electorate.</para>
<para>It's incredibly important that we continue to develop and grow the membership of the CPTPP, because it is a truly foundational trade agreement, especially in terms of setting the rules when it comes to how countries should trade in the Indo-Pacific. It is particularly important that we grow and enhance the CPTPP in such a way that we bring countries onboard that know and understand how important the rules based trading order is and that any country that joins a multilateral trade agreement or a regional trade agreement knows and understands that it brings obligations to live within those rules.</para>
<para>That's why it's incredibly important that we've got the United Kingdom acceding to the CPTPP as the first country outside of those that negotiated it. The UK understands how important the rules based trading order is. Having negotiated the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement with Liz Truss and then with the trade minister, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, we know and understand how important it is that the UK not only get its membership of the CPTPP but also know and understand that with that comes proper trade liberalisation and that they know and understand the trading rules. In negotiating the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement, one of the things I discussed with Liz Truss—and it was very pleasing to see her in the chamber here yesterday—was how important it was that the UK and Australia negotiate a truly groundbreaking free trade agreement, because that would then help UK accession to the CPTPP. And that's exactly what happened.</para>
<para>We have, in the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement, the best free trade agreement undertaken by this country in terms of trade liberalisation outside the one that was negotiated with New Zealand. And I must congratulate the UK, because going to zero tariffs after a period of time—for beef, for lamb, for dairy, for sugar—is not easy. But they were prepared to negotiate in good faith, and we were able to get a world-class agreement. That world-class agreement means we're now here with comprehensive UK accession to the CPTPP, which is incredibly important.</para>
<para>These negotiations are tough, and they require a little bit of dialogue here and there, and testing of the metal of either side to see where you get to. People might talk about uncomfortable chairs and they might talk about other things, but the most important thing is that you get the outcome you want, and that is what we got with the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement. I will say this: having free trade agreements is fantastic because that's an efficient and effective way to get your goods overseas, but you also need to be able to deliver your goods to market within Australia. You have to do that through your ports, and you've got to make sure that your infrastructure is up to it.</para>
<para>What is happening to the infrastructure in this nation—particularly in Victoria, and particularly in western Victoria, under the federal Labor Government and the Victorian state Labor government—is nothing short of a disgrace. What we are seeing is the result of maintenance budgets being cut at the state and federal level. We're seeing that infrastructure degrade at a rate that I and many of my constituents—and I know I speak for the member for Nicholls as well—haven't seen before. This needs to be addressed. It's all very well having free trade agreements, but, if you can't efficiently and effectively get your goods to markets, that impacts on your ability to compete with those overseas.</para>
<para>One of the prime things that needs looking at in this regard is what has happened to the $60 million that the federal coalition government gave to the state Labor government to invest in the Princes Highway between Warrnambool and Port Fairy. In the last two years the road has continued to deteriorate. It's impossible to see what happened to that $60 million. My constituents worry that all of that money has somehow been funnelled off to the Suburban Rail Loop and hasn't been put towards the Princes Highway between Warrnambool and Port Fairy. We need the Victorian state Labor government to come clean and say what has happened to that money. At the moment, all we're seeing from the federal government and the state government is maintenance funding deteriorating. It used to be that the federal government provided 80c for every $1 that went into the Princes Highway. That has now been cut back to 50c. Not only that; we've now seen the Victorian state government cut their maintenance budget by two-thirds. You will never ever get your goods to market efficiently and effectively unless you have the proper infrastructure: the road infrastructure and the rail infrastructure. You also need to make sure that your airports are continuing to grow and develop. The failure on infrastructure from both the Albanese Labor government and the state Labor government is nothing short of shameful.</para>
<para>We've got free trade agreements, which are wonderful because they help you efficiently get your goods and services to market overseas, but you've got to make sure that your domestic market is also working efficiently and effectively. That is where my great concern is at the moment as to what is happening in this nation. If you can't do that efficiently and effectively, it doesn't matter how good your free trade agreements are; it will still, in the end, handcuff your exporters. We don't need that occurring at the moment, because people are doing it really tough, whether it be our farmers or our export businesses. We've seen the latest data as to what is happening to small business across this country. It's collapsing. Yet they're the engine room of the exports that we deliver right across the globe.</para>
<para>Adding the UK into the CPTPP is a welcome development. I will say it was the coalition government that did the hard yards, the lifting in negotiating the Australia-UK FTA, that has led us here. It is great to see those opposite recognise the wonderful work that the coalition government did with the Australia-UK FTA. I know that the trade minister, Don Farrell, sings from the rafters every time he talks about the Australia-UK FTA, in making sure that he recognises and acknowledges that it was the coalition that negotiated and signed the agreement. I know that he's singing from the rafters about that having led to the UK acceding to the CPTPP, which is also wonderful, but—I'll go back to that other point—we should not lose sight of how important it is to make sure the domestic environment enables our exporters to do their job and go on and export. We all know how many jobs are created with regard to us exporting to the rest of the world. If we get our free trade agreements right and get our domestic infrastructure environment right, we can make sure that we will continue to be a great exporting nation.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>61</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>I'll give the House a gift and not make extensive summing up comments. I'll simply thank members for their contribution and note that if I had to characterise the debate I'd say it was somewhat verbose unanimity on the substance of the bill, accompanied by a very creative and expansionary interpretation of the relevancy rule. Thank you very much.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>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</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7245" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7248" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7246" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>61</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, and I move the amendment circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the bill prioritises ideology over outcome by failing to be technology-agnostic;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the bill shows a clear bias against hydro in favour of wind and solar which will disproportionately impact Tasmania and threatens to increase the cost of certificates for industry;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) in exempting technologies the Government doesn't like, such as blue and pink hydrogen, the bill does not align with overseas schemes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the bill risks being a Trojan horse for a broader economy-wide carbon price; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) the bill bears little resemblance to the policy of the former Government".</para></quote>
<para>The government will claim that these bills are non-controversial. In fact, as the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy suggested in his second reading speech, it concludes four years of effort by the department, therefore building on the work of the former coalition government. In other words, the Albanese Labor government is seeking to tell the Australian people that these guarantee of origin bills are simply building on the previous coalition government's work in the exact same field; however, when it comes to establishing a guarantee of origin scheme, what is before the House bears little to no resemblance whatsoever to that which the coalition government was pursuing when in office. Labor has done what Labor always does. It has very cleverly tried to play the politics, effectively stealing the labelling of a scheme—a guarantee of origin scheme—from the coalition and pretending it has built on that while keeping the basic tenets in place, yet it has in fact completely hijacked the substance of that scheme and made it into something entirely different, and those differences we'll unravel today.</para>
<para>But, before I get into the specifics of the bill, let me at least address some of the issues raised by the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy in his address to this chamber on these bills. The assistant minister spoke about the importance of introducing Labor's Guarantee of Origin scheme to continue the prosperous and sustainable evolution of Australian industry. Clearly, the assistant minister wrote that speech in the bubble of this parliament, because out there in the real world industry is struggling. Industry is on its knees, in large part because of the mismanagement of climate and energy policy in this country. Only today, yet another report came out, this one focusing on small businesses in Australia, where 63 per cent of Australian small businesses have told CommBank in its survey that they cannot afford the energy transition being put by the Albanese Labor government. Over the last two years alone we have seen a tripling of insolvencies. Manufacturing in particular is on its knees. Why? Because this government went to the Australian people promising a $275 reduction in power bills, only to preside over the highest electricity bills Australia has ever seen. Australian industry, which the assistant minister thinks is prospering, is now paying among the highest electricity and gas prices in the world.</para>
<para>The second point I want to make about the assistant minister's speech is his suggestion that Labor's Future Made in Australia policy is all about leveraging Australia's comparative advantage. Indeed, anybody who studied economics would understand the importance of leveraging a nation's comparative advantage. Yet the first announcement under this scheme was for solar panel manufacturing. The second announcement was for quantum computing. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with solar panel manufacturing, and quantum computing is vitally important. But the point here is neither of those sectors represents a comparative advantage for our nation. This is the centrepiece of Labor's economic policy, which is meant to be leveraging Australia's comparative advantage, and the first two announcements they come out with are actually not things Australia has a comparative advantage in.</para>
<para>The third thing I want to point to in the assistant minister's speech is his suggestion that Australia has abundant clean energy resources. On that point he is right except when you see how he interprets that in the context of these bills, and it's how Labor, moreover, interprets clean energy. The abundant resources to which the assistant minister and other Labor ministers refer are only those of sunshine and wind. What they fail to acknowledge is Australia also has abundant resources including gas and including the very resource they refuse to even acknowledge: uranium. Uranium right now is powering nuclear energy power plants the world over and creating zero emissions electricity. We already are a clean energy superpower in this country, but Labor will deny that because they are only interested in a renewables-only approach.</para>
<para>You see, Deputy Speaker, this is the very problem we have with the bills that are before the House. Labor have taken what should be a bipartisan approach to establishing a guarantee of origin scheme specific to hydrogen, and they have applied their all-eggs-in-one-basket, renewables-only dogma, and they have fundamentally changed the intent of this scheme. The intent itself, I must say, I agree with. The intent itself, at a very high level, is to establish a guarantee of origin scheme for hydrogen—one that allows the tracking and verification of emissions for that product so that buyers and sellers in the marketplace can understand from where that product comes and its emissions profile. At that level, there is no problem with this scheme. But in the detail, where Labor has applied their renewables-only dogma, it all goes wrong.</para>
<para>Firstly, unlike the coalition's approach, Labor has decided not to be technology agnostic when it comes to establishing this guarantee of origin scheme. Instead, true to form, Labor has decided it knows best on the specific technology for Australia's future, and it can only be renewables, with no consideration for any other technology. In contrast, the coalition believes that renewables will play a vitally important role in Australia's future, but it is not the only technology for our future; it is but one, albeit a very important one. Labor's scheme is not technology agnostic. When the coalition was looking at introducing a guarantee of origin scheme—we had done the consultation and we had put out the basic terms of reference and scope for a trial—the coalition's scheme was to 'include projects across a range of production methods, including renewable electricity, biomethane, and coal and gas with substantial carbon capture and storage'. The bills before the House are silent on those methods, other than renewables. Herein lies the problem. Indeed, one of the mechanisms enabling the guarantee of origin scheme is the renewable energy guarantee of origin certificates, again confirming that this government's approach to the guarantee of origin scheme for hydrogen is solely focused on one colour of hydrogen: green hydrogen. That's their preference. That's what they are going after. That is why we do not see a true technology agnostic approach coming through with these bills.</para>
<para>The second point I'll make is that these bills are not just reinforcing Labor's dogma of renewables only but, within the family of renewable technology, they unfortunately bias wind and solar to the detriment of hydro, which is why you see Hydro Tasmania concerned that they will not be eligible to the same extent as companies that since 1997 have introduced and installed renewable projects. To make clear how perverse the implementation of such a thing would be: Tasmania would be using zero-emissions hydro to produce hydrogen, but, in order to go to market and receive the premium for such green hydrogen, they'd probably have to buy certificates from the mainland. So perverse is how it would work in reality as suggested by this bill.</para>
<para>Thirdly, one of the key priorities when the coalition was in government and looking at a guarantee-of-origin scheme was to ensure that the scheme would work in concert with those of other countries. Indeed, one of the findings—and I again quote from the consultation that we did in office—was: 'A local scheme must be internationally aligned and accepted by our trading partners.' Again, it's notable that the guarantee-of-origin schemes being established by the EU and the UK express a far larger appreciation for different colours of hydrogen than does the Labor Party, including, for example, blue hydrogen with carbon capture and storage—that is the use of gas. That is something Labor has been silent about through this entire process.</para>
<para>There's also the risk that what Labor is doing is introducing a Trojan Horse that will see the expansion of what will effectively be a carbon price across other sectors. We know this is a risk because, instead of containing the guarantee-of-origin scheme to hydrogen, the government has made it very clear that it intends to expand the guarantee-of-origin scheme to other products across the Australian economy. And the government has not put parameters around which products would be included. They've given examples, but they have not provided any parameters. So, there is a risk that this is in fact a Trojan Horse to apply this far more widely than the government has suggested so far.</para>
<para>If Labor's schemes in climate change and energy were working fine, I think the coalition would be more willing to accept Labor's word on face value. But let's have a look at what they've done so far. This is the same government that walked into this chamber and legislated for 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. When this side of the House, the coalition, called on the government to at least get the likes of the Productivity Commission to do the economic modelling so they could tell us exactly how it could be achieved and who would pay—what the impact would be on the economy—this government refused to do that. But they legislated the 43 per cent emissions-reduction target.</para>
<para>After successive years of emissions reduction from Australia under the coalition, what has happened over the last two years since Labor came to office? Emissions have gone up. This is their track record. The same government that came to office promising a $275 reduction in household power bills have refused, to this day, to come to this dispatch box and concede that it was a broken promise. Australians in some parts of the country have seen electricity bills not go down by $275 but increase by up to $1,000 more than Labor promised them. This is their track record. The same government promised an electricity grid of 82 per cent renewables by 2030. Now, in order to achieve 82 per cent, they need nearly seven gigawatts of new renewable generation installed every single year—up to seven gigawatts. Last year it was 1.3, so there's Buckley's chance.</para>
<para>This is why we have yet another bill here today, the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill. It speaks again to their dogma of all eggs in one basket, renewables only. They want the Australian people just to take their word for it? 'My word is my bond' was the commitment of our now Prime Minister. Seriously? Every member of this parliament has an obligation to the people they serve, and I certainly have an obligation to my own constituents.</para>
<para>This government does not have a track record that should be trusted when it comes to climate change and energy. Every single promise they have made to date they have broken. Now, I accept that the assistant minister, who I have to say is a very decent man, might believe, hand on heart, that Labor are doing the right thing, but their track record says otherwise. There are holes all through this bill. So what do you do in this situation as the coalition? You do the right thing by the parliament and the Australian people. You seek more scrutiny of the bill.</para>
<para>Yesterday I stood at this very dispatch box, and I put forward a motion to the House seeking more scrutiny of the bills we are now debating, in the hope that the Standing Committee on Economics could do a review, consistent with standing order 143 of this parliament—that a cross-parliamentary committee could take these bills away, do more scrutiny and answer some of the questions I've raised today. But the Labor Party voted against that motion. They were going to be party to that review. They refused consideration.</para>
<para>What does that tell us about the confidence of the Albanese government that they are refusing scrutiny of these bills, of a guarantee-of-origin scheme, when we have outlined concerns in good faith? They refused to have that scrutiny. There are members of this House of Representatives that wanted that scrutiny. They denied it. And now they're going to cry crocodile tears: 'Why didn't you just push this thing through?' It's because the track record of this government is one of failure, it's because there are too many holes in these bills, it's because there are too many outstanding questions that have not been answered and it's because this government has refused the scrutiny put forward in a motion of this parliament. They all came into the chamber and they voted against scrutiny of these bills.</para>
<para>Is this the first time, I ask, that the Albanese government have refused scrutiny of their Future Made in Australia policy? No, it's not. In the last sitting of the parliament we had the Future Made in Australia bills before this House. There's a part of our procedures in this House referred to as consideration in detail which allows members of this parliament to debate and ask questions of the relevant minister. When it came to the Future Made in Australia bills in the last sitting of parliament, that session of consideration in detail was gagged. People were gagged. A guillotine came down. Nah! The Labor Party, the Albanese government, did not want scrutiny of the primary bills for their Future Made in Australia policy. Now we have bills that form part of the Future Made in Australia, on the Guarantee of Origin scheme. We have fair and reasonable concerns, and this government refuses to have the parliament and therefore the people of Australia scrutinise the bills. Now they want us all to come in, hold hands, sing kumbaya and say: 'Yes, Prime Minister. Yes, Labor Party. Your word is your bond. We'll just take it on trust.'</para>
<para>Let me come to a conclusion here. When it comes to a Guarantee of Origin scheme focused on hydrogen, so that we can have verification and tracking of emissions in that product to ensure that Australian companies can receive a premium where they have produced low-emissions hydrogen—with that we agree entirely. In fact, it was the coalition which started the entire process, but the Albanese government has done what it always does. It has played the politics, not the policy, as it did with 'made in Australia'. Generations of Australian men and women have built the 'made in Australia' brand overseas, creating goodwill. The Albanese government comes in. It steals that brand for itself, packages up what is nothing more than a 'big government picking winners' approach, and calls it an industry policy. So, too, they have done with the Guarantee of Origin bills. They have taken a coalition policy, kept the label and fundamentally reformed the substance. And then they have the gall to expect the Australian parliament and therefore the Australian people just to roll over, get tickled on the tummy and trust them. That's not the way it works, and that's not the way it should work.</para>
<para>I say to members opposite: if you want to carry the Australian people on climate change and energy, it starts with transparency. If you want to carry this parliament, especially the coalition, it means being open. It means working with us. It means not denying scrutiny of the bills. Unfortunately, though, that's not what has been played out here. Here we are dealing with a bill which is fundamentally different from the intent where it started.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That government business orders of the day Nos 2 and 3 be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7249" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>64</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 stands referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7133" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>64</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 10 (after line 17), after section 296-40, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">296-42 Large superannuation balance threshold</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">large superannuation balance threshold</inline> is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for the 2025-26 financial year—$3 million; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a later financial year—the amount worked out by indexing annually the amount mentioned in paragraph (a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: Subdivision 960-M shows how to index amounts. However, annual indexation does not necessarily increase the amount of the cap (see section 960-285).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: The rounding amount for indexation is $100,000 (see subsection 960-285(7)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 28 (after line 10), after item 17, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17A Section 960-265 (after table item 10A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17B Paragraph 960-285(3)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "paragraph (b)", insert "or (c)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17C At the end of subsection 960-285(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (c) if the amount is mentioned in item 10B in section 960-265—the amount for the 2025-2026 financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17D Subsection 960-285(5) (paragraph (a) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">base quarter</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "paragraph (b)", insert "or (c)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17E Subsection 960-285(5) (at the end of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">base quarter</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (c) if the amount is mentioned in item 10B in section 960-265—the quarter ending on 31 December 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17F Subsection 960-285(7) (cell at table item 3, column 1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the cell, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 29 (line 27), omit "means $3 million", substitute "has the meaning given by section 296-42".</para></quote>
<para>The amendments I'm moving today would ensure that the large superannuation balance threshold is indexed annually, in line with the consumer price index. As it stands, the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold, established in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill of 2023, is not indexed, leaving the decision of when and if to lift the threshold to a future government at some unknown time. This is simply not consistent with sound long-term superannuation taxation policy. It does not provide sufficient certainty to those with money in super or the super industry, and, if left unaddressed, it will create intergenerational inequities.</para>
<para>From the outset, experts and commentators have been almost universally critical of this lack of indexation. Indeed, during the consultation process on this legislation, AustralianSuper wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Indexation of the threshold at which the measure applies would lead to greater certainty and promote stability and confidence in the system.</para></quote>
<para>The National Farmers Federation said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Given the long-term nature of superannuation and rising inflation, the $3 million value will increasingly capture a greater share of Australian farming assets. As such, the NFF recommends indexing the cap to inflation or the Consumer Price Index.</para></quote>
<para>The Tax Institute, the Business Council of Australia and the Institute of Financial Professionals Australia, just to name a few, also all recommended that the proposed $3 million threshold be indexed.</para>
<para>Closer to home, when I talk to people in my community about this bill, even those who wholeheartedly support the intent of it, they see the lack of indexation on large super balances as absurd. Without indexation, the threshold does not currently account for inflation, and, therefore, reform most certainly will impact more and more ordinary Australians over time.</para>
<para>The Treasurer has said that from 2025, the concessional tax rate applied to future earnings for balances above $3 million is expected to apply to around 80,000 people. However, alternate modelling by the Financial Services Council puts that figure closer to half a million Australians if the cap remains unindexed. The number of people impacted in their lifetime would include more than 200,000 Australians under the age of 30.</para>
<para>The lack of indexation is out of step with current accepted tax principles, with most other elements of our super system being indexed, from contribution limits to the transfer balance cap and lump-sum benefits. Leaving the cap at $3 million without indexing it will mean people in my generation will have an entirely different and relatively higher threshold to that of my children, with the real value of the threshold likely falling to $2 million, due to inflation, by around 2040. Take the example of a current 30-year-old. By the time they retire at the age of 65, the real value of the cap will have fallen to $1.3 million, assuming inflation of just 2½ per cent. If inflation is higher, say four per cent, the real value would actually be $760,000—quite the departure from a $3 million cap.</para>
<para>Ultimately, my electorate of North Sydney and many individuals and stakeholders across this country broadly support the intent and principle of this bill—that is, to rein back generous tax breaks for super balances that are beyond what is currently deemed necessary to fund a comfortable retirement. However, in its current form, and without indexation, this legislation leaves many deeply concerned. The large superannuation balance threshold should be indexed to keep pace with inflation, to avoid bracket creep and to ensure greater intergenerational fairness. This amendment does just that. It is sensible, it is simple, it is practical and it is in line with current taxation law. I commend the amendment to the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for North Sydney for her ongoing and good-faith engagement on this issue and on a range of other issues around the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I know that she's bringing the propositions that she's bringing in good faith and that they reflect representations that have been made to her by members of her community. We won't be supporting the amendments, and I'd just like to point out, in very brief terms, why.</para>
<para>Firstly, a matter of context: the average balance on retirement today is somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000. That's a long way south of the $3 million threshold that has been set in the bill before the House. It's for that reason that we're confident that less than 0.5 per cent of all fund members will be caught by the new provision—about 80,000 people, on introduction—and we don't see any significant shift in that in the near term.</para>
<para>It is of course the norm within the taxation system that we do not index tax thresholds. For example, we don't index personal income tax thresholds. Indeed, the previous government didn't index the division 293 tax threshold when it introduced those changes about a decade ago. It is of course open to a future government to decide to lift the threshold, and a future government would make that decision in the context of all the other fiscal pressures that are bearing upon a government at that point in time.</para>
<para>It's a modest change. It's a change that won't impact more than 99.5 per cent of all taxpayers. And let us not forget the objective of this. It's about ensuring that the taxation arrangements in relation to superannuation—which are generous—are sustainable over time. Even at the higher threshold of 30 per cent, for that portion of a fund over $3 million, that is still an incredibly concessional rate of taxation. So, we think the bill strikes the right balance in ensuring that people are encouraged to save for their retirement. It puts no cap on the amount of money people can have within their superannuation account. If they want to have more than $3 million in their superannuation they can do so, but there will be a higher rate of taxation on that part of the balance over $3 million—still a very generous tax concession for that portion of the fund balance over $3 million. I fully expect that the very small number of Australians who are caught by this will continue to decide to invest their money through the superannuation system because of those generous taxation concessions.</para>
<para>For these reasons, while I accept that the arguments are put in good faith by the member for North Sydney, the government won't be accepting the amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for your commentary, Minister. I would like to put to you that this has broadly been advocated for across a number of organisations. I take what you're saying—that it's not standard practice for taxation brackets to be indexed—but it is certainly true that in most other elements of the super law they are indexed, whether it's what you can take out or what you can put in.</para>
<para>I think the thing that is very concerning to many people is that the potential impact here is for those who have self-managed super funds, particularly farmers and small-business owners who may have assets other than cash in their self-managed super fund. What assurances can you give to people who have taken the initiative and set up a self-managed super fund that this reform is not directly targeted at them, trying to force them back into commercial superannuation systems?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question and I stand by the comments I've made in relation to the norms within the taxation system at large. The rules are sector neutral. They give no preference to whether a fund is a regulated superannuation entity or is regulated by the tax office, being a self-managed superannuation fund. I fully expect that following the passage of these laws people will make decisions on whether they control their own superannuation investments through a self-managed superannuation fund or they go through a regulated superannuation entity based on their own time, need, expertise and personal circumstances. From the government's point of view, this is sector neutral and it is absolutely driven by ensuring that we have a sustainable set of taxation concession arrangements in the superannuation systems. And I repeat: even if somebody has more than $3 million within their superannuation fund, the high rate of taxation on that proportion of their superannuation savings over $3 million will still be incredibly concessionally taxed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the House in support of the amendment moved by the member for North Sydney and in anticipation of the amendment about to be moved by my colleague the member for Wentworth. I'd like to make the point that the compulsory superannuation scheme that was introduced into this country in 1992 is extraordinary, and I'm sure that the Minister for Financial Services will agree that, in representing the fourth-largest pool of retirement assets globally, what we have in Australia is an incredibly important superannuation system. It means that generations of Australians can finish their working lives knowing that they will be financially secure in retirement. Despite the fact that a doubling of Australians who qualify for the age pension is expected by 2060, we do not expect that the amount of money that this country will have to put towards aged and service pensions is going to increase in the next 40 years, because of the value and the size of our superannuation system.</para>
<para>There have been so many policy failures in this country in recent years, and young Australians are facing the cost of climate change amelioration. They're facing an incredibly challenging energy transition. They have a housing system and, to some extent, a taxation system which could be said to be stacked against them. But they will be protected by this superannuation system from the cost of caring for our ageing population.</para>
<para>But the trade-off for Australians putting away their money and forgoing the immediate access to their earnings has always been the preferential tax treatment of money that has been placed in super in this country. If we want Australians to commit to super, if we want them to commit to their futures and if we want all of those who pay tax or receive benefits in this country to benefit as they should from the superannuation system, we have to respect its premises and its provisions and we shouldn't be chipping away at it or devaluing it.</para>
<para>The Treasurer has already told us that the superannuation concessions need to be better targeted and sustainable, and the main purpose of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is to reduce those concessions to those people with a superannuation balance of more than $3 million. As the minister has said, at this point the change in provisions is only going to apply to 0.5 per cent of Australians, but the reality is that a 25-year-old who today is earning $100,000, with a super balance of $35,000, will reach the $3 million threshold by the time that they turn 65. So this is a question which is much more pertinent to young Australians than it is to older people like those in this House at this point in time. Many people in my electorate of Kooyong will be disproportionately affected by this legislation because they have very high super balances. Having said that, most understand that the tax concessions that are built into super have a cost. There is broad support in my electorate for the principle of taxing very high super balances, but it is an extraordinary and disappointing decision that the $3 million threshold will not be indexed. I agree with the member for North Sydney: indexation is an accepted principle for government payments. It is commonly applied. It's applied to contribution limits, to the transfer balance cap and to lump sum benefits. It should be applied to the superannuation balance threshold, and I think it's a bit disingenuous and cynical that the government has decided not to do this at this point in time.</para>
<para>I support the member for North Sydney's amendment to prevent the taxation of unrealised capital gains. This is a departure from the traditional treatment in this country and in other OECD countries in which capital gains tax applies only on realisation. The precedent that this sets is chilling, and it's particularly concerning for small businesses, farmers and venture capital funds. So I support the amendment that the member for Wentworth is about to move for a formal assessment of the potential impact of this legislation on the startup and scale-up sectors.</para>
<para>Australians need certainty in their financial decision-making, and they need to be able to protect their capital. They put their money into superannuation with trust, on the basis that it is the best vehicle for long-term savings for self-funded retirement. But that might no longer be the case under this legislation. Many of those who face additional taxes under this legislation may well make a judgement as to whether or not they should keep their large superannuation balance in the system or invest it in some other way. If they do that, it will be to the cost of the system and to all the other Australians who trust in superannuation. If we really value super, we have to support it, not discourage it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the amendment moved by the member for North Sydney, and that is in the context of the rest of this legislation. This legislation is going to tax unrealised gains in super, which I think is bad policy. It is bad tax policy, but it is particularly bad and particularly damaging, I am concerned to see, potentially, for the venture and startup and scale-up sector. In this case, because of that combination of taxing unrealised gains and not indexing the balance, I think that we will increasingly drive money away from risk assets such as ventures, which are volatile in their returns and in their evaluations, and that makes this a problematic situation.</para>
<para>To tax unrealised gains and then, at the same time, not index them means that I expect to see—based on all the evidence I have had from members of the technology sector and the venture sector—money going out of self-managed super, which is a really important source of capital for the venture sector. That is of enormous concern for me, as Australia is looking down a productivity hole and we know that young, growing firms are the most important sources of productivity that our economy has. That is why I rise in support of the member for North Sydney's amendment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:06] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>52</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 and 3), omit the table items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 51 (line 25), omit the Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 2, page 52 (line 1) to page 55 (line 24), omit the Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 3, page 56 (line 1) to page 57 (line 6), omit the Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>These amendments omit schedules 1 to 3 from the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. These schedules would impose the new divisional 296 tax on superannuation accounts. We are moving these amendments to hold the government to account. To everyone who's going to be affected by these changes throughout Australia: we are moving these amendments for you because this is a broken promise, pure and simple. The Albanese Labor government said they would not be changing super. They promised there would be no changes. This is a major change, particularly for people who have higher balances, because the tax is doubling. That is a major change if you are doubling the tax and you said before the election that there wouldn't be major changes. Now they're doubling the tax. That is a major change. This new super tax sends the message that the Albanese Labor government wants some Australians to pay more. This is at a time when Australians are struggling under persistent inflation, a GDP per capita recession, a record increase in interest rates and soaring energy prices.</para>
<para>Government proposals 1 to 3 have some key flaws. One, as I said before, is that it is a broken promise, and it comes off the back of not just no changes to super but also no changes at all to the stage 3 income tax cuts, which also affected this group of people considerably. Another flaw is that it isn't indexed.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Tink</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hang on!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I heard the member for North Sydney—I don't control the tactics here, but I was giving you a few 'hear, hears'. This means that young Australians will pay more. Analysis from the Treasury has shown that a 20-year-old today earning the average wage over their lifetime will pay higher taxes under this scheme, meaning that up to two million Australians could be captured by the time they retire. The minister opposite said it's only on high balances, but the reality is that this will impact a lot of Australians. The minister opposite was saying that the average balance is $150,000 to $200,000 at the moment, but in the future, of course, we know that $3 million, when someone retires in 45 years time, is going to be worth a lot less than what it is today.</para>
<para>It shouldn't be up to future governments to make all these changes. The government and the minister, whether it's this minister or any other minister in the Albanese government, deserve to get this legislation right. It shouldn't be up to future governments. I accept that not every government puts in policy that we always agree with. I mean, the minister opposite mentioned divisional 293 before—once again, not indexed; it probably should have been. It's wrong because, at the end of the day, he'll be getting less in his super account than a backbencher will right now, because he's taxed at 30 per cent rather than 15 per cent.</para>
<para>The other thing is that this taxes unrealised capital gains. I know the member for Wentworth mentioned this, and it's true. It means that retirees, superannuants, farmers, and small and family business owners will be hit the hardest and may have to sell assets all because there has been a capital gain. I could go to anyone in Australia, people in the gallery or anyone else, regardless of what they earn, and ask, 'Do you think that there should be a tax on unrealised capital gains?' I could say to people in the gallery: 'You bought a house for $500,000. It's now worth $800,000. You haven't sold it yet, but the government wants tax on $300,000 because that's your capital gain.' That is what this Albanese government is doing to Australians right now with this bill, and we in the coalition oppose it. I'd ask people who are listening around the place, is that a major change to super? I think it is.</para>
<para>We oppose the whole bill—the Leader of the Opposition has said that—based on what the government said. But I can tell you two things, even when I talk to people who are affected by this: a tax on unrealised capital gains is wrong and it needs to be indexed. Of course, the doubling of the taxation is a big issue. The minister said before that people have the pension. The reality is that we want people to save in their retirement so that they are self-funded. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I feel wry amusement listening to the shadow minister argue in favour of a proposition that he just voted against a few moments earlier. The shadow minister calls into question the government's contribution and commitment to superannuation. It was Labor that established the system of universal superannuation in this country, and it is a roaring success. Every day we work to strengthen it, deepen it and improve it. Over the term of our government we've increased the contribution from 10 per cent, and it will go to 12 per cent by July next year. That means that people entering the workplace today will have thousands and thousands of dollars more in their superannuation account than they would have had the coalition had its way and axed those increases in the superannuation guarantee levy.</para>
<para>We've introduced superannuation on paid parental leave, which means that, from next year, women who are leaving the workforce temporarily to look after their child will gain contribution of superannuation on that government funded paid parental leave. It should have happened decades ago, and it's happening as a result of the contribution of this government. It means that that person in retirement will be up to $4,000 better off because of this change. We're introducing payday super, and this is meaningful because too many workers are not getting the superannuation that they are owed. It means that the estimated $4 billion in unpaid superannuation that is occurring every year will be paid on payday, and there will be more money in a worker's superannuation account. Nobody can doubt the commitment of the Albanese Labor government to ensuring that we strengthen and protect our superannuation system.</para>
<para>The change is modest. It will affect less than 0.5 per cent of taxpayers—around 80,000 superannuation fund members with balances of in excess of $3 million. We've heard a lot of noise from the coalition about budget discipline and the need for budget discipline, but the simple fact of the matter is this: we inherited a budget in tatters. It was the biggest debt and the biggest deficit that this country has ever seen. Over the first two years, we turned those big Liberal Party debts and deficits into Labor government surpluses. Over $80 billion worth of savings have been found to pay down their debt and to get the budget back into a sustainable position. They promised it for nine years and didn't deliver it. We've delivered it in our first two budgets.</para>
<para>But you can't do that by just saying it; you can only do that by making the tough decisions. We want to be able to spend more on defence. We want to ensure that our health system is sustainable. We want to ensure that our aged-care system is sustainable. We want to ensure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is still here in decades to come. To guarantee those things, you've got to ensure you are taking the tough, disciplined and difficult decisions. This modest change to our taxation arrangements will still mean that those 0.5 per cent of taxpayers will have an incredibly concessional taxation arrangement on that proportion of their superannuation fund over $3 million. It will still be concessionally taxed, but not at the same concessional taxation rate. This is a modest change, making our system more sustainable and adding to our efforts to ensure that we can get some fiscal discipline our budget back into shape. For these reasons, we will be opposing the coalition's amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear the minister opposite. There was a whole lot of information there that probably wasn't relevant to the bill. I'll keep in mind in relation to debt that, when I was elected in 2013, the country was $300 billion in debt thanks to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. There's this line about it being coalition debt, but that's a fact. I wish you were investing in defence, because defence industry around the country tell me that you're not. We support super. The coalition always supports super. We supported the Paid Parental Leave scheme as well.</para>
<para>The minister opposite says that this strengthens super. How does this strengthen super when you're taxing more? Whether it's 0.5 per cent or not, this is a doubling of taxation. It's not indexed, and it's unrealised capital gains, as I explained before. So how does doubling the rate support super, and shouldn't we be celebrating people that have actually put money away for retirement, because it takes people off welfare? The aged-care pension is there for people that need it. For people who have a small amount of super and are on a part pension, that's good, but why would we attack anyone that is completely self-funded or has put money away? The reality is that, for people on high incomes, particularly in the electorates of some of the independents that have spoken—there are not so many in my electorate, but there are some, I must say—that money won't be going into the system like it was previously. Most people with very, very high incomes in super were at a time when the Howard government was around, and the Keating government was around, and pretty well unlimited amounts of super could be put in.</para>
<para>As I mentioned before, you're now capped at $25,000 last year, and I think this year it's is $27,500. You're capped at what you can put in. Once you've got I think over $500,000, you can't catch up on previous years anyway, so $27,500 thousand a year is not a lot. That's particularly if people are wanting to buy a home and pay off their home, which is harder for young people now, with people studying longer. Now people don't finish studying until they're 25 or 24. They're getting married later, so they're probably enjoying life a little bit, then they're buying a home. By the time they think about salary sacrificing and putting into super, they might be 40 years of age, and by then they might have $500,000, but, under the changes that this parliament has made in the time that I've been here, you can only put in $27,500 a year if you have over 500 grand. If you do get up there and have managed to save, they're doubling the rate.</para>
<para>Let's say you get lucky and actually buy property or something, particularly if you have a self-managed super fund, like you are saying, and that property's value triples. It's not like you have any more cash flow, but this government will make you sell the property to pay the tax because of their unrealised capital gains. That is wrong. The minister can hardly stand up here with a straight face and say that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill is strengthening super, because it's not. It's not strengthening super, and it's not better targeted. It's targeted at people that they think won't vote for them and will vote teal, Liberal or National. That's the reality. What we should be doing as parliamentarians is looking after all Australians, being honest and keeping our word. If the Prime Minister says before the election there will be no changes to super, how can they come in here with a straight face and make all these changes, particularly around unrealised capital gains, that have never been done before in this country? Even the Greens might support this one. I don't know. Maybe they won't; maybe I'm going a bit too far. It might be a long bow. But the reality is that this is wrong, and it doesn't matter how much the minister gets up. It's not the right thing to do. You weren't honest with the Australian people before the last election, and we're going to put it on record.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the opposition amendments moved by the honourable member for Petrie be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:29] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>59</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>76</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on the sheet revised 28 May 2024, as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 3 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Review of Schedule 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of Schedule 1 to be conducted as soon as practicable after this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The review must include a review of the impact, or potential impact, of Schedule 1 on the startup and high-growth sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The persons who conduct the review must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consult with the public in conducting the review; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) give the Minister a written report of the review in sufficient time to enable the Minister to comply with subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament before 1 July 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (line 11), before "The object", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (after line 14), at the end of section 296-5, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Parliament intends that the approach in this Division of taxing unrealised gains is not to be used in the design or policy considerations of future amendments of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 21 (after line 10), at the end of section 296-205, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Deferring when tax is payable</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite subsection (1), your *assessed Division 296 tax for the income year is due and payable at the end of the later day applying under the scheme mentioned in subsection (4) if, under the scheme:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) you choose for the scheme to apply for the income year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) you satisfy the conditions for the scheme to apply for the income year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The regulations must prescribe a scheme that allows entities to defer their *assessed Division 296 tax for an income year if the conditions provided for in the scheme are met.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting subsection (4), the scheme must provide for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the length of the deferral, which must be for at least 5 years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) how an entity may choose for the scheme to apply for an income year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any conditions that must be met for the scheme to so apply; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) whether tax payable under the scheme can be paid in instalments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) whether a separate choice needs to be made, and conditions need to be met again, for each income year that an entity wishes the scheme to apply.</para></quote>
<para>I am sympathetic to the government's objective of considering the taxation treatment of super and particularly about balancing the taxation of younger and older Australians more equitably. I note with real concern the increasing burden that the taxation system in its current form is placing on younger Australians. For example, I note that the share of income tax paid by older Australians has gone from 27 per cent to 17 per cent in one generation. I note that young Australians are not getting ahead in the way that previous generations did. I note that from 2004 to 2016 the average wealth of households of Australians over the age of 65 grew by 50 per cent while the average wealth of households under the age of 35 did not move. This change in the distribution of wealth and opportunity between generations does not bode well for our country and does not bode well for the opportunities that every single one of us wants to offer our children.</para>
<para>So I do think we need to consider the tax system more broadly, and, as I think many in this House know, I have long advocated for tax reform, including considering the tax system within the superannuation system. However, I am deeply opposed to the taxation of unrealised gains, which is why I'm putting forward a number of amendments. While I'm open to considering taxing large balances of super, I think the taxation of unrealised gains is extremely problematic. I'm also concerned that this increase in tax that the government is proposing is not being used to actually reduce tax burden, which is what it should be doing—reducing tax burden on young workers, because that is where that rebalancing should be.</para>
<para>Let me explain some of the concerns I have in relation to the taxation of unrealised gains. The first is on principle, which is that this is not money that anybody has. So, why the government should tax it is beyond me. As a principle of taxation, it is extremely problematic. I'm also concerned about how this plays out in practice, and I'm going to focus particularly on the venture and technology sector, which is a big part of my community and a sector that I'm really concerned about. Australia has lower investment in venture than other countries. We have about a third of the rate of investment in young, growing firms—venture capital—than the US, and about half that of the UK. We have a productivity hole. We know we need to grow it, and we know that young, growing firms drive productivity in this country.</para>
<para>So, we should be doing everything we can to support these companies. My biggest concern with this bill is that, according to the Tech Council, around 25 per cent of money that goes into venture comes out of self-managed super funds. Now, venture is volatile, and it is illiquid. Therefore, if we are going to be taxing unrealised gains on venture firms, which are both volatile and illiquid, there is a real danger that people in self-managed super funds are just going to move that money out of venture and into other areas—maybe the listed index. They are going to miss out from a returns point of view, and we as a country will also miss out, from the point of view of not having that investment in venture firms that is critical to future growth and productivity. That is my major concern with this issue and, frankly, I have not seen evidence that the government has engaged properly with the venture sector and with the technology sector to understand the impact of this legislation on those young and growing firms.</para>
<para>My amendments cover three elements of this. Firstly, I'm recognising that if you make an investment there's a very short period in which you're meant to pay this tax on unrealised gains. I've already noted that for venture, but it is also the case for land and for farms and businesses. You can't sell them on a dime. Therefore, one of my amendments is to ensure that a longer period is allowed for payment of this tax—over five years. That is a minimum requirement and I think a reasonable one.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth, and I want to thank her and her team for doing the work to try to find a way through what is a truly concerning, unprecedented move by this government. To be clear, I believe that the intent of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 warrants investigation. But to see the taxation of unrealised gains included in this legislation should send a shiver down the spine of not only every Australian but potentially every global citizen, because this is globally unprecedented. Nowhere else in the world do they tax unrealised gains.</para>
<para>What are the implications of this? It means, particularly for people in the rural sector and the small-business sector, that if they own assets that are fluctuating within their superannuation balance and one year the value of those assets goes up then, even though that will not will be in true cash terms, this government will have the right to approach those people and have them pay cash to the ATO, and the ATO doesn't take an IOU note.</para>
<para>In the subsequent year—let's say it's a farm, and you hit drought and your land price drops, and you fall back under the $3 million mark—you don't get a rebate from the government for the money you paid the previous year. But you have lost cash somewhere. So, from the minute this legislation was tabled, this really egregious change in taxation policy in this country was flagged with alarm by many key stakeholders. I have had lots of conversations with the member for Wentworth, the assistant minister, and other members of the crossbench who have tried to appeal to the government to please drop this unprecedented reform. Yet—it's extraordinary—the government hasn't been prepared to negotiate in this space and to recognise not only the potentially immediate damage to our superannuation system but also the potential damage to Australians' confidence, when they hold assets, that the government isn't going to adopt this as a standard practice across everything we hold.</para>
<para>People have asked me, 'If this is now included in super, what does that mean for my home in the future?' So, I would say to the minister, I think the member for Wentworth and her team have done an excellent job in providing you with a way to frame this and to give Australians greater certainty. While I would prefer to see this measure completely removed, this is what's being offered, in the interest of compromise, and I commend it to the minister and his team. I'll be interested to see why the minister says the government won't take it up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In continuation of my previous remarks, I'd like to thank the member for North Sydney for her support of these amendments. As I described earlier, the amendments that I have put forward are, firstly, around allowing a greater time period in which to pay, given that people are being taxed on unrealised gains. Because these gains are unrealised, they relate to assets that have not been sold, or realised, and people may not have the cash to pay this. We should not be forcing people, or pushing people, to be paying tax on income that they haven't earned in a time period that is unreasonable—currently at 84 days.</para>
<para>My second amendment speaks to my concern about the impact on the venture sector and whether the government has adequately assessed that. I have put in my amendment that a review should be done on the impact of this sort of change on the venture and technology sector in particular.</para>
<para>Finally, I'm also calling for this legislation to acknowledge, and to try and give some confidence to, the people the member for North Sydney identified, by saying that this is not going to set a precedent for taxing unrealised gains in other parts of the economy. Frankly, these aren't the amendments I would like to pass. There are other amendments I would have loved to pass. Unfortunately, because this is an appropriation bill, I am unable to put forward the amendments that I would have put forward, but I do believe they should be considered.</para>
<para>Frankly, all this talk on unrealised gains is for superannuants who can calculate their actual earnings to pay their taxation on actual earnings. From my understanding, that would capture 80 per cent of the people that this bill is meant to address. So 80 per cent of the 80,000 people who would initially be affected by this would be able to pay tax on their actual earnings, and the 20 per cent who are in major funds would have to pay tax on unrealised gains. Then, it would be up to the funds to provide the right tax information so that, in the future, people perhaps would not have to pay tax on unrealised gains. I think that is an appropriate opportunity for the government to look at. From my understanding, just because APRA funds can't calculate gains that are realised funds versus unrealised funds, why should self-managed super funds be penalised for the technical incapacity of the other funds? I don't think that's a fair challenge. This change would make a huge difference to the self-managed super funds who are, by and large, the larger holders of these sorts of assets and the larger investors, particularly in the venture sector.</para>
<para>Failing that opportunity, there should've at least been a clawback mechanism to acknowledge that this is a proxy measure and that people may be overpaying their tax liability, because, as we all know, the value of assets goes up and down, particularly if you're in venture assets, where, for instance, the asset might be worth $50,000 one year and have a valuation of $2 million the next year. By the third year, it might be worth zero. A clawback mechanism would ensure that if you did have to pay tax at a valuation that you would never be able to realise then you could get the tax back. Again, that is a precedent we have in many other parts of our tax system, and it should be in this part of the tax system as well. I think these are some of the things that should have been in the legislation. These were alternative options for the government had it wanted to pursue what is a reasonable goal and do it in a way that is not so detrimental and not so distorting of our tax system.</para>
<para>I would like to ask the government a couple of key questions, via the minister. The first question to the minister is really around why the government chose to exclude people who can calculate their actual earnings—their realised gains versus their unrealised gains. Why did you choose to tax everybody on unrealised gains, when some people can actually calculate their realised gains?</para>
<para>The second question I really want to get an answer to is: what has the government done to understand the impact on the technology and venture sector, which is such an important part of our productivity and the economy. Those are two questions I would appreciate the minister's advice on.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to commend and strongly support the amendments and the words shared by the member for Wentworth and the member for North Sydney. But I'd also like to bring another element of concern around this insistence—dogmatic, I would say—of the government on taxing unrealised gains. As has been highlighted, there are incredible concerns when it comes to venture capital in the tech sector and, as the member for North Sydney highlighted, when it comes to large properties and farms in regional Australia and how they will be impacted with fluctuating values and the impact of taxing unrealised gains.</para>
<para>The other area of concern I have is in relation to rents. We know we are in a housing crisis with rental levels that are unaffordable and rising. We also know that a high number of rental properties are held in self-managed super funds. With a housing market that is rapidly rising, with values going through the roof, it is very likely that a high number of properties will be caught by the taxation of these unrealised gains. These properties are not being sold, but self-managed super funds are going to incur a tax in relation to the increased values attached to these properties. What is likely to result from this policy is an increase in rents. The minister says part of the government's ambition in looking at superannuation taxation is addressing intergenerational inequity, but you may be creating the very instrument that will make a crisis even worse. What's really disappointing is the unwillingness to compromise—to be more realistic about this and do it more incrementally.</para>
<para>The amendment put forward by the member for Wentworth provides for a deferral, an opportunity to see if there is fluctuation of unrealised gains from one year to the next, so that there can be better management from a cash flow point of view. It's also to make sure that people can have confidence in the system. Australians now have some $3½ trillion invested in super. It's a system that is highly regarded around the world, despite long political battles between the two major parties—and I'm sure that, as we head towards another election, we will have yet more political footballs around what uses superannuation can be put to and how it should be taxed. I am firmly of the belief that Australians should be comfortable and secure in their twilight years, still living a great life, and it is essential for them to have trust and confidence in the super system to be able to do that. People 's super plans are based on rules already in place for decades. We know that these are long-term investments. Changes like this one, especially in relation to the taxation of unrealised gains, are incredibly disruptive and, I think, will have a much greater negative impact than is contemplated by the government, the minister and, I would suggest, the advisers standing behind this.</para>
<para>That the government is not even willing to have a prompt review to look at the unintended consequences is incredibly concerning. I've had a huge amount of consultation in the electorate. Many people have reached out with concerns about the implications. Many are open to looking at the question of superannuation taxation and ensuring intergenerational equity. There's no difficulty with that. But what the government is proposing here, in its unwillingness to contemplate the negative consequences, is incredibly disappointing. It shows a dogmatic approach to legislation that is very counterproductive to confidence in the system.</para>
<para>I look forward to hearing the minister's response to the member for Wentworth's questions. What we do need to see is a sensible approach to this to make sure we have legislation that does not undermine the system. We don't want to see the forced sale of assets to cover tax on gains never realised. We don't want to see fire sales of liquid assets for uncalculated tax liabilities, with adverse consequences for investment planning. And obviously there's also the question of overtaxation and another layer of cost, change and complexity in a system that is already too often a political football.</para>
<para>I urge the government to rethink its approach: consider these amendments, come to the table and make this a more sensible piece of legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate, and I again thank the member for Wentworth for her engagement on this issue. I know she has thought deeply about this and other issues that we've engaged on around the taxation system. I don't intend to go through all of the things that I've said in response to previous amendments in other debates, out of respect for the patience of the House and all the members here. I will just address a few things.</para>
<para>I know the member for Wentworth has been passionate in her advocacy for tax reform in this country, and we agree we need tax reform. Indeed, that's why we introduced changes to the personal income tax regime in this country. The average Australian taxpayer is paying $38 a week less tax today as a result of the changes that we introduced into parliament in the first quarter of this year. They're about $1,900 per annum better off as a result of that.</para>
<para>This is a modest change to the taxation arrangement on superannuation funds. I repeat that, even at the 30 per cent rate, for those funds with earnings above $3 million it's still an incredibly concessional tax rate. We fully predict that, either individually or upon advice, those people with fund balances in excess of $3 million will continue to keep their money in superannuation, because every piece of advice they'll receive will say it's a better taxation arrangement that they're going to get outside superannuation.</para>
<para>I'll also address some of the other headlines. It is simply not true that unrealised capital gains aren't taxed anywhere in the world. It's not even true in Australia. There are a whole range of taxes that apply. Whether it's land tax, the taxation arrangement on APRA regulated funds, stock-in-trade arrangements on businesses—there's a whole range of taxes that currently apply, in Australia and elsewhere around the world, to unrealised capital gains. I simply make that point.</para>
<para>Thirdly, we've listened to and thought deeply about the liquidity issues that members have raised. They're generally raised in relation to lumpy assets, like real estate. The examples that are generally brought forward are commercial real estate inside a self-managed super fund or a farm. The simple fact of the matter is that these assets are earning money. If it's a commercial property, it's earning rent. If it's a tenanted property in the residential real estate market, it's earning rent. If it's a farm, it's earning income. That income is available to cover any liability that may be incurred as a result of these new arrangements. Other, non-fund income is also available to meet the liability.</para>
<para>It is also a feature of the arrangements that have been put in place in this bill that a capital loss can be brought forward. A loss made in one year can be offset against a gain made in a subsequent year. I repeat: it's a modest change. I don't seek to discount the genuinely felt and well-advocated positions that have been put by members of this House. We've thought through them all.</para>
<para>I know the member raised the review. I've had a look at this. I don't think a review which is to be tabled in parliament which would commence almost immediately after the implementation of the bill is going to be an effective tool to get to the issue that the member is seeking to deal with. There will be a post-implementation review, and it will be required to be completed prior to 1 July 2027. That's a time after which you'll have had two cycles—two taxation years will have passed—and it will be able to look at the issues of concern.</para>
<para>Just briefly, I have also looked at the issue in relation to venture capital and startups, and I've met with the member for Wentworth and some of her constituents. I was concerned that this would be an issue at scale. On the data available to me, it's not. Less than three per cent of the total assets, and that is the very top end of funds, would be invested in these classes of assets—that is, if you were to include all debt securities, all unlisted shares and all loans in that class of assets. Clearly that's not true either. So at the very top end it's three per cent of those types of assets. I don't think it is going to have the impact that the member is concerned it will, but I am absolutely confident and would commit that a review conducted of these arrangements would look at and deal with that issue.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the detailed amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:00] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>60</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>74</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the bill be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:09] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>75</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>62</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7120" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:17]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>75</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>59</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is: the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:25]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>60</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>77</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment as circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 10), after item 5, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5A At the end of section 21</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Governor-General must not appoint a person as an Ombudsman for the purposes of holding the office of National Student Ombudsman unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Governor-General is satisfied that the selection of the person for the appointment:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) included assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) included shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person was shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii).</para></quote>
<para>The amendments I'm introducing to this bill today seek to do something specific and simple, something I've been advocating for since I was elected to this place, and that is to ensure that significant public institutions are run by people who have been independently appointed to run them, not by people who've been appointed because they know someone who knows someone, and not people who will owe something to a minister who appointed them and who therefore may feel a sense of obligation to do that minister's bidding.</para>
<para>At the last election, the Australian public sent a very clear message to politicians of all stripes: they wanted integrity and they wanted transparency. They wanted to see our democratic infrastructure strengthened and they wanted the jobs-for-mates culture to end. Having heard that message, in February 2023 I introduced a private member's bill, the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023, otherwise referred to as my 'ending jobs for mates bill'. This bill aims to transform the process of appointments to major Commonwealth positions. Underlying the bill was the critical and urgent need to restore the public's trust in our democratic processes and institutions after a decade of cronyism and party political appointments had eroded that trust.</para>
<para>My 'ending jobs for mates' bill was designed in collaboration with the Centre for Public Integrity to ensure that all major Commonwealth public appointments could be made with an independent and transparent framework. My 'ending jobs for mates' bill would legislate a public appointments commissioner and departmental independent selection panels, overseen by a parliamentary joint committee on appointments. The committee overseeing the public appointments commissioner and the ISPs would not have a government led majority, guaranteeing independence from the government of the day.</para>
<para>Under my bill, a degree of ministerial discretion would be maintained—an important element of our Westminster system of government—as the final decision regarding the successful candidate would remain with the relevant minister. However, the minister may only choose from the shortlist of candidates selected by the independent selection panel. Such a framework would ensure that key positions in our democratic institutions are filled through an independent, transparent and expertise based appointment process. It would be much easier, of course, if the government would just embrace my bill, instead of me having to move these amendments every time an important new position, like the National Student Ombudsman, is created. Perhaps we'll eventually get there.</para>
<para>In the absence of an overarching framework of the kind I propose in my bill, I'm again putting forward amendments which would ensure that an independent panel is established to appointment the ombudsman. The panel would be chaired by a former judge and would require, first of all, a merit based selection, require advertising of the position with selection criteria and require the minister to choose from this shortlist of three candidates determined by the panel to be qualified for the job.</para>
<para>The creation of the National Student Ombudsman is an important step forward. It will provide a trauma informed complaints mechanism for higher education students to use when they are not satisfied by their higher education provider's response. It will deal with a wide range of issues, from student safety to complaints about the services offered by higher education providers. It should be independent and impartial, and it should not be tainted by any whiff of political influence. My amendment will make a good institution even more robust, even more independent and even more trustworthy. I urge the government to consider this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Section 21AB of the bill provides that the office of National Student Ombudsman is to be held by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Commonwealth Ombudsman may then appoint someone to act as the National Student Ombudsman. An appointment of a person to this office within the Commonwealth Ombudsman is subject to the Australian Public Service Commission's merit and transparency guidelines. These guidelines require that a transparent and merit based selection process be undertaken to fill vacancies in the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.</para>
<para>Under these guidelines, the merit based selection must include (1) public advertising of the vacancy; (2) convening of a selection panel consisting of, at a minimum, the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department and the Public Service Commissioner or their representatives; (3) assessment of candidates against selection criteria by the selection panel; and (4) preparation of a report endorsed by the Public Service Commissioner, recommending shortlisted candidates for the Attorney-General's consideration.</para>
<para>The proposed amendment would duplicate the existing transparent and merit based appointment process for the Commonwealth Ombudsman and, consequently, for the National Student Ombudsman. It would also introduce inconsistencies in the appointment process for the National Student Ombudsman and the Commonwealth Ombudsman which would be ineffective in practice as these offices are held by the same person.</para>
<para>The amendment would also result in a person's suitability to hold the office of National Student Ombudsman being assessed in a different way from that person's suitability to hold the office of Commonwealth Ombudsman as well as other statutory offices held by the Commonwealth Ombudsman—for example, the Overseas Students Ombudsman and the VET Student Loans Ombudsman. The office of National Student Ombudsman will be established on commencement. The proposed amendment may also cast doubt on whether the Commonwealth Ombudsman can validly perform the functions of the National Student Ombudsman. For these reasons the government will not be supporting the amendment from the member for Mackellar.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Bill agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>82</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7231" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>82</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been a long time between drinks, as they say. When I first started speaking on the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 on 12 September, I had the opportunity to highlight some of the key parts of the original bill, and I'm delighted to be supporting the original bill, rather than the amendments. This bill is going to do a number of things. Let's take ourselves back there.</para>
<para>The first change is around HECS or HELP debt, making it fairer for students and wiping out $3 billion of student debt. That means that last year's horrible debt that students incurred will actually, because of the backdating, be rebated to them. If someone has a debt of around $26,500, the debt will be cut by about $1,200, so it will actually make a real difference there. The second thing that I mentioned was the Commonwealth payment to support students doing their prac. I'm going to come back and say more things about that, but that is such a significant change, and I'm really pleased that we're looking at how hard it is to do university and have jobs and then go and do full-time placements. The third thing is around fee-free uni-ready courses. These can change people's lives. I gave an example of one local resident who said she wouldn't have even considered doing it if it had meant taking on debt, but she's relishing it and there's a high possibility that it's going to lead her into further university education.</para>
<para>I want to talk a bit more about the prac payments. I'm going to give a really personal example here. It matters to everyone at uni who is doing teaching or nursing or studying to be a social worker. It also matters to the old people in their families, their parents. I'm one of those mums who has a son currently studying primary school teaching, and Harry said I'm allowed to tell you about him. He has had a pretty incredible career as a musician from quite a young age, and that led him to do only a year of uni straight out of school and then to abandon his university music-degree studies to actually play music around the world. But during COVID things changed, and, having done that for many, many years, he came to a decision that it was time to go back to university and do a primary-school-teaching degree—a profession that he hopes is going to sit alongside his continuing music career.</para>
<para>Now, anyone who's gone to uni as a mature-age student, having lived independently—in Harry's case, for more than a decade—knows that the decision to go to uni means not only a drop in your income on a weekly basis, and the accumulation of significant debt, but also a total absence of income when you do your full-time prac. That's certainly what Harry has experienced, for weeks at a time. He sees his friends experiencing it as well. Harry makes the point that, while I know he hates asking for help, he knows he has access to assistance to get him through those weeks, but he also knows that some of his mates don't and just how hard it is for them.</para>
<para>So to have a bill that establishes the Commonwealth prac payment, to support those eligible nursing, midwifery, teaching and social work students who are doing those required placements, is a real game changer. It's an equaliser. Like a lot of things Labor does, it just makes the whole thing a bit fairer. Placements, we know, are really important parts of qualifications. They make sure those graduates have the skills and experience to actually be in the workforce and to test that they're happy being in that workforce.</para>
<para>I recognise that there are other qualifications, aside from the ones that we've started with, that do require mandatory placements. Where we've started is based on the Universities Accord recommendations that we focus on nursing and the care and teaching professions. So that's the advice that we're taking. They are all areas where we know we need people to finish their teaching degrees, nursing degrees, social work degrees and midwifery degrees.</para>
<para>It is the first time any Commonwealth has provided financial support for mandatory placements, so it's a really significant step, and I look forward to seeing how it supports young people. It won't be everything. It won't suddenly provide them with the equivalent of a salary. But it is a tax-funded help to allow them to continue the work that they have made a commitment to through their degrees.</para>
<para>Providing a help for students is also what we're doing with the changes to the way HELP debt is indexed. When we talk about $3 billion being wiped off student debt, it's a really big number. I'm very aware that, for each student or person who is still carrying a HELP debt, it might not translate to wiping out your whole debt, but it is, again, something we can do that practically assists people, certainly with the current cost-of-living pressures that they're facing, but it also lessens that load and recognises the importance of having people finish their uni degrees. So I'm really pleased about that.</para>
<para>I wanted to talk through how this was going to work. We talk about indexation, and I know a lot of people talk to me about the interest rate they pay on their debt, but we all know that that is indexed. It's indexed each year, so that it matches, relative to what it started out as—otherwise, you'd have a really unequal system where the person who took the longest to pay it off would end up not paying the equivalent of what they were effectively loaned by the taxpayer. So indexation just keeps it to the right level, but we know it has got out of whack and there have not been any real limits on it.</para>
<para>This bill caps the HELP indexation rate to the lower of either the consumer price index or the wage price index. It will take whichever one is the lower. And the backdating will go back to 1 June 2023. So, once this legislation passes this parliament, individuals will get a credit towards their outstanding student loan debt balance for the difference between the indexation rate under the current legislation and the new indexation rate.</para>
<para>These changes are going to apply to HELP debt as well as to VET student loans, Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans and other student loan accounts that existed on 1 June last year. They will benefit all Australians who have a student loan, will fix the issues from last year's spike in the CPI indexation rate, which was 7.1 per cent, and will prevent growth in debt from outpacing wages in the future. It's about putting that fairness back into the system. I'm really pleased to be supporting that, and I congratulate the Minister for Education for recognising the need for that and prioritising it.</para>
<para>In the first part of my speech I spoke about the Fee-Free Uni Ready courses. I want to stress how important they are in giving people a taste of what a university environment is like and also their capacity to do it, and to do it in a way that prepares them for what's coming. They a real game changers, and I'm so pleased to see that we're improving the quality and consistency of Fee-Free Uni Ready courses. Some people might know them as enabling courses. We're uncapping those courses and replacing the current mixed funding system. All of that means that these courses are more easily available to people. The changes are expected to increase the number of people doing these courses by about 40 per cent by the end of the decade, and by 2040 they will double the number of people doing the courses. This is how our young people get their feet into that world of tertiary education.</para>
<para>The last thing I want to touch on is that the bill that sits alongside this one and in fact has now just passed this parliament is also key to the Universities Accord changes we're making. That legislation is to establish an independent national student ombudsman. These two bills sit closely together, because improving the student experience at university for young people as well as older people is so important. The National Student Survey of 2021 showed that one in 20 students had been sexually assaulted since they started university. We need a better system for our university students, who pay a lot, who sacrifice a lot, for their qualifications. They deserve a safe place, and if something goes wrong they deserve an ombudsman they can go to who can help with the response to the complaint and have stronger investigative powers. This parliament has done some really good work in progressing these changes so that we can encourage more people—who'll become nurses, teachers, social workers and all the other professions we need—to get into the education system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024, which is to implement the first tranche of recommendations from the Universities Accord. As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: 'Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress in every society'. So I was very pleased when the government announced it had commissioned the Universities Accord, showing commitment to improving and modernising this sector. After all, not only was tertiary education ignored by the previous government but the case can be easily made that it made wilful efforts to undermine it. In their 2014 budget the coalition announced removing caps on student fees and imposing fees for higher degrees by research or PhDs. Thankfully, that did not succeed. The coalition cut operating grants again in 2017 and university research funding again in 2018.</para>
<para>In 2020 the coalition unveiled its signature tertiary education policy, the Job-ready Graduates program, which again cut funding. The program did lower fees for degrees deemed likely to lead directly to particular jobs, but it increased the fees significantly for humanities subjects: the arts, law, communications and economics. In this rapidly changing world, including dramatic technological advances, such as generative AI, and amid a rapid global energy transition, critical and agile thinking is more important than ever. It is not comprehensible to me that, at this watershed time of change in human history, the coalition would have set out to stymie critical thinkers and critical thinking. In fact, as the higher education policy expert Andrew Norton of the Australian National University explained, course fees have very little impact on course preferences. Demand for society and culture courses actually increased by nine per cent in the years following the introduction of this policy. If only the coalition had looked at the evidence before saddling a cohort of students with a much higher HECS debt.</para>
<para>Finally, who can forget that during the pandemic the coalition government repeatedly and inexplicably excluded public universities from government support? I've watched the progress of the Universities Accord Panel with interest. I was very pleased to attend briefing sessions with Professor Mary O'Kane, the chair of the Australian Universities Accord Panel, who was generous with her time and genuinely open to new ideas. It was a process that was overdue, there having been no broad review of the tertiary education system in 15 years. Unfortunately the government announced in May this year that in this term it would be responding to only 29 of the accord's 47 recommendations. Four of those recommendations are before the House today and are being implemented with this bill.</para>
<para>Given the substantial rises in the CPI that occurred over the last couple of years, the first step for this bill is to cap the HECS and HELP indexation rate to the consumer price index or to the wage consumer price—whichever is lower—backdated to 1 June 2023. This is a measure that I and many on the crossbench have been calling for in this term of parliament and one that is welcomed by students across the country. My crossbench colleague the member for Kooyong in particular played an important role in advocating for this measure, presenting one of the biggest petitions ever presented to the federal government, with 288,000 signatures calling for this specific reform.</para>
<para>It's clear that HECS indexation at the CPI levels seen over the last several years is an unfair additional burden on young people. Many people have been finding that over the last few years, despite a year of working and paying off their HECS debts, once it was indexed it was higher at the end of the year than it was at the beginning of the year. This is not how HECS was intended to operate. This change by the government provides for our young people a small breathing space that they need so badly right now as the cost-of-living pressures, housing prices and intergenerational inequality overall continue to grow.</para>
<para>Another important aspect of this bill concerns the introduction of payments for mandatory placements that many tertiary education students must undertake to complete their degrees. To date students in many courses have had to undertake prac placements without being paid. With this bill, from 1 July 2025 the Commonwealth government will provide grants to higher education providers to pay students in teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work courses for the duration of their mandatory practical placements. Students in these courses will receive a payment of over $319 a week, benchmarked to the single Austudy rate. This is a very welcome step. For students who are just scraping by financially while studying, having to leave their part-time job or having to move away to complete a placement may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It may be the end of their university studies.</para>
<para>Teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work are fields where there are dramatic workforce shortages. These prac payments will allow more students to undertake study in these fields. This is good news. However, there are many other courses where students will miss out and where they won't have their often lengthy practicums remunerated. These courses include veterinary science, psychology and medical and allied health. I recently met with a representative the Australian Medical Students Association, who outlined one of their concerns about this submission. They explained that the rising cost of living and the lengthy practical placement requirements limit the diversity of the people that take up medical studies, because medical students would often come from wealthy families that could support them while they undertook these lengthy prac placements.</para>
<para>I'm supportive of two other reforms in the bill: the requirement that 40 per cent of student service fees are to be directed to student led organisations and the creation of a new Commonwealth Grant Scheme for fee-free uni ready courses, to provide that important bridge between school and university for students who need it. These uni ready courses are so important for people who may be eager to undertake tertiary education but, for one reason or another, are not ready to go straight there. They may not have completed high school, they may not have achieved the necessary ATAR, or they may have completed school many years prior and need a study skills refresher. We should be enabling these very students to go to university. These are the students who have grit and the tenacity to pursue tertiary education despite not having a linear path.</para>
<para>To conclude, I want to stress that I'm a big believer in the importance of equitable access to education. Education can lift people out of poverty. It can take them to places they only ever dreamed of and can create new opportunities for all generations to follow. Education that is accessible to all allows our country to make the most of all our human potential. But access to education does need to be equitable; otherwise, we risk further entrenchment of inequality in our society. This bill takes some steps towards that and I urge the government to do more in this parliament while there is still time. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 represents a key step forward in our efforts to improve, and futureproof, Australia's higher education system. The Albanese Labor government understands that receiving a higher education can be life-changing. It's life-changing not only for the individual but also for their families, their communities and the nation as a whole. Quality higher education is about more than just gaining the essential knowledge needed to complete a course; it is about empowering individuals to reach their full potential. A good education opens doors to opportunities that might otherwise remain closed. It equips individuals with the skills and critical thinking necessary to navigate the world that we live in. It also ensures that our workforce remains agile, innovative and capable of tackling the challenges of tomorrow. Investing in higher education is an investment in the future prosperity of our nation and in regions like the Illawarra.</para>
<para>Australia is home to an effective education system, delivered by remarkable institutions, such as the University of Wollongong. But there is more that we can do to make our education system better and fairer for more students. One way the Albanese Labor government is making our education system better and fairer is through this bill. This bill is in response to the Australian Universities Accord Final Report. The report contains 47 recommendations and targets to reform higher education and to help set it up for the next decade and beyond. The report recommends that at least 80 per cent of the workforce will need a VET or university qualification by 2050. Currently, we sit at 60 per cent. That means more Australians from the outer suburbs—regions like the Illawarra—disadvantaged backgrounds and more Indigenous Australians will be going to university. However, we are currently feeling the impact of significant skills shortages, particularly in trades, in technical roles and in the healthcare sector. RDA Illawarra Shoalhaven are completing a two-year research project which will identify skills demands and future opportunities in the Illawarra. The first round of the survey, which surveyed 185 employers, showed that 56 per cent of Illawarra businesses rate the level of skills shortages as either high or extreme.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Australian </inline><inline font-style="italic">Universities Accord</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic">final report</inline> also emphasises the importance of innovative education models and comprehensive support for students. Recovery Camp is a social enterprise that was born from research at the University of Wollongong by Dr Lorna Moxham and Dr Christopher Patterson. Their program epitomises these principles from the report by bridging the gap between academic learning and real-life application. Since its inception in 2013, the program has revolutionised mental health education and care. The program's success is a testament to the power of university led initiatives to address critical gaps in health care, education and social services. Students from nursing, psychology, dietetics and other health disciplines engage directly with individuals with lived experience of mental illness in a therapeutic recreational environment. This experience allows them to develop critical clinical skills while challenging and reducing the stigma that often surrounds mental health. A five-year study involving 753 nursing students demonstrated significant improvements in clinical abilities, while another study, involving 874 students, showed a marked reduction in stigma. These outcomes are crucial not only for the future of mental health care but also for increasing interest in mental health nursing, an area that often faces challenges in recruitment and retention.</para>
<para>In addition to the educational benefits, Recovery Camp has a significant impact on participants' mental health outcomes. A 2019 study found a reduction in hospital admissions, bed days, ED presentations and community mental health service contacts among participants, compared to a matched control group. It showed that Recovery Camp participants showed a 42.7 per cent average reduction in mental health service contacts three years post-camp. The camp fosters key recovery outcomes, including increased self-advocacy, hope, confidence and autonomy. The personal stories of participants such as Andy, who has avoided hospital admissions for over a decade thanks to the camp's supportive environment, and Kaylene, who overcame severe social anxiety and depression, highlight the life-changing nature of this program.</para>
<para>By fostering a new generation of empathetic, skilled healthcare professionals and reducing barriers to mental health care, Recovery Camp serves as a model for how universities can lead meaningful social change. They have hosted 44 camps, with plans to host many more, and have provided 1,630 pre-registration health students with more than 130,000 hours of clinical placements. Not only do students and participants benefit from this incredible program; carers also gain the valuable opportunity for much-needed respite.</para>
<para>These students and the many more after them will have gained valuable skills and experience from attending Recovery Camp. However, these and many other clinical placements are currently unpaid. One of the key features of this bill is the introduction of the Commonwealth prac payment. This payment is a targeted financial support scheme for students undertaking mandatory prac placements in essential fields such as teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. For years students in these fields have been required to complete unpaid placements as part of their degrees. Unpaid prac placements have not only placed significant stress on students but also acted as a barrier to entering these crucial professions. There are far too many students dropping out of these essential courses because of the burden of receiving no or very little income on placement. The Commonwealth prac payment will address the issue by providing eligible students with $319.50 per week, starting from July next year.</para>
<para>In addition to this payment, this bill includes significant measures to address the issue of student debt. The rising cost of higher education has left many graduates burdened with substantial debt, which can take years, if not decades, to repay. The bill proposes a new approach to the indexation of HELP debts, ensuring that they will be indexed at the CPI or the WPI, whichever is lower.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we want to ensure that indexation doesn't go up faster than wages. On 1 June 2023, the indexation rate was a staggering 7.1 per cent. On 1 June 2024, the indexation rate was 4.7 per cent. These indexation rates make it extremely difficult for anyone with a student debt to pay off that debt and gave the feeling that it is becoming impossible to get ahead. I and many other members in this chamber have sent many letters to the Minister for Education on behalf of the constituents of Cunningham regarding this issue. The minister has listened, and this is why we have also backdated the indexation credits to 1 June 2023. This means that the indexation rate for 2023 would be reduced to 3.2 per cent. The indexation rate for 2024 would be reduced to the WPI figure of four per cent. To put this in perspective, a graduate with a HELP debt of $50,000 will see more than $2,200 wiped from their outstanding balance. This measure is designed not only to support students today but also to provide relief well into the future. With this change, we are expecting to help over three million Australians get rid of an estimated $3 billion of student debt across the country.</para>
<para>Another way this bill will help more students is by expanding the number of fee-free uni-ready courses. These courses are designed to provide foundational skills and academic preparation to students who may not have had access to higher education. Many potential university students face barriers, whether it's inadequate academic preparation, socioeconomic challenges or a lack of support. These uni-ready places are tailored to address these obstacles, helping students build the confidence, skills and knowledge that they need to thrive in their university studies.</para>
<para>The University of Wollongong is not just an educational institution; it is a vital part of our community and our local economy. It has consistently ranked among the top universities in Australia, and globally it is known for its cutting-edge research, high-quality teaching and strong connections with industry. I have spoken with a number of students from the University of Wollongong who have said that the introduction of the Commonwealth prac payment will be a welcome relief to anyone completing teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work courses. As I've mentioned, prac payments can be financially stressful for students, who are required to complete full-time placements with limited or no income. For students in healthcare fields such as nursing or psychology, the practical experience gained during placements is invaluable, particularly when they are given the opportunities to engage in innovative programs like Recovery Camp. These measures will not only alleviate financial pressures on students but will also enhance the quality and accessibility of higher education. This will ensure that our universities continue to produce the skilled professionals and innovative thinkers that our nation needs.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that every Australian, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to access quality higher education. I would like to thank the Minister for Education for truly listening to the concerns of my community and other communities around Australia regarding reducing student debts and the introduction of the prac payment. Concerns were raised particularly around reducing financial barriers, expanding access and ensuring our regional institutions, like the University of Wollongong, continue to thrive. This is all reflected in this bill. By supporting our higher education students, we are building a stronger, more equitable Australia where education serves as the foundation for a brighter future for all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a welcome first step in alleviating some of the unfair and unnecessary pressures facing Australian students and those with ballooning HECS-HELP debts. Great pressures they certainly are, which is why I've been lobbying the government to reform the HECS system for years. In fact, hearing from many of my constituents about the impacts of inflation on their HECS debts, I first asked the Minister for Education to review HECS indexation arrangements way back during question time in July 2022. So for me it was personally heartening to see the government subsequently include HECS arrangements within the scope of the accord review. Though, lamentably, change comes slowly. Subsequently, as inflation took off, I then also called on the minister to freeze indexation in May 2023 and have since consistently argued that more support should be given to those struggling with the surging price of indexation. Now we finally have some movement. While it hasn't gone as far as I'd like, I do applaud the government and the minister for this important first step because today's changes to the indexation arrangements and the limited debt forgiveness will in fact give some much-needed relief to students. But of course much more needs to be done.</para>
<para>For instance, I've long argued for a return to fee-free first degrees for Australian citizens, an idea which I'd hope deeply resonates with the current federal government because it was of course the Labor government led by Gough Whitlam that introduced fee-free degrees in the 1970s. Back then it spoke well of the government and indeed of our country that we valued education so highly that we strongly prioritised investing in and educating Australians. Some of us in the chamber were the beneficiaries of those free degrees or of free degrees in other ways, like the tertiary qualification I was so fortunate to obtain during my time in the military. It's a legacy that has shaped our country, though it's also a legacy that excludes younger Australians who look at us and rightly question why, having benefited from this policy ourselves, we now tell them it's too costly and that their education is no longer our country's priority. Of course, there are those who argue that we can't afford a return to such government largess. Well, I say we can afford it because we are one of the richest countries in the world and more than capable of making higher education accessible and affordable for any Australian with the desire and aptitude to pursue it. Again, it's all about priorities.</para>
<para>I know I don't have the government or opposition support on this, so for now at least there are other changes that could be made—for example, further changes to the indexation arrangements, including fixing the current nonsense where a person's regular compulsory HECS repayments don't actually get subtracted from their debt until they file their tax return the following financial year. There are also the 47 recommendations of the Universities Accord report, many of which still have yet to receive a government response. These recommendations crucially include higher and more accessible income support for university students to support them while studying and ditching the previous government's Jobs-ready Graduates scheme, which raised the fees for many students, particularly in the humanities, which are so important to our nation, not least because of the way they encourage critical thinking.</para>
<para>I look forward to working with the government to address these matters and to ensure that student debts and the cost of university are no longer a barrier to higher education for many people who seek it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a piece of legislation that I absolutely support, along with all of my Labor colleagues of course. We are talking about making it easier for young people to engage in their tertiary education knowing that their HECS payments will be indexed into the future to whichever is cheapest: CPI or wages. This is a change coming in the middle of tough times for most Australian families. We've heard young people around the country tell us of their shock at the indexation that they have seen happen to their HECS debts over recent times.</para>
<para>This is the Albanese government's very responsive reaction to that, bringing in legislation to assist those former students or current students in a time where people are doing it tough. This is part of the Labor government's commitment to our young people. We understand that education is an absolute asset. We understand that education changes lives. We understand that young people being supported through educative processes to reach their potential is one of the most important things that a federal government can do. It's part of the Labor Party's DNA to see equity of access to higher education in this country.</para>
<para>The previous speaker liked to quote, and many in this place like to quote, the great Labor prime minister Gough Whitlam's introduction of free education, which broke open the sandstone universities around this country to working class children for the first time. As I was just saying to someone in my office as we were discussing this, one of the first things it did was change attitudes about girls and higher education. That was one of the first things we saw change, that suddenly families perceived that their daughters might pursue higher education, where in the past they may not have. It didn't necessarily impact on working class families immediately, but it did over time. It is a hallmark of Labor governments since Gough Whitlam that equity and access in the higher education system is always stronger under a Labor government.</para>
<para>This legislation is more grist to that mill. It is a commitment from the Albanese Labor government that young people can be assured that we support them pursuing their potential. We support the young people in this country to engage in higher education and become the most skilled that they can become, to support their curiosity and to create the great scientists that we hailed today after question time. To have that curiosity piqued and to have it channelled in our universities sector is something that is in the Labor Party's DNA. I'm very pleased to rise to stand and support Minister Clare in the introduction of this piece of legislation today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 strikes at the very heart of how difficult it is for students, particularly regional students, to make ends meet at the moment. Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, indexation has reached record levels under this government as a result of soaring inflation. You could ask any student in Australia whether they're any better off now than they were 2½ years ago and you would get an emphatic no. Under Labor, student debts have increased by 16 per cent just over the past 24 months. The impact of such high indexation is that the average loan, which is $26,494, has risen by more than $4,000.</para>
<para>The best loan that anyone in Australia can get is the HECS loan, the student loan, because university graduates on average earn more than those Australians who do not go to university. Those are the figures. That's just how it is. We need sparkies, chippies, brickies and all those labourers who do such wonderful things in our nation, but you get those student graduates from Charles Sturt University; UNE, the University of New England, in the member for New England's electorate; any other regional university; or any of the eight sandstone universities in Australia. Those graduates are going to earn, on average, more than those who do not go to university and do not get a certificate or diploma with the university imprimatur on the bottom of it.</para>
<para>Interestingly, in contrast to what's happening under Labor, indexation averaged 1.7 per cent per annum under the coalition. Student debts have increased by 16 per cent in the past two years; under the Liberals and Nationals, indexation averaged 1.7 per cent per year. This is having a big effect on students' ability to repay that debt. Whilst that loan will, on average, provide them with a better life and more income going forward, they still have to pay it back. I appreciate there's also a threshold to reach before they have to pay back that debt. Nevertheless, student debt is going up and up. How is this fair?</para>
<para>We all can remember Labor members—certainly the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister—running around saying that they would be better for young people, that they would provide more hope for university students. I'm the proud father of three graduates of Charles Sturt University. One did a teaching degree, one did accountancy—my eldest son—and my other young fella did policing. I'm very proud to say that Charles Sturt University made its major campus in Wagga Wagga. I know it's headquartered in Bathurst now, but certainly the origins of CSU were at Wagga Wagga. The late Wal Fife, who was the member for Farrer and the member for Hume, played a big role in RMIHE becoming Charles Sturt University in 1989, as did Dr Cliff Blake. They built Charles Sturt University north of the river. At the time, they were criticised for putting it so far out of town. I well remember that people said, 'Why would you want to build a university campus out there?' It is a magnificent setting, and they provide magnificent outcomes for young people—and some who are not so young.</para>
<para>Charles Sturt University put in a submission in relation to this bill, emphasising the uniquely high financial barriers faced by regional students. I had a meeting just last week with Professor Renee Leon PSM, the CSU vice-chancellor, about all matters relating to Charles Sturt University. She's concerned about the cap on international students and how that will affect the bottom line of CSU. I understand that. I was pleased today to be able to broker a meeting between her and the education minister, the member for Blaxland, whilst we were in the Federation Chamber discussing another Universities Accord bill before the House, which we voted on a little earlier.</para>
<para>In her submission in relation to this bill, Professor Leon quite correctly indicated that it's not just the cost of the degrees but also the cost of getting to, staying in and succeeding at university. That's an impost. Members who will stand up and speak on this bill may not understand the uniquely regional effects and the uniquely regional disadvantages that some students face in wanting to get their diploma at a regional university.</para>
<para>The great thing about regional universities is that 75 per cent of those who do a degree there stay in the regions, and quite often it's the region where the university is providing the course. Seventy-five per cent of them will stay regional. That's why I was so proud to be able to put in place, through UNSW, the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network, which I know is already a success. I know that just in Wagga Wagga there are more than 30 students studying at what will soon be a big new shiny building in the medical precinct, right there next to the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. Seventy-five per cent of those graduates from UNSW—the rate is probably higher; UNSW says it's about 90 per cent for that particular course—will stay and become the general practitioners and the specialists of the future in rural communities. That is what it is all about.</para>
<para>CSU supports without caveat the creation of fee-free uni ready courses. That's part of their submission. Professor Renee Leon states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Preparatory programs have proven to be an effective way of boosting higher education access and attainment for students from disadvantaged, First Nations and regional backgrounds. Charles Sturt University has a proven track record in providing such programs …</para></quote>
<para>Indeed, it does.</para>
<para>As a proud advocate for regional education, I'm very supportive of initiatives which help open new pathways and careers for people living in regional Australia. I know and I re-emphasise just how difficult it is in this cost-of-living crisis for students, particularly for students who might come from remote areas to study in other areas of regional Australia—other areas which are less remote—but also for those city students who want a country lifestyle along with their university education. Why wouldn't you? If you were sitting in traffic every day, why wouldn't you want to go out to Armidale or Wagga Wagga or Orange—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Danglemah</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure there's a university at Danglemah, member for New England. There's one close by. But why wouldn't you want to go out and study and have all the wonderful benefits of regional living and have your degree still worth every bit as much as any degree you'll get from a sandstone university? I will always be an advocate for regional universities, as I know my Nationals and regional Liberal colleagues will be. We will always push the point that you're going to get every bit as good an education at a regional university with every bit of opportunity that comes with it.</para>
<para>CSU believes that changes to student services and amenities fees are not fit for regional universities and students. That's the submission that they put in. This bill requires 40 per cent of student services and amenities fees to be provided to student led organisations. Such organisations could be anything from sporting organisations to cultural or political clubs or other university organisations. Perhaps it's a good idea in theory, but regional students and students studying online must also pay these fees but may not be able to access the benefits of those fees. I know I've had a bit to say on this in the past, and certainly it's something that obviously CSU are passionate enough to put in their submission. We respect that. CSU's submission states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Charles Sturt University cannot support the measures relating to the use of the Student Services and Amenities Fees … without significant amendments. The intent of the Schedule 2 of the bill seems to be to impose a single model for SSAF across all universities regardless of their differing characters and demographics.</para></quote>
<para>Therein is the nub of the problem. Therein lies the heart of the problem, and that is that CSU, UNE, CQU and other regional universities often get compared to and are expected to do the same and have the same provisions as the sandstone universities, but the landscape is vastly different. The CSU submission went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The model may be well suited to universities with a single major campus and a large on-site daily student presence but may not be workable for regional and/or multi-campus institutions, or those with a high proportion of part-time or online students.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Geography and our student demographics make it difficult for Charles Sturt University to foster the kind of on-campus student life envisaged by the Government's goals for SSAF, however desirable it may be.</para></quote>
<para>I just wonder—I do earnestly wonder—about the level of engagement that the government has had with universities and particularly with regional universities. I know they'll come into the chamber and spruik their stakeholder engagement. I appreciate that the minister, Minister Clare, told me that he'd had a discussion with Professor Leon just a couple of weeks ago, and that's to be admired and encouraged. That's basically what a minister should be doing, and that is negotiating and talking with universities, with his stakeholders—or her stakeholders, as the case may be. But CSU state in their submission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Two-thirds of our 35,000 full-time equivalent students are online. More than half are part-time and therefore pay a proportionally smaller SSAF. Those studying on campus are spread across six main campuses in regional NSW, in numbers varying from less than 70 in Dubbo to more than 2,000 in Wagga Wagga. Two of our campuses, Albury and Port Macquarie, are almost 1,000 kilometres apart. The University's campuses are nonetheless host to around 60 sporting, cultural, recreational and discipline-focused clubs similar to those at other universities, though with much smaller memberships than is the case at metropolitan universities. The activities of these clubs are in part support by SSAF.</para></quote>
<para>So that needs to be considered.</para>
<para>When we look at this bill and when we look at the provisions around this bill, we need to remember and always acknowledge how tough students are doing it because of the cost-of-living crisis and the sorts of things that have occurred in the past two years that have forced up the price of everything.</para>
<para>Accommodation is also something that is of great difficulty for our regional students. I know Charles Sturt University at Wagga Wagga has onsite accommodation and certainly helps students to gain accommodation. When I went around the country with Labor senator Deb O'Neill from New South Wales, looking into how universities were coping with everything going on post pandemic, focusing on international education, many of the universities told us that accommodation was at crisis point—and yet, again, our migration numbers are such that they are placing an impost on our universities and on society in general.</para>
<para>So I say this to the government in all frankness and in all honesty: try to do everything you can to bring down the costs for our students, particularly for our regional students, and please, please, please make sure that stakeholder engagement is front and centre with the likes of UNE, CSU, CQU and other regional universities because what you're doing is hurting them and hurting the students, who are indeed Australia's future.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'Education is the silver bullet.' It's a great line from <inline font-style="italic">The West Wing</inline>, and they are very true words. If we can provide a child with an education, their chances of success in life, of higher living standards and, ultimately, of fulfilling their dreams and ambitions are much greater if they've had a basic high school education but even better if they undertake some form of tertiary education.</para>
<para>The government, when we were elected, set about trying to review our tertiary education system to find out who was missing out on the opportunity of an education and what we could do to make the education system more inclusive for all Australians. The Australian Universities Accord Panel took their time to review Australia's university and further education sector, and their findings were quite interesting. They found that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds tended to not be able to afford an education and that a person's parents' wealth, position and living standards tended to dictate whether or not someone got access to, in particular, a university education in Australia. Students from Indigenous backgrounds were missing out on opportunities, as were those with multicultural backgrounds, to a greater degree than the rest of the population. That is not fair or equitable and, importantly, it's bad for our economy. We know that someone who receives a post-school education will be more productive, learn more during their working years and contribute more to national GDP. There are individual, societal and economic benefits from education. That's why this bill is so important.</para>
<para>This bill is a blueprint to build a better and fairer higher education system in Australia. The report contains recommendations and targets to reform higher education and to set it up for the next decade and beyond. It focuses on measures with an immediate impact on support for students in higher education. This includes HELP indexation that will wipe out $3 billion worth of HELP debts for more than three million Australians. It does this by capping the indexation rate below the consumer price and wage price indices. We're going one step further and backdating this change to 1 June 2023. The indexation change will apply across all HELP loans, VET student loans, Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans and other student loan accounts. It means outstanding loans will never grow faster than average wages. It's an important change that provides significant cost-of-living relief for students. Last year, when there was a big spike in inflation, there was a big spike in HECS and HELP indexation. A lot of Australian students and Australians with a student debt were hit quite hard by that. We heard their pleas for help, and that's why the government announced in our budget that we would wipe more than $3 billion of student debt for those three million Australians. This bill helps do that job.</para>
<para>The bill also introduces a Commonwealth prac payment, which will give eligible students who've signed up to do some of the most important jobs in the country a bit of extra help to get the qualifications that they need. That includes support for around 68,000 teaching, nursing and social work students a year to complete their university placements. All those courses require a mandatory practical placement. To date, those students would generally have had to undertake that training nine to five, Monday to Friday, and lose any income they were receiving from their work, putting them in a difficult financial position. It's the first time ever that a Commonwealth government will provide financial support for those students while they're doing that practical placement. It's clear that approach will help students by providing cost-of-living support. We know that, for a lot of students doing their prac, it can be hard to pay the bills and find time for a part-time job. And these are pretty important occupations. We know we have a massive shortage of nurses in Australia and a huge shortage of teachers. Many of the schools in my electorate are telling me that they can't get teachers at all levels. We want to make sure that we're providing as much support as possible to encourage people to study in those vocations and eventually go on to be the next generation of nurses, teachers and social workers that will be vitally important to our country.</para>
<para>The bill also helps massively expand fee-free uni-ready courses, which act as a bridge between school and uni, to help more Australians access university education and succeed when they get there. This goes to the point I was making earlier about people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or that didn't get the results they wanted from their HSC missing out on that opportunity for a university education because they didn't have the requisite marks or qualifications. These bridging courses provide that pathway into university and tertiary education for a cohort who have otherwise been locked out. It expands the opportunity for education. It provides the opportunity for that silver bullet that education provides. It's an important change that has the potential to double the number of students doing these fee-free courses over the course of the next 15 years.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is now delivering on our commitment to build a better and fairer education system. It's important to note that these changes are part of a broader reform that includes strengthening integrity and sustainability in the international education sector, including those placements and courses provided by Australian universities.</para>
<para>We've already announced that there'll be caps on the number of international students that can be enrolled by education providers, and that is a measure that's going to ensure the integrity and the quality of educational outcomes for international students. The measure is also aimed at encouraging more international students to study in regional areas. Too many of them are attracted to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, to the sandstone universities. But the education system in Australia is diverse and it has just as good courses and quality outcomes in regional Australia as it does in the cities. We want to encourage, through that new approach to international students, more of those visiting international students to study in rural and regional areas, to work in those areas and, hopefully, eventually, once they graduate, to be employed in those local communities and to settle in those local communities and be on a pathway to permanency here in Australia. That's the subject of separate legislation. But it's all about improving the integrity and the quality of outcomes in education.</para>
<para>So those changes, along with the changes in this bill, reflect the fact that, while we have a good education system, it can be a lot better. We know that our universities aren't just some of the most powerful engines in our economy, or places where the world is changed; they are places where lives are changed, and that's that we want to make possible for more Australians.</para>
<para>Our changes to HECS help deliver relief for students, whilst continuing to protect the integrity and the value of the HECS system, by which we've massively expanded tertiary access for more Australians. This bill represents that significant step in implementing the recommendations of the Universities Accord and ensuring that we get good quality educational outcomes for more Australians and greater equity and access to a university education for more Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of this bill, the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024, which responds to some of the key recommendations in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Universities Accord final report</inline>. The Universities Accord was a long-awaited and important review into the way higher education is delivered in Australia. Over decades, the Australian university system has evolved, and the way Australians access education has changed. I commend the government for commencing and committing to this review and for commissioning this report into how we improve the quality, accessibility, affordability and sustainability of higher education.</para>
<para>The review looked at meeting Australia's current and future knowledge and skills needs; improving access to higher education across teaching, learning and research; exploring better alignment between VET and universities; and supporting a system of university research that delivers for Australia. The resulting report made 47 recommendations.</para>
<para>The bill being debated today introduces five of the 47 review recommendations and budget commitments. The two that are most significant to my constituents and about which I get the most emails and calls are: changes to the HELP indexation scheme to make study more affordable, and changes to funding arrangements for practical placements. These changes will go some of the way to improving access and opportunity for Australian students and to easing the financial burden for a small group who are studying or will study in future. But I urge the government to do so much more to make education more accessible.</para>
<para>I want to talk about these two changes, how they could be improved and the need for broader reform. When it was first introduced in 1989, the HECS system was the world's first national income-contingent charging mechanism for higher education. In 1989 only 12 per cent of Australians had a university degree. At that time it was considered unfair to expect all taxpayers to fully fund the higher education of this 12 per cent, as they would eventually earn more than an average full-time worker. By 2021, about 39 per cent of people aged 25 to 34 years had a bachelor's degree or higher. This is good news for the country, because a better-educated workforce is able to make the most of evolving economic opportunities, and higher-paying jobs are theoretically available to more Australians. But it also means that far more students are saddled with a HECS debt.</para>
<para>Over this time, government has also reduced the proportion of higher education it subsidises, with the expected student contribution increasing from about 20 per cent to about 48 per cent of student course costs. This means that HECS debts are burdening a generation of young people. Students now finish their degrees with average debts of $50,000 to $60,000. They're taking, on average, about 12 years to repay their debts.</para>
<para>HECS debts have been indexed by the rate of inflation, so in recent years student debt has outgrown earnings. The outstanding HECS debts owed by graduates have ballooned from $22.5 billion in 2011 to $78 billion in 2023. Many young Australians had no idea what they were getting into when they signed up to university at the age of 17 or 18. Higher inflation has resulted in indexation of 3.9 per cent and then 7.1 per cent in the last two years. This is having a real impact on intergenerational inequity. Young people are facing higher HECS debt on top of unaffordable housing and a tax system that disproportionately taxes effort.</para>
<para>In this context it makes sense to reduce the financial burden on young people. HECS debt will be indexed from now at the lower of the consumer price index or the wage price index. This change will mean that your debt won't grow faster than prices or wages. This is a modest but commonsense change to recognise the social benefit of higher education and stop penalising young people for investing in their future. I acknowledge and thank my colleague the member for Kooyong for her work in publicising this issue, mobilising the community and demanding a fairer approach to paying for education. I'm proud to sit with her on the crossbench that's driving positive change.</para>
<para>But I think we need to do more. Federal funding for Australian universities has decreased from 80 per cent in 1992 to around 35 per cent today. In 1996, student fees constituted about 10 per cent of universities' income. For some tertiary centres that figure is now 70 per cent. Our universities are relying on international student fees to fund research and domestic student fees to keep the lights on. We need to do better. Education is worth investing in. If we want a prosperous and forward-looking society, we need to support easier pathways into higher education, whether at university or at a VET institute, and that shouldn't be restricted to the wealthy.</para>
<para>The prac payment for those training in teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work is a welcome development. From July 2025, eligible students will be able to access $319.50 per week while they're undertaking a placement, although a means test will apply. However, the Universities Accord recommended this form of support to students in the care and education sectors, and the legislation applies it only to the approximately 68,000 students who are currently undertaking teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work studies. There's really no clear or justifiable rationale for excluding students of medicine, radiography, allied health and other health sector professions, students who also undertake compulsory placements.</para>
<para>A few months ago I was emailed by Dave, a third-year vet science student living in Subiaco with his partner, Jen, a midwifery student and full-time nurse. He wrote to me to describe the pressure felt by his peers, who were required to complete a minimum of 52 weeks of placements over the course of a five-year degree. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is great that the Government has decided to provide payments for placements for Teaching, Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Students; however, Veterinary Students are also struggling. They are sleeping in cars and struggling to pay rent because of a course so demanding that paid work feels like a luxury. This is devastating for our students, devasting for agriculture and exports, devastating for our pets and wildlife, devastating for our regions and devastating for our country.</para></quote>
<para>I believe this measure needs to be extended to cover more prac students like Dave. Medical students and those studying to become psychologists will miss out, and these are key industries in which we know we have major shortages.</para>
<para>The details of how the prac payment will be calculated have been left to regulation, and there's no detail in the bill. Because the details have been delegated to a legislative instrument it means this government or a future government could decide to change it substantially. At about $8 an hour, this cannot be compared to an acceptable wage, but it is in line with Austudy. I won't go into why we're keeping our students in poverty here; that's an issue for another day. This is a generation which now, in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and a crisis of home accessibility and affordability, is being burdened with unprecedented levels of personal debt arising from their attempts to equip themselves with the skill sets required not just for their adult lives but also for the country's future prosperity. This is a generation which understands that Australian university students contribute more to government revenue than the oil and gas revenue pays in its super profits tax.</para>
<para>I'd also like to note the concerns from universities that the government expects universities to administer the means test, a task they're not really equipped to carry out. The bill provides for grants to be made to universities with the intention that universities will undertake means testing and make payments on a weekly basis. As such, this legislation will result in considerable additional administrative costs to universities and will require the Department of Education to establish a grant estimating and acquittal process. It will be essential that the regulations set out a clear process and appropriate support to ensure universities can deliver this with minimal administrative burden.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I'll support this bill because it will make a small difference to some of the students that are studying some courses and it will reduce HECS repayments for some years. But I do not think it is anywhere near enough to overcome the many current challenges in the higher education sector. Our kids are struggling to buy a house, pay for higher education, be financially secure and eventually have a family. I urge the government to do much, much more to support university and VET students.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. As I said when I introduced this bill, we have a good education system in Australia, but the truth is it can be a lot better and a lot fairer. This bill is an important part of achieving that goal. In February I released the Universities Accord final report. It's a blueprint for reform of our higher education system for the next decade and beyond. And in May I announced the first stage of our response to the accord. That includes the implementation of 29 of the 47 recommendations of the Universities Accord in full or in part. This bill implements a number of these recommendations.</para>
<para>Firstly it will wipe out about $3 billion of student debt for more than three million Australians. It will ensure that growth due to indexation on student debt, including HELP and other student loans, does not outpace growth in wages by setting the indexation rate to the lower of the consumer price index and the wage price index. This change is backdated to 1 June 2023. That will provide significant relief for those with a student debt while continuing to protect the integrity and the value of HELP and other student loan systems, which have massively expanded tertiary access for more Australians.</para>
<para>The bill also establishes a new Commonwealth prac payment from 1 July next year. This is expected to support about 68,000 eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students in higher education to complete the practical part of their degree each year. Practical training, or placements, is an important part of these qualifications that ensures graduates have the skills and the experience they need to enter the workforce. A lot of students have told me that, when they do the practical part of their degree, they've got to either give up their part-time job or move away from home. For a lot of people that can mean delaying finishing their degree or not finishing their degree at all.</para>
<para>We need more teachers, we need more nurses, we need more midwives and we need more social workers. So, in line with the University Accord's recommendations, we are starting with students who are studying teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work in particular as a priority, because of the significant workforce shortages that need to be addressed in those areas.</para>
<para>The bill also establishes a new Commonwealth Grants Scheme funding cluster for fee-free university ready courses from 1 January next year. These are free courses that are effectively a bridge between school and university. They give students who need them the foundational skills they need in order to start a university degree and to succeed when they get there. The former government attempted to dismantle these free courses on a number of occasions. They tried to charge Australians more than $3,000 to do one of these courses. Under the system that they put in place, in 2025 universities would receive around $13,000, on average, to deliver one of these places, but it could be as little as $1,286 per place, depending on the course of study.</para>
<para>This bill isn't a rebadging exercise, as wrongly claimed by the member for Bradfield. This is a massive expansion of these important, life-changing courses. We've committed an additional $350 million over four years to significantly expand these fee-free university ready courses. This is an ongoing funding commitment. Our changes ensure that universities will receive $18,278 per place next year, which will be tied to CPI increases each year. This provides funding certainty for universities. It deals with the disincentives baked into the current system. Most importantly, it ensures that these courses remain free for students. These changes will help more Australians to get a crack at university and succeed when they get there. The Department of Education estimates that this will increase the number of people doing these free courses by about 40 per cent by the end of this decade and double that number in the decade after that.</para>
<para>This bill also requires higher education providers that collect the student services and amenities fee, or SSAF, to allocate a minimum of 40 per cent of that revenue to student led organisations from 1 January next year, with the understanding that some higher education providers may require time to implement these new arrangements. The bill provides time to transition to these new arrangements—up to three years for universities and five years for others.</para>
<para>Last but not least, the bill also establishes the new Adelaide University. It facilitates the merger of the current University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia and supports their ambition and that of the South Australian government to become a global education and research powerhouse.</para>
<para>I want to thank the members for Kooyong, Goldstein, Curtin, North Sydney, Warringah and Wentworth, and others, for their support and their advocacy for reforms to HELP indexation. I also want to thank the member for Indi, who spoke passionately and inspiringly in this debate about the positive impact that Commonwealth prac payments will have for people in her electorate, especially for students and for women, who are more likely to be working in the teaching, early childhood education, nursing and social work professions.</para>
<para>I also want to thank government members, so many of whom have shared the influence that education had on their lives and the positive impacts that this bill will have on the lives of the constituents they are privileged to represent—in particular, the member for Newcastle, who spoke passionately of the benefits of fee-free university ready courses, or enabling programs, and the impact they have had in her electorate of Newcastle. I also want to thank her for her advocacy over the past 11 years and for her efforts to save these programs on three separate occasions. I also thank the member for Cooper, who has been a tireless advocate for those studying nursing and midwifery and for their inclusion under the new Commonwealth prac payment.</para>
<para>And I thank my friend the member for Reid, who shared some of the moving stories that she has heard from students about others who started alongside them but who simply couldn't finish their degrees, because they weren't able to support themselves while they were undertaking mandatory placements, and the difference these Commonwealth prac payments will make. I also want to thank the member for Gippsland for his support for the measures in this bill and for his longstanding commitment to helping young people right across Australia achieve their full potential, particularly in regional Australia.</para>
<para>The government will not be supporting the second reading amendments offered by the members for Bradfield, Brisbane and Goldstein. I acknowledge the strong advocacy from members to include other professions under the new Commonwealth Prac Payments. As I've said in this debate and in my remarks replying to this debate, this is the first time that the government has provided financial support for mandatory placements. We are starting with the courses that were recommended by the Universities Accord: teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. The government will support the amendment moved by the member for Indi. This requires a review of the Commonwealth Prac Payment after three years of operation.</para>
<para>I want to close by thanking the Universities Accord panel, led by the extraordinary Professor Mary O'Kane. I want to thank Ben Rimmer, Deputy Secretary of Higher Education, Research and International Group in the Department of Education, and his entire team for their work in bringing this bill to the parliament and in developing the first stage of the response to the Universities Accord. I thank the many other stakeholders who have advocated for and welcomed measures in this bill. I'd also like to thank and acknowledge the work of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their inquiry into the bill and note their recommendation that the bill be passed.</para>
<para>This bill helps with the cost of degrees, it helps with the cost of living and, most importantly, it helps with the cost of so many young people missing out on the chance to go to university in the first place—in particular, young people from poor families, from our outer suburbs and from the regions and the bush. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [18:06] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>56</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M. (proxy)</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L. (proxy)</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [18:13]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>47</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>87</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M. (proxy)</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L. (proxy)</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>96</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, page 34 (after the table), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Review of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Schedule and any Guidelines, regulations or other legislative instruments made for the purposes of those amendments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the effectiveness of payments provided to students undertaking courses in teaching, nursing (including midwifery) or social work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the appropriateness of expanding payments to students undertaking courses that require university placements, including allied health courses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The review is to start as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the day that this Schedule commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months after the commencement of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<para>The burden of unpaid placements is hurting students right across Australia, particularly in the regions. In a cost-of-living crisis, students should not be expected to work for free. Students should not be expected to make difficult choices between their studies and their financial security. In Australia, in 2024, that's simply not good enough. When we make it harder for people to receive higher education, we slow the number of graduates studying in or moving to our regions. It means we will fail to address critical workforce shortages in hospitals, schools and aged care, and our regions will be held back.</para>
<para>While I support the government's plans for paid placements, this bill needs to go further if we're to meaningfully address workforce shortages in our communities. Placement poverty isn't fixed yet. The omission of allied health professionals from the government's plans for paid placements is an obvious gap, and it's why I've put forward an amendment requiring the government to consider the inclusion of allied health in the paid placements program. Allied health professionals are vital to our healthcare system. Professionals such as occupational therapists, radiologists and physiotherapists provide life-changing services in the NDIS, the hospital system, the veterans entitlements system, aged care and schools.</para>
<para>Our healthcare system and social services would be worse off without allied health, and they need our support too. For example, occupational therapists and physiotherapists complete more than 130 days of clinical placement, while dietitians complete a minimum of 100 days. Medical radiation practitioners complete 52 weeks of placement over four years. For these allied health students, the impact of unpaid placements can be crippling. Not only is there the cost of undertaking the placements, such as travel and uniforms; there's also the lost income that comes with giving up other paid work. When a placement is in a distant town or city, students must also find and pay for their own accommodation.</para>
<para>Consider Hogan Quinn, a third-year physiotherapy student studying on the border of my electorate of Indi. He says that the compulsory placement requirement means he will need to give up his existing job for up to six months, all while paying additional accommodation and travel costs related to his placement. But Hogan is not alone. A 2022 survey found that more than a third of students lost their entire weekly income because of compulsory placements. Ninety-six per cent of students said they didn't have enough money to pay for food, clothes and travel. I refuse to accept that placement poverty is the cost of getting an education in this country, and that's why I'm calling on the minister to include allied health when the paid prac guidelines are released.</para>
<para>I also have concerns about the design and implementation of paid placements. The minister says that paid placements will be means tested, but we don't know what this will look like in reality. The minister says that payments will be delivered through universities, but universities are not set up to conduct means testing nor to administer complex social security payments. How can we expect universities to suddenly fill the role of the ATO? Regional universities have told a Senate inquiry into the bill that they don't feel equipped to deliver the payments and have asked why they cannot be administered similarly to other social security payments. The department has admitted this is a new payment and that there may be teething issues.</para>
<para>With all of these questions unanswered or unclear, and the glaring omission of allied health, I've had a very positive conversation with the minister. I've negotiated for the minister to amend the bill to include a statutory review clause. Within three years, the minister will be required to commission a review of the paid prac system. My amendment will require the government to consider expanding prac payments to other areas of key skills shortages, especially to allied health. While I won't stop pushing for better paid prac placements in the meantime, this review is now set in the calendar. Put simply, we need this review clause. This is a completely new type of government payment. Putting this review clause into the legislation will ensure any future government is accountable to ensure that payments are as effective as possible both for the students they assist and for the communities who desperately need these workers. I thank the minister for the way he's engaged with me on this topic.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Indi for bringing this amendment before the chamber. The member for Indi is somebody who I know is admired and respected by all members on all sides of this chamber. She cited the conversations that we have had about this amendment, and I'm glad to be able to inform the House that, indeed, we will support this amendment. As the member and I have spoken about, we've got great hopes that the Commonwealth prac payment will make a difference in the lives of many students.</para>
<para>This legislation, which establishes Commonwealth prac payments for the first time, applies it to teaching students, nursing students, midwifery students and social work students in the electorate of Indi—and, for that matter, right across the country. The reason it applies to those four in the first instance is that that was the recommendation of Professor Mary O'Kane and the accord team in their final report. In her amendment, the member proposes a review of this in three years time to consider both the effectiveness of these payments and whether they might be expanded to other students undertaking other courses in the future. I think that that is indeed a sensible approach. For that reason, the government will support this amendment.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6), as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1A Paragraph 140-5(1)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "1 June", substitute "1 December".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1B Subsection 140-5(1) (method statement)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "1 June" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 December".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1C Subsection 140-10(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "for 1 June in a financial year", substitute "for 1 December in a financial year".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 1), before item 6, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5A Section 140-20</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "before 1 June", substitute "before 1 December".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 3), after item 6, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6A Section 140-20</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "that 1 June", substitute "that 1 December".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 26), after item 17, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17A Application of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by this Part apply on and from 1 December 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Page 28 (after line 10), after Schedule 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1A — Maximum student contribution amounts for places</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Main amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Higher Education Support Act 2003</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Section 93-10</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "The <inline font-style="italic">maximum student contribution amount for a place</inline>", substitute "(1) Subject to subsection (2), the <inline font-style="italic">maximum student contribution amount for a place</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 At the end of section 93-10</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The table in subsection (1) has effect in relation to a place in a unit of study included in the Society and Culture *funding cluster as if the amount specified for the cluster was instead the amount specified immediately before the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the <inline font-style="italic">Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Act 2020</inline> commenced.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Application provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a unit of study that has a *census date that is on or after the commencement of that Part (whether the unit of study is part of a course of study commenced before, on or after that day).</para></quote>
<para>The Morrison government's Job-ready Graduates scheme more than doubled the cost of degrees such as arts, commerce, accounting and business overnight. Arts and law degrees now cost $51,000, double degrees $85,000—more for postgraduate courses. The cost of these degrees increased purely because of the Morrison government's wish to dissuade students from undertaking courses which, in its infinite lack of wisdom, it felt to be of limited value. This is while other courses—nursing, foreign languages et cetera—cost less than $5,000 a year. We've seen the gap between the cheapest and the most expensive university courses increase to more than $10,000 every year. The indexation of these fees rubs further salt into the wounds of impoverished students.</para>
<para>The reality is that in this post-truth world we need more, not fewer, graduates with high levels of literacy. We need graduates with the capacity for nuanced thought and debate and the ability to communicate complex ideas. We need graduates from varied ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds such that the thought leaders of tomorrow reflect the diversity of Australian society. The architect of HECS, Professor Bruce Chapman, has called the Job-ready Graduates scheme the biggest mistake that he has seen in the education sector. Virtually all economists agree this is a flawed and ineffective policy and should be dismantled immediately. The government has previously spoken to this and acknowledged the issues with the system. It has acknowledged that the Job-ready Graduates scheme should be dismantled but has kicked that can down the road for the moment.</para>
<para>One of the amendments that I'm moving would dismantle the Job-ready Graduates scheme to the extent that the cost of arts degrees would return to where it was prior to the scheme's inception. I ask the minister to consider this in all certainty because this is a really problematic issue for many Australian students, as he knows.</para>
<para>HECS loans are interest free, but they are indexed annually on 1 June. We use a formula based on the CPI for the previous year to ensure, theoretically, that debts retain their real value over time. As the House knows, though, and as this bill is addressing, recent high inflation has resulted in significant levels of indexation over the last couple of years. In the last five years the total amount owed by graduates has increased from $66.6 billion to more than $81 billion.</para>
<para>Insult is again added to injury by the fact that the tax office collects HECS payments throughout the year but doesn't adjust the balance owing until a tax return is filed. That means it doesn't adjust the balance to reflect the payments made by graduates until after indexation is applied. Students end up paying more than they expect, and it's not fair. They have seen their debts increase, despite their best efforts to pay them off. My understanding is that, through this means, the government is accruing as much as $1 billion a year in additional income. This is at the expense of graduates. It's not fair or reasonable, and my amendments include the suggestion that the government change the timing of indexation, applying it after payments have been accrued to graduates' balances, to redress this inequity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong. As many in this House would know, and as the minister is very aware, addressing the timing of HECS debt indexation is something my community of North Sydney has long been advocating for.</para>
<para>I want to start by commending the minister for his engagement in this area. It's incredibly refreshing, and I think Australians should be very aware that this is a minister who is very committed to listening to students and families and trying to make the changes needed to make the system fairer. Having said that, it feels like we've gotten part-way there but we haven't yet fixed the entire problem. There is no doubt that the timing of the application of the HECS indexation is a significant issue at the moment, and it's contrary to many other basic financial practices. People are not charged interest on their home loan only once a year without being given the benefit of what they've paid down over time, yet we have a debt system at the moment, that predominantly affects younger Australians, which sees them work to pay off a debt only to be charged interest on an amount that they owed at the start of a financial year, versus where they are in real terms. I've heard on many occasions that this is a technical issue. The ATO says it's just not possible, because of a technical framework, but I think we should be setting ourselves as a parliament beyond that and coming up with a solution to work around this.</para>
<para>I also wanted to take a moment to reflect on the fact that, at the end of the day, we have to move beyond the current crisis that is facing young people. We have to find a way to help them feel like they have a chance to pay down their debts. While, in my second reading speech, I had advocated for a 1 November date, I think 1 December is reasonable. As an added bonus, what I would also suggest to this place and to the ATO is that this bill will, ironically, act as an incentive for young Australians to get their tax returns done, so we'll have a much clearer position of where we stand.</para>
<para>In closing, one thing that really concerns me here is that, whether we like it or not, our system of government is currently making more money off tertiary students than it makes off taxing tobacco or natural resources. It's time we addressed this.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise in support of this amendment from the member for Kooyong, and I thank the minister for the engagement on this bill. It is a happy day in this place to be able to make a difference to our young people. I think we are doing that today with this legislation and also with the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024, which is being debated. These are critical changes for young people, who are under immense pressure. They're facing so much uncertainty and instability in the way that they view their future.</para>
<para>The change in the way HECS is calculated from CPI to wage price index, whichever is lower, is a suggestion that I and the others here on the crossbench made to the minister some time ago. The minister is, as the member for North Sydney indicated, very good at listening. So it's appreciated to have those conversations and to say: 'This is happening internationally. This is an alternative way that we could to it.' That makes a material difference to young people who want to study but who may be disincentivised from study because of the cost of education. We're a wealthy country, but we're also a country where, as the Universities Accord has identified, we need our young people to go through further education to skill up for the kind of economy that we need to have going into the future. We don't want to have any disincentives to those young people.</para>
<para>I have two teenagers. My son will be entering the university system next year, as will most of his friends. We don't want them to have to make a decision and, for all of those people who live in electorates that are unlike mine, to have to say, 'I can't do it, because it's too expensive.' We want people to thrive, to hit their straps and to take advantage of the system that we have. So these are good changes.</para>
<para>There is this outstanding issue—and I agree with both the member for Kooyong and the member for North Sydney—that this is still a partly-done job. I appreciate that we can't necessarily fix everything all at once all the time, but there is this issue where, when indexation that is patently unfair occurs, people shouldn't pay a debt that they appear to have when they've actually paid down that debt. I think it's pretty self-evident that it should be calculated based on what they owe, rather than what they potentially owed 12 months earlier.</para>
<para>My other point is that the cost of housing is a fundamental issue for our young people. I spoke at a primary school a couple of weeks ago, and we assessed the issues that the 11-year-old kids in the class thought were paramount to them. One of the top issues was housing. The fact that it's filtering through to kids at that age is really concerning.</para>
<para>That relates to this in the context that banks take into account HECS debt when deciding on mortgages. I think that's a conversation that we need to be having with the banks, be it through legislation or through simple policy negotiations. We need to say to the banks that HECS debt should not be applied in the same way that other kinds of debts are because, again, it disincentivises kids from studying and, if they have chosen to take that leap into studying, they are further disadvantaged when it comes to getting into the housing market.</para>
<para>I thank the minister for his engagement and for the team's work on this.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to echo the words from my colleagues on the crossbench, particularly in relation to this amendment from the member for Kooyong around the timing of indexation of the debt.</para>
<para>I have to admit I simply don't buy it. I really have to be very honest with my constituents in Warringah and with the people of Australia. I don't buy that it is not possible for the Australian Taxation Office to be able to adjust student debts in real time as payments are made so that when the time for indexation occurs it is done on the debt in real time. I just don't buy it. It doesn't happen when you're paying off a mortgage when it comes to a house. Banks can't do it. You can't apply an interest rate to a loan balance from 12 months ago. You have to take into account repayments that have been made. It's the same when it comes to credit card debts. It's the same thing that happens with any other loan. I look at the child support system, where the government is able to go back in time and cause a single parent, for example, who's been found to have been overpaid on child support or family benefit payment to incur a liability to the state. So I just don't accept the explanation for the timing of indexation from the ATO that it is not practically possible to adjust this to make it a reflection of every other practice, whereby, if a person is repaying a debt periodically, when there is an indexation or a change of interest, that balance is adjusted in real time as repayments are made. It is just unacceptable that that is not changed.</para>
<para>I would say that the reason why there is objection to this from the government or from within the department is the money that's being made from this, because with the delay comes greater revenue for the government through that greater indexation on those balances. I think it is unconscionable that, ultimately, people do not have the benefit of the income that they are earning—that they are making periodic repayments and that that is not being applied in real time to the balance of their HECS debts. So I put it out there that I simply do not accept the explanations that have been given.</para>
<para>Young people and others incurring a HECS debt are absolutely contributing to the future of Australia. We know that, through every policy area, we have a huge skills shortage. We know, for example, that AUKUS—a massive investment of this government; we're hearing about it all the time—has a requirement for some 4,000 engineers. They will have to go through the university system. They will need to be qualified. They will incur HECS debts. We have all these areas that so fundamentally depend on Australians pursuing their education for the benefit of Australians. We know that, and yet we are making them incur disadvantage in an incredibly unfair system. I think it's an unconscionable system.</para>
<para>So I strongly echo the words of my crossbench colleagues. I commend the minister. I know he has engaged on the issues, and I welcome the fact that we are finally changing at least the rate of indexation, to take the lower of the CPI and the wage index. But it took over 12 months for that to happen. Meanwhile, there is great stress and impact on young people, on students and often on women who are retraining and going back to university to pursue career opportunities. I think it's a responsibility of the government to fix this without delay and to provide a rational explanation as to why this indexation timing isn't fixed immediately.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Kooyong as well as the members for North Sydney, Goldstein and Warringah for their contributions, not just to this debate but to our ongoing conversation about reform in higher education—but not just in higher education. This bill makes what I believe are some very significant reforms to higher education, and I believe that the members of the crossbench who have participated in this debate and others deserve significant credit for these reforms and the bill that we passed earlier this afternoon, establishing a national student ombudsman. That comes, in part, because of the advocacy of members of the crossbench as well as other members in this House—most particularly, of course, victims-survivors and the organisations that represent individuals who have suffered the most appalling things in our universities. We as members of parliament don't always agree, but I always value your contributions and your considered advice.</para>
<para>On this piece of legislation, let me start by saying that I consider this to be the start of reform, not the end—that the Universities Accord report is a blueprint to reform our higher education system for the next decade and beyond. In the budget in May we set out what I described as the first stage of reform. That includes responding to and implementing 29 of the 47 recommendations in full or in part. You see some of those in this bill. But, as I said in answer to a question from the member for Kooyong in question time a couple of weeks ago, in respect of the Job-ready Graduates program and how we address and respond to that, as part of the first stage of our response to the Universities Accord we've committed to establish a body that we will call the Australian Tertiary Education Commission. We're working through the details of that body with universities and other stakeholders right now. I hope to be in a position later this year to set out the full scope of what that body will do. But the purpose and intent of that body is to help steer long-term reform.</para>
<para>The truth is that if we're going to properly implement the Universities Accord it's going to take more than one minister, it's going to take more than one government and it's going to take a steward to help drive reform over the long term. A tertiary education commission like the one I've described will have a role in making that a reality. Part of its scope will be in the setting of course fees. I hope I've made that clear—that in looking at the Job-ready Graduates program, at what it's done, at what it's failed to do and at what should be changed, that will be one of its core responsibilities.</para>
<para>The other part of these amendments deals with indexation. I recognise all the comments that different crossbenchers have made about the things we are doing in this bill and the things we aren't. But we should take a moment to recognise how significant the change that we are making today is. For three million Australians, once this bill has passed this House and then the Senate and has been assented to, the ATO will be able to wipe about $3 billion of student debt collectively across the country. So, for everybody out there who has a student debt, that debt will drop. On average, student debt at the moment is around $26,000 when you finish a degree. That will drop by about $1,200. But some people will accumulate a significantly higher debt than that. As I mentioned in question time today, if someone has a student debt of $45,000, when this legislation passes, their debt will drop by about $2,000. If it's higher still—if you've got a student debt of $60,000—it will drop by $3,000.</para>
<para>So, let's stop for a moment to recognise that this is an important change that we collectively are making here in this legislation. I've had a number of really constructive conversations with the member for Kooyong and with all members of the crossbench about how we can make our HECS system fairer, how we can make student debt fairer. I really value the kind comments you made to me about this. I kind of think that's a big part of our job. My mum always said that we're born with two ears and one mouth and we should spend twice the amount of time listening as we do talking—which reminds me that I should shut up! But as I do close out my contribution here can I make the point that, even though we won't be able to support these amendments at this time, my door is always open to all members of parliament, from all sides of this House—all political parties and all Independent members—with the endeavour to make sure that we can build a better and fairer education system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge the generous response by the education minister and express my significant and real gratitude to him for his willingness to negotiate, share and move with the crossbench over the last two years as we've talked about the issues with the tertiary education sector. I would have to say that he's been a good person to work with and that his mother's done well!</para>
<para>But, further to that, could I just make the point that, for those students who have started an arts degree in the last couple of years under the auspices of the Job-Ready Graduates Package, the cost of their degree has effectively doubled. Those young people, who are dealing with extraordinary costs which are not in keeping with the cost of running the course and not in keeping with their earning capacity or expectations subsequent to completing the course, are at this point left without any real hope that this egregious unfairness will be unrolled. The minister has previously been clear in his communications regarding the Job-ready Graduates scheme, and the Universities Accord was similarly clear in its expression of the fact that this is wrong. Those young people right now have no reasonable hope of this excessive debt being unravelled.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the fact that the bill before the House is going to make a huge difference to many Australians. As the minister said, it will unravel $3 billion of debt for three million Australians. But what consolation can we offer to those students who've been given this extraordinary, egregious and unreasonable debt as a result of Job-ready Graduates?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Kooyong. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. As a division is required, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity on the next sitting day. As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, the debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7247" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>102</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister was the last one to speak to this bill, and I would like to address his remarks before I move on to mine. I want to reject his declaration of 10 years of neglect under the coalition in the early childhood education and care portfolio. I'd just remind Australians that he is all about spin and not about substance. The facts are that in that period the coalition took the childcare subsidy from $6.5 billion to around $11 billion a year. We locked in dedicated funding for preschools and kindergartens valued at about $2 billion, which is $500 million over four years. We increased early childhood education and care places by a remarkable 50 per cent over that decade, and this was outlined and highlighted in the recent Productivity Commission report. We increased four-year-olds' enrolment in childhood education and care to a staggering 90 per cent, and, indeed, we increased women's workforce participation, which is so very important for women across our nation. So the coalition are incredibly proud of the work that we did over the last decade in this sector.</para>
<para>Today we're talking about wage increases for about 200,000 early childhood education and care workers. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the sentiments of those opposite, but what both sides of the chamber can agree on is the incredible role that early childhood educators and teachers play in shaping the lives of our youngest Australians. The coalition values the work of early childhood educators. We understand that, without you, many families couldn't return to work or to study. Unfortunately, not only are families living in areas with little to no access to early learning missing out on support to help them return to work but their children are missing out on the educational benefits of early learning, particularly in the year before school, which I highlighted before.</para>
<para>The coalition has many concerns, however, with this policy. There's the impact on inflation, the administrative and financial burdens placed on small and medium businesses and the fact that this policy comes with a $3.6 billion price tag and delivers not one additional place for families, remembering that it is a taxpayer funded pay rise for the sector. But we won't stand in the way of a pay rise for early childhood educators, and so the coalition will support this legislation today.</para>
<para>However, while we support higher wages for early childhood educators, it would be remiss of me not to call this policy out for what we believe it is, which is a pre-election sweetener—a sugar hit that Labor hope will win them votes ahead of the impending federal election next year. The proof of that is the absolute lack of detail following the announcement of $3.6 billion for those higher wages. The Prime Minister, with his education ministers and, of course, the unions in tow, made this announcement two months ago and then said that further details were to come. I would say that, if this were such a long-term plan of the government's, as they claim it is, then why wouldn't they have all the details sorted already, all the questions answered, before they used early learning as a political prop? That's something that this Labor government really is so adept at doing.</para>
<para>This policy shows that the Albanese government is all about spin and not about substance, as we saw when the Prime Minister spoke to this bill before jumping on a plane and heading off overseas on his Airbus. It's abundantly clear that this Labor government does not have a meaningful plan to restore the Australian way of life.</para>
<para>For over 12 months the early education sector has been going through the multi-employer bargaining process, and it has been the first to do so under this government's legislation. Instead of waiting for their own process to be finalised, they bypassed the independent Fair Work Commission, all at the behest of their union masters. They've traded away billions of dollars for a cap on ECE fees that only lasts for 12 months. They won't say how much the cap will be in the second year of the funding agreement. This is putting further financial pressure on small and medium-sized early childhood education providers, who have already watched their rents and their electricity, gas and food bills skyrocket under this government, like all other Australians around the country.</para>
<para>We know that over 11,000 small businesses across the country have become insolvent in the last 12 months. That is a higher number than ever before. It's a record. It's a record number of small businesses, in the last quarter—that's families and that's jobs—that have gone to the wall. This policy offers no real relief to families who can't afford or can't access early childhood education, remembering that $3.6 billion is a lot of money to spend and not deliver one new place for families, particularly for those in regional Australia. We have thin markets in childcare deserts all across the country, and I've visited a lot of them. I've spoken to families, with their children crying on their laps, who can't go to work and can't pay their bills in a cost-of-living crisis caused by this government.</para>
<para>I think all that will happen with this policy is that it will add to the pressures of the cost of living and of inflation, which will continue to stay higher than it should be and which has already spiralled out of control thanks to the economic mismanagement by the Albanese government. What this government absolutely fails to understand is that as inflation rises, things get more expensive. That's what inflation does. It's the thief in the night that takes away your savings and where you get less for your money. While educators may be thinking that they're getting a pay rise this year and the next—firstly in December and then the following December—all that will happen is that more government spending will equal high inflation which will equal higher bills. Your pay rise, that extra $155 a week that the Prime Minister has promised you, will go straight into paying your higher electricity, gas, water, rent, mortgage—remember, there have been 12 mortgage increases under this government's watch—and grocery bills, and this is under his watch.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has failed Australians when it comes to this cost-of-living crisis, and they know it. You know it. You know the price of groceries and everything else that you are having to pay at the moment. So educators and the workforce in the ECE sector won't necessarily feel better off because you probably won't be at the end of the day. But the question is: why does the Labor government actually care about it? They are hoping that you will think about it long enough to vote for them at the next election. When that shine wears off, they'll move onto the next announcement and the next policy that they can play politics with—the next new shiny thing.</para>
<para>Don't take my word for it. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the ABS, since Labor came to government in 2022, living costs have soared by over 18 per cent for working families, and the Australian standard of living has gone backwards by nearly 10 per cent. That is for sure. In the more than 12 months since the cheaper childcare policy came into effect, we've seen out-of-pocket costs for ECE rise by a whopping 8.4 per cent. There has been an 8.4 per cent increase in out-of-pocket costs for fees in early learning. Parents know that. Do you still feel like you can trust this Labor government with your money?</para>
<para>The coalition wants to see higher real wages for Australians, including for hard-working early childhood educators, but the key to meaningful wage rises is to bring down inflation and boost productivity, not a temporary taxpayer funded pay rise. We are also concerned that the Labor government is forming a habit of funding taxpayer wage rises for other sectors as well. It cannot become long-term policy where the government in ten years time is funding the wages of multiple sectors, especially when you consider that productivity in the last quarter was 0.1 per cent. It's nearing zero productivity, yet the government is funding workers' pay rises. The budget can't afford it, and neither can Australian taxpayers.</para>
<para>We know that when the two years end and grant funding is no longer available, providers will have to pick up the tab for the increased wages. There is uncertainty around that right now for providers. That is something that they could plan for, but should they opt into this policy with the government, they'll be hamstrung on fee increases and drowning in admin burdens and costs—more and more red tape that this government keeps wrapping small and medium enterprises up in. This makes financial liability for small- and medium-sized providers difficult, because 65 per cent of centre based daycare providers have less than 25 services. So there's a big chunk of long-daycare services that will seriously have a problem with the stress that they will be under. If you can't make money and you can't pay your bills, then you can't reinvest in your business. That's something that both the for-profit part of the sector and the not-for-profit part of the sector do. They reinvest in their business, and they reinvest in their people.</para>
<para>Providers cannot be forced to run their services off the smell of an oily rag. That leads to cutting corners, diminished quality and, at the end of the day, going broke. The last thing we want to see in the sector is a drop in safety and quality standards. That's what happens when centres face being squeezed from both ends. Unfortunately, this policy is going to affect the financial viability of many of the services that I was talking about.</para>
<para>If you've never run a business, then you don't understand all the costs associated with running a business. Those opposite just don't get it. And why don't they get it? Because none of them have ever run a small business. None of them have ever held one job before entering this place. They've all worked in unions. If you google them as they speak, if you google all of them, you will see that most of them have been secretaries of unions or worked for unions. So they simply don't understand the sort of red tape and administrative burden this places on small and medium-sized businesses. They don't understand that it costs them money to apply for these grants. It's going to cost services money to apply. It's going to cost them money to seek legal advice and set up a workplace instrument, which they have to do, because less than 20 per cent—in fact, it's 16 per cent—of the sector currently has an enterprise agreement in place. So centres have to put one in place in order to apply for this pay rise that they then have to pay their educators.</para>
<para>Then it costs money to pay the staff the additional wage from December, in which they will be back-paid. It costs money to cover the additional on-costs of superannuation, of leave entitlements like long service leave and the like, and, for some, of the payroll tax that they'll have to pay to the state. The government is going to cover only a small proportion of that with this bill, and we don't know exactly what that is—10 per cent, 15 per cent or 30 per cent? We don't really know at this point. These are some of the details that the government has not told the sector.</para>
<para>On top of all of those extra costs to your business, the government then turns around and puts a fee cap in place—a fee cap that is significantly less than what most services increase their fees by in July. For the fee cap, they just put some numbers together and said, 'Yeah! Let's just pick a number out. Four point four per cent is what we're going to put in place. It sounds like a good cap.' That's 4.4 per cent, when groceries have increased by 11 per cent, electricity by 22 per cent, gas by 33.8 per cent and rent by 16.3 per cent under this Labor government, on this Prime Minister's watch.</para>
<para>The cherry on top of this whole process is that they are forcing providers to sign an agreement with them for this money, without telling them what the fee cap will be in the second year. This is a greenfield—or a blue sky; whichever one you like to look at—where providers simply don't know what the cap will be, even though they've already signed an agreement for two-year funding for their service, for the wages. Can you imagine? You're just signing up to a legal agreement, being told you'll have a cap on your fees but, 'We don't know what it is yet. We can't tell you what it is or when it will come into play.' That's one of the dodgiest things that I've ever heard, because it's a dodgy Labor policy. But it's something that we've seen over and over from this Labor government, which continues to mislead Australian families and businesses and to leave out the details and to ruin productivity and ruin business. And that's what they do. We've seen it in the numbers.</para>
<para>Now, as a hardworking taxpayer in this country, you would expect accountability and you would expect transparency when it comes to your money. This is your money. And $3.6 billion is an awful lot of money.</para>
<para>Most providers will do what's intended and what's the right thing and pass that funding on to their educators. But there will always be a very small percentage of people who try to game the system, as there always are in every sector. No doubt, some will try with this funding from this special account.</para>
<para>Not only does the government not have any stringent measures in place to ensure all the funding is going to educators and teachers, but also they are putting the onus on educators—on those working across the ECEC sector—to report to the Fair Work Commission if their employer is doing the wrong thing. We don't know how many that will be. Should a provider be found to be doing the wrong thing and misappropriating $3.6 billion of taxpayers' dollars, or part thereof, you would expect them to face criminal charges or perhaps a penalty. That's what you would reasonably expect. Well, no, not in this case. Under this policy, the most Labor will do is to end your grant agreement and send you on your merry way. This is the Albanese government's policy, and it should be on them, not on educators, to ensure that providers are doing the right thing, and it should be this government's responsibility to penalise any provider who misappropriates this funding for anything other than to pay wages to our educators and teachers, who deserve it.</para>
<para>These are taxpayer funds, and taxpayers demand accountability and they demand transparency. I know that they are two very hard words for this Albanese government to understand, given they refuse to be accountable for their actions and they are about as transparent as perhaps a brick wall. But after two years they need to step up and start acting like a Commonwealth government. The Prime Minister needs to start acting like a leader. This Albanese government is a mess, and it's lurching from crisis to crisis. Australian families and businesses deserve better than another three years of Labor.</para>
<para>For all of the reasons I've highlighted above, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Government's economic mismanagement and cost-of-living crisis has led to higher wage bills, and higher utility, rent and grocery bills for providers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the bill will place further administrative burden on providers, particularly small and medium providers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the bill will put further financial pressure on providers who will have to cover the majority of the on costs, cannot increase their fees and have to pay the wages upfront, whilst receiving reimbursement in arrears;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the Government has done nothing to address child care deserts and thin markets around the country, and this bill will not increase access for parents who currently have none; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) the bill is a one-off sugar hit, which will only increase inflation further contributing to current cost-of-living pressures".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Landry</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the reasons this bill is necessary is that, during the previous nine years of the coalition government, child care was an utter failure. Don't take my word for it; take the Productivity Commission report or the Australian Institute of Family Studies report. It found that the Morrison government's vaunted and hailed childcare reforms of 2018 were a complete failure. We ended up with childcare blackspots around the country and a situation where workers in the childcare sector were being paid much less than workers in other sectors and they were bleeding numbers. In addition to that, the reports found that children in some of these centres were having as little as 65c a day spent on their food. It was just appalling. We had a situation where the sector was in crisis, and the reforms that the Morrison government put in in 2018 were a complete failure. That's what the Australian Institute of Family Studies found, and it's what the Productivity Commission found.</para>
<para>The member for Moncrieff was talking about inflation. Inflation is down to 2.7 per cent. It was as high as eight per cent when those opposite were in government. They've got an amendment here to this particular bill, and it talks about cost-of-living relief. You can't find a measure that this government wants to bring in that they won't oppose. For example, when it comes to housing, they'll oppose our housing bills. When it came to energy relief, they opposed that. Now, grudgingly, they claim they'll support this particular bill before the chamber today. But, during nine years of the coalition government and three prime ministers and multiple spokespeople and ministers in the area of early child care, did they ever do anything like this? No, not at all. If you listened to the shadow minister's speech, you'd think they're opposing this bill. They cannot but whinge and carp and moan and complain about this bill. Yet, in the end, they'll vote for it. They'll vote for it in the end.</para>
<para>This particular piece of legislation is absolutely crucial. It was part of what we took to the last election. The difference between us and them is that we actually value the work of those people working in the early childhood education and care sector, because we see it as education. Those opposite claim they value the work they do, but they won't pay them for their value. They didn't do it for nine years. Even today they carp and moan and complain about the fact that we're proposing this legislation and putting the bill before the chamber with the funding beside it. We are doing that because we trust the early childhood education and care sector and we know parents trust those educators to educate their children. We know the sector is important for productivity and for female and male participation in the workforce.</para>
<para>We think our early educators have one of the most important jobs imaginable, which is to educate our young people. We think it's absolutely critical. They deserve much more than our thanks. Those opposite can barely give them thanks. They deserve our respect, and they deserve to be paid properly and justly. That's what this legislation, the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024, is about. The bill is about making sure those educators are fairly paid, and it delivers on our announcement on 8 August to deliver a wage increase to early childhood and care educators. It's about addressing workforce shortages. That's why they had workforce shortages—because people weren't being paid properly. We're increasing their wages to get people into the sector and to incentivise them.</para>
<para>The previous speaker talked about businesses in the market. I ran a business for 20 years before I came to this place. I know a bit about supply and demand and about how to get people to work for you. You pay them appropriately, fairly and justly, and they'll work for you. They'll take the job. That's what we're trying to do here today. Those opposite had nine years to do what we're doing today. Even now, they can only grudgingly support the legislation. We're funding a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers to get wages moving for them in the sector. Those opposite claim they want wages to be higher, so why did they not support any minimum wage increase for the 2.6 million Australians on the lowest pay in the country? Why could they not bring themselves, at any stage during nine years, to support a wage rise for the lowest-paid workers? Why not? Because they fundamentally don't value their work. If they valued their work, they would've supported wage rises.</para>
<para>There are some sectors that they support: the captains of industry and big business and entrepreneurs. They think they're marvellous, despite the subsidies and corporate assistance that they get from the taxpayers of the country. But they fundamentally don't value those who work in aged care, child care and the retail sector. They don't. Look at what they do—not at the platitudes and mousy words they give in this chamber today. Look at what they did during nine years. It takes a Labor government to do things. I say to those people who claim you don't need Labor governments: we need Labor governments from time to time in this country for Medicare, for the age pension, for superannuation, for aged-care reform, for childcare reform and for better wages for the lowest-paid workers in the country.</para>
<para>It goes to show that those opposite don't value the incomes of the low paid, because their stage 3 tax cuts didn't have people under $45,000 getting tax cuts; it took us to do that. Childcare workers in this sector got a tax cut under Labor. Those opposite wanted an election over it. We didn't want an election over it; we just wanted to make sure we legislated to get them the tax cuts that they need and deserve and to look after the lowest-paid workers in the country. That's also the case for the bill before the chamber. Those were the tax bills that those opposite wanted an election over.</para>
<para>Labor need to be in power to help the poor, the weak and the oppressed, in the biblical sense. But we want to make sure that people who are middle-income families, people on low incomes and people in the regions get the support they need. I can't understand the Nationals—the LNP in Queensland and the Nationals in regional areas—not standing up for people in the regions in those areas, because it's in the regions where the deserts and the black spots are when it comes to child care. What did the Nationals do over there? They stood on the ministerial leather over here but did nothing to help in the black spots for nine years. They talk about black spot funding. Well, they can't fund infrastructure in the regions at all. Then they whinge and moan and carp about it when we don't do what they want us to do. They'll privatise everything with the Tories and the Liberals if they get a chance—like the NBN—but they won't stand up for childcare workers in the regions. The National Party, the ones in regional Queensland, didn't in nine years. They are the ones that will say that they're great lions in their communities, but in here they're lambs. That's what will happen.</para>
<para>This legislation is absolutely critical to making sure we get people into the sector. I'm really proud and pleased to support this Labor government initiative. We're providing access to quality education because it's absolutely crucial. Wage increases are deserved and needed. It's an important step in the government's reforms in the whole sector. It builds on the cheaper child care changes we've already made. It will be phased in over two years, with a 10 per cent increase from December 2024 and a further five per cent increase in December 2025. It means someone who's an educator in the sector and paid at the award rate—and many of them are—will receive a pay rise of at least $103 per week, increasing to at least $155 a week from December 2025. That's around $7,800 a year. The Labor government is doing this. Those opposite didn't do it once—not once—during the nine years they were on this side of the chamber.</para>
<para>A typical early childhood education teacher will receive an additional $166 a week from December this year, increasing to $249 from December next year. Workers in this sector are some of the most important workers in the country and they deserve to be paid. These people deserve to be paid. This $3.6 billion investment from the government—grudgingly accepted by those opposite, if you listen to their shadow minister grudgingly talking about it—recognises the vitality of our early childhood educators. They are the ones who are preparing kids for school. Those opposite talk about productivity all the time. We talk about it quite regularly as well. If you want to make sure kids succeed at primary school, at secondary school and in tertiary education, whether it's TAFE or university, get the kids ready. Educate them. Those opposite think it's child care. It's more than child care; it's early childhood education.</para>
<para>To be eligible to receive this funding for wage increases, the services won't be able to increase their fees by more than 4.4 per cent over the next 12 months. The grant guidelines set the limit at 4.4 per cent in the year from 8 August 2024, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics will develop a new cost index to guide limits on increases in future years. This is an important affordability condition that will keep downward pressure on fees for families. That is informed by the work the ACCC has been doing—a combination of the wage price index and the consumer price index. Funding must be passed on in full to employees through increased wages. That condition will be set out in a legally enforceable agreement between the Department of Education and providers. We will also set a cap for the following 12 months based on the work that the ABS will do. Capping fee increases provides certainty to families and will keep a lid on fee growth. It's a win for workers and a win for families, and it will help ease cost-of-living pressures—a double dividend.</para>
<para>Quality, affordable early education prepares kids for a great start in life. It lays the foundation for our nation's future economic success. We know that 90 per cent of brain development occurs in the first five years of life, so it's critical that we get this early stage of life kickstarted and get these kids ready for success. US research indicates that if a child goes to preschool they're 50 per cent more likely to go to college or university and go on to a good job.</para>
<para>Here in Australia the Grattan Institute has highlighted how increasing childcare subsidies will increase GDP and productivity from a boost to workforce participation and result in higher lifetime earnings for the typical Australian mother. Accessible and affordable early education and learning is critical for supporting all parents, but particularly women, to have a choice when it comes to undertaking study, re-entering the workforce or increasing their hours of work. Indeed, our cheaper childcare reforms are really grounded in this work by the Grattan Institute, and it's no surprise that the think tank has endorsed Labor's policy. But to make it work we need a boost to the early childhood education workforce. In fact, the Productivity Commission report on the future of Australia's early childhood education and care system, released last month, says one of the first things we need to do to build a bigger and better early education system is to build a bigger workforce. Since we came into government, the number of workers in the sector has grown by more than 30,000, but we need more. We're seeing providers delay expansion plans, close rooms and limit enrolments because they can't find staff. The impact on the availability of early childhood education and care is critical.</para>
<para>Fair wages for some of the most important workers in the country are critical to reversing the attrition and the growing workforce shortage issues. This commitment by this government will help retain our existing early childhood educators—predominantly women, I might add—and attract new employees. We hope it will encourage more people to stay, more people to come back and more people to think about becoming early educators. Having more educators means more children and more parents can benefit from the life-changing work they do.</para>
<para>The wage justice bill encourages good-faith bargaining and the making of enterprise agreements in the early childhood education and care sector. I thank all those people who got behind this bill and the campaign that has been run. In the last few months, I've visited childcare services in some of the new areas in my electorate—Springfield, Ripley and Redbank Plains—and some of the more established suburbs, like Bundamba and Karalee. The feedback I've got is that this is a good announcement and good policy. The families and the educators welcome it.</para>
<para>We know that families are constantly living with the pressures of life—not just the pressures of family life but the cost-of-living pressures. So this legislation is absolutely crucial. It's urgent. The consultation and stakeholder feedback shows that it's important. I thank the United Workers Union, the Australian Education Union, the Independent Education Union, Goodstart, the Australian Childcare Alliance and so many others for the work they've done. I thank the Minderoo Foundation, Thrive by Five and all who've come out and endorsed this reform. I commend the legislation to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was drawn to speak on this bill because child care is a serious issue in my electorate of Mallee. I note the title of this bill: Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024. Justice is important to people on both sides of this House. There is no question about that. But I think that we look through different prisms.</para>
<para>My electorate is absolutely regional. I have 72 towns in my electorate, many—in fact, I would go so far as to say most—without child care. So, when we're talking about subsidies and wage rises, yes, there is a place for those things, but, when you don't have a childcare centre and a mother or a father has to drive two hours down the road to take their child to childcare before they can go to work and then they have to do a return trip at the end of the day, you are asking an immense amount from people who are already working their butts off. It is creating such stress in my electorate. We have what are called childcare deserts, and there is not a lot in this bill that addresses that at all. I would draw the House's attention to that.</para>
<para>I note that there's $3.6 billion for wages and that people who are earning $530,000 per annum combined can get those subsidies. I don't know on which planet that is a reasonable suggestion, but that's what's going through this House. However, for those where there is no childcare, there are no subsidies coming their way, because they can't put their child into child care and work. This is not justice; this is injustice. This issue needs to be addressed by the House and by this government.</para>
<para>In Hopetoun, one of the towns in my electorate, I've been working with the Yarriambiack Shire Council for the last few years, since Uniting closed their service. I'm hopeful that the situation will be resolved shortly. I understand the council is working with another childcare provider, Emerge, and we're hoping that the workforce will emerge so that these children can attend the childcare centre. Uniting's closure in Hopetoun left 15 to 20 families in a difficult situation.</para>
<para>Heather, from Beulah, came to me. She is the major income earner in her family. Heather loves her town of Beulah and wants to stay. She doesn't want to go back to the city to raise her children. The town has lost its hotel and its supermarket, and the lack of child care in Hopetoun means people are now having to travel even further to get child care. Another mother from Hopetoun wrote to me in capital letters—on social media, that's the equivalent of yelling—saying, 'We need child care in Hopetoun,' followed by, 'Please, please, please.' I wonder how many urban parents are having to beg their local member for a childcare centre. She noted that mothers had to stop working or cut back on hours to help others look after their children so they can go to work. Is this justice? I don't think so.</para>
<para>Earlier this year some grandparents from Edenhope raised with me the importance of child care, saying it's difficult to get places. Many young women want to work, but they just can't find a childcare place. Lisa lives in Maryborough. She wrote to me in November about the huge impact the cost of living is having on her. She was 'extremely stressed out' at the time as she was on maternity leave and facing 'massive childcare shortages'. Lisa wrote to me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The council and state Labor government aren't taking this seriously … What has this Labor government done so far? Nothing!</para></quote>
<para>Lisa says that her regional centre of Maryborough has a population of around 8,000 people and has only two childcare centres, each with 75 places, whereas Horsham, with a population of over 20,000 people, has eight centres. Lisa complained that it's hard to retain workers in Maryborough with no further child care available.</para>
<para>Last weekend I was in Murtoa for Murtoa's Big Weekend. I had the pleasure of catching up with Dr Kendra Clegg, who has been working with me for the last couple of years on addressing the desperate need for child care in Murtoa. She told me that the Murtoa model of integrating early years learning with, in this instance, the Murtoa College is a model that could potentially be used elsewhere in regional Victoria and regional Australia to address childcare shortages. A happy outcome of the new centre—which is opening next year, as I understand it—is that several senior students want to begin certificate III studies in early years education. I would hope they would end up working locally to support children and families in Murtoa in early childhood education, which the state is funding.</para>
<para>I would note that this bill isn't necessary for the grant funding to be provided. The grant could have been provided through existing legislative powers. The bill doesn't even set the wage increase or how much providers will be paid to cover it. The bill has not yet been through the Senate, where the Greens have signalled they want more—more petrol on the inflation bonfire. The government's spending commitment is only for the first two years of the wage increase. The cost will then go to the providers.</para>
<para>This bill is a political posturing move from the Albanese government, and I note there is a concurrent Senate inquiry process—even though the bill is before the House—scheduled to conclude by 30 October, in time for the resumption of sittings in November. The shadow minister for early childhood education, who spoke earlier, is coming to my electorate of Mallee to see the childcare desert, which no-one from Labor has bothered to look at. She told the House in August, and it bears repeating now:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The sector tells me a 10 per cent wage increase usually means a seven per cent fee increase.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The biggest farce with this policy is that Labor think they can inject $3.6 billion—</para></quote>
<para>of taxpayers' money—</para>
<quote><para class="block">into the sector and keep fees down using a cap … there's a real chance that services already paying staff 10 or 15 per cent above the award wage won't sign onto this. They'll pay their staff a little bit more and then they'll just increase their prices anyway, and that will land in families' laps. Even if some services keep fees down this year and next year, families will still be hit with eye-watering bills when the government funding dries up because providers will then be forced to pick up the wages tab and to do that they will have to increase their fees.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">A union heavily involved in the early learning sector is back to its old tricks, telling educators they'll only get this pay rise if they are a member of the union. It's completely untrue, it's misleading and it's despicable behaviour from a union heavily associated with those opposite.</para></quote>
<para>Of course, the economically illiterate Greens have already stated that they want this wage increase to be a 25 per cent increase.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>108</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tomorrow is World Homeless Day, and Australia is not immune to homelessness. We have seen the rapid increase in men and women and children who no longer have a roof over their head. You will have seen it in your electorate, Deputy Speaker Freelander. Those across the floor will have seen it in their electorates. Certainly, I've seen it in my electorate of Cowper. I'm not here to blame anyone, because it has been, as I've described it, the slowest moving train wreck over decades. We should have seen this coming. Whether it was on a local government level, a state government level or a federal government level, we should have seen what was happening over the past decades.</para>
<para>But I do want to make the point that, over the past 20 years, every single state and territory, with the exception of Victoria, has sold off tens of thousands of social and affordable housing places and not replaced them. In New South Wales alone, there were 10,000 sold over the last decade, with only 10 per cent replaced. In South Australia, there were 20,000 sold off over the past two decades. In future, whichever government is in, that government should ensure that the billions of dollars going to the states and territories is tethered to outcomes, to building properties—because governments don't build properties; developers and builders build properties. So, if we are handing out $6.5 billion—I think that was the last figure over the last term—Australia wide, then we should expect the outcome to be properties being built, and we are not seeing that. Whichever government goes forward, it should ensure that there is an outcome based result; otherwise, drastic measures such as withholding GST should occur.</para>
<para>But there are some quick levers to pull that could relieve some of the steam out of the pressure pot, and the first one is a moratorium on overseas investment for the next five to 10 years. Currently, there are over 600,000 homes owned by overseas investors in Australia—600,000. Many of those are uninhabited. They are holiday homes for the wealthy to come here and enjoy what Australia has to offer. We need to stop that, because every single weekend at auctions you will see overseas investors buying Australian homes, over and above Australian citizens. That is not right. And what it does is give the market an overinflated value because those people can come in here and offer $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000 over and above the final bid of an Australian citizen, because they have the wealth to do it.</para>
<para>What we also need is an appropriate level of immigration. If we are bringing 1.7 million people into this country, as we did over the past 18 months, and not building a fraction of that in housing, where are they going to go? Where will they go? We have to implement an appropriate level of immigration. The third easy lever to pull would be to offer older citizens who are downsizing no stamp duty when they buy the smaller property. What's the point of selling their home and moving into a smaller home when they have to pay $40,000 or $50,000 in stamp duty? These are three easy levers to pull to address the homelessness in Australia so far. There are simple measures that need to be implemented. We need to put roofs over our people's heads.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mid-Autumn Festival, headspace Day</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a wonderful opportunity for me to update the House about some activities that have been taking place in my electorate. I'd like to update the House about mid-autumn festival events this year. I was fortunate to attend many local mid-autumn festival celebrations in our terrific Chisholm community. I want to congratulate the wonderful local groups who hosted these events: the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse, the Shanghai Chinese Overseas Friendship Association, the Australian Oriental Martial Arts Tai Chi Inc. group, the Federation of Chinese Associations Victoria and the Chinese Professionals Club of Australia. These terrific events featured wonderful performances and delicious moon cakes and traditional food and were a great opportunity to spend time together with friends and family. I'm always grateful to be included in these celebrations, so I want to thank the groups for their generous hospitality.</para>
<para>These mid-autumn festival celebrations were also an opportunity for me to reaffirm the Albanese Labor government's commitment to diversity and inclusion in our community. Our government continues to support initiatives that empower the Chinese Australian community. We are focused on ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, is welcome, respected and a part of our community here in Australia, whether it's in my electorate of Chisholm or anywhere else across this terrific country. We stand firm in our pledge to foster connections, promote dialogue and create opportunities for all. I hope everyone had a fantastic mid-autumn festival. Jong chiu kwai le, happy moon festival.</para>
<para>I also want to recognise that today, 9 October, is headspace Day. I have two headspaces in my community, one in Syndal and one in Box Hill. I've had ministerial visits to both and met with the youth committees in both, and I want to commend the young people in my community for the work that they do in their advocacy every single day to ensure that every young person in our community is able to access the mental health support that they might need. Today is an important day because it is about raising awareness about the challenges often faced by young people. I'm really passionate about the mental health of young people and I'm a fierce advocate for increased mental health services in my community in Chisholm.</para>
<para>I was able to deliver a new headspace centre in Box Hill. This is a very important new service that is provided to people in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. It was much needed. It is very significant that our government took the step to deliver this. I've also worked really hard to ensure that the headspace centre in Syndal, just down the road from my office, has continued to receive its funding. I will keep advocating for more services and more support for the mental health and wellbeing of young people in my community.</para>
<para>It is vitally important that we talk about the mental health of young people. We know that two in five young Australians have experienced a period of mental ill health and half of all mental health issues emerge before the age of 18. So I want young people in my electorate to know that I support them and that their mental health and their wellbeing really matter to me and to our government. I want the young people in my community to know that they are not alone and that there is support available to them at the headspaces in Box Hill and in Syndal. This help is free, confidential and tailored to the needs of young people.</para>
<para>I want to commend the work of the people who spend their days working with young people in the headspaces, too, because it is really vital, and their advocacy is really appreciated by me as well. I look forward to continuing to engage with headspace in my electorate and continuing to support the needs of young people, whether it's in mental health, education or any other area.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wray, Mr Donald Neil</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This evening I speak to acknowledge the one-year anniversary, later this month, of the passing of an Australian industry trailblazer, a South Australian entrepreneur, an iconic character from the Limestone Coast in my electorate of Barker, and, above all, a great feller: Don Wray, the visionary founder of MiniJumbuk in Naracoorte, the largest manufacturer of wool bedding products in the nation. Sadly, on 25 October last year, Don passed away at the age of 72. But, boy, did he pack in a lot to his life! As I pay homage to Don as a captain of industry, I want to acknowledge his wife, Denise, who has joined us in the gallery this evening together with Don's sister-in-law Janine Enright.</para>
<para>Much has been written about Don, not just because of the wonderful life he led but because his story is a truly inspirational one—a genuine, made-in-country-Australia success story. Don's early working life saw him shearing across the Limestone Coast. Shearing would in fact be the foundational experience that would assist Don in becoming a manufacturing trailblazer. Shearing provided a first-class, hands-on education about sheep and their woollen fibre. Don knew wool—the feel of it; the consistency and quality of it; its versatility. And he understood the commercial potential of it.</para>
<para>In his mid-20s, Don had to give shearing away due to a back injury. Always up for a challenge, he bought a small local business called MiniJumbuk, which, at the time, was manufacturing mini sheep souvenirs from locally-produced wool. Not too long after acquiring the business, in the late 1970s, Don saw an opportunity for local wool-filled quilts or doonas to enter the Australian bedding market. His innovative foresight and business courage paid off. MiniJumbuk began to grow and expand.</para>
<para>Over the next few decades, Don's business acumen and his determination, together with a loyal and energetic team, turned that little business into what it is today: a global leader in the design and manufacture of premium wool products, with a turnover of more than $30 million, employing 70-plus people, still based in his home town of Naracoorte.</para>
<para>Don's commitment to buying and using local wool, his commitment to local farmers and his commitment to his local community never wavered. When many other manufacturing businesses, particularly textile businesses, were moving their factories offshore to cut costs, Don and his management team remained proudly committed to being Australian made, remaining in Naracoorte and continuing to employ their long-term skilled staff. His dedication to quality—to the quality of the brand, to the quality of the people who worked at MiniJumbuk—has made MiniJumbuk, and the MiniJumbuk team, the success it is.</para>
<para>Yet, in an interview with the ABC <inline font-style="italic">Landline</inline> program in 2016, Don's characteristically humble character shone through when he said, 'You know, it's not me. It's Naracoorte and the people I've had with me who've built it up to where it is today.' The impact and success of MiniJumbuk is not just in the economic activity Don created; it's also the social and cultural impact he and his business have had across the region.</para>
<para>Don, together with Denise, are well known for their kindness and for an unrelenting willingness to support the local community. Don advocated for many individuals and local industries, supporting sheep and wool farmers; the cattle industry; wine and grape growers; the forestry sector. Wherever he could, he supported local enterprises. He sponsored and donated goods to many local groups, sporting clubs and community committees. In fact, I don't think I've ever been to a charity event on the Limestone Coast that doesn't involve the auction of MiniJumbuk product.</para>
<para>And in times of crisis, Don, together with MiniJumbuk, was there. Following the devastation of Victoria's 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, where more than 170 people lost their lives and countless families lost their homes and livelihoods, MiniJumbuk helped out by participating in the Dollars 4 Doonas campaign, assisting to raise tens of thousands of dollars and donating over 600 quilts and a thousand pillows to fire-ravaged communities.</para>
<para>When South Australians suffered losses in fires that burnt through the Adelaide Hills, Kangaroo Island and Keilira in the south-east, MiniJumbuk donated up to a thousand quilts and 2,000 pillows, to support victims, and provided wool bedding packages to individuals and families who had lost everything. Don and Denise literally ensured that, at this difficult time, impacted individuals had a pillow to lay their head on. That generosity, that kindness and that concern for people was Don Wray to a tee.</para>
<para>To Denise, Amber, Andrew, Emily and the whole Wray family: thank you for sharing Don with us. Our nation, my state and our local community are stronger for Don's service to it. Vale, Don Wray.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We live in a world where technology and our reliance on the internet is common and, in fact, vital. Only a few years ago, during the pandemic, many of us had to work, shop or obtain healthcare advice through online services. For many Australians this remains the way of conducting their day-to-day life today, particularly in the healthcare field, which has been revolutionised by the internet, with telehealth becoming a common option for patients and healthcare professionals alike. Our hospital systems are now predominantly paperless, rely on the internet to interact with other health facilities and are becoming increasingly reliant on the internet for pathology, radiology and other services. Artificial intelligence is making this even more important.</para>
<para>The NBN allows individuals and organisations to connect, and so, for residents in my electorate, from Menangle Park to Kentlyn or from Campbelltown to Bardia, it's imperative that the NBN remains in public ownership for them to remain connected and for them to go on with their daily lives. This helps ensure there's strong regulatory oversight for when the network needs upgrading and to ensure that broadband remains affordable.</para>
<para>I'm proud of our government and the Minister for Communications for introducing vital legislation this week to keep the NBN from being privatised and for it to stay in public hands. The coalition is a threat to this. We know that high-speed broadband is essential to modern life and that public ownership of health infrastructure will keep us healthy and keep our health system evolving. We know that we need to keep broadband affordable so it becomes a benefit to all Australians, whether they live in the regions, whether they live in remote areas or whether they live in the inner cities.</para>
<para>The NBN is crucial national infrastructure, with cybersecurity and national security imperatives requiring strong government oversight. This is best delivered by a national government, and the NBN needs to stay in government ownership. Any future sale of the NBN would likely involve foreign ownership, raising potentially serious national sovereignty and security risks, as well as degrading the service because profit will come first, as it does with most of the infrastructure that the coalition government has sold off in the past. Feedback we've received, particularly from rural and regional Australia, shows that Australians want our National Broadband Network to remain in Australians' hands. We've seen the risk of cyberattacks on our networks all too well over the last few years, with outages, data hacks and slow and unreliable connections all affecting Australians in negative ways. To help avoid this from happening, it's imperative that Australian broadband services are owned, managed and serviced by Australians. Keeping the NBN in public ownership is essential to continue to provide modern, accessible and affordable communication services and secure services for all Australians.</para>
<para>The fibre and fixed wireless upgrades we took to the 2022 election are being delivered on time and on budget, which is effectively a first for any Australian government. Australians are now taking up fibre upgrades in record numbers, vastly improving their services. This is leading to a better customer experience, fewer faults and fewer technical problems. There are also very exciting innovations taking place with satellite technology, which can transform connectivity for all Australians, particularly those living in rural and regional areas. Delivering world-class connectivity at a time of rapid technological change requires strong orchestration from government, especially in support of our regional communities. Retaining the NBN in public ownership is key to that.</para>
<para>The coalition is responsible for selling off a lot of our public health infrastructure. It was an absolute tragedy, in 2016, that the Turnbull government sold off the national cancer register to Telstra Health for $220 million. This was done without any explanation to the public; it was done, really, with no explanation to the parliament; and it's been an absolute and ongoing tragedy. It's been plagued by poor management, missed deadlines, allegations of conflicts of interest by auditors and issues with data integration. For healthcare professionals it was seen as a terrible, terrible mistake for which the coalition has never been held responsible. It was an absolute tragedy, and they should be ashamed of it. It was overpriced and underdelivered, with the taxpayer footing a large bill for something they didn't need.</para>
<para>It's much like the coalition's willingness to sell off the NBN to a private provider. There are some things that simply cannot be allowed. We've learned that privatising critical infrastructure, particularly in health, doesn't work and doesn't benefit all Australians. We must prevent this happening. I congratulate the minister for bringing the bill to parliament, and I hope we never sell off our public health infrastructure.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Waste Management</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the issue of nuclear waste. First of all, it is being reported by people who live in ignorance that it is a big, insoluble problem that the whole nuclear industry has never sorted out. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not nuclear waste unless it's wasted. It's actually very valuable, energy dense, one-use-only fuel, with at least 98 per cent of this potential energy remaining in the first cycle of spent nuclear fuel that comes out of an electricity-producing pressurised or boiling water reactor.</para>
<para>There are well-established international protocols, which were worked out in the 1960s, and there is huge, deep monitoring of all nuclear waste—in the Western world, at least—by International Atomic Energy Agency protocols and procedures. The waste from Australia's nuclear reactor—and we've had three—is not wasted. It's taken by France and put through their recycling plant. They filter out the reusable uranium and put it in with freshly dug up enriched uranium to power reactors. They use it time and time again. The final leftover products of fission are then transported in dry casks, which are well engineered, totally impervious and built to exacting standards to survive car crashes, truck crashes, train crashes, being dropped from height, being incinerated for an hour or more in hundreds of degrees of heat or being immersed in deep water, with all being safe and secure at the end of it.</para>
<para>Australia also has incredible capability in managing high-level nuclear waste. We produce a lot of molybdenum, which we manage ourselves, and for all the medical isotopes we use we have developed Synroc, or synthetic rock, which is a permanent storage vehicle for intermediate and high-level waste. A factory, an industrial-scale plant, has been built by ANSTO, yet this government keeps it silent. It is world beating. I have heard professors and nuclear facility managers from around the world marvel at the capability that we've developed, yet our government says we don't know what to do with waste. One visitor said he wanted to be an agent for us because he could sell 11 of these plants around the world to other nuclear-producing facilities.</para>
<para>Finally, what happens to nuclear waste when it's finished its cycle through the nuclear plant? It's left to cool inside the plant in deep pools. Then, when it has cooled down and stopped fissioning, it is transported in dry cask storage vessels—cement, ceramic and glass—in a well-established protocol, for recycling or for storage in these dry casks. Eventually, it can be accessed again if people want to use the used fuel as a starter for other reactors—particularly high-temperature gas reactors. These burn the waste and generate hundreds of times more power than non-high-temperature gas reactors, which is what most pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors are.</para>
<para>The other thing is that there's no radiation coming from nuclear waste unless you crack open an impervious, 150-tonne cement cask that has the spent fuel inside it. It's absolutely safe. There's never been a reported accident in transporting waste in the Western world. The other thing is that radiation is not dangerous unless you have too much of it. Radiation will probably be used to cure some member's prostate cancer, breast cancer, brain cancer or myeloma. It's only when you get too much, and nuclear plants do not emit radiation. Maybe if you hammer to get inside the pressurised water reactor, through steel that's very thick, bury in and jump in there with it, you might get some radiation. But the steam you see coming out of a nuclear reactor is not radioactive. It is just cooling water that runs in a separate circuit to the reactor, which is boiling water. Nuclear fission does not produce electricity itself. It produces heat, which, under pressure, delivers high-temperature steam, which spins a turbine, which in turn spins a generator, just like a coal-fired power station. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha, Energy, Afghanistan: Human Rights</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>From a small temple in Gujarat over 100 years ago, BAPS has grown to nearly 4,000 centres worldwide, including many across Victoria and Australia. I have had the privilege of attending several BAPS events during my time as a federal MP, including at the BAPS temple in Cranbourne South. The four pillars of BAPS philosophy—righteousness, knowledge, detachment from material goods and devotion to God—are the values I deeply cherish. BAPS members embody these values through selfless service to their families, communities and the nation. Their work, such as organising regular religious assemblies, blood donation drives, food distributions and fundraising for drought relief, perfectly illustrates this philosophy in action.</para>
<para>A few months ago, BAPS had the great honour of gifting the Akshar Purushottam Darshan to the Australian parliament, where they now proudly reside in the Parliamentary Library. Members of the Hindu Council of Australia and BAPS communities are here today to celebrate and host us for the Diwali and Annakut festival celebrations right here in Parliament House. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Hindu Council of Australia and my BAPS family in Holt.</para>
<para>Over the past few weeks, I have been out in the community doorknocking and listening to the concerns of my constituents. A common issue raised has been the sharp increase in gas bills this year. Gas is an important part of Australia's economy. It supports manufacturing and is vital to heating our homes and cooking our food. Families and businesses alike are feeling the strain of increasing gas bills, and it's crucial that we act to address these concerns. The good news is that the government is already taking steps to tackle this problem. The Albanese government's Future Gas Strategy aims to bring prices under control by ensuring that there is enough gas supply for our needs until 2050. We will ensure government policies are in place to enable us to search for more gas and increase investment in production. We are also putting in place stronger regulations on gas exports and promoting investments in renewable energy to reduce our long-term dependency on gas. This is a plan that will ensure Australian families and businesses will have access to affordable and reliable gas into the future.</para>
<para>In closing tonight, I would like to speak on the ongoing oppression of women under the Taliban rule. I have previously spoken in this House about the Taliban's severe restrictions on women, including being banned from public life, education, leaving their homes or speaking in public. As the federal member for Holt, I have heard firsthand the deep concern for the safety and dignity of the Afghan women from the members of my community.</para>
<para>Our government, alongside global partners like Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, is taking decisive action. At the recent UN General Assembly, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, initiated proceedings under article 29 of the Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This is the first step before filing official proceedings with the International Court of Justice. If the case proceeds, Afghanistan will become the first country to be summoned to the international court for gender based discrimination. To quote Minister Wong:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We will not stand by and allow the situation in Afghanistan to become a 'new normal'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have heard the calls of Afghan women and we are committed to defending their human rights and amplifying their voices.</para></quote>
<para>Australia stands firmly in defence of Afghan women's rights. Their voices will not be silenced and neither will ours.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>113</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 9 October 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mrs Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 11:30.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>115</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 27 September I attended the annual awards presentation of the St George Basketball Association. As always, it was a fantastic night. I really want to thank Ray Barbi, Val Stoddart, Anna Pazanin and everyone who makes St George Basketball Association such a fundamental part of our community. Ray Barbi works harder than anyone in our community for his organisation. He is deeply committed to the St George Basketball Association, and it's wonderful to see the association flourishing. They need more facilities, and they need better facilities. Ray and the association will continue to campaign for that. I want to congratulate all the people who were acknowledged on the night, the winners of the Banks outstanding sporting achievement awards and everyone else who was there. Thank you, St George Basketball Association, for everything you do.</para>
<para>Nan Tien Temple in Berkeley near Wollongong is an extremely important part of our community. On 22 September, I attended its 30th anniversary celebrations. I was joined by other members of the parliament, including the Assistant Treasurer. I want to thank Venerable Abbess Manko and all of the other venerables who were there for everything that Nan Tien does for our community not only through its spiritual guidance but also through the Nan Tien Institute, which was opened about 10 years ago. It is a higher education institution of high reputation. Thank you, Nan Tien, and thank you to BLIA, Buddha's Light International Australia, for all the great work that you do in our community.</para>
<para>Also on 22 September I attended the Connells Point market day. Thank you to Patrick Wedes who conceived of this idea for a market day last year. This year was the second year. The first year was great, and the second was even better. There were heaps of people there enjoying all the different activities. There were 37 stalls. The SES was there. You could learn to sail. There were lots of free events for children, and there were lots of local small businesses there. It was a fantastic day with beautiful sunshine. Connells Point was seen to advantage on the day. Patrick, thank you for having that idea, thank you for making it happen and thank you for bringing it to our local community.</para>
<para>Penshurst is a beautiful place, and it is fantastic that it now has Project Penshurst 2222 to stand up for it. Nicky Parras and everyone who's involved in Project Penshurst are passionate about making the suburb the best it can be. They have a wonderful idea about creating a park in the disused land next to the railway station. That's a great idea. The state government should support it. They have lots of other important ideas about improving the streetscape of Penshurst, improving the roads and increasing community safety. So to Nicky and the whole team at Project Penshurst 2222, it's great to be able to support you. Thank you for everything you do.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Casey Tuskers Sports Club, Cranbourne Football Club</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the past month we've seen many of our local sporting clubs wrap up their seasons. Holt is one of the most diverse electorates in Australia but, whether you speak English, Punjabi, Dari, Sinhalese, Tamil or Hindi, there's one sport that unites us all: cricket. The Casey Tuskers were formed in 2001 to bring the Sri Lankan community together through their passion for the game. Like most teams, they've had their ups and downs in the field, but what makes the Tuskers special is the sense of community they build.</para>
<para>At the end of August, the Tuskers held their awards night to celebrate the players, volunteers and families who support the team each week. I can't mention all the winners, but I want to give a special shout-out to the Team Champion Award recipients: Shanogeeth Shanmuganathan for grade 1 and Heshan Silva for grade 2. You have been outstanding examples of the team's values all year. A big thank you to the club president, Rumesh Abeysinghage, and the treasurer, Malan Abeyrathne, for hosting such a wonderful event.</para>
<para>The Cranbourne Eagles wrapped up their season with their presentation night on the eve of grand final day. Footy in Australia is more than just a sport; it's part of our DNA. It brings us together and teaches us some of life's greatest lessons. It's a place where young players grow into leaders, where every member, whether on the field or on the sidelines, contributes to the strength of this club. To the coaches, volunteers and family members who show up week after week: your dedication makes all the difference, you are the backbone of this team and without you the season would not be possible. I give a special mention to the co-captains, Zak Roscoe and Dylan Cavalot, along with coach Steve O'Brien and president Terry Gleeson. Your hard work and dedication makes the club and our community stronger.</para>
<para>Finally, congratulations to the award winners on the night: Zak Roscoe, Max Keenan, Liam Foggo, Liv Klug, Isabella Hetherington and Brendan Mentha. Your achievements continue to inspire the whole community and beyond.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice In Parliament Week, Housing</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CALDWELL</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This year I committed to participate in the Raise Our Voice campaign, where young people from across my electorate have sent in speeches about issues important to them. Based on the submissions received, I have a lot of faith in the next generation of Australians. Whilst the Prime Minister and his government might not understand the severity of the housing crisis or the everyday struggles Australian families are going through, at least 13-year-old Ally, from my electorate, comprehends the damage Labor are doing. This is what Ally wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Ally, I'm 13 years old and attend a high school in Fadden.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By 2034, I want my community to be somewhere everyone has their own home. A place that they have a roof over their heads.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I would like the Queensland community to be a place where there are no homeless people on the street. This issue is both social and economic in nature.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Every person has the basic right to have shelter. This can be achieved if the Government acts now to address the cost-of-living crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Housing must be affordable for all. A home can offer safety and dignity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Parliament can help by identifying areas that could be redeveloped and support the building of apartments or affordable housing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has the power to make changes now, to make a better tomorrow.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Without immediate action we will keep seeing more and more homeless people on the streets.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Everyone deserves a place to call home.</para></quote>
<para>Those were the words of Ally, and her closing sentence could not be truer. Every Australian should have access to affordable housing. We shouldn't have Australians living in tents because they can't afford the rent. We shouldn't have young people giving up on the dream of homeownership because saving for a deposit is too far out of reach. And we shouldn't have Australian families selling their homes because they can't keep up with their mortgages.</para>
<para>The skyrocketing cost of housing over the past two years under Labor has been devastating for everyone, particularly Middle Australia. This crisis affects more than just renters and buyers; it's an issue that affects the entire economy and the very fabric of our society. If the current rental crisis wasn't bad enough, Labor is now proposing to look at changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. These changes threaten to worsen the already dire situation and put even more pressure on an already fragile housing market.</para>
<para>Labor fail to understand the severe impacts these changes will have on everyday mum-and-dad investors. If Labor want to bring down the cost for renters, they can't keep making life harder on the homeowners who provide these essential rental properties. Only the coalition will restore hope in the great Australian dream.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Radio: 50th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 23 September last month we reached a real milestone: the 50th anniversary of the Whitlam government cabinet decision to establish community broadcasting. This was a landmark moment for Australian media. It enabled the flourishing of the community broadcasting sector that supports all Australians to have their voices heard and interests catered for on the airways. Fifty years on, the community broadcasting sector today delivers over 500 AM/FM and DAV+ services and two dedicated television stations—Channel 44 in South Australia and Channel 31 in Victoria. These services reach over 5.19 million people across Australia each week. Almost a quarter of Australia's population tunes in to one of the services.</para>
<para>In my home state and in my electorate of Adelaide we have an amazing community radio stations, including Radio Adelaide, Three D Radio, 5EBI, 5RPH, Coast FM, and I am proudly the ambassador of Coast FM. Then we have a whole array of different language radio stations: Radio Italiano, Fresh FM, Greek Radio ENA, Doriforus Radio, just to name a few. These great organisations are predominantly staffed by dedicated volunteers, they are great ambassadors for the community and I, for one, think we are a richer society for the small investment we make in community radio.</para>
<para>I have been lucky to speak on Coast FM on a regular basis. As I said, I am the ambassador for Coast FM in my electorate. I am on <inline font-style="italic">Coastal</inline> every few weeks with the announcer Dave Hearn, where we talk about everything politics in the week or month that was. It is very non-political; it is basically a report of what is taking place in this place up here. It is a wonderful program. I am pleased to appear on the program every few weeks. Dave Hearn, the announcer, is an example of what most community radio announcers are. Dave is a former police officer turned DJ and has had over 15 years experience on the air with Coast FM and other community radio stations.</para>
<para>I also want to pay tribute to the community radio station Radio Italiano, which I am a regular on with John di Fedi. There is 5EB FM, which has a whole array of different languages; Radio Doriforos is also in my electorate, a Greek radio station that does great work in the ethnic communities. Their hard work and dedication are of great benefit to the community. This was particularly the case with COVID and they should be proud of that. Happy 50th birthday community broadcasting.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cowper Electorate: Hockey Coffs Coast, Cowper Electorate: Veterans</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the 10 players from Hockey Coffs Coast, who will represent Australia at the 2024 Masters World Cup in South Africa and New Zealand. The over-35 and over-40 Australian players will travel to Cape Town for their internationals from 11 to 21 October while the over-45s will play in Auckland from 3 to 14 November. Hockey Coffs Coast players selected to their respective teams include Nadie Gream, Tania Pollock, Adam Ellison, and David Dart. Hockey Coffs Coast players selected in their respective Australia A teams include Kieran Marshall, Craig Rathbone, Dean Herbert, Sam Ash, Rick Fischer and Jonathon Williams. They will be competing against some of the powerhouse countries—England, Argentina, Germany, Netherlands—and, no doubt, it will be an experience they will never forget.</para>
<para>President Dean Herbert said, 'We have a great culture that has been set from our founders of masters hockey in Coffs, so being able to play for Australia at Masters level is a good way to show founders we will continue their legacy for many more years.' Congratulations to you all and best of luck.</para>
<para>I was lucky enough recently to attend the opening of the veterans' well-being centre in Taree. Taree is not in my electorate; it is about an hour away from Port Macquarie at the bottom of my electorate. Thank you to Geoff Harrison and the OneLife congregation, who offered me the invitation. I say I was lucky, because in Cowper, we have 9,000 veterans. We don't have a veterans' hub. Just before the last election I advocated for and we allocated $5 million for three veterans' hubs, one in in Coffs Harbour, one in Port Macquarie and one to go down to Taree. That funding, when Labor was elected, was re-allocated to Richmond, which has 4½ thousand veterans. The veterans in my electorate are expected to travel an hour away to get the services they need for the issues that they face from serving our country. I say to those veterans: Labor may have forgotten you in Cowper, but I haven't. I will continue to advocate for you. I will continue to fight for veterans' wellbeing centres so you can get the services you deserve.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to read a speech from Noor, a young woman in Cowan, from the Raise Our Voice program. Noor writes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In the next decade, I dream of an Australia where no one is left behind—a community where every individual is treated with dignity and equality, truly embodying the values of "one and free." We are known as "the lucky country," a land of opportunity where many came seeking a better life. Yet, from my own experience with my parents—immigrants who faced tremendous obstacles—I've seen that this promise of opportunity is not always fulfilled. Our Parliament holds the power to turn this vision into reality. We must significantly enhance and expand support services for those in need, from the homeless and the elderly to those battling mental health challenges. Investing in affordable housing and accessible healthcare will lay the groundwork for everyone to succeed. We cannot afford to let our people be forgotten or marginalised, repeating the mistakes of the past. Moreover, we must rekindle the true Aussie spirit of mateship. Let's champion community-driven initiatives like food banks, community centres, and outreach programs that provide hands-on help and foster strong, supportive networks. Parliament has the opportunity to ensure that every Australian—that every person, whether they've been here for generations or who have just arrived—feels they are truly living the Australian dream. This is the fair dinkum future we must aim for: a nation where the promise of "boundless plains to share" and the legacy of being "the lucky country" are realised for everyone. Let's make sure no one is left behind.</para></quote>
<para>I want to congratulate Noor from my electorate on such a wonderful speech, which she's written here. Noor's name in Arabic means 'light', and I feel that, in this speech, Noor has truly shown her inner light and reflected her true compassion and the true values of equality. She's shared compassion and a shared vision for all Australians that all Australians can ascribe to. It's one of the reasons that I chose to read Noor's speech. It speaks to me as an immigrant myself, as it does to many Australians and a large section of people in Cowan. But it also speaks to every Australian about the values that we share, the common humanity that we share and the common vision that we share for an Australia where truly no-one is left behind—where we can all partake in that vision of an Australian dream and where every Australian is treated equally and has opportunity. Thank you, Noor, and thank you, Raise Our Voice.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many people live in retirement villages, and they're happy living in their retirement village. However, I'm sure every member in this place has heard from residents who do not have that experience. Few people wish to be identified because, sadly, they fear intimidation. I heard from one retirement village resident who had written thousands of pages to me and who was feeling trapped and bullied, and others are concerned about operators changing rules unilaterally—rules such as deciding that alcohol cannot be served anymore at resident social functions, disallowing parking of more than one vehicle even when it's a four-car driveway or refusing to continue to put bins out for frail residents. One person was encouraged by an operator to submit a silent bid to a retirement village auction, and that lacks transparency. We need some federal oversight on retirement villages. We don't have it. It was originally under federal legislation back in the eighties. They then, at the time, decided to push it out to the states.</para>
<para>What we're seeing right across Australia is a patchwork of rules and lax regulation for residents in retirement villages. We see that there is an unfair balance between the retirement village operator and the resident. We see unfair contracts, contracts of 60-plus pages with algebraic formulas in them to tell residents how much the retirement village will be taking out of the sale of the unit that they have a right to occupy. That is all it is: a right to occupy. It is bricks and mortar, but it is not owned by the resident.</para>
<para>That's why I tabled a motion 18 months ago asking the Commonwealth to work on this, to look at national reform, and asking the Assistant Treasurer to look at this as a financial product so that it has the protection of ASIC and the ACCC. At the moment, it doesn't, and there is a wide disparity across Australia with respect to how retirement village operators operate in their retirement villages. We know that more and more baby boomers are moving into retirement villages. I want those people who are moving into retirement villages and those who are living in there to have confidence, to have comfort and to have a fair contract between them and the retirement village in which they occupy a place that they call their home.</para>
<para>I call on this government. We need an inquiry into this. I urge the minister: if you genuinely care about consumer issues, you will take this on with gusto.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Some 20 years ago I first came to this building as an enthusiastic teenager with the view that my voice deserved to be heard by those who made decisions. I knocked on doors of politicians of every persuasion, talking about what was important to me, which was accessibility and affordability of education. Some 20 years later I'm now in this place on a much more regular basis, but my values remain the same—to make sure that you have fairness and opportunity and to protect this wonderful Australian democracy.</para>
<para>It's no surprise that, like many of my colleagues, I'm now today joining the Raise Our Voice movement, as I call it, to raise the voices of the young people of this generation, of this moment of 2024, recognising that they have such an important role in building the society of tomorrow and in protecting democracy. If they feel that they get heard in this place, that is a great investment that we can all make.</para>
<para>I'm following my colleague, the Minister for Youth, in bringing a speech here that has been prepared by a constituent. I'm proud to share the voice of my constituent Mr Alexander Pez in our nation's parliament. Alexander says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Like many nations across the earth, the Commonwealth of Australia is founded upon a shared idea of community and identity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No matter how far or how wide many of us will roam, we still call Australia home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This sense of community has been created from a considerable amount of trust and goodwill over nearly 125 years of our nationhood.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, since the COVID-19 pandemic, I fear that this sense of shared community is facing one of it's biggest tests.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As the world faces significant turmoil, people are looking for the reasons why, who to blame, which head to hound.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Social media—once heralded as a new era of democracy—has only strengthened the political divides.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With each political grouping making totems to berate, rather than building bridges with other groups.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Because of this, now more than ever, it is easier to put yourself in an echo chamber than hear someone who disagrees with you.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But this division can be reversed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 10 years, if we want to make a more cohesive and equal Australian society, we can start by just encouraging people to see the other sides' perspective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If you're a leftie, read the Tele, if you're a conservative, read the Guardian.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Small changes like that in our politics can make Australia a more cohesive and informed nation.</para></quote>
<para>Alexander's speech shares two important truths. The first is that we live in an increasingly complex world. The second is that we build a better society by finding ways to bring people together. I'm so pleased to have shared his words in this parliament, and I've also been really pleased to hear the words of so many other young Australians who have great faith in what we, as elected parliamentarians, can achieve here.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Roads</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, Gippslanders are paying more and receiving less from the Labor Party at both state and federal level, particularly when it comes to much needed upgrades to our transport network. We're expected to drive cars that are roadworthy, but the government is not providing roads which are 'carworthy'. This is costing lives and costing money in regional areas.</para>
<para>On top of the bureaucratic incompetence and lack of urgency shown by the relevant ministers, the cost of infrastructure projects in regional Victoria is blowing out by millions of dollars every week thanks to the ridiculous environmental laws that place a huge cost burden on public authorities. The safety of my community is falling a distant second to the need to purchase native vegetation offsets and comply with stringent environmental regulations, even when roads or airport extensions are occurring within the footprint of the land specifically reserved for that purpose. In some cases, more than 30 per cent of the cost of a project has been absorbed by compliance with state and federal environmental laws. Now, imagine how much better our transport network would be if one-third of the budget wasn't being wasted to purchase vegetation offsets.</para>
<para>It's even more extraordinary in Victoria that the Labor Party has banned the harvesting of native timber on public land. And not satisfied with this illogical decision to ban a sustainable and 100 per cent renewable industry, the state government is still requiring more land to be locked up in vegetation offsets if a road authority has to remove trees to widen a highway.</para>
<para>A planned extension and widening of the runway at the Bairnsdale aerodrome is on hold today because native grass was detected alongside the existing pavement. It would cost the local ratepayers several million dollars that they don't have to buy a separate piece of land, as a vegetation offset, in order for this project to proceed. This is bizarre, because the airport extension is meant to save lives. During the Black Summer bushfires, the Bairnsdale aerodrome was transformed into one of the busiest airports in Australia, hosting our Defence Force personnel and emergency services. Without the extended runway, the Bairnsdale aerodrome won't be fit for purpose in the future and lives will be put at risk in our community thanks to some native grass you can find in a paddock next door.</para>
<para>This environmental madness is tying up projects across our state and taxpayers are footing the bill for infrastructure which is costing more than necessary and running years late on the planned construction timeframes. And when you overlay this madness with city-focussed state and federal governments not putting the time or effort into our roads, we are bearing the cost in our communities. One transport operator told me last week that the front left-wheel shackle bushes on his trucks used to last a million kilometres; now he's lucky if they last 300,000 kilometres. That's because they're getting constantly pounded driving through potholes on the Princes Highway and the Monaro Highway. These potholes haven't been repaired by state and federal governments, which treat regional Australians, regional Victorians and Gippslanders as second-class citizens.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care, Scullin Electorate: Epping Tennis Club, Whittlesea Community Connections</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Health is a critical focus for the Albanese government, and I'm so pleased that, under the great work of Minister Butler, we are delivering improved health care for Australians around the country, and particularly in Melbourne's northern suburbs. Over the last few weeks I've had the opportunity to speak with many Scullin constituents about the Medicare urgent care clinic that has recently opened in Epping. I've heard firsthand so many stories about the great experiences locals are having at the clinic and how it is making it so much easier for people to see a doctor when loved ones need urgent care.</para>
<para>We're already seeing the service deliver benefits in Epping and the suburbs around it, and in Victoria more broadly. More than 40 per cent of presentations to existing urgent care clinics in Victoria have been outside of standard business hours, which means these clinics are filling a really important gap in service provision over extended evening hours and over the weekend too. One in four of these visits involves treating a person under 15, so I recognise, as so many families do, that this is critical for people seeking care for their children. This critical investment, together with others like the endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic that has also recently opened in Epping and the Victorian Aboriginal health service facility newly opened in a South Morang, shows a real commitment to the healthcare needs of the communities of Melbourne's north.</para>
<para>Recently I had the great pleasure of introducing the Prime Minister to the great people of the Epping Tennis Club, and to lose a round with him. The northern suburbs boast really strong sporting communities, bringing together people and nurturing the next generation of talent. I want to particularly recognise the team at the Epping Tennis Club who've got a real commitment to introducing the great sport of tennis to newly arrived communities, people with disability and others who might not have the chance to contribute. The highly passionate and dedicated members of the club make a real difference to the community. That's why I was so pleased to introduce them and their great work to our Prime Minister, along with my great friend Lily D'Ambrosio, state member for Mill Park, and the people of Whittlesea Community Connections, to celebrate a great contribution to community through community sport.</para>
<para>Last month, I had the opportunity to be part of a great celebration with Whittlesea Community Connections: the launch of their Food Collective cafe and catering social enterprise. It was a real pleasure to meet the first 20 trainees, many from refugee backgrounds, who are already making quality food. This is a collective that's located as a social enterprise at the Epping Melbourne Polytechnic campus, delivering training and employment pathways for young people and people from migrant and refugee backgrounds. It's making a big difference to their lives and also building a much stronger community. This is the difference government makes when it listens to communities and engages with their needs.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 11 September 2024 and varied earlier this sitting, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>120</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder for the motion?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Thompson</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>120</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7243" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>120</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the initiative of the Group of Seven, the Financial Action Task Force was created in 1989 to develop policies to combat money laundering. In 2001, it added the enormously problematic issue of terrorism financing to its mandate. The Group of Seven was concerned with the billions of dollars raised by the trafficking of human beings, arms and drugs and by the issue of tax evasion and cybercrime. From these crimes, more crimes were funded—crimes which included child abuse. Back in 2015, during the years of coalition misrule, the Financial Action Task Force reported that Australia had failed to comply with some critical standards. What did the coalition government do about it? As you'd expect, nothing much, for year after year after year.</para>
<para>In our first term, the Albanese Labor government is introducing the reforms that will give Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing activities some badly needed teeth. We're working on an important area of vulnerability in the relationship between such people as lawyers, accountants, real estate professionals, and dealers in precious stones and metals. It's an area which is increasingly used to launder money. The Financial Action Task Force has pointed out that diamonds, other jewels and precious metals carry value in small, easily transportable quantities. They are traded in international transactions by the most modern means available, by multinational companies and major financial centres. They are also traded in local markets by dealers who include, in the words of the Financial Action Task Force, 'very poor individuals in some of the most remote and troubled places on the planet'. These transactions might be exchange based, government regulated deals or may take the form of anonymous cash given for goods in hand. Dealers understand the risks of theft and fraud—diamonds might not be what they are claimed to be, for example. But new money-laundering methods are not necessarily on the radar in the same way.</para>
<para>Thanks to the coalition's usual neglect, Australia has become one of only five jurisdictions, out of 200, which did not regulate appropriately or at all in the complex modern terrain encountered by dealers and by real estate professionals, who are facing challenges of their own, together with lawyers and accountants. I suppose coalition members thought, as they often do, that these things would just somehow sort themselves out. They thought things like aged care and housing supply would just miraculously take care of themselves.</para>
<para>This puts us at serious risk of being greylisted. The grey list is not a list is not a list you want to be on. It's politely referred to as the 'other monitored jurisdictions'—in other words, places the world needs to keep an eye on. It's one step above the blacklist of 'non-cooperative countries or territories'. This was happening while the coalition was visibly harassing almost half a million Australians, who had committed no crimes at all, with unlawful debt notices. The coalition's shameful and disgraceful pursuit of robodebt victimised innocent people. It insulted honest men and women and caused untold misery and distress to them and to their families. And let us never forget the more than 2,000 people who received a robodebt letter and then took their own lives.</para>
<para>This bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, will implement effective measures to combat real financial crime by real criminals. Money laundering is meant to be challenging to authorities, and it is. The Australian Institute of Criminology, created by the Whitlam Labor government, is Australia's national research and knowledge centre on crime and criminal justice. Its role was and remains that of promoting justice and reducing crime by undertaking and communicating evidence based research to inform policy and practice. The AIC has recently conducted research which demonstrates the uses organised crime makes of money laundering. Money laundering is a means of getting away with crimes and a means by which criminals avoid detection and go on with whatever it is that they were doing without being disturbed. What they're doing is harming Australians and Australian society. The AIC has found that, when an organised crime group was involved in money laundering, the amount of crime related harm it caused increased by 49 per cent, compared to the harm it would have caused if it had not laundered the money. Money laundering allowed these groups to reinvest in themselves.</para>
<para>It's estimated that serious and organised crime has cost the Australian community up to $60 billion in just the one year of 2020-21. Legitimate markets have been distorted. That means economic activity itself is being distorted. Getting away with anything emboldens people. Getting away with criminal activity encourages the repetition of crimes and increases the likelihood of greater crimes. Money laundering has contributed to the growth and commission of such crimes as the illicit drug trade, child abuse and terrorism. Something clearly needs to be done, and we're doing it.</para>
<para>The bill is also directed at reducing the regulatory burden on businesses, making it easier for them to understand and implement effective measures against these crimes. The reforms will help produce better quality financial data so that businesses can better protect themselves. They're the product of extensive consultation with the affected sectors and with national security, law enforcement and regulatory agencies.</para>
<para>Businesses providing one or more of the services currently being exploited by organised crime and money launderers will have to put in place measures to protect themselves. Those measures will include processes that allow for easy and early identification of criminality or potential criminal activity. They will need to enrol with the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, which is AUSTRAC, established under the Labor government by Bob Hawke. They'll need to develop and maintain an appropriate program tailored to their business, along with conducting and maintaining due diligence and record keeping. Certain transactions and activities designated as 'suspicious' will have to be reported.</para>
<para>We don't want this to be onerous. Regulations need to be kept to a necessary minimum. They need to be simplified, without obtuse language and relevant to our times and circumstances. The businesses involved will have flexibility in meeting their obligations. The costs and compliance will vary from business to business. They don't all face the same level of risk, and we're sensitive to that. AUSTRAC will work with industry to develop sector-specific guidance on the new regime. It is there to help inform, and its scaled-up call centre will address any questions that will arise from different businesses.</para>
<para>AUSTRAC understands the increasingly sophisticated methods used to disguise the proceeds of crime and integrate those funds back into the financial systems. International trade is of particular interest to those wishing to move illicit money. They can attempt to hide their funds in the sheer volume of transactions. People conducting honest businesses may be either unaware or confused by the complexities of trade financial products and import/export processes.</para>
<para>Illegality is more difficult to detect because reporting entities will probably not have oversight of the whole transaction chain. It is relatively easy to hide what you're doing in multiple supply chains with multiple processes in multiple jurisdictions. There are many involved parties with many transactions which take place at great speed. The outcome we're seeking with this bill is improved and enhanced deterrence, detection and accurate reporting, protecting the Australian public and legitimate businesses. We'll be doing this by helping those who are at the frontline carrying out law-abiding businesses. We don't want those businesses abused. We understand their situations are individual to them and that due diligence will be different in different places.</para>
<para>The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill is also aimed at modernising the regulation of digital currency, virtual assets and payment technology. We want to ensure the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act keeps pace with the increasingly digital nature of our global financial system. We're closing the gaps that professional criminal organisations seek to exploit.</para>
<para>This bill is preparing us for the realities of today's world and the likely and possible directions of future development. We've demonstrated our commitment in this year's budget, allocating $166 million to implement the proposed reforms which are well overdue. This is an investment which will enable AUSTRAC to implement a new regime that has been simplified at the same time it's being expanded. As world trade grows, so does money laundering and its possibility of financing crime such as terrorism. We have to understand the risks and deal with them practically for the sake of the wellbeing of the people of Australia.</para>
<para>We need to do this efficiently and well in a way that is appropriate for Australia, and that is what we are doing here and now. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When it comes to having an understanding of counterterrorism, we on this side of the House we have a very good understanding. My background was with the Victoria Police counterterrorism coordination unit; I got to see and hear firsthand from other agencies what was happening in this space when it comes to money laundering, especially when it comes to counterterrorism. I acknowledge the member for Herbert, who went over to Afghanistan and served Australia in taking on the Taliban, the terrorist organisation group. On this side we very much understand the importance of doing everything we possibly can to counter terrorism and make sure we don't have terrorist attacks committed in Australia.</para>
<para>I congratulate all our law enforcement agencies, who, over the years, have done such an incredible job in having such an amazing success rate when it comes to stopping and preventing terrorist attacks in Australia. Also, our Australian agencies have played a role overseas in taking on terrorists—as I said before, when it comes to Afghanistan. One very important factor—this is something I learned in the Victorian police force—is that you always have to follow the money. That's what this bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, is all about. The bill expands the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act, the AML/CTF Act, which AUSTRAC looks after.</para>
<para>Money laundering undermines Australia's national security, economy and social security system. Billions of dollars in illicit funds are transferred annually, causing substantial economic harm to Australia. Money laundering is prohibited under part 10.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, with penalties ranging from life imprisonment to six months depending on the offence. Money laundering syndicates create a shadow economy, enabling further criminal activities. While law-abiding Australians pay taxes, organised crime gangs use illicit funds to grow their wealth and fund crimes like drug trafficking et cetera.</para>
<para>When it comes to money laundering and what the criminal networks do—in this case, it can be terrorists or those supporting terrorists—to commit a terrorist act, you need money. Money can be transferred to Australia overseas. This is where the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism legislation comes into effect, with transactions over $10,000 being tracked by AUSTRAC. The first tranche of the anti-money-laundering legislation under the Howard government was very much focused on making sure that banks and financial institutions report those transactions. When it comes to fines being issued, for example, a massive fine of $1.3 billion was imposed on Westpac when they were not complying with what was required. Crown Melbourne and Crown Perth received penalties of $450 million, and the Commonwealth Bank was fined $700 million. It's very important that, if institutions don't do the right thing, they are penalised and punished.</para>
<para>This bill aims to create a regulatory environment for money-laundering and terrorism finance. The act currently applies to entities providing a range of designated services, including banks, credit unions, casinos and other high-risk sectors. This bill seeks to extend the regime further. When it comes to lawyers, real estate agents, accountants and gemstone dealers and other designated non-financial businesses and professions, we on this side of the House are not opposed to the bill at this stage.</para>
<para>What we want to do is make sure that we understand what measures real estate agents and other small businesses need to have in place, because there will be a big financial burden—$13.9 billion over the next 10 years, based on the government's own information. The Attorney-General was asked by the shadow attorney-general to release an exposure draft so that everyone could have a look at it beforehand. Instead, the bill was put before the parliament, and now we're speaking about it today. It must go off to a Senate inquiry so that we can find out how this is actually going to work and what measures will be put in place for small businesses to ensure that they can actually meet all the requirements of this bill.</para>
<para>In terms of the coalition's history on this, the Howard government's initiative had its roots in international cooperative efforts to combat terrorism after September 11. In 2002 the coalition criminalised terrorism financing as part of the Criminal Code, and then moved money-laundering into the Criminal Code. In 2006, the coalition introduced and passed the AML/CTF Act, conferring AUSTRAC with the significant powers that it has today, and I mentioned before the massive penalties that have been given out.</para>
<para>The concern for those on this side of the House is that we need to understand the effect of the $13.9 billion impost on businesses. The real estate sector will face extra costs of $5.9 billion; accountants, $3.6 billion; legal services, $2.8 billion; bullion traders, $136 million; and gambling services, $99 million—not that that bothers me at all. That amounts to $13 billion over the next 10 years. We really want to get to the bottom of this. We know the Real Estate Institute of Australia is concerned that the effect of the bill will be to slug a business between $30,000 and $60,000. The Law Council of Australia is concerned about the impact of increased regulatory costs.</para>
<para>When it comes to counterterrorism, I would say that all members of parliament would be very supportive of doing everything we can to prevent terrorist attacks here in Australia. AUSTRAC has done an amazing job over the years of notifying law enforcement in relation to those who use international trading firms to transfer money. When AUSTRAC are concerned about the number of transactions to individuals or to a company overseas, they step in and provide the intelligence to law enforcement, who then take action. As I said, on this side, we want to know where that $13 billion impost on small business is going to be spent. We also want to know, precisely, what information a small business needs to provide. Obviously, the best way to get to the bottom of this is to go to a Senate inquiry.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 expands the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and aims to create a hostile regulatory environment for money laundering and terrorism financing, which are very eminent ideals. I would just like to remind members of this House that the coalition is concerned about some of the unintended consequences of this rushed-in bill.</para>
<para>The government's own modelling predicts that the regulatory cost to industry and to the economy will be $13.9 billion over 10 years. In rural Australia, people like accountants, car dealers, real estate owners and people involved in advising trusts and companies are really concerned that they will be left holding these costs, which will make small business in those particular fields of professional work unviable, which will just put more work back into big corporate organisations. We have a long history of supporting anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing. The actual act that is being amended and deleted by this bill was created by the Howard government. After the September 11 terrorism attacks, we really got involved with stamping out terrorism financing and the act has been very successful thus far.</para>
<para>I'm concerned that we've got 165 pages for people to digest. There are lots of businesses that, as I said, this bill classifies as high-risk businesses, because they have a perception that all this money laundering is going through small legal firms and real estate deals in country Australia or regional Australia. They think every crook is buying a Lamborghini and then cashing it out, or bringing in money from overseas, buying Australian property and then rinsing it out on the other side. But these costs are going to be huge for people that deal in these industries. They called for the regulation of designated non-financial businesses and professions, or the so-called 'tranche 2' entities, which may be big players in money laundering and terrorism financing. I can tell you that in Laurieton, Wingham, Taree, Foster-Tuncurry and Wauchope we have hardworking lawyers, accountants and businesspeople that sell land and houses and, trust me, they are not financing terrorism. I think it's a long bow to put in a bill that's going to cost all these people $13.9 billion over 10 years, yet the government predicts that there might be—might be—a $2.4 billion return to the government in stopping dodgy terrorism financing using mum-and-dad businesses in regional Australia.</para>
<para>There is a concern that if we don't do this, we will be given a black mark or a grey listing by the international finance industry, but I don't think that will happen because we will know by our tax records and by our listing of real estate. We have a very transparent property transfer system. It's there for anyone to look at and see if there are concerns. Likewise, cars are all registered and sold, and cash transactions already have to be reported. It's not just me that's thinking: 'Slow down. We need to really work this through.' The regulatory cost is one thing, but the mismatch between the allocation of costs and the benefits is huge. The Real Estate Institute of Australia has come out against these proposed reforms. Even the Law Council have come out against this because they are concerned that small legal firms will have to employ people to do due diligence on just about every transaction that is bread and butter for a country legal firm. I'll tell you, if the Law Council are concerned about it, they are not the only professional body. Accountants from CPA Australia, CA Australia and the Institute of Public Accountants are also concerned because they are just being buried in paperwork. They have to be up-front with people about their fees but, if they're going to have compliance officers in every country accounting firm, people will be paying through the nose for simple transactions and for management of trust and super funds. They're already paying thousands of dollars every year. If you're a business, you are paying an accountant and getting audited. All these processes we have already. COSBOA, the Council of Small Businesses of Australia, also has concerns on the impact for small businesses and their ability to comply due to limited resources.</para>
<para>I also note that there are huge proposed regulatory or legislative instruments and directions that the minister responsible for this act will have for the next four years, which could totally redefine things. The so-called Henry VIII clause will give the minister four years to make rules under the bill. I think it would be a case of making haste slowly. Rather than rushing this through, wait until the Senate legislative committee has finished its review. Then we can be realistic about how we can reduce the costs on all these industries that were badly affected and all consumers who will be paying through the nose for their legal advice on property purchasing, tax matters and trust and family business matters. It is a really significant change, so I would make haste slowly, listen to what the Senate committee comes up with and look at the amount of heartache you will cause for what appears to be a marginal benefit over 10 years.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 delivers on the Albanese government's commitment to protecting Australians from the serious harm caused by criminals. The bill will bolster Australia's anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime to prevent criminals from hiding their illicit profits and funding illegal activities. It will also stop funds from falling into the hands of terrorists and disrupt activities of authoritarian and corrupt regimes. The reforms in this bill are long overdue. The former government's inaction has led to significant regulatory gaps and vulnerabilities. We are acting now to make sure that Australia stops being an attractive destination for illicit financing.</para>
<para>The bill will extend AML/CTF regulation to high-risk services provided by real state agents, professional service providers such as lawyers and accountants, and dealers in precious metals and stones. It will also expand the regulation of virtual asset related services and modernise financial sector specific regulation. These amendments bring Australia's framework in line with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, which is the global financial watchdog, and will prevent Australia from being greylisted. This bill will help ensure Australia is not deemed a high-risk jurisdiction, which would have significant economic impacts for businesses and all Australians.</para>
<para>The bill also contains measures to modernise, clarify and simplify AML/CTF obligations to ensure the regime is easier to understand and easier to comply with. This includes making the AML/CTF programs and customer due diligence requirements more flexible, risk based and outcomes focused. The bill also repeals the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to reduce complexity and duplication, and responds to a range of other issues raised by stakeholders while maintaining the overall integrity of the regime. Lastly, the bill makes timely updates to AUSTRAC's regulatory and information gathering powers, subject to appropriate safeguards. This will ensure that AUSTRAC can continue to effectively monitor, investigate and enforce compliance with the AML/CTF regime.</para>
<para>I have to say that we've had some very curious contributions from Liberal members who have spoken on this bill. They have all equivocated on their support for this legislation. I heard the member for Lyne say just now that the government should hasten slowly on this legislation. How slowly do you want to go? The Liberals have also all claimed credit for the passage in 2006 of the act of parliament which this bill amends, which was the Howard government's implementation of anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing measures. At that time in 2006, and I say this in the context of the member for Lyne's absurd suggestion that we should hasten slowly, there were two sets of regulation which the minister chose to categorise as tranche 1 and tranche 2 reforms. By 2015, the then government had not implemented the tranche 2 reforms, which were said to be coming in 2006, and at the time of the last mutual evaluation by FATF, the Financial Action Task Force, the then Liberal government in 2015 said it would implement the tranche 2 reforms.</para>
<para>Nine years later, after seven more years of inaction from the Liberal government, we had nothing, and I am now bringing to the parliament the tranche 2 reforms that the Howard government said they were going to do, that the Abbott government said they were going to do, that the Turnbull government said they were going to do and that the Morrison government said they were going to do. I say to the Liberal members who have spoken on this bill and I say to the opposition: time's up. Decide whether you are going to stand with criminals or not, but the time's up. Don't say 'hasten slowly' in respect of a reform that you said you were going to do in 2006 and again told the Financial Action Task Force that you were going to do when you were in government in 2015.</para>
<para>We are a government that gets things done, and we are getting this done because we are not about to have Australia grey listed, with dire financial consequences, and we're not about to have a continuing regime in which it's possible for black money from all over the world to compete with Australians who are bidding for houses. I'd make the other point that, as to the concern for businesses that are going to have to respond—which I hasten to say is not every business in Australia; it's businesses that have got interactions and have got potentially suspicious transactions—this gives them some reporting requirements. We got more than $160 million in the budget for a campaign that AUSTRAC is going to manage. AUSTRAC is very experienced at working with business. It's been working well with the businesses that are already regulated, which particularly include the banks, which have much more onerous reporting requirements than what any of the businesses that are being brought in in tranche 2 will have. We have more than $160 million in the current year's budget for an education campaign to ensure that businesses who will henceforth, when this legislation passes, be subject to the regime will know what the requirements are.</para>
<para>I say again to the opposition: time's up. You need to decide whether you're going to continue to stand with criminals by opposing this legislation—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I'll say 'continue to stand with criminals', which the member for Lyne is a bit upset about. He should go and read the op-ed in the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> from the shadow Attorney-General last week, in which she announced that the Liberal Party is going to oppose this legislation. That is not an acceptable position. We cannot have Australia grey listed by FATF at the next mutual evaluation, which is going to take place over the next year. That would have dire economic consequences for Australia.</para>
<para>At the moment we're in a select group of five countries, which include Haiti and Madagascar, in not having tranche 2 entities regulated. Time's up. You cannot put a price on the need to fight against terrorism and child abuse, as Liberal members would seek to do. We have to do everything we can to protect Australia from the dangers of money laundering, and we are. These reforms will benefit all Australians by strengthening our businesses and economy against money laundering and against terrorism financing. They'll ensure our law enforcement agencies are better able to detect and disrupt criminals and ultimately protect Australians from serious and organised crime. We are taking up the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing in Australia, and it's about time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7249" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>125</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker, this speech might be strangely familiar to you. The Albanese Labor government takes the job of protecting Australians very seriously when it comes to the economy, to health, to the borders and to international security. Nowadays, in 2024, this includes safeguarding individuals' privacy in this increasingly digital world. There are many reasons why it's vital to keep our personal information safe. They include the prevention of identity theft and subsequent fraud and the protection of our financial information.</para>
<para>The growth of the digital economy and the change in the way we live have both created new ways for our privacy to be exploited. You only have to think back to the devastating data breaches of a couple of years ago, which affected up to 10 million Australians. These breaches saw Australians' names, birthdates, home addresses, phone numbers, email contacts, and passport and drivers licence numbers stolen and made available on the web for sale. Apart from the administrative burden then placed on all of those affected, this also created significant anxiety about further breaches, identity fraud and scams. Sadly, the consequences of personal information being accessed without permission can even be violent or life-threatening. Women fleeing family violence can be targeted, their personal information can be shared with their abuser, and they can be tracked.</para>
<para>The National Cabinet held in May focused on our national crisis of gendered violence, and at that time the Albanese Labor government committed to criminalising the practice of doxxing. Doxxing is the act of releasing personal information online without permission and with malicious intent. This includes circulating personal data such as the names, addresses, emails and phone numbers of private citizens. The popularity of social media, online platforms and messaging apps has made it easy to publish private information online, especially in an age where many people, including teenagers, are intent on publicising themselves to the world. Victims of doxxing are at risk of physical threats, public humiliation and shaming, discrimination, identify theft and financial fraud, and this can be an enduring risk, with the information floating around cyberspace indefinitely and able to be purchased. A devastating example of this was the release of the personal details of a WhatsApp group of hundreds of Jewish Australians earlier this year.</para>
<para>The practice of doxxing is unacceptable, and this bill, the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, provides for substantial criminal and civil justice pathways. You can see that it's critical to amend the Privacy Act 1988 and the related sections of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. We need to make this outdated legislation, from a time before the internet, fit for purpose for the modern age so that we can ensure that the increased privacy risks of the digital age are contained and that all Australians are protected. This is a reasonable expectation for Australians to have, and it is one that the Albanese Labor government is determined to uphold. It is also important to bolster our privacy legislation to protect Australian businesses and keep them competitive. We need to keep in line with international privacy standards.</para>
<para>To the detriment of Australians, the former coalition government did nothing to bolster privacy in a period of change. They did nothing to strengthen privacy laws, and they even scrapped the position of the standalone Privacy Commissioner. They were full of plans but lacked any follow-through, and they didn't guarantee funding for the privacy watchdog, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. This was left for the Albanese Labor government to do when we came in. We allocated $66 million to this office and ensured that much of its funding is ongoing.</para>
<para>Now we are implementing measures via the Privacy and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. These responsible reforms are the product of a considerable approach stemming from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's 2019 Digital Platforms Inquiry. This inquiry recommended a review of the Privacy Act. The consultation process was extensive, with feedback from the business sector, the media, cybersecurity experts and, most importantly, everyday Australians. The <inline font-style="italic">Privacy Act review report</inline> was released in February last year, and the Albanese government responded in September 2023. This bill now seeks to implement the first tranche of agreed recommendations from the Privacy Act review.</para>
<para>Under this legislation, doxxing will become a criminal offence. This legislation also amends the Criminal Code so that the maximum policy for the malicious use of personal data will be six years imprisonment. This is applicable when someone uses a carriage service to make available, publish or distribute personal data in a way that is regarded as being menacing or malicious towards the individual. The maximum penalty will be seven years imprisonment where the personal details of members of a group are released due to their race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, or national or ethnic origin.</para>
<para>The legislation details 'personal data' as information that enables the individual or members of a group to be identified, contacted or located. This includes, obviously, someone's name, their photograph or other image, their telephone number, their email address, online account details, their residential or work address, their place of education or their place of worship.</para>
<para>The bill takes into account that doxxing can occur in different ways. For example, it can be publishing someone's details for a third party to harass them without even knowing their identity. A key part of this legislation is recognising that it's not always malicious when personal information is shared, such as ordinary social media posts or reports in the media. To attract a criminal charge a 'reasonable person' needs to view the conduct as menacing.</para>
<para>This bill also puts forward a new statutory tort that will enable victims of a serious privacy breach, including doxxing, to seek redress in the courts. This can be in the form of damages or other remedies. This new tort will balance privacy rights with legitimate public interests such as something crucial for a healthy democracy, the freedom of the media, public health and safety, freedom of expression and the proper administration of government. These measures work for the individual, and also ensure that our privacy legislation is keeping pace with technological changes. Importantly, they meet the expectations of Australians.</para>
<para>It was first recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report a decade ago, titled <inline font-style="italic">Serious invasions of privacy in the digital era</inline>. The wide-ranging reforms in the bill before the chamber include clarifying the purpose of the Privacy Act—that is, that entities are responsible for protecting people's personal information rather than just treating it as a commercial asset. It also gives the Information Commissioner the provision to develop codes to address certain technologies or industry practices. This provides flexibility to deal with emerging technologies.</para>
<para>The bill also focusses on boosting privacy protection for children, who are particularly vulnerable online. A Children's Online Privacy Code will be developed, applying to internet services which are likely to be accessed by children. This code will outline how entities must comply with privacy requirements for children. We've directed $3 million over three years to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to develop this. It will be closely aligned to similar codes in countries such as the United Kingdom. Other measures include the reinstatement of the privacy commissioner and gives the Australian Information Commissioner enhanced powers to share information in a timely way about data breaches.</para>
<para>The bill introduces notifiable data breach declarations. These enable entities such as banks to act quickly and decisively to prevent compromised personal information being misused. Under these amendments, the Information Commissioner will have strengthened powers to enforce the act, including new civil penalties for a range of privacy breaches and an infringement notice system. The Information Commissioner will also be able to require a respondent to undertake any reasonable act to rectify or reduce the foreseeable loss.</para>
<para>One amendment I'm particularly pleased to see included is increased transparency regarding automated decisions that require the use of personal information. We all know the devastating effect that automated systems can have. You just need to think about the ramifications of the former government's appalling robodebt scheme. This bill gives individuals transparency about the use of their personal information in automated decisions which affect them. Privacy policies will have to outline the personal information to be used and individuals will be able to request information about the decision.</para>
<para>Another benefit of the amendments include targeted responses in disasters or emergencies. The bill builds on previous reforms delivered by the Albanese Labor government. After those big data breaches in 2022, we implemented the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Act, and that increased the maximum penalties for serious or repeated privacy breaches from $2.2 million to whatever is the greater of $50 million or three times the value of the benefit obtained through the misuse of the information.</para>
<para>This bill addresses the views expressed by Australians. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner's Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey found that 89 per cent of Australians want stronger legislation to protect their privacy online. The overarching benefit of enhanced privacy regulation is the bolstering of confidence in a digital economy, which supports innovation and its growth. This bill represents the first phase of Labor's intention to give Australians enhanced control over their personal information. It answers the need that the Attorney-General outlined and I quote, since he's in the chamber:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is essential that Australians are protected by a legal framework that is flexible and agile enough to adapt to changes in the world around them.</para></quote>
<para>I commend the legislation to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens will support this bill, the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, in the House but reserve our position in the Senate. We do this because although this first tranche of reforms is generally positive it fails to deliver what is needed to truly protect privacy in a way that meets the expectations of the community in this country.</para>
<para>This bill includes a handful of reforms in response to the Privacy Act review such as increased protection for children's privacy and modest enhanced regulatory powers. It also includes a statutory tort of privacy, which is a right of action to seek damages for serious breaches of privacy, in the criminalisation of doxxing—the malicious release of personal information online. This tort will also allow individuals to sue for serious invasions of privacy in circumstances where the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but subject to some limitations. That's a long overdue reform, though we acknowledge concerns that it will be very hard for regular people to use this to protect their privacy due to the costs and legal complexity.</para>
<para>The bill also provides for transparency for automated decision-making, requiring privacy policies to disclose any use of personal information in automated decision-making which significantly affects individuals' interests. This needs to happen within two years of the reforms coming into effect. This is a positive and sensible change. The bill will also give the OAIC increased oversight powers but no new funding. The OAIC is already chronically overallocated and underfunded, not least in FOI matters. This bill does nothing to remedy that.</para>
<para>After more than two years in government and a decade of promises in opposition, this set of reforms from Labor is embarrassingly inadequate. It will not change the core fact that, even with these changes, Australia will still have a privacy law basically written in 1988 to deal with privacy issues in 2024 that were not even conceived of last century. It is increasingly clear that privacy reforms have not kept pace with the development of technology, and the result is that millions of Australians' data is at risk. We are lagging behind the world on making laws to protect privacy and limit corporate tracking of people. The government's failure to take this opportunity to act on that is deeply disappointing.</para>
<para>Under these laws, people will continue to be tracked across the internet, with their data sold through real-time bidding to advertisers but also potentially to scammers and others. Under these laws, corporations will monetise the data of individuals and be able to create profiles of them through data matching. Under these laws, poorly regulated data will continue to proliferate and everyone will be at risk as a result. It doesn't have to be this way. Jurisdictions around the world are drawing lines in the sand on privacy and standing up to the commercialisation of private data. In these places, governments have been willing to stand up against corporations exploiting personal and private information. It's time for that to happen here.</para>
<para>There is plenty more that should be in this bill, and the government's only response is that it might come at some unspecified point in the future in some tranche 2 privacy reforms. With the glacial pace of reform we have seen so far, no serious stakeholder, apart from the big social media platforms and online advertisers resisting privacy changes, has expressed any hope that the next round will be either timely or adequate. This is why we are reserving our position in the Senate and will be actively engaging in the Senate inquiry to make the changes needed now to keep our privacy, and that of our kids and friends, safe.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 12:55 to 13:08</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7244" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>128</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024. For many young people, starting university marks a new beginning in their lives. It is an opportunity to focus on an area of study they are passionate about and to make new experiences and forge new relationships. But it can also be a time when the reality of gendered based violence—a pervasive and longstanding issue here in Australia—becomes all too real.</para>
<para>The National Student Safety Survey found that one in six students had experienced sexual harassment since starting university and one in 10 had experienced sexual assault. Overwhelmingly this is an issue that affects more women than men, and it obviously affects transgender and non-binary people, who are overrepresented in the statistics. Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, only one in 30 students who were sexually harassed had made a formal complaint. Only half knew that there are formal reporting processes available to them or support services they could access.</para>
<para>This bill is for everyone who has experienced gender based violence at their university and who has been frustrated by the arduous, complicated processes they must go through to seek action—action that can be crucial for students' ongoing engagement with studies and moving forward with life. As my colleague, the Minister for Education, said when tabling this bill: 'Thousands of staff and students want our universities to be safer places to learn in, and they want a better system that does not re-traumatise those who come forward about their experiences.'</para>
<para>I'd like to particularly acknowledge the work of organisations like Fair Agenda and End Rape on Campus for their years of advocacy that have led to this moment. I'd also like to thank and acknowledge Patty Kinnersley, CEO of Our Watch, the national organisation for the primary prevention of violence against women and children, for her leadership of the working group which provided advice to the Minister for Education about how this ombudsman and other student safety measures could be delivered.</para>
<para>The National Student Ombudsman will enable all higher education students to escalate complaints about the actions of their higher education provider, including complaints relating to gender based violence and other student complaints if they are unsatisfied with their provider's response. Importantly, it will be independent, impartial and will provide higher education students with an effective trauma-informed complaints mechanism. A trauma-informed approach is crucial. The process to make a complaint has too often been a re-traumatising experience for victim-survivors, who are made to retell their stories over and over, or asked to resolve the issue informally. The ombudsman will have the power to make recommendations to providers about the administrative actions that should be taken to resolve a complaint and to work cooperatively with regulators to identify and respond to systemic issues and promote best practice complaints handling across the higher education sector.</para>
<para>The National Student Ombudsman will: consider whether decisions and actions taken by providers are unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, discriminatory or otherwise wrong; deal with a complaint while the provider is still considering the issue if there are unreasonable delays or the provider is acting unreasonably; recommend a provider takes specific steps to resolve a complaint where appropriate; share information with relevant regulators to further compliance action if needed; and offer a restorative engagement process between students and their provider where appropriate. The National Student Ombudsman aligns with the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children by addressing gender based violence through the lens of prevention, early intervention, response and recovery in healing.</para>
<para>Of course, this new ombudsman was a key action of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, agreed to by all education ministers on 23 February this year. The ombudsman's ability to identify and respond to systemic issues will be a huge step forward in seeing the change in the rates of violence in higher education settings through the prevention of further harm occurring at the systems level, and through improving, over time, the response of universities to individual situations. Trauma-informed, transparent and timely responses will also contribute to the recovery and healing of victims-survivors who experienced gender based violence at universities, and we hope this provides them with the support to continue their studies as they choose.</para>
<para>These powers of the new ombudsman will also go beyond assisting gender based violence. The same powers apply to a broad range of issues which students may have in relation to the conduct of their universities. Students with a disability will be able to use these powers to raise concerns about their reasonable accommodations, because all students have the right to a safe and supportive learning environment.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the Minister for Education's work to inform this bill by listening to the voice of victim-survivors and for his engagement with the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, which provides the national policy framework to guide the action of all Australian governments to end violence against women and children.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has made the safety of women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence a national priority. This bill is just one of our government's concerted efforts to end gendered based violence in one generation—efforts which have put the voices of victims-survivors and their lived experience at the centre of our work. We will continue to listen to those victims-survivors who share their experiences in the hope of creating change in relation to this legislation and further work to come through our mandatory national code for universities to prevent and respond to gender based violence. The national code will set standards that universities must meet to make their students and staff safer. The national code and this bill to establish a new ombudsman are examples of the Albanese Labor government's work to end gender based violence, and these efforts are well underway. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In August last year I attended the IDeserveSafety campaign launch to discuss institutional failings in responding to sexual violence on campus. After listening to the student survivors and their advocates, I happened to be in a meeting with the Minister for Education. I asked him to meet these young women, to hear their stories of issues on university campuses and to prioritise the issue of student safety. To his credit, the minister agreed to a meeting that afternoon, and we now see a national student ombudsman being appointed. This is a great outcome.</para>
<para>Student survivors have been publicly bearing their wounds for 60 years. Damning evidence from the 2021 National Student Safety Survey revealed systemic institutional neglect and consistent failures in addressing complaints of gender based violence at Australian universities. Issues of safety on campus are regularly flagged by constituents in my electorate—particularly from within the Gen Zoe youth group, who share heartbreaking stories of systemic failures and institutional betrayal. Their grievances are not new or uncommon.</para>
<para>The 2021 survey found that one in three university students in Australia have experienced sexual assault. Fifty per cent did not know how to report sexual violence and 74.5 per cent of victims-survivors did not seek help from their universities. These statistics are indicative of the severe institutional failures in addressing sexual violence at Australian universities. The gross lack of transparency, accountability and effective reporting mechanisms puts the onus on students who have been subjected to abuse and harm to attempt to pursue justice.</para>
<para>However, this issue cannot be articulated and understood with just numbers. This is about young people's lives. In support of Fair Agenda, End Rape on Campus and the STOP Campaign, I, with others, have been pushing for an independent body to identify and respond to systemic issues and gender based violence on campus. This request aligns with calls from students with lived experience for a national student ombudsman to increase accountability and transparency.</para>
<para>The current complaints process is horrific and unacceptable. Right now, there is no functional complaints mechanism for students at a higher education provider regarding any aspect of their higher education. Right now, there is no compulsion for self-regulating universities to implement good practices and to safeguard students from gender based violence. There is no nationally consistent process at all. Self-regulating universities cherrypick policy recommendations and have markedly different processes, depending on the campus. They handle complaints filed by student survivors of sexual violence in lengthy, secretive and unsatisfactory processes that retraumatise students. In the heartbreaking words of one student, 'Features that were designed to protect us instead facilitated more harm.'</para>
<para>The institutional betrayal and resulting mistrust leaves students feeling disheartened, abandoned and retraumatised. This is best personified by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, the current national higher education regulator. TEQSA processes are in many ways convoluted and unintelligible. They reduce victims-survivors' traumatic experiences to mere concerns. They can take years to respond, and if they don't find any institutional failures they don't publicly report them. One student described the process as a 'kind of purgatory that destroys a person'. TEQSA, 871 days after the complaint, communicated an impersonal and deeply unsatisfying outcome in a joint conclusion with another case. The student said: 'The person I've become seems unrecognisable. I resent every single change that has happened to me. Any growth is tainted by the damage it exists with, and there is so much damage.'</para>
<para>According to the STOP Campaign, the experiences of LGBTQIA+ students and students with disability are appallingly overlooked and minimised. For example, post-assault services geared towards cisgender women meant a trans masculine-presenting person was denied access after being assaulted on campus. When they reported the assault, the university refused to cater to them and allow them to participate in the complaints process. They faced discrimination throughout the process and their report was dismissed, forcing the survivor to live with the perpetrator for a month following the assault.</para>
<para>According to End Rape on Campus, TEQSA has never made an adverse finding against any university despite uncovering many shortcomings. Consequently, this actively discourages students from taking action. This distressing level of neglect is shocking. These institutions are meant to protect people. Universities are meant to foster learning and growth, yet these stories paint a sinister picture of the reality of campus life and the untold trauma that too many students have suffered for decades. This bill, the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024, is an attempt to change that.</para>
<para>It's hoped that establishing a national student ombudsman will be transformative for survivors and will finally hold universities responsible for the wellbeing and the safety of their students. It will address student complaints throughout our higher education system, spanning campuses nationwide, ensuring robust reporting provisions, transparency and genuine accountability. The ombudsman promises a vastly improved complaints mechanism, addressing not only gender based violence but all aspects of student welfare including discrimination, racism, varying academic needs and disability support. Universities will finally be penalised for ignoring their responsibilities. As End Rape on Campus says, 'Students will now have an independent body on their side. However, we cannot be complacent.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that the second piece of this legislation, the national code, is well underway. Its implementation will help ensure there are clear and nationally consistent standards for responding to gender based violence, empowering victims-survivors to call out institutional breaches of safety. The code will aim to determine the effectiveness of the ombudsman by specifying procedures for providers and offering clear guidelines for students to measure their satisfaction. However, any meaningful change will require urgency and a commitment to its swift implementation. I'll continue to pressure the parliament to ensure this remains a high priority. We must get this done.</para>
<para>We must also interrogate the staffing of the ombudsman's office and continue asking the right questions. For example, will the staff possess the necessary knowledge of higher education processes as well as adequate understanding of trauma informed care? How often will staff be expected to consult human rights, antidiscrimination and equal opportunity bodies, and experts in the gender based violence field? Will they accurately understand the sheer volume of complaints expected? Will student advocates be included in the complaints processes? The answers to these questions are integral to ensuring the intentions of this bill are realised.</para>
<para>There is absolutely no excuse for students to feel unsafe on campus. It is time for the government and universities to be held responsible for the wellbeing and safety of Australian students. This is long overdue. I will continue to advocate for increased integrity, accountability and transparency from higher education providers. We must continue with this momentum and pursue the implementation of the national code by the end of the year with urgency. I commend Sharna, Camille, Allison and Renee and the courageous student survivors for their tireless efforts to pressure this parliament to act. This is not just a higher education issue. This is an intergenerational problem of national concern, and we must recognise that. Gender based violence on campus reflects the pervasiveness of negative attitudes, which are plaguing our country at large, towards women and gender-diverse people. One in three women has experienced physical violence. One in five has experienced sexual violence. We need to get this right. We need to change future attitudes and behaviour if we hope to protect the next generation of prospective minds from violence on campus. This is preventable. This is just a first step. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For too long, our universities and our governments have failed to adequately address sexual harassment and sexual violence on our university campuses. The 2021 National Student Safety Survey found that one in 20 Australian students was sexually assaulted after starting university, one in six had been sexually harassed and one in two had felt that they weren't being heard when they made a complaint. Fourteen thousand three hundred students are sexually assaulted in university settings in this country every year. That's 275 every week. This is overwhelmingly a problem experienced by women and inflicted by men.</para>
<para>Addressing sexual assault and sexual harassment in universities was a first-order recommendation of both the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Universities Accord interim </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Universities Accord</inline><inline font-style="italic"> final report</inline>. Those reports found that the nominal regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, or TEQSA, had failed to protect students. Further, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia found in 2023 that TEQSA 'has continually failed to exercise the full breadth of its powers to hold universities accountable for their woeful responses' to sexual harassment and violence on campus. That Senate committee also found that universities commonly actively exacerbate the trauma of those subjected to sexual harassment under their remit by failing to provide them with readily accessible, timely and appropriate support.</para>
<para>This legislation now before the House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024, will create an independent National Student Ombudsman to investigate student complaints and resolve disputes with universities as a new statutory function of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The ombudsman will have strong investigative and dispute resolution powers to ensure that both domestic and international students can access an alternative, effective, trauma informed complaints mechanism when they are not satisfied with their higher education provider's response. The ombudsman's remit will also include students undertaking enabling, micro-credentialing and professional development courses, but not VET students. It's hoped that the National Student Ombudsman could start to receive complaints from as soon as 1 February 2025.</para>
<para>This ombudsman will allow higher education students to escalate complaints about the actions of their provider. This will include not only complaints about sexual assault and sexual harassment but also concerns regarding providers' handling of other matters such as homophobia, antisemitism or Islamophobia and other forms of racism and discrimination on campus. The ombudsman may consider a complaint about any action, other than excluded actions, taken by higher education providers. Those excluded actions, which will not be the subject of the ombudsman review, include areas relating to staff employment and appointments and their exercise of academic judgements.</para>
<para>The ombudsman's remit is therefore quite wide. It includes issues relating to students' safety and welfare; course administration; teaching quality; facilities; disciplinary processes; and reasonable adjustments for disability and student accommodation where they are owned or operated by the higher education provider. The ombudsman can require other students and third parties, as well as higher education provider officers, to provide information and records. People can be required to appear in front of the ombudsman to answer questions, but, if the ombudsman decides to investigate a complaint, the investigation does have to be conducted in private. Students will be kept informed at all times about handling of their complaints.</para>
<para>Importantly, the ombudsman does have the option to elect not to deal with a complaint where the complaint is being dealt with by other authorities; if the complainant has not first raised the complaint with the provider; if the complaint is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious; or if the ombudsman decides that the complaint is not in good faith.</para>
<para>The ombudsman can also elect to try to settle complaints using alternative dispute resolution or restorative engagement processes, and this might well be appropriate in cases involving serious historical complaints or complaints about gender based violence. The ombudsman can investigate the action of a single or multiple higher education providers on its own initiative where it chooses to do so and that might occur, for example, in response to concerns raised in the media or where several complainants have raised a similar issue.</para>
<para>At the conclusion of investigations, the ombudsman must report to the higher education provider if they form an opinion that the action taken by the provider seems to have been contrary to the law, if it was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory or was otherwise just wrong. In that case, the ombudsman might consider a particular action could be or should be undertaken to rectify, mitigate or alter the effects of that action taken by the higher education provider. The ombudsman can give a copy of their report and any feedback on it from the high education provider to any or all of the higher education minister, the secretary for the higher education department or the chief executive officer of TEQSA. The ombudsman will report to parliament annually on the extent and breadth of their activities, any trends or broader issues arising or any improvements that could be made to handling complaints. Where providers' responses are considered inadequate by the ombudsman, it is open to them to give the report to the higher education minister and request them to table copies of that report and the accompanying comments in both houses of parliament.</para>
<para>A higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence will also be established down the track as separate legislation. This code will require all providers registered with TEQSA and student accommodation providers to embed a whole-of-organisation approach to prevent and respond to gender based violence. That approach has to include regular and transparent data collection and reporting. According to experts in the area, Dr Allison Henry, only 15 of Australia's universities are currently publishing any consolidated information about the reports or disclosures of sexual violence they receive and, of those 15, only six are transparently reporting on how they respond.</para>
<para>This bill has been broadly welcomed by students, universities, peak bodies and other interested groups. I note that there are concerns from the university sector about the scope for subjectivity in the ombudsman's operations, the potential for wider coverage of university employers and the potential for ombudsman to interfere with academic judgement. I hope those concerns are appropriately covered by the stipulation in the legislation's explanatory memorandum that the bill does exclude decisions about the academic merit of grades awarded, about the content of curricula and about teaching and assessment methods. It is possible that students could try to use the ombudsman to pressure academics for special consideration or to avoid discipline for misconduct. Systemic cheating is, unfortunately, an expensive and difficult challenge for our universities. It is important that the ombudsman not get caught up in this issue.</para>
<para>Much of the basis for this legislation is the findings of the 2021 national student safety survey. The numbers in that survey, which I already quoted, were horrifying, particularly considering the survey was undertaken during COVID and it likely actively significantly underestimated the problem. That study was undertaken by Universities Australia, the peak body that represents Australia's tertiary institutions. Three yearly national student safety surveys were a central recommendation of the landmark <inline font-style="italic">Change </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">Course</inline> report into sexual violence on campus which was published in 2017. But, despite the Australian Human Rights Commission recommending that it do so, Universities Australia has not yet committed to a follow-up study. As recently as February 2024, researchers from the University of New South Wales Australian Human Rights Institute found that a third of Australian universities do not have task forces or committees set up to address sexual violence and many are not meeting the mark when it comes to transparency. On at least 14 instances since 2011, reports, reviews, charters and good practice guides have been published by regulators, advocates, researchers and the sector's own peak body with detailed recommendations for change and reform—to no end, until this time. So I am very pleased to see this legislation before the parliament now.</para>
<para>Women's safety on campus was first raised with me and with other crossbenchers in the first 18 months of this parliamentary term. We spoke then with a brave and fierce group of women from End Rape on Campus. I also want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the team from the STOP Campaign, Dr Allison Henry and all those who have fought for this important issue to be recognised and appropriately addressed by the Australian government.</para>
<para>Universities aren't just a place where people work and study. They're also a place where people live. Sexual assault on university campuses is not a new issue. Sadly, universities have abdicated their responsibility in this space for too long. It's time for women to be able to assert their right to be safe on campuses. It's time for universities and other education providers to respect and acknowledge that right. The government has had to take action on this occasion because the universities have not. So I thank the minister for introducing this legislation, and I'm pleased to give it the very full support of the universities, students and graduates of Kooyong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill before us today is a really important piece of legislation. As a representative of an electorate with two universities and as someone who has been both a university student and an academic, I am very passionate about this reform. This has been a very long time coming. There have been generations of people, particularly women, who have not felt safe on campus and who have discontinued their studies as a result of dangerous experiences on campuses, which is an absolute shame. I want to acknowledge at the outset the advocates for change in this area on campus who have been doing a lot of hard work for generations, both attempting to change the way universities themselves respond to complaints and also seeking further government intervention to ensure that all university campuses in Australia are safe places.</para>
<para>The Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 amends the Ombudsman Act to establish a national student ombudsman as a new statutory function of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It gives effect to recommendation 18b of the final report of the Universities Accord, which was a landmark piece of work from our Albanese Labor government. The Universities Accord was the biggest and broadest review of the higher education sector in 15 years, setting out a blueprint for higher education reform for the next decade and beyond. The establishment of a national student ombudsman is also the first action of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, which was agreed to by all education ministers earlier this year. Of course we need to ensure that, to meet our ambitions on the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children within a generation, we take action right across our communities, including in universities.</para>
<para>A little while ago, in my electorate, there was a roundtable hosted by Monash University which brought together representatives from almost every university in Victoria, members of the federal Department of Education and student and academic representatives to talk about what meaningful action to ensure that there is safety on campuses could look like. I was very privileged and honoured to be invited to that roundtable and to spend a day listening to experts in the field and students and staff reflecting on their own lived experiences. I reflect on the lived experiences of myself and my peers throughout my own academic life, both as a student and as a staff member in a university, and I recognise how important what we're doing today is: talking about introducing a new student ombudsman.</para>
<para>The National Student Ombudsman will really give rise to the action plan's recognition that higher education providers must play a role in driving broader social change needed to address gender based violence and that they have distinct responsibilities in relation to creating safe study, work, social and living environments. Unfortunately, a number of testimonies from people about their own poor experiences on campus relate to living in residential colleges. It is a shameful thing that people are not safe in their own homes, and colleges are people's own homes on campus, so, of course, universities have a role to play in ensuring everybody is safe.</para>
<para>The National Student Ombudsman will provide a national complaints-handling mechanism for all higher education students. It will be independent and impartial and will have a complaint-making process that is effective and accessible for students. Really significantly, it will adopt a trauma informed approach to complaint handling and bring parties together to resolve complaints through an alternative dispute resolution process as needed.</para>
<para>In the last budget, our government provided $19.4 million over two years to establish the National Student Ombudsman as an ongoing function of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This is a really important investment. The bill amends the Ombudsman Act to establish the National Student Ombudsman to have powers to handle complaints from all higher education students enrolled within a Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, registered provider about a broad range of issues related to their higher education provider. It will have the power to investigate a student's complaint or investigate an issue on its own motion, and to refer a complaint to another body if that body is better placed to deal with the complaint, and provide associated information and documents as part of the referral. It will offer a restorative engagement process between a student and a provider where appropriate. It will offer alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation and conciliation, to settle complaints where appropriate.</para>
<para>It will make recommendations to a provider about administrative steps that should be taken to resolve a complaint; require a provider to give particulars about any action they propose to take in response to their recommendations; disclose information and provide investigation reports to the Department of Education and TEQSA where relevant; and provide the Minister for Education with a copy of an investigation report for tabling in parliament if the National Student Ombudsman considers the higher education provider has not taken appropriate action in response to its findings or recommendations. It can publicly disclose reports or make a statement if, in the National Student Ombudsman's opinion, it is in the public interest to do so; and it will report annually on complaint volumes, complaint outcomes and compliance with recommendations. This is a really robust and thorough approach to ensuring that our government and universities are taking appropriate action and taking the role we need to in order to address and eliminate gender based violence on campuses and right throughout our communities.</para>
<para>Before a report that includes criticism of a provider is finalised, the provider must also be given an opportunity to comment to allow for some fairness there. Other complaint bodies, such as state and territory ombudsmen, will be authorised to share information with and refer a complaint to the National Student Ombudsman to facilitate the referral of sensitive matters. There will be protection from reprisals here too. It will be an offence for a person to threaten another person or subject them to detriment because that other person has made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a complaint to the National Student Ombudsman.</para>
<para>This is a really significant step forward in the government's approach to eliminating gendered violence within a generation, which is, of course, the national ambition for all governments across the country. The fact that this will be an independent and trauma informed complaints mechanism should provide a level of comfort to people who take the often very difficult step of raising a complaint. We know it's not easy for people to voice their complaints. Indeed, in the past, if people have not felt that they would be listened to or that their complaints would be taken seriously, they have simply disengaged from study, and that is a terrible outcome. I hope that, through the establishment of a national student ombudsman, people will feel confident in coming forward to their education providers and that this step really sets a standard around the expectations our communities have about safety on campuses.</para>
<para>This student ombudsman proposal was a really important part of the conversations I've had with students right across my electorate and with parents across my electorate. I undertook a survey around the issue of higher education in my electorate, and I had hundreds of responses. Student safety was consistently raised as a very important issue, and it makes me feel really pleased to be part of a government that is taking action on an issue that matters so much to my local community. This is of course the key action of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education. All education ministers signed up to this. It will commence from 1 February next year. I hope that this finally shifts the dial on safety on campus. When I speak to students in my electorate in coming years around how they are experiencing their university lives, I hope that student safety and gender based violence ceases to be such a significant issue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just over a year ago a group of brave young women came to see me. Among them were Renee Carr from Fair Agenda, Sharna Bremner from End Rape on Campus Australia and Camille Schloeffel from the STOP Campaign. They shared their stories, and those of other brave young women, about the appalling levels of sexual harassment and assault at Australian universities. They told me about the devastating impact of this violence and about the trauma that they faced as well as the institutional failures that compounded that trauma. Their failures affect student wellbeing, disrupt educational outcomes and damage survivors' career prospects.</para>
<para>The group shared a particularly sobering statistic with me: there are approximately 14,000 sexual assaults on campus per year, or 275 sexual assaults each week every week. Equally alarming was that only six per cent of students who experienced sexual assault reported it to their university. Of those who did report, less than one in three were satisfied with how their university handled the process. These statistics reflect a deep and systemic failure in our higher educational institutions to support the survivors of sexual assault.</para>
<para>The young women didn't come for sympathy. They came for action. Immediately after meeting them, I, along with others, raised this issue with the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and I appreciate that he took immediate action in meeting with these young women and, since then, has taken action, culminating in this bill today. I want to acknowledge other members of the crossbench, including Senator Pocock, because I've been proud to stand with them to demand real, meaningful change and the change that will be achieved by the passing of the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024. Today, after months of tireless advocacy and the bravery of the students who came forward to tell their stories, I'm proud to see that their efforts are being reflected in the bill before the House.</para>
<para>This bill gives effect to recommendation 18(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian universities accord final report</inline> and implements the first action of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, agreed upon by all education ministers in February 2024. The bill establishes a national student ombudsman, NSO—an independent body to provide a national impartial complaints-handling mechanism for all higher education students. This makes a significant step forward in addressing long-standing criticism of how universities have responded to complaints of sexual assault, harassment and campus safety.</para>
<para>The NSO will have broad powers to handle complaints from higher education students across a wide range of issues; offer restorative engagement processes and alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation and conciliation; make recommendations to universities or providers about steps to resolve complaints and monitor their implementation; refer complaints to other bodies when they are better placed to respond; and report annually on complaint volumes, outcomes and compliance with recommendations. The NSO will adopt a trauma informed approach to complaint handling, ensuring survivors are supported throughout the process. There are also provisions to protect complainants from reprisals. These are all important provisions. I also urge the government to ensure the new ombudsman is properly resourced for the significant work it will need to undertake, to ensure the ombudsman has access to appropriate expertise and training to handle complaints across a broad range of issues and to make sure that the ombudsman has sufficient powers such that recommendations are implemented by the universities in full.</para>
<para>In addition to the provisions in this bill, I urge the government to rapidly implement the other areas of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education. These include requiring universities to embed a whole-of-organisation approach to preventing and responding to gender based violence; introducing a national higher education code to establish consistent standards across the sector; and enhancing oversight and accountability for student accommodation providers.</para>
<para>This bill is a welcome step forward in addressing unacceptable levels of violence and harassment in our universities. It recognises the pain and suffering of survivors and commits to providing an independent trauma based mechanism. It also shows the government is listening to survivors, advocates and the broader community. I commend the minister for taking these important steps to address the failures of the past and to protect our students in the future.</para>
<para>While this bill addresses gender based violence, it is also important to recognise there are other challenges facing students on campus—most notably, from the reports I've had in my community, the recent and alarming rise of antisemitism, which has been concentrated particularly on university campuses. Last year, even before the tragic events of October 7, the Australian Jewish University Experience Survey revealed that nearly two-thirds of Jewish students had experienced antisemitic incidents. More than 50 per cent felt they had to hide their Jewish identity, and since October 7 these incidences have only escalated. This is a tragedy. This is a tragedy for Jewish students and this is a tragedy for this country because we are a country built on the basis that you are welcome in all our institutions and in this parliament. Regardless of your faith, your ethnic origin or your sexuality, you are welcome. That our Jewish students do not feel welcome and, in cases, are unsafe is absolutely unacceptable in any institution, particularly our educational institutions.</para>
<para>In November last year I conducted a survey with Jewish students to understand what had changed since October 7, and they shared with me really distressing accounts of rising antisemitism. They spoke of antisemitic social media posts, Nazi symbols being put into their backpacks, a disregard for Jewish grieving after October 7 and having food thrown at them for wearing a kippah on campus. Just yesterday, in a commemoration for October 7, I spoke again to students from this local area, who talked about having symbols of Hitler and the Nazis put on the door literally next to their own door at university and seeing stickers saying 'Zionism is terrorism' throughout the campus. This is what our students are having to deal with. The students I spoke to yesterday are standing up and trying hard. They are trying to create opportunities to be positive. One of them told me about how he is trying to fight the negativity by doing really positive, big Jewish events celebrating Judaism on campus and trying to get people drawn in to understand this. They had a stall where they said 'Judaism and Zionism: come ask us any questions'. They are seeking to engage constructively on one of the issues that is most difficult across our country at the moment, and they are still facing this overwhelming level of antisemitism on campus. It is unacceptable.</para>
<para>The recent Senate inquiry highlighted Jewish students are pulling back from attending university because they do not feel safe or welcome. I've talked to so many parents in my area who are now questioning whether their kids should go to university in Australia, whether they are welcome anymore. This is again a tragedy for all of us. We must change this. Universities must be a place where all students are welcome. Whilst I continue to support a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus, the new ombudsman is also an important tool for ensuring that students have a clear, independent avenue for raising complaints, including in relation to antisemitism. Again, I have heard so often from students about (1) their disappointment with how the complaints have been handled, and (2) their fear of making complaints about antisemitism because it might affect their academic prospects. Again, this is absolutely unacceptable.</para>
<para>I encourage the NSO to undertake a number of actions as it takes on its new role, particularly in relation to antisemitism: firstly, adopt a definition of antisemitism that the Jewish community supports—and I would encourage them to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to help them guide their responses to antisemitism; secondly, use this definition when understanding and assessing complaints; thirdly, establish a working group with Jewish students and with community leaders to help understand the student experience; and, finally, work with others, including the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, in developing a best practice guide for preventing antisemitism on campus and how to deal with it. I've been working with AUJS in relation to developing such a guide, and I hope that we will have that completed in a couple of months. I urge the NSO, when it is established, to engage with this and to expect more from our universities and set the standards much higher.</para>
<para>In closing, this bill represents a much-needed step towards creating a safer, more accountable university environment, but it must be accompanied by broader reforms, including those outlined in the action plan addressing gender based violence, and efforts to combat rising antisemitism and, frankly, any prejudice that people face in our universities, because that is unacceptable. I look forward to seeing the National Student Ombudsman play a pivotal role in restoring trust and ensuring the safety and dignity of all students in our higher education system. Again, I thank the minister for his engagement on this and for the action that he has taken in this regard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset, I acknowledge the minister in the chamber. I also pay tribute to the member for Wentworth for her comments about antisemitism in our tertiary institutions. I thank her for turning up too. I know it's important to her. I know it's very much part and parcel of her electorate. To the solidarity with Israel function on Monday, on the anniversary of the October 7 atrocities in the Middle East: I thank her for her continued advocacy for and on behalf of people of the Jewish faith who have been absolutely maligned in this country, particularly in the last 12 months since those attacks. She, like me and like all members, is absolutely horrified by what has taken place and by the lack of social cohesion in our country.</para>
<para>Whatever we can do, particularly in our tertiary institutions—it is not right that students feel pressured simply because of their faith. It is not right that students should require security to go to their place of learning. This must be stamped out, and it must be spoken up against. If we can't do it in this place, then where can we do it?</para>
<para>I appreciate that the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 is an important initiative for the government, but I recommend and encourage the very important amendment put forward by the member for Bradfield—somebody who comes to this space and place with a long love of education and who wants to improve the lot of our students at our universities. Having spoken to Renee Leon PSM, the Vice-Chancellor of Charles Sturt University, which has a campus in my hometown of Wagga Wagga, I know how important it is for regional students to feel safe and for regional students to get the very best education at that facility, which was established in 1989. I know how important all these things are, particularly because of having gone around the country with Senator Deb O'Neill and others in relation to a joint select committee inquiry, looking into what we should and can be doing as members of parliament for international students, following on from the worst of the COVID pandemic when international students found it so difficult to either go back home or continue to study in Australia because the international borders were closed.</para>
<para>I have just tabled a report which contains many good recommendations that the government would be well advised to adopt to improve international education. This particular bill, which seeks to establish a student ombudsman, in addition to other measures, will be far better if the amendment put forward by the Manager of Opposition Business in the House is adopted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 is long overdue. This bill amends the Ombudsman Act 1976 to establish a national student ombudsman. This is a first: a dedicated national body to handle student complaints within our higher education system.</para>
<para>The National Student Ombudsman will have powers to investigate complaints about a broad range of issues, to bring parties together to resolve those issues, including offering restorative engagement processes and alternative dispute resolution where appropriate, to make findings and recommendations on what actions universities should take, and to monitor the implementation of those recommendations. It will also have strong investigative powers, similar to those of a royal commission. They include to require a person or university to provide information, documents or other records relevant to an investigation; to enter premises of a university as part of that investigation; and to require a person to attend and answer questions before the ombudsman.</para>
<para>The ombudsman is another recommendation of the Universities Accord which the government is turning into reality. As I said when I introduced this bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ombudsman will be independent, impartial and will provide a vastly improved complaints mechanism.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And it will go further than addressing gender based violence in universities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will be able to consider and address a broad range of complaints made by students about the actions of their university.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For example, complaints about a university's handling of a student safety and welfare matter, where a student is subjected to homophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism or discrimination on campus …</para></quote>
<para>I thank all members who've contributed to this debate including the Minister for Social Services, the member for Goldstein, the member for Bradfield, the member for Kooyong, the member for Wentworth, the member for Chisholm and the member for Riverina. I also thank the opposition in advance for their support for this bill.</para>
<para>The opposition has foreshadowed a second reading amendment. The government is not in a position to support that and perhaps I can add to the record some explanation as to why. The rules for the National Student Ombudsman are currently being drafted by the Attorney-General's Department and will be completed prior to the commencement of the National Student Ombudsman. These rules will be able to prescribe certain matters related to the National Student Ombudsman's exercise of its powers and functions. Among other things, the bill specifically allows for the rules to prescribe the Commonwealth, state and territory bodies that can transfer complaints to the National Student Ombudsman and to prescribe matters that are, or are not, excluded actions.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I'd also like to thank the organisations and advocates who have worked with me and my department to help make this change a reality. They include Sharna Bremner from End Rape on Campus, Camille Schloeffel from the STOP Campaign, Renee Carr from Fair Agenda and Dr Allison Henry. We are only here, to be honest, because of their tireless work. Australia is the best country in the world, but the truth is we can be a lot better and a lot fairer. That's what these reforms are all about. It's what this bill is all about. I commend it to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Bradfield has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>136</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7241" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>136</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Whilst the Albanese Labor government will tell you that this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024, will help reduce red tape, there are many of us who suspect or know otherwise. We cannot forget the hypocrisy that Labor has shown when it comes to all things tax.</para>
<para>On 1 July, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, the member for Whitlam, announced significant new regulations and obligations for tax practitioners, planned to come into effect a month from then, on 1 August. This rushed announcement left many in the tax industry scrambling, fearing failure to comply by the starting date. This is so typical of Labor. They tell you that stakeholders, people with an interest in these matters, have been engaged with and consulted, yet anything such as that is furthest from the truth.</para>
<para>It was yet another example of Labor making the rules for the big end of town as they go along. Huge multinational accounting firms would have had the capacity and resources to make the changes necessary to adhere to these new obligations. I come from a regional area, and the businesses, including tax firms and accountancy practices, in my electorate don't have teams of people such as compliance officers, legal eagles and the like to meet the obligations or certainly to meet the expectation by the government that they would within four weeks adhere to the transformational—I use that word perhaps unwisely—regulations that were being brought in. I say 'unwisely' because, when you get transformational, usually it seems to be or should be a positive thing, and these weren't positive things. These were just more bureaucracy, red tape and onerous impositions being placed on small businesses. We only have to look at the number of small businesses going out the door backwards today, in figures released overnight, to see how badly small business is going under this Labor regime.</para>
<para>Small regional accounting firms, already inundated during tax season, would have had to face an unrealistic timeframe to comply with the new regulations Labor was introducing. Numerous concerns were being raised about these changes, and it was only halfway through July when the Tax Practitioners Board came out with further clarification, stating that guidance materials to assist tax practitioners in upholding the new obligations were yet to come and were expected to be released—wait for this—in September. After considerable uproar and calls by the coalition to withdraw the changes and conduct further consultations, the minister, the member for Whitlam, made a last-minute decision on the day before the changes were due to go into effect to extend start dates to 1 July 2025 for firms with 100 or fewer employees and 1 January 2025 for firms for 101 or more employees. This was a last-minute win for the industry and for common sense, but it was a stark reminder, a chilling reminder if you like, of just how poorly this government consults with industry and with stakeholders. This government in this respect has form.</para>
<para>The 72,000 tax practitioners across Australia deserve clarity, they deserve better engagement from government when changes such as these are introduced. But you see right across the board, with the tax changes that Labor has either made or threatened to put in place—it's not just in financial services; it is, as I said, right across the board. It's in such things as the biosecurity levy—call it a tax; call it what it is—that Labor was going to put on our farmers. This levy was to pay for overseas goods to sit on the same shelves as our local homegrown products, and yet our farmers were going to be asked to pay for the biosecurity of their overseas competitors. What other country in the world would do that? What other country would expect its own farmers to pay for the biosecurity of their overseas competitors? It makes no sense.</para>
<para>Then of course we had that real doozy where the government was going to put an impost on our farmers for the increased land valuation of their farms and these farmers would be expected, even though the land was not for sale, to pay the tax office the incremental increase in the value of their land because their land value had increased. These sorts of things are just nuts, particularly for our farmers. And land prices have generally been going up and up in recent years, and in some cases from a low base.</para>
<para>Take a farmer from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area whose holding has increased in price—let's say it's doubled in value. Why should that farmer have to pay an amount to the ATO simply because the value of his or her land has gone up? They've just been hit with an unseasonable frost which has wiped out their grape crop or their grain crop, if they're a grain grower. They've had their annual income just stripped, just wiped out, and yet they're then expected, because their land value has gone up, that they somehow owe the government something, they somehow owe the tax office something because the price of their land has increased. These policies are not well thought through. These are not policies made by people who have a sense and an understanding of regional Australia, of agriculture. Let's not forget that those opposite simply can't be trusted when it comes to tax policy. They simply can't.</para>
<para>Well done to Labor for two surplus budgets, but not well done for the fact those budgets have not been made on the back of any economic rationality or policies. They've been done on the back of the fact that global prices for iron ore, and for coal in particular, are peaking at the moment. They're at record levels. It's nothing to do with the Treasurer's, the member for Rankin's policies. It was on the back of some very hard, diligent work done by the former Treasurer, the former member for Kooyong, that set in place the markers by which this government could then come in on the back of, post pandemic. Once things settled in that regard, once the international borders were reopened, the economy got back in shape and we got record prices for those mining commodities. Then we, of course, have the Greens running around, wanting to shut all mining down, full stop. The member for Griffith throws his head back and sighs loudly, but it's true.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry; I've now stirred him into action. Our country once rode on the sheep's back, and wool prices kept our economy going very nicely, thank you very much. In more recent decades, it's been on the back of the hard work, determination and sweat on the brow of our miners. We have a government which is wanting to talk its credibility up in the tax space, through the treasury laws amendment and other measures bill and through other bills. Yet, on the other hand, it has stopped live sheep exports, cruelling that industry which has been going for many many decades and which has been particularly profitable for Western Australian farmers, many of whom know nothing else; that's what they do for a living. So what did the government do? It put more than $100 million on the table in the last budget—as the highest expenditure item for the Labor government in agriculture in the 2024-25 budget—to shut down an industry, to stop doing something and to stop our farmers doing what they do best in the whole world.</para>
<para>In the budget before last under this Labor government, we had a Treasurer who, for the very first time in 25 years, couldn't bring himself to use the word 'infrastructure' and also talked about the things that we 'sell overseas'. I put that in quotes because the things that we sell overseas are—yes—agriculture but primarily the big-ticket items. The big profit-making items at the moment are iron ore and coal. Of course, he can't bring himself to say that because then he doesn't want those Greens in those inner city electorates saying how terrible that is that you've got a Treasurer running around using that four-letter word 'coal'.</para>
<para>After weeks of speculation, Australians still don't know with real clarity if the Prime Minister or the Treasurer will impose broken-promise tax hikes. They do not know that. But I note with interest that there has been a flurry of activity around the Chamber and around the parliament in the past 24 hours. One just suspects—one just gets this little inkling—that there might be an election coming before we know it. It is due before the end of May—we all know that—but you just get the sense that Labor's hurriedly getting the deckchairs in line. Let's hope, for his sake, that the Prime Minister is not like Captain Smith on the <inline font-style="italic">Titanic</inline>.</para>
<para>Voters out there are concerned. They are concerned because they think back to what it was like pre-May 2022, when a house was more affordable, when going to the supermarket didn't mean that you needed to almost extend the mortgage, when filling up at the petrol station—albeit petrol prices at Wagga Wagga at the moment are the cheapest in the state.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They are; it's good. But, generally speaking, fuel prices have been way too high. The cost of living has gone through the roof. People do not feel they are better off now than what they were prior to this government coming in. This government has pushed prices up and up and up. The inflation is on Labor's watch. It's on the member for Rankin's watch.</para>
<para>Challenged in parliament on 8 October, the Treasurer said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We've made it really clear that our policy is not to knock off negative gearing or the capital gains discount.</para></quote>
<para>Well, we'll believe that when we see it. Does this mean no change? Does it mean some change? What does it actually mean? Does it mean that negative gearing stands to be gutted under Labor, remaining in name only?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear, 'Hear, hear.' The member for Griffith might actually have a chat to some of his Greens colleagues who own more houses than the average Australian. He might just have a chat to his deputy leader, Senator Faruqi, who recently bulldozed some trees; I think that was at her Port Macquarie property. We talk about hypocrisy. There it is, absolutely writ large. But this is of concern to many Australians who have worked hard, who are property investors, and why shouldn't people be able to invest?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know that under your communist regime you would love everybody's wealth to be distributed but, in a capitalist country like Australia and a free and fair democracy, people are entitled to earn money and then to spend that money on what they like rather than have to give it to somebody who doesn't want to work, who doesn't want to actually do anything for a living and who then expects a handout to the government.</para>
<para>Let me tell you, the biggest concern whether it is the treasury laws amendment or whether it is any other tax policy is that the Greens never get any say on the Treasury benches of this country because if they did then God help us all. God help those property investors. God help anybody who has any investment or any money tucked away anywhere because the Greens will come for it. Labor could do very well and very nicely, thank you very much, if they put the Greens last on their ballot paper. Take a leaf out of my book. Have a look at any of my how to vote cards in any of the elections I've ever run. The Greens have always been last and will always be last.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens support this bill in the House but reserve our position for the bill in the Senate. I would like to speak to a particular schedule of the bill which ensures foreign residents selling property in Australia don't dodge their capital gains tax obligations. While we support this, we would like to note that the second reading speech of the minister, Stephen Jones, indicated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These changes help to level the playing field between Australian and foreign investors, by ensuring foreign investors selling a real property asset (such as a residential property) are subject to the same overall tax obligations as Australians.</para></quote>
<para>The explanatory memorandum of the bill states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This measure complements the Government's initiatives to improve housing affordability for Australians.</para></quote>
<para>The government is admitting that if you force foreign investors to actually pay their capital gains tax obligations, this improves housing affordability. Yet the government blatantly refuses to acknowledge that the Greens' call to phase out negative gearing and CGT for Australian investors would improve housing affordability. In fact, it is sort of remarkable that this Labor government is intervening to level the playing field for Australian investors competing with foreign investors but says nothing about all of the attempted first home buyers in this country, who get screwed over every time they go to an auction and face a property investor with tax handouts in their pocket from this Labor government. Because the reality is that, in the middle of one of the worst housing crises we have seen in generations, this Labor government is giving billions of dollars in tax handouts to property investors while single mums choose between feeding their kids or paying their rent. Over the next 10 years Labor will dish out $176 billion in tax handouts through the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing to property investors. This includes property investors with 10, 20, 30, 50 investment properties, who collectively get billions of dollars in tax handouts from this government.</para>
<para>Let's be clear about what these tax handouts do. First of all, they turbocharge house prices. Since John Howard introduced the capital gains tax discount, house prices have surged ahead of wages. People wonder why young people and people struggling to buy houses are so angry and disappointed. It is because there are members in this place, for instance, the Prime Minister, who was able to buy a house in Marrickville in the 1990s for just over $100,000—three to four times the average income. Now, if you tried to buy a house in Marrickville you would be paying between 30 to 40 times the average income. People are not angry that there are members in this place who got that opportunity; people are angry that we are being denied that opportunity, that millions of Australians are being denied that opportunity.</para>
<para>The fact is a young person graduating from university today will graduate with a massive uni debt while a lot of members in this place got their university education for free. When that person goes to try and buy a house, they are locked out of a property market where house prices are turbocharged because property investors get billions of dollars in tax handouts from Labor that drive up house prices and deny millions of renters the chance to buy a home.</para>
<para>How is it fair that, in the middle of this massive housing crisis, the government found it in their heart to say, 'Well, when economic conditions change so does government policy.' They changed the stage 3 tax cuts but still ensured that every politician in this place gets 4½ thousand dollars a year off their tax but at the same time refuse to make any changes to negative gearing or the capital gains discount, the massive tax handouts to property investors that are denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home. Imagine if we phased out those tax handouts. A few things would happen. Even conservative modelling shows that an extra 400,000 renters could buy a home. It would probably be far more. It would stop the massive increases in house prices that are denying millions of renters the chance to ever buy a home. But, crucially, it would free up billions of dollars in revenue that we could put to work building public housing.</para>
<para>I put this question to every member in this place: in a massive housing crisis, amid the talk about needing to build more housing, why is it that we're giving $176 billion in tax handouts to property investors to hoard housing, most of which has already been constructed, when we could put that money towards building hundreds of thousands of good quality homes that we could then rent and sell at prices people can actually afford? I think Labor has really misunderstood the depth of feeling and frustration and deep disappointment in this government. People expect Labor governments to be the ones that reform things that improve people's lives, yet what we've got is a 'Liberal-lite' government that has deeply disappointed millions of people.</para>
<para>I urge Labor members in this place to think about what Gough Whitlam was able to do: provide free university education and establish a federal department that helped coordinate the construction of hundreds of thousands of public homes—real, substantial reforms that improved people's lives. Why is it that the millions of Australians who are right now suffering through one of the worst housing crises we've seen in generations have to put up with worse than tinkering around the edges? The bottom line is this: when you have millions of people giving up on ever being able to buy a home and when you have parents terrified about how their kids will ever be able to buy a home and grandparents terrified about how their grandchildren will ever be able to buy a home, it's incumbent upon this government to take real substantial action to help those millions of people. The first thing they can do is to stop giving property investors billions of dollars in tax handouts to drive up the price of housing and lock out millions of potential first home buyers.</para>
<para>All we're asking for is the same opportunity that people like the Prime Minister got. All we're asking for is the same opportunity that people in the 1980s and 1990s got in this country. We're not asking for much. In a wealthy country like Australia, it seems reasonable to expect that, regardless of your background or the family circumstances you're born into, you have the opportunity to buy an affordable house and build a good life. Are we really saying that, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we're just going to accept as normal that millions of people struggle to pay the rent, give up on ever being able to buy a home and often have to choose between feeding their kids or paying the rent? How is that acceptable in a wealthy country like Australia?</para>
<para>It's deeply unacceptable because there are solutions to this: phase out negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount—the tax handouts for property investors denying renters the chance to buy a home; invest the savings in establishing a government owned developer that builds hundreds of thousands of good quality homes that we can sell and rent at prices that people can actually afford; and coordinate national caps on rent increases so you don't cop massive rent increases that deny people the chance to save up to buy a home in the first place. All we're proposing are solutions which have worked in Australia before, which work around the world and which will help millions of people.</para>
<para>I urge Labor to stop picking the side of property investors with 10 or 20 investment properties. By the way, I note that 75 per cent of the Labor caucus and of Labor members in this place own investment properties, and 65 per cent of coalition MPs own investment properties. The reality is that both of those parties don't want to remove any of the tax handouts for property investors or phase any of them out, and they wonder why people are so upset.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Petrie has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>140</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7238" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>140</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Aged-care reform is a really important part of our government's agenda. I remember, during the election campaign in 2022, speaking to people in my community about our ambition to make sure that our older Australians were treated with dignity and respect, because, unfortunately, we saw that this was not the case, and we also saw that the previous government were not taking adequate action to ensure that they were. Aged care is really important to communities right across the country, because this is something that almost everyone has been touched by in some way, whether they are already experiencing living in aged care themselves, whether they have a family member or other loved one in aged care, or whether they are thinking about their own future and what that might mean for their own care. This is something that every single person in this country has a stake in, and I'm really proud to be part of a government that is taking the necessary action to ensure that older people, now and in the future, will be treated with the dignity and respect that they absolutely deserve. I commend the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Aged Care for their diligent focus in being able to deliver these significant reforms.</para>
<para>The Aged Care Bill 2024 will replace the Aged Care Act and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act. This is a landmark, once-in-a-generation reform that will shape the way we support people to live independently and with dignity as they age. This bill builds on the already significant work the Albanese Labor government has done to improve the quality of aged care and increase the wages of aged-care workers, who are incredibly hardworking, compassionate, skilled people who have always been dedicated to the people they look after. I think we particularly saw their dedication and their love during the worst parts of the COVID pandemic, and I really want to note the enormous contribution they made during that time and, of course, every single day both before and since that time.</para>
<para>This bill responds directly to recommendations 1 to 3 of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and it addresses 58 recommendations in total. Since the tabling of the royal commission report in 2021, 136 recommendations have been addressed. Notably, 94, the vast majority of these recommendations, have been addressed by the Albanese Labor government. This legislation is going to deliver a rights based aged-care system; a new program to support older people to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible; a new regulatory framework and a stronger regulator; new quality standards; and fair co-contributions to make the Australian aged-care system sustainable into the future. This includes the reforms we legislated through the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Act 2022 and the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Act 2022, including the requirement to have a registered nurse onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This bill will place high-quality, safe and compassionate care and services for older people at the centre of the system.</para>
<para>This bill includes a statement of rights for older people and a positive duty for providers to uphold those rights; a single entry point to the aged-care system, with clear eligibility requirements and a fair culturally safe assessment process; the framework for delivery of a range of aged-care services, including residential care and the new Support at Home program; and fair co-contributions from those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their aged care—this is to make sure the aged-care system is sustainable into the future. It includes mechanisms for the Commonwealth to fund aged-care services, including aged-care related grant programs; a new approach to regulating aged care which will balance explicit incentives for continuous improvement in high-quality care, including through new quality standards and stronger regulatory powers to protect people from harm; and a new ministerially appointed complaints commissioner and whistleblower protections to make sure older people, workers and others have clear pathways to raise concerns about the quality of aged-care services.</para>
<para>Aged care is an issue that my office and, I suspect, the offices of many in this place are contacted about all the time. We're anxious to see our older residents treated with the best and safest care possible. I visited a number of aged-care facilities in my own electorate of Chisholm, including with Minister Anika Wells. I'm so inspired by the people who dedicate their lives to working in aged care, who are absolutely the most compassionate and caring people you could hope to meet. I'm glad we're building a system that supports them to do their work but also supports the people who live in aged care to live full and rich lives throughout their ageing process and supports people to age at home as well; we know that, increasingly, people want to age at home and enjoy the comforts of the life they've built for themselves over many years in their communities.</para>
<para>I will summarise the new aged-care chapters. Chapter 1 outlines the objects and enacts a statement of rights for older people and a statement of principles. It includes important definitions and key concepts, like what we mean when we talk about high-quality care. The aim of the bill is to ensure that, in conjunction with other legislation, we give effect to Australia's obligations under international human rights treaties and provide a forward-thinking, robust system of aged care. This chapter also sets out how supporters and representatives can assist people to navigate the aged-care system.</para>
<para>Chapter 2 steps through in detail when and how people can access the aged-care system, bringing together the complex multiple-entry pathways that were criticised by the royal commission. It creates a single, culturally safe entry and assessment pathway. This is really important for people who are entering into the aged-care system who we know may already be quite worried about what the future looks like. This will provide them with some certainty, structure and comfort. The assessment will actively involve older people in discussions about the services they need to support them as they age, and the assessment will be fair and equitable, knowing that we've got to get the balance right around what is funded by taxpayers and what is a co-funded part of the system.</para>
<para>Chapter 3 outlines how aged-care providers must register with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the conditions that apply to registration. It sets out general obligations that apply to providers, responsible persons, workers and digital platform providers.</para>
<para>Chapter 4 outlines the detailed funding arrangements for aged care and implements the recommendations of a taskforce established in 2023 to deliver a fair framework for individuals to contribute to the cost of their own care when they have the means to do so. This is to ensure that our aged-care system is financially sustainable and enduring, and able to stand up to meet the needs of an ageing population in Australia.</para>
<para>Chapter 5 outlines the functions of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, the system governor, the new independent complaints commissioner, and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council.</para>
<para>Chapter 6 provides the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner and the department with regulatory powers consistent with those of other Commonwealth regulators. This is really important.</para>
<para>Chapter 7 protects certain aged-care information and data and balances those protections against the need for information transparency. Significantly, this chapter facilitates the use, collection and disclosure of aged-care information and data where it is necessary for the proper operation of the aged-care system and for other appropriate purposes.</para>
<para>Chapter 8 details important operational matters: appropriating consolidated revenue for the purpose of funding aged care, delegation of decision-making authority, specifying those decisions that may be reconsidered and externally reviewed; and outlining our plans to review the aged-care system in the future.</para>
<para>I think we can all agree in this place, or at least I hope we can all agree, that it is a really fundamental role of government to make sure that everybody in our communities is treated with dignity and respect and has their health and basic needs met. Our rights based approach to aged care and the reforms that we have already implemented and seek to implement through the introduction of this legislation will mean that we have a sustainable, robust and compassionate system that is fit for use now and well into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Aged Care Bill 2024 is a very important bill. The aged-care industry is a huge part of Australian life and has been through huge changes over the last 10 to 15 years. We've been through the royal commission, and there's not much that's been said in the explanatory memorandum or in speeches in the second reading debate about all the things that we had already done. It's almost like this bill is meant to rewrite history.</para>
<para>I want to put on the record that most of the recommendations of the royal commission were enacted already by the last government. There was an extra $18 billion added to the aged-care budget by Senator Richard Colbeck and Minister Greg Hunt, who were the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services and the Minister for Health and Aged Care respectively. We already had an Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and Commissioner, although, from reading the documents, one would think this is a new position. I just want to put that on the public record. Also, we created funding for thousands more home-care places, which are part of the aged-care spectrum of care. We have many more people who are cared for at home. The plans to merge simple assistance at home with aged-care packages and put them all in one homogeneous system were a policy development of the last government.</para>
<para>We're obviously supporting this bill because we support the aged-care industry, but I would like to make some other comments. It's all very well to say we have the new means-tested user-pays entry, but it appears that not everyone is paying more—just self-funded retirees, who again are cross-subsidising those who don't pay as much. Fortunately, due to the negotiations by our shadow minister for aged care and health, the terms and conditions are grandfathered for those who are already in or have signed up for an aged-care situation, so they won't be giving an extra amount of refundable accommodation deposit and they won't be charged more than what they signed up for, There is a lifetime cap of $130,000 on the contributions, but that only includes funding of their home-care package contributions and their non-clinical care. So if you get to the stage in aged care where you are the means tested funder, you may well go over that $130,000, because they define clinical care as different from independent support and everyday living. As I mentioned, they seem to be trying to rebrand the aged care commissioner, who has slightly more powers. But we had addressed a lot of the things when it is sort of implied that this is the legislation that is finally fixing up this whole tranche of problems. It's a new act, but a lot of the recommendations from the royal commission, the vast, vast majority, were already addressed in the last period of coalition governments.</para>
<para>I might add there are a few other comments I would like to make. Not only was there the development of a lifetime cap and a time-limited cap as well of four years, we also put in a $300 million capital funding round for rural, regional and remote aged-care facilities so that they could upgrade some of their facilities or expand their facilities, because in many of these rural and remote areas, there is no way in a month of Sundays that a lot of the people going in to rural nursing homes would have the capital to give a refundable accommodation deposit of, say, $1.5 million, which happens in Sydney. We have had aged-care providers come into our area during my time who have taken on aged-care facilities that they thought would have millions of millions in accumulated refundable accommodation deposits. When our current care provider came into Gloucester, they found it was $120,000, not $1.2 million, and they were shocked. But that is the way it is in country Australia.</para>
<para>We also got some more sensible policy evolved through these negotiations with the government to remove the criminal penalties from the act. There was no recommendation from the royal commission to have criminal penalties applied to board members or operators of nursing homes. In fact, you wouldn't have had any staff left. Those people are often unpaid directors of aged-care facilities in country Australia. It would have been hard to find any new directors, I can tell you. There are existing workplace health and safety laws, there are banning orders and there are Criminal Code provisions for the regulatory framework that applies, but telling people working in an aged-care facility that they could be put in jail is pretty scary.</para>
<para>The upgrade of nursing homes is an ongoing pattern, but I do note that during the time of this government, which is only a bit over 2½ years, 49 aged-care homes have closed around Australia. There was nothing like that happening when we were in government. We kept a few aged-care facilities open. In my electorate, we had one very prominent community built and operated aged-care facility that was taken on by a major provider, only to be shut down two years later. I'm so pleased that it has now been bought by another local not-for-profit community controlled organisation, which seems to have a much better business model that offers all the services, not just residential accommodation, which means people in the Bulahdelah district will be able to age in place when they do get to that stage of their life. They will be servicing the aged-care facility; upgrading the rooms at Cedar Wharf Lodge in downtown beautiful Bulahdelah, offering palliative and respite care services, as well as Meals on Wheels and other facilities in the aged-care home-care packages et cetera.</para>
<para>Many of the people in the aged-care industry are obviously happy for this legislation to occur, but what they are worried about is that a lot of the details of the bill will come later, in subsidiary legislation. A lot of them want to know the fine details. So there is a frustration with all the delegated legislation.</para>
<para>We also don't think that every nursing home needs to have an RN on duty around the clock. Most of the aged-care facilities in my electorate wouldn't be able to recruit that number of registered nurses. Even in metropolitan Australia, you would have trouble doing that, because the payment system for RNs in an aged-care facility is less than in a hospital system and in other areas like the NDIS.</para>
<para>This is an important bill. We will be supporting it. We think the contribution caps need much more detail, but it appears that self-funded retirees will be bankrolling a lot of the extra income, rather than facilities getting more from the federal government. We don't want aged-care facilities to be turned into a purely medical model, because they aren't meant to be hospitals. That's the thing. In aged care, the use of the phrase 'nursing home' gives some people the impression that it should be like a hospital. It's not meant to be a hospital. It's meant to be a home for senior Australians so that they are in a comfortable, well-managed, well-cared-for environment. By all means, don't try to turn it into a hospital.</para>
<para>But, apart from those concerns, I commend the bill to the House. We should look at getting a reduction in the costs of running aged-care facilities, and one way of doing that is removing the mandate to have totally fixed numbers of hours per person. It sounds good in theory, but in reality it means there's not much care happening but there's lots of filling out of forms and you have a lot of overqualified people that are mandated, which puts huge costs on low-margin businesses. There are many aged-care facilities whose costs are going up but whose incomes are not going up to match them. It would be better to reduce their cost burden with cheaper electricity, cheaper food and less rigid application of that nursing model rather than a care model.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just going to move some procedural things that will allow a debate to happen a little bit later, because something happened in this Chamber earlier that prevented consideration in detail, which I think some members of the opposition and the crossbench wanted. Some people missed their speeches in the second reading debate as well. This will allow them to make those speeches. To do all of that, the first thing I need to move is that the debate be adjourned, so I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the debate be adjourned.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>143</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7249" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>143</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the provisions of standing order 154, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the bill be reconsidered in detail.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for a later hour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>144</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7238" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>144</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to address a matter of profound importance to the lives of millions of Australians both now and into the future. The care and dignity of older Australians is what we are focusing on. As we grow as a society, we must ensure that those who've helped to build our nation are treated with the respect, care and compassion they deserve as they enter their senior years. We are all aware that Australia is ageing; over the next 40 years the number of Australians aged over 65 will more than double. Those over 85 will more than triple. These are staggering numbers and reflect a demographic shift that requires urgent and thoughtful action.</para>
<para>The reality is that older Australians have specific needs and the systems in place to support them must be ready to rise to the occasion. The Albanese Labor government is committed to delivering the most significant reform to aged care in over 30 years, a reform that ensures older Australians can live with dignity and independence whether at home or in residential care.</para>
<para>We understand that aged care is not just a matter of infrastructure or financial management. It is about people; it is about families; it is about providing care to those who spent their lives building this nation and making it the prosperous, vibrant country that we all love. That is why today I am proud to highlight an historic $5.6 billion reform package for aged care. This package represents the largest improvement to aged-care services in decades and reflects a growing demand for better, more personalised care for older Australians. This is not just reform, it's a transformation.</para>
<para>At the heart of these reforms is a simple but powerful goal: giving older Australians more control, more independence and more support to stay in their homes in their communities for longer. And I think that is something we can all agree upon, giving people the dignity of choice. We know that more and more Australians want to remain in their homes as they age. Without a doubt, the statistics tell a clear story. In the past 10 years, the number of Australians using in-home care has increased fourfold. If you ask older Australians directly, as we have done through consultations, they tell us the same thing. Overwhelmingly they want to age in place. They want to live in their homes and communities they have known for decades surrounded by the people they love. To meet this growing demand, the Albanese Labor government is launching the Support at Home program, a revolutionary new system of home care designed to cater to the needs of older Australians. By 2035, we anticipate that 1.4 million Australians will benefit from this program, enabling them to remain in their homes and maintain their independence for as long as possible.</para>
<para>Support at Home is a program that will begin 1 July 2025. It will provide support that ranges from clinical care, such as nursing or occupational therapy, through to assisting with daily-living tasks like showering, dressing and taking medications. It also includes help with everyday activities like cleaning, gardening, shopping or preparing meals. This will allow people to stay in their homes for longer without putting pressure on them to move into residential care unless it is absolutely necessary.</para>
<para>One of the stand out aspects of Support at Home is that it is flexible and personalised. Older Australians will be able to access tailored support depending on their individual needs. Whether they need a little bit of help each week or more comprehensive care, the program will adjust to meet their unique circumstances. This isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. It's about empowering people to make choices that work for them.</para>
<para>Critically the government will cover 100 per cent of clinical care costs under the program. For other support services, such as help with showering, meal prep or cleaning, people will contribute based on their income and assets, much like the current system, but we have worked hard to ensure that these contributions are fair and means tested so that no-one is unfairly burdened by costs they can't afford. A key innovation in this system is the lifetime contribution cap. No individual will ever contribute more than $130,000 to their non-clinical care costs over their lifetime, no matter their wealth or how long they need care. This provides financial certainty for families and ensures that no-one is left struggling to pay for the care that they need.</para>
<para>And the benefits don't stop there. Support at Home will also provide for home modifications. That's $15,000 available to make homes safer. Whether that means installing ramps, grab rails or other necessary adjustments, older Australians will have the opportunity to adapt their home to suit their changing needs. For those recovering from illness or injury, there will be expanded access to restorative support with a 12-week program designed to help older Australians get back on their feet. This program will involve teams of allied health professionals under the specialists who can work with individuals to restore independence after a hospital stay or major illness.</para>
<para>Perhaps one of the most compassionate elements of the Support at Home program is the option for older Australians to receive up to $25,000 in additional support to spend their final months at home, should they choose. We know that up to 70 per cent of Australians would prefer to die in the comfort of their own homes, surrounded by loved ones, but fewer than 10 per cent actually do. Support at Home will make it easier for people to spend their last precious moments where they feel most comfortable, instead of in a hospital.</para>
<para>While this focus on home care is essential, we must not forget about the critical role our residential aged care continues to play. As the Aged Care Taskforce has noted, our residential aged-care system is under pressure. By 2050 we will need an estimated $56 billion in capital funding to upgrade existing facilities and build new ones to accommodate the growing demand. Current funding arrangements are simply not sufficient. In 2022-23, 46 per cent of aged-care providers reported making a loss on accommodation. This is unsustainable, and without action many facilities may not survive. This will lead to fewer options, and poorer quality care for older Australians will occur. That is why our reforms include a range of measures designed to improve funding and quality of residential care. It is important.</para>
<para>New entrants will see means-tested contributions to their accommodation while still ensuring fairness and affordability. In fact, half of new residents will not pay more under these changes. All fully supported residents and seven out of 10 full pensioners will see no increase in contributions. For those who can afford to pay more, contributions will be scaled according to income and assets. Importantly the treatment of the family home will not change, providing certainty for families worried about protecting their most significant asset.</para>
<para>For every $1 an Australian contributes to their essential care, the government will contribute an average of $3.30. This ensures that residential aged care remains accessible and that providers of resources need to deliver high-quality care. To provide further security, we're introducing a no-worse-off principle—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 15:02 to 15:13</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the suspension, I was speaking about the 'no worse off' principle. This means that anyone already in aged care will not be affected by these changes. They will not be required to make any additional contributions. Those receiving home-care packages before the Support at Home program begins in 2025 will maintain their current level of funding and will be able to retain any unspent funds.</para>
<para>Our reforms are not just about improving care; they also represent responsible financial management. Aged care is one of the largest-growing pressures on the federal budget. Without action, spending in this sector is expected to more than double over the next 40 years. But, with our reforms, we have carefully designed a package that improves care while also being fiscally responsible. The net impact of these changes will be a $930 million spend over four years but a $12.6 billion save over the next 11 years. This is about ensuring that the system remains sustainable for future generations. In fact, as a result of these reforms, annual growth in spending on aged care is expected to moderate from 5.7 per cent to 5.2 per cent over the next decade. Aged-care spending as a share of GDP will also decrease slightly, even as we expand care and improve quality. This is a testament to the careful and considered approach that the Albanese Labor government has taken to designing these reforms.</para>
<para>Beyond the numbers, though, we must also address the fundamental rights of older Australians in care. That is why we're introducing new laws to protect the rights of older Australians. These laws will enshrine a statement of rights, placing a positive duty on providers to uphold these rights. We are strengthening regulatory powers, creating a new independent complaints commissioner and introducing whistleblowing protections to ensure that any wrongdoing is swiftly identified and addressed.</para>
<para>At the heart of these reforms is a simple principle: putting the 'care' back into 'aged care'. Older Australians have spent their lives contributing to their country. They have raised families, built communities and helped shape the vibrant, diverse society we live in today. Our duty is to ensure they receive the care, respect and dignity they deserve in return.</para>
<para>I would like to thank the honourable Minister Wells and her team for preparing and presenting this bill for discussion. This reform is a once-in-a-generation change. It reflects the values that we hold dear: fairness, compassion and responsibility. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said, these are reforms we are proud to deliver, as we promised we would.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'I'm writing to advise that, on Tuesday 21 March, BlueCare commenced the planned, controlled and respectful closure of Millbank residential aged care, due to a number of issues that make it difficult to continue to deliver a sustainable residential care service and ensure our long-term commitment to aged care in the Bundaberg region.' This is from correspondence to me on 21 March 2023 from BlueCare. To paraphrase, it goes on to say: 'Many regional towns have been forced to rely heavily on agency staff. As a not-for-profit organisation, BlueCare acknowledges ongoing workforce challenges have impacted the viability of our site. With Millbank's age and current design, bringing it to current and future standards is and will be financially unviable.'</para>
<para>On 27 March 2023, I wrote to the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport, the honourable Minister Wells, and asked what action the Albanese government would be taking to ensure that these desperately needed facilities are maintained. We've checked every digital provider, every digital bookcase and down the back of the digital couch. We've looked at snail mail and every other possible manner that we could have been approached, and, to date, I can't find a response from Minister Wells, which is disappointing. I understand that the minister is busy, but the end result is that this facility closed. From memory, it was roughly 49 jobs and 49 beds, and it's not alone. In the last year, 49 aged-care homes have closed in this country. Those were desperately needed facilities.</para>
<para>Whilst this bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, is being praised highly by many, we need to face facts, and the facts are that it is an increase in costs for those who are utilising the service. It is booked as a budget saving by the Albanese Labor government, and, on top of that, no-one has looked to address costs. It is quite easy to go and find more funding from those who have to pay in a user-pays system. Addressing costs is more challenging, but one of the fundamental reasons that these facilities find themselves in trouble is the policies of this government. You have mandated particular items, such as mandated nursing ratios. All of those things are not based on actual need. In regional areas, this government made commitments to policies that couldn't actually be delivered. There was no workforce to deliver those services, and, as a result, those facilities have closed. Add in interest-rate changes, inflation, cost for food and cost for services—all of which have gone up.</para>
<para>I want to be very, very clear: this is an increase in contributions by those individuals who utilise the service, particularly if they are part-pensioners and self-funded retirees. I have had this variously described to me as a seniors tax and as death duties by stealth, because it will take wealth from older Australians. We need to be clear about that.</para>
<para>These services need to be provided—desperately—but never underestimate the impact that the government has, through the policies that it sets, on the costs to the facility. There has been a one-size-fits-all application, which may not work for a small facility in a regional town that might only have 10 residents who don't need advanced aged care because that is the facility that they put in place through community organisations, through not-for-profits. So, whilst I'm disappointed not to get a response from Minister Wells, I am even more disappointed in the loss of 49 aged care beds in my region, where we have one of the older demographics in the country, significantly older than other areas.</para>
<para>This is not the coalition's bill. We did not develop it. We have obviously worked hard to try and get changes. When you have facilities like BlueCare, a not-for-profit agency, closing their facility in Bundaberg off the back of policy settings that they simply cannot meet, then we need to identify and recognise that there is something wrong with the system.</para>
<para>I'll come back to an even more fundamental element, and that is the application to get into aged care. Almost everyone I know—everyone that approaches me and my office—has to get their lawyer, their accountant or their financial planner to fill in the forms to enable their loved ones to enter aged care or even to apply. It is that complex. In fact, I went to the Parliamentary Library and asked quite a straightforward question, I thought, which was: what will be the increase in costs for the services under this bill? Unfortunately, the library advised that they couldn't model it because of the complexity of the system and how it impacts different individuals differently. It sounds obvious, but they simply couldn't model it.</para>
<para>Self-funded retirees—who have clearly worked hard to save their money, who have worked incredibly hard to not be on the pension and who are quite happy to look after themselves—are the ones who actually get the biggest increase, in terms of their contribution. They will now have a daily limit of up to $101.16. There is a lifetime cap, which I'm sure is a relief—currently, on reaching $130 in total contributions, or four years after making contributions, indexed twice a year at the current inflation rate of between four and five per cent. The maths is pretty straightforward. It's going to keep getting away from you every single year over the four years. It will cost more. Yes, the family home is not included, but my understanding is that once there's no protected person still living in the home, it will become an asset for those who are in aged care.</para>
<para>As was outlined previously by the member for Lyne, Dr David Gillespie, if you live in Sydney and your house is worth a couple of million dollars, the impact on you is not quite as high. But if you live in a regional area where the suburb average is under $400,000, as it is in some suburbs in areas like mine—some are substantially higher, but not by that much—you simply don't have that much money; you just don't have it.</para>
<para>The Parliamentary Library has said that the government estimates, the new arrangement, will result in around half of new residents paying more for residential aged care. They provided a series of case studies, which I won't get too far into. The self-funded retiree that owns their own home and has enough super that they're not eligible for the age pension will contribute $62,800, up from $49,400 on current arrangements. So, clearly, it will cost the consumer more.</para>
<para>We should be upfront about this. This legislation will take more money from part pensioners and self-funded retirees in order to fund aged care because of the policies of the government. That is the reality. The government has had the gall to book a budget saving on top of it. I think, whilst it's absolutely essential that we have aged care facilities that are suitable, they still need to be based on need, not broad-blanket policies across the board for which there may be absolutely no requirement, depending on the model that's used by the home.</para>
<para>I want all Australians to age with dignity—there is no doubt about that—but I also want to be upfront with them about what the cost will be and who will be paying. Clearly, it will be the consumer. If this government doesn't act on inflation, if it doesn't act on the increasing cost of living which is completely out of control, if it doesn't get electricity costs under control and if it doesn't reduce interest rates which are linked to inflation, then it won't matter what is in this bill because it will require more funding and more contributions—more from the taxpayer and more from the consumer—because inflation will continue to spiral. There are some quite fundamental elements in this legislation which I'm very pleased about, such as the security of the additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers. But it'd be unnecessary if we didn't lose 49 providers in the last 12 months—many in regional areas and many run by not-for-profit community organisations, with community members on their boards and with small facilities, who simply cannot meet the standards that are now being set, particularly when they have a model which doesn't require it. When it comes to health funding, I agree with Dr Gillespie, and I'll leave my comments there.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 15:25 to 15:36</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make my contribution on the Aged Care Bill 2024. This bill, once enacted, will replace the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act. The existing framework regulating aged care is being significantly altered. The bill is split into eight chapters that will enact distinct elements of the new regulatory framework for the provision of aged-care services. The bill is in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and to the Aged Care Taskforce, which was established in 2023. The taskforce considered how to sustainably fund aged care into the future. This bill responds directly to recommendations 1 to 3 of the royal commission and fully or partially addresses 58 recommendations in total.</para>
<para>The Aged Care Bill is a landmark, once-in-a-generation reform that will shape the way government supports people to live independently and with dignity as they age in years to come. Given the significant nature of the reforms, the government conducted extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including older Australians and their families; state and territory governments; unions; the aged-care sector; consumer advocates; service providers; and the public generally. The Department of Health and Aged Care conducted an extensive 12-week consultation on an exposure draft of the bill between December 2023 and March 2024. This was in addition to the extensive consultation that was undertaken by the royal commission. The taskforce undertook consultation in relation to contribution arrangements and accommodation payments. Thousands of people were directly engaged in the reforms through webinars, surveys, discussion papers and focus groups. This included 320 submissions and 800 surveys. The government has ensured that consultation was undertaken relating to all aspects of the new regulatory model and the Support at Home program.</para>
<para>The bill implements a number of commitments that the Albanese government took to the last election. These include mandatory aged-care food standards, stronger investigative powers for the regulator, new civil penalties, new whistleblower protections, worker registration, a new compensation pathway, and a statutory duty of care for registered providers of aged care. It builds on the work done by the Albanese Labor government to improve the quality of aged care and increase the wages of aged-care workers, particularly the requirement for aged-care facilities to have a registered nurse on site 24/7. Since the royal commission report was tabled in parliament in 2021, the Albanese Labor government has addressed 94 of its recommendations. Our government is implementing a rights based aged-care system alongside a new program to support older people to live independently and remain in their homes for as long as possible.</para>
<para>There will be a new regulatory framework and a stronger, more powerful regulator. This is absolutely necessary given the shocking failures uncovered at the royal commission. High-quality services, safe and compassionate care and fairer contributions are at the centre of the Albanese government reforms to aged care. This is in stark contrast to the former government's approach to aged care, which was summed up with a single word: neglect. To achieve this, the bill includes a statement of rights for older people and imposes a positive duty among aged-care services to uphold these rights. It creates a framework within which aged-care services, including residential care and the new Support at Home program, should be delivered by aged-care service providers. Additionally, there will be a single point of entry into the aged-care system. Eligibility requirements will be clearly designed and involve a fair, culturally safe assessment process for people seeking assistance. Funding arrangements will be reformed. This will include mechanisms to fund aged-care services, including aged-care related grant programs. The system of fair contributions will be established for those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their care. Not only is this fairer but it will ensure the aged-care system remains sustainable into the future.</para>
<para>The new funding arrangements set out in this bill will cost $900 million over the forward estimates yet are projected to save $12.6 billion over the medium term. A new complaints commissioner will be established to make sure that older people, aged-care workers, families and others have clear pathways to raise concerns about the quality of the care that is provided. This will also include strict whistleblower protections.</para>
<para>After nearly a decade of neglect, funding cuts and general dysfunction under the former government, our government through this bill continues the reconstruction of aged care in Australia. These reforms, as I and many others have mentioned, are a landmark, a once-in-a-generation reform that will improve the quality of aged-care services provided to older Australians. It builds on the work that has already been done by the Albanese Labor government in increasing the wages of aged-care workers and implementing the requirement for aged-care facilities to have a registered nurse on site. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition's position on this bill was provided in the House on Tuesday 8 October 2024. I would like to respond to the bill as the shadow assistant minister for regional health from the regional perspective, through the prism of the regional aged-care summit that I convened in July 2023. Before I do so, I want to commend the shadow minister for health, Senator Anne Ruston, for her efforts in negotiating with the government on this bill. She secured many significant changes from the government, one of which was negotiating what was going to be a 17.5 per cent inclusion of assets for contribution towards care costs, which is now down to 7.8 per cent.</para>
<para>For older Australians who have paid their taxes and not had the benefit of superannuation, who have worked hard to ensure they would not be a burden on society in retirement, who made significant sacrifices and volunteered for their country, it sticks in their craw that an arbitrary and immediate date threshold will now see some of them contributing so much of their assets to the cost of their care in later years in a home or a room beside other people who made far less effort for their country, who contribute nothing and who get the same care for free.</para>
<para>Given the chronic obstacles aged-care providers told me about in delivering quality and equitable care in regional areas, I hosted the national regional aged-care summit in Mildura in 2023, bringing together front-line workers, providers and peak bodies from across Australia to consider policy solutions to the many problems they face. Government ministers were invited but did not attend, nor did departmental or Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission representatives but they undertook to receive and respond to a copy of the summit communique. It took some time to get a response, and to say it was underwhelming is being kind. So, to do justice to the 100-plus attendees at the summit, I will review this bill by stepping through that summit communique. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Regional aged care services face similar difficulties to the broader healthcare system in rural and regional Australia. There is a significant shortfall in … workforce leading to under-staffed and under resourced services, which ultimately means older people in regional areas receive a lower standard of care than their metropolitan counterparts.</para></quote>
<para>I will come back to workforce issues a little later. The first topic that we surveyed on that day was 'Regional residential aged care—viability'. Under that heading, the communique says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is a cost premium for delivery of regional, rural and remote aged care that needs to be recognised and addressed by government under the equity principle. This is reflected in travel costs for clinical staff and providers to deliver services to rural patients; capital and maintenance costs for regional aged care facilities and increased expense of service delivery compared to urban areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Solutions to this cost premium must be adopted to ensure viability of the sector in regional Australia.</para></quote>
<para>The summit proposed:</para>
<list>Funding must increase to recognise regional cost pressures.</list>
<para>I'm pleased to say that Senator Ruston managed to negotiate a $300 million fund for regional service providers. It goes on:</para>
<list>Funding grants should be made available to assist providers to manage the disparity in economies of scale (compared to urban counterparts), including affiliating with other providers and co-operative partnerships in a local care economy that extends beyond aged care to other healthcare services.</list>
<list>Government and providers should explore innovation including technological solutions to improve efficiency and reduce costs; telehealth consults, AI support and digital health & medical records for residents to better manage healthcare delivery.</list>
<list>Communities should work together to make aged care a community-level activity, and more broadly, conceptualise aged care not as an independent sector but as part of a local care economy. This would overcome fragmentation of service delivery and poor economies of scale. Innovations should include co-location of health, aged-care and child-care facilities provide pathways to achieving economies of scale and staff retention.</list>
<para>The Regional Aged Care Summit held in Mildura in 2023 looked at the Modified Monash Model and considered it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… ineffective and not for purpose with geographical social and economic framing resulting in clear disadvantages for regional Australians, particularly those living in Modified Monash Model category 3 and 4 (MMM3-4)—</para></quote>
<para>such as Mildura, my own home town—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and fails to acknowledge the costs of workforce attraction in those regions.</para></quote>
<para>Aged-care facilities are paying three times the average nurse wage for agency nurses and, of course, for FIFO locums who come in and out. This creates an intolerable burden on their budget. Yesterday, there was a release of the Medicare reviews, including for workforce, the Modified Monash Model, distribution priority areas and the distribution workforce shortage mechanisms. The government released the <inline font-style="italic">Working Better </inline><inline font-style="italic">for Medicare </inline><inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">eview</inline><inline font-style="italic">: </inline><inline font-style="italic">final </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Review of General Practice Incentives</inline><inline font-style="italic">: expert advisory panel report to the </inline><inline font-style="italic">Australian </inline><inline font-style="italic">government</inline>, with Minister Butler acknowledging to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners that morning that he is constantly lobbied on the distribution priority areas and the Modified Monash Model.</para>
<para>From the moment Labor changed the DPA, I've been calling out the negative impacts it has been having on regional Australians. The <inline font-style="italic">Working Better for Medicare Review</inline><inline font-style="italic">: final report</inline> found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The current method of determining DPA status via automatic application of MMM2-7 blankets means that of the 827 GP catchments across Australia … (85%) now have DPA status. The almost universal view of submissions and consultations suggest DPA <inline font-style="italic">in its</inline><inline font-style="italic">current format</inline> is no longer an effective distribution lever.</para></quote>
<para>It proposed:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… MMM should no longer be used to establish blanket rule exemptions.</para></quote>
<para>It also determined:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… each GP catchment area would individually be accorded DPA/non DPA status.</para></quote>
<para>Thirdly, it held that a similar mechanism, the distribution of workforce shortage, was no longer fit for purpose, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There are too many areas within cities, and heavily populated centres outside these cities, that are classified as DWS.</para></quote>
<para>In short, the review says what I've been saying for years and what the regional aged care summit said and communicated to the government a year ago: the Modified Monash Model is no longer fit for purpose, and Labor have wrecked the DPA workforce lever to shunt far too many international medical graduates into suburban areas of capital cities. Poor primary and preventative care services through a lack of doctors results in people developing poorer health and entering acute-care services—which are far more expensive, and including residential aged care—sooner.</para>
<para>The Regional Aged Care Summit communique stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Regional aged care is a poor cousin in the care economy and is a victim of sectoral competition not just with acute care, but now with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Governments must, to the greatest extent possible, remove perverse incentives which prioritise motivation to practice in other areas of the care economy in preference to aged care, for example wage differentiation between the public hospital system versus the private or public aged care system … Regional private and not for profit providers suffer, in particular, from an administrative burden from regulation—</para></quote>
<para>one could almost say overregulation—</para>
<quote><para class="block">that should be addressed by government and the regulator. A government subsidy system must be established to support not-for-profit aged care providers in a way which balances the advantage state funded public aged care facilities have in 'top-up funding' per bed per day, and a backing for running at a loss, which 70 per cent of not-for-profit facilities currently experience.</para></quote>
<para>That is extraordinary:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Community-led home care services represent a strong model for regional Australia, providing local residents with a sense of community, purpose and assistance from people who know the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While there has been a slight improvement, the silent waiting lists for elderly regional Australians—namely access to ACAT (Aged Care Assessment Teams) and the time lag between home care package approval and implementation—remains unfairly delayed in regional Australia.</para></quote>
<para>This brings me to the question of grandfathering arrangements proposed under this bill. The government has signalled that those in the system at the time of the government's announcement of this bill will benefit from existing arrangements and will not have to pay more their for care. Firstly, that is effectively legislation by press release, and that is problematic. Secondly, what if someone applies for an aged-care place before 1 July 2025, or whatever the start date is settled at through this legislative process, and has or has not received a place? Are they both grandfathered? What if someone applies on 30 June 2025?</para>
<para>The communique says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">2022 data shows that more than 50,000 older Australians died while waiting for approved home care since July 2017.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Access to home care packages for older indigenous Australians is a particular issue, and face-to-face information regarding ACAT assessment, provided by indigenous health services and workers, is a preferred model to the current information on the MyAgedCare website and reading materials.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The cost premium for regional services means that home care packages are not fully meeting the needs of recipients.</para></quote>
<para>As one constituent, Rose, pointed out to me in the last couple of weeks, she has an $80,000 package in her home-care funding but what she really needs is cataracts. As she points out, there is little point installing home help if she cannot see because she will not be able to live at home. The wait times in Victoria's public health system are so bad that there could be permanent damage to Rose's eyes by the time she receives cataract replacements. But her package money could be used, and she could save her eyesight and continue to live at home.</para>
<para>The situation highlights the broader problems in the care funding arrangements, the legacy arrangements of different silos of Medicare, aged care, NDIS and other funding streams, and whether we need to look holistically at federal health funding to focus on outcomes, not process. I even had one constituent in his early 60s ask if he could access his superannuation to address his need for cataracts, as he was getting little help from his fund. These are the lengths to which older Australians are trying to go to ensure quality of life in their latter decades or years in the absence of appropriate regional health care. In my view, this is an absolute priority. We know that preventive primary care saves a lot of money for the federal government by keeping people out of tertiary care. This is the same in aged care, and the government needs to focus on how to assist older Australians to stay at home. The Regional Aged Care Summit recommended that a growth funding round for CHSP, the Commonwealth Home Support Program, is required to enable more providers to enter the market in regional areas. Capital funding should be targeted at a needs based approach, and government must acknowledge that smaller providers may not be able to invest the same time and funds in grant applications as larger providers and take this into account when awarding grants. The market cannot always be relied on to provide aged-care services in remote parts of Australia.</para>
<para>I don't have time to go through the rest of the regional aged care summit communique, but I just want to say that regional Australia needs to have a priority place in whatever funding, proposals and mechanisms are put in place by this government, and I urge the government to look at this more seriously.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Aged Care Bill 2024 is an extremely important bill in relation to a key plank of Australia's safety net. This is a once-in-a-generation reform of an element of our social service supports for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, which has long been in need of reform. This bill is designed—</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 15:56 to 16:31</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was just in the middle of saying that this bill relates to one of the core elements of our safety net. If one thinks about our safety net, one of the first elements of the safety net, going way back to the years just after Federation, was the age pension. Indeed, this was one of the first elements of safety nets around the world, including in Bismarck's Germany in the 1880s and in other countries. When one thinks about the healthcare system, much of that is directed towards providing assistance to the elderly in our society. Indeed, just yesterday the Member for Hughes and I were at the launch of a paper on preventive health measures for older Australians. So there are many parts of our safety net that are directed—and rightly so—at older Australians, but our aged-care system is an absolutely critical part of that. It's the part of the system which provides so many of our older people with their accommodation, and it's also the place in which they receive services.</para>
<para>This bill is a significant, once-in-a-generation strengthening of the way in which those services are funded, regulated and provided to older Australians. What lies at the heart of this is to provide additional choice and agency and also guarantees in relation to quality of care. I won't step through absolutely every element of the bill, because it contains many, many elements. It responds to many recommendations coming out of the inquiry by the royal commission. But I will look at a couple of areas that are worth focusing on.</para>
<para>One is the rights of older people being put front and centre. A statement of rights is provided for in this legislation, and that will outline what Australians can expect from aged care. In addition, the greater clarity and protection of rights will provide for more culturally sensitive, appropriate and trauma-aware services being provided to older Australians. As a member representing a very multicultural part of Melbourne, I am certainly very aware of how particularly important it is that culturally sensitive services are provided to our older Australians, given that that's an age at which they often particularly rely on those kinds of services.</para>
<para>There's a considerable amount in this bill which provides for greater empowerment of people relying on aged care. For example, there's a minimum age requirement of 65 for aged care, and there is a different age requirement for First Nations and homeless people. Those minimum age requirements will ensure that spots are not being taken from those who most need them.</para>
<para>There's significant additional funding—$4.3 billion in additional investment—for support services for those at home, and there is also better tailored support for those at home. That support will now be tailored with eight levels of support rather than the existing four, so there's additional funding and better targeted funding. There's also going to be the 'no worse off' principle, which will provide greater certainty to people already in or assessed as needing home care. And then there are key protections and guarantees in relation to quality of care. There's a duty of care both for employees and for clients, which is critically important. Of course, clients need to have that duty of care applied to them, but we have also become increasingly aware, over recent years, of the need to protect the workforce, to train the workforce and to provide the supports that the workforce needs. There are going to be greater powers for the regulator and the independent complaints commissioner. The royal commission was critical of current weak and ineffective regulatory arrangements that often merely paid lip service to delivering high-quality regulatory care, so new regulatory powers are essential and will provide significant benefits.</para>
<para>Then there are a range of measures in relation to workforce. The royal commission uncovered that aged-care workers are systematically underpaid and undervalued. Low wages and poor employment conditions are obviously a bad outcome for employees, but they're also bad for the sector. They lead to greater rates of turnover. They lead to lower rates of people applying for positions. They lead to lower investment in skills that are specific to the sector while people are there. For a whole raft of reasons, it's absolutely critical that we pay people appropriately and that we train people better. That will lead to better outcomes for people working in the sector, and it will lead to significantly better outcomes for clients as well. So there's going to be much greater prioritisation of the training of well-skilled and empowered workers, who will then be in a position to deliver higher quality care, and the bill will also introduce new worker-screening measures, which are absolutely critical. In addition, there will be strength and quality standards which will require providers to engage with workers at a service level on workforce planning.</para>
<para>I also wanted to touch on some of the measures which lead to greater sustainability in the financing. Before touching on those, I thought I would just make some observations about the longer term, macro, systemic challenges that we, like all societies, are facing. We're aging, and I want to start by saying that's a wonderful thing, because it reflects the fact that we're living longer. It reflects the fact that we are having longer and healthier lives on average. This is a great gift that is provided to us by better health care, healthier lifestyles and a whole range of things, but, at a macro level, our rising average life expectancy and our rising median age create challenges for our society in the sense that we are trying to fund and finance services from a relatively shrinking taxpayer base. If we look at some of the statistics that came out of the <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational report 2023</inline>, six per cent of GDP was constituted by the care economy in 2002. That will rise, based on median projections, to 17 per cent by 2062, which is not all that far away. In effect, in less than 40 years, there will be a tripling of the care economy as a share of GDP, compared to where it was just 20 years ago. If you look at the workforce requirements, that will rise from one million to well over four million—around 4½ million—in that same period. These are drastic changes in an economic sense.</para>
<para>If we think about it in terms of a commonly used metric, which is the dependency ratio, the old age dependency ratio is the ratio of people aged 65 and above to those of working age, generally measured as 20 to 65. That ratio was 15 in 2002, and it's projected to rise to 38.2 by 2062. Again, that's a wonderful thing. It means that there will be more of us living longer lives. It means there will be more grandparents around to take care of grandkids. Certainly, well before 2062—I'm certainly going to be older, but I'll definitely be old by that time. I'm looking forward to being part of that 38.2. That's a good thing, but that 38.2 is a ratio that, when it more than doubles in that period, raises questions about how a society is going to provide sustainable services. If one looks at the total dependency ratio, that is also projected to rise, when one includes young and old members of society who aren't of working age. That's projected to rise from 25 to 45. These are challenges, and if one goes back to the nineties, superannuation was, in part, a response to these broader macro trends. But some of the measures included in this bill, which are very balanced and sensible measures, are also necessary long-term horizon reforms that are a response to these changes that we know are coming in the decades to come.</para>
<para>What this bill provides for is sustainable funding for an ageing population where the number of older Australians is expected to double, and also where they are expected to significantly increase as a share of the economy relative to working-age Australians. Just to stress from the outset that this government, even after the measures contained in this bill are put into place, will continue to be the major funder of aged care. There are no new taxes or levies contained in this set of provisions and there will be no changes to the means testing of the family home. What we are bringing in is a range of measures that will provide that some people, based on means testing, will provide a well-calibrated contribution, and I'll set out some of the specifics over the coming part of my contribution. This is a very sensible and balanced and necessary set of measures that are important if we are to maintain the stability and sustainability of our system.</para>
<para>The measures that we are bringing in include the full funding for all clinical care while older people make contributions towards services that they have paid for or been responsible for their entire lives such as gardening, cleaning and personal care. Support at Home means you will no longer have to pay a flat weekly fee and the contribution that you make will be means tested. Residential care, where residents can afford it, will now involve some residents making a contribution towards the hotelling supplement and non-clinical care; but, as I said before, this will be based on a means test. And there will be a change to accommodation pricing, to indexing daily accommodation payments so that their true value doesn't diminish. And people who pay with refundable accommodation deposits will pay a two per cent retention from the principal deposit for a maximum of five years. There will be a lifetime contribution cap for care costs and that will apply across the aged-care system. No-one will contribute more than $130,000 to their care costs whatever their means or duration of care.</para>
<para>As I said, these are really important measures. They form part of a package of measures that include more rights for people who are living in aged care, that include more protections, more agency and more choice. Also, as I spelt out in the last set of changes, they provide for greater systemwide sustainability. And that is absolutely critical, because our older Australians and those of us going to be older Australians soon enough deserve to know that the system is sustainable. They deserve to be confident that the expectations they have are realistic and that the government and our society will see them through and fulfil those expectations.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased to speak to this bill. It's a really important bill. It's a once-in-a-generation change in response to a whole series of recommendations made by the royal commission to what I believe is one of the key planks of our safety net. Australia has one of the great safety nets in the world, and those aspects of our safety net which protect the interests of our older people are, for me, some of the most important parts of that safety net. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I hope the member for Fraser knows how much I appreciate his contributions, and it's a very important point he makes around the long-term bipartisan approach to providing that safety net that Australians do enjoy.</para>
<para>In speaking to the Aged Care Bill 2024, I am going to make a request of the minister, on behalf of a constituent of mine—someone who has become a dear friend. But before I do so I want to be very clear: the opposition seeks to work in good faith and closely with the government to ensure that our aged-care system provides older Australians with the dignity they deserve, particularly in those last years when dignity can be easily taken away from you as old age sets in.</para>
<para>At the heart of our contributions there has been a question, not of right or wrong or absolutism, but, simply put: how do we fund aged care so that it is sustainable, and how do we do that so that the costs are borne out fairly across our community in a way that we can feel confident—look each other, as Australians in the eye—to ensure that we are both caring for each other but also providing the right level of responsibility for each other as well? The member for Hinkler made some very good observations on the funding viability of aged care. I won't repeat those, but I'll point to them as an important contribution in this debate.</para>
<para>I want to relay a story that I think speaks to why it's important we continue to work together. I hope in telling this story, you, Deputy Speaker, will see the good nature and the good faith in which we are entering into this debate. John Currie was a very good man. John Currie was a firefighter in our region for 23 years. He put himself in harm's way. When he had to carry pain in the course of his duties, he did so manfully. He is someone whose name, I would hope, would be remembered for the way he lived his life. Sadly, he passed away in extraordinary circumstances, which are entirely relevant to the intention of this bill. I want to recount them, because I think it's important, and it's been very important to his daughter, Kim, that John's story is heard and that lessons can be learnt from his story and taken into account, particularly in this bill. When we talk about a statement of rights, this could not be more important.</para>
<para>John was diagnosed at the age of 86 with pancreatic cancer. He spent 15 weeks in the Warwick Hospital. Pancreatic cancer hurts. Anyone who knows anything about it will tell you that the pain that is experienced by the patient is at the unbearable level. John was discharged from the hospital to an aged-care facility in my region, in Toowoomba. When he was discharged, the recommendation was that he would be given a powerful painkiller called TARGIN. It's an opioid. In conversations with the doctors at that point, John's family were advised that the likely outcome would be that he would go into palliative care and probably would not last long.</para>
<para>What happened has been throughout the media and reported on widely, particularly in <inline font-style="italic">A current affair</inline>. John was left to deal with pancreatic cancer and the pain of it with only paracetamol for three weeks. He was a tough man, and for most of those three weeks, he could bear that pain. I hate to think—and I go back to the word 'dignity'. It is absolutely right that we are hear talking about aged care and improving aged care in a bipartisan manner. What John Currie went through was extraordinary. Sadly, it gets much worse. He was at times deprived of additional pain relief, even paracetamol, whilst he was there. He was mocked for faking it by nursing staff. He deteriorated significantly, as you can expect, during those three weeks. It got so bad that his last three days were spent screaming and writhing in pain. He was bruised in the process of trying to restrain him. Mercifully, upon being transferred to the Toowoomba Hospital, he was administered morphine and died shortly after. He was a man who served his community as a firefighter, who was there when we needed him, when multiple citizens needed him, to come out and save either their life or their property. He was a man who was willing to put himself in harm's way for the greater good. He died a death without dignity. I find it hard to accept that this is the Australia we work for, that we come here and fight for. I, with open arms, look across the bench and I accept that there is a bipartisan effort to make this better. This is what we are here for and Australia should see that.</para>
<para>I have worked with John's daughter, Kim, for a prolonged period of time. It was very important to both Kim and I that we would never politicise this situation, that we would never be opportunistic or point the finger. We simply wanted the learnings from John's passing to be heard to make sure, as Kim has said multiple times, that no-one should die a death like that in an Australian aged-care facility ever again. This is beyond what we can accept as Australians. This should never ever happen again.</para>
<para>I have met with Kim many times. I am blown away by her dignity. She could give this speech without pausing, as I have. She has an incredible strength and a desire to make sure her father is remembered for his contributions. I thank her for all of her efforts in raising these issues with me and I am committed to standing beside her to ensure that when I leave this place I can look back and say that I did everything I could to make sure that no-one ever suffered John's fate.</para>
<para>I would ask humbly for the minister to reconsider her decision not to meet with Kim. When we look at the intent of this bill, what it is hoping to achieve, its objectives, which are important, which we all agree on, how we get there is an important discussion of politics, and that is the debate we must have. But we all agree in our hearts that things must improve; they must get better. And surely a case like John's Curry's must be heard at the highest level to ensure that whatever we can find from that, that whatever changes we can make legislatively or within regulation are made.</para>
<para>I brought Kim down to Canberra. We met with the shadow minister. As I pointed out, we have never sought to politicise this. We advised Kim to reach out to the minister to make sure that the government were fully aware of the story as well and were as informed as they could be. Kim has met with an advisor to the minister; she was promised a meeting. It would not just be for the benefit of Kim, not just for John Curry's memory, but I think it would be in the national benefit for John's story to be heard by the minister of the day. I really do. I would hate to think that after John's passing we can't offer him dignity in death. But we can give some dignity to his memory and make sure that his story is heard. Minister, please meet with Kim Sutton. It is an important meeting. Do this and work together with us, please.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our fathers, our mothers, our grandparents and our loved ones all deserve the best care in their old age. They have worked hard their entire lives, paid their taxes, volunteered in our communities and raised families. They deserve to live out their twilight years with dignity and respect. But, instead, the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety provided a damning assessment of how many older Australians have been treated in aged care, an assessment summed up in one word: neglect. The report exposed a failing system where treating older people without dignity was normalised. Since the final report was tabled, 136 recommendations of the royal commission have been addressed under this Labor government, 58 of which are directly addressed in this bill that I stand to support today.</para>
<para>This bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, addresses recommendation 1 of the royal commission. This new act will put older Australians, not providers, at the centre of aged care. It promotes positive attitudes towards ageing and empowers people with choice and control in the planning and delivery of their care. It builds trust and confidence, with strong complaints mechanisms that prevent mistreatment, neglect and harm from poor quality and unsafe care. Importantly, it addresses the pain and suffering that so many older Australians, their families and workers have experienced in aged care.</para>
<para>Under the former government, so many families in my electorate contacted me to raise their serious concerns about these challenges. Donna, a personal-care attendant in a local aged-care facility, came and spoke passionately at a forum I held in Armstrong Creek. Donna spoke about low wages, insecure work and the frustration of being unable to properly care for frail and elderly residents. These are her words—and I think she was such a brave person at the time to speak so boldly:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I love my job. I wanted to make lives better, but … we're facing a roadblock. We've got six minutes to put each resident to bed each night.</para></quote>
<para>That's why I'm so proud to stand and support this bill. This bill and the many reforms we've rolled out under this government are for people like Donna. Thank you, Donna. As a direct result of stories like yours, aged care is changing for the better under a Labor government. It's stories like yours that have shaped this bill—a bill that, for the first time, includes a statement of the rights for aged care.</para>
<para>The statement of rights outlines what all Australians can and should expect from aged care—person centred care that is culturally safe and trauma aware with dignity and respect, individuality and diversity, independence, choice and control, dignity of risk and privacy. As a result, the rights of older people will be embedded in care delivery in the way workers are trained and in the way people talk about the care they receive. Including a statement of rights in this bill is about empowering older people to have conversations about the dignified care they deserve. If a provider breaches the rights in this bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will have tough enforcement actions at its disposal.</para>
<para>On top of this, the bill brings together the complex multiple-entry pathways criticised by the royal commission with a single, culturally safe entry and assessment pathway. Assessment will actively involve older people in discussions about the services they need.</para>
<para>The bill continues our mission to take younger people out of aged care and into accommodation that meets their needs, because right now there is no statutory age minimum for aged care. The result is that aged care has become a system of last resort. We've seen younger people who aren't able to get the care they need relying on residential aged care as a safety net. This bill seeks to legislate for the first time a requirement that makes it clear that aged care is for people aged 65 years and older. It isn't just older people receiving aged-care services or aged-care providers that will be affected by this bill; it will also affect the aged-care workforce. Among the many dark themes that emerged from the royal commission was that workers are systematically underpaid and undervalued. Low wages and poor employment conditions meant that the sector struggled to attract and retain well-skilled people. One of the hallmarks of the Albanese government's approach to aged care has been to recognise the value of all aged-care workers.</para>
<para>First, the bill prioritises the training of well-skilled and empowered workers to deliver quality care, including specialised dementia care. Second, the bill introduces new worker-screening measures, an important step towards professionalising the workforce through positive registration. Third, the strengthened quality standards require providers to engage with workers at a service level on workforce planning and delivery of care. Fourth, the bill is mindful to ensure that the statement of rights is balanced with the rights of aged-care workers to have a safe and respectful workplace.</para>
<para>We know older Australians want the freedom, support and choice to remain in home and with the community that they love. Our $4.3 billion investment in Support at Home will deliver better and more tailored support to more people. Support at Home will cut wait times to receive in-home aged-care services. It will deliver more tailored support, with eight levels of ongoing care instead of four. It will ensure faster access to assisted technology like walkers and wheelchairs, and it will increase the maximum level of support available from $61,000 to $78,000.</para>
<para>Support at Home will offer a temporary boost in funding, available to those who need restorative and allied health support to help them stay at home after an incident. It will provide palliative care support to ensure older people can spend their final days at home, surrounded by their community and loved ones. It's not an overstatement to say that this bill, if passed, will change lives.</para>
<para>So these reforms are important, and to deliver them we need a sustainable funding system. These reforms, based on the recommendations of the Aged Care Taskforce, deliver a fairer aged-care system and foster quality and innovation. Some things won't change. The government will remain the major funder of aged care; there will be no new taxes or levies; there'll be no changes to the means testing of the family home; and older people with low means will still be supported to access the care they need. But some things will change. The government will now fully fund all clinical care, while older people will make contributions towards services that they have been paying for or have been responsible for their entire lives, such as gardening, cleaning and personal care.</para>
<para>In Support at Home, you will no longer have to pay a flat weekly fee. You will make a contribution towards services categorised as everyday living or independence. The amount you contribute will be based on the pension status and the means test, and you'll only contribute to what you use. In residential care, the residents who can afford it will now make contributions towards the hotelling supplement and non-clinical care based on a means test. Accommodation pricing will also change. This will ensure residential aged-care providers can attract the investment they need to keep current facilities open, improve quality and build new homes. The 'no worse off' principle will provide certainty to people already in or assessed as needing home care, or already in residential care, that they won't make a greater contribution to their care than they have already planned for.</para>
<para>In closing, this bill has the potential to provide an enduring foundation for the Australian aged-care system for years to come. Of course, it builds on the many reforms the Albanese government has rolled out since coming to office. The very first act of the 47th Parliament was passing aged-care legislation, responding to the royal commission. Its passage delivered a new funding mechanism for residential aged care, a sector-wide code of conduct, an expanded Serious Incident Response Scheme and stronger provider governance. The Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Act came shortly after, delivering greater transparency, capping home care fees and, most importantly, putting nurses back into nursing homes 24/7.</para>
<para>The creation of an Inspector-General of Aged Care reinforces the Albanese government's commitment to being open with the Australian public about how aged care is administered and how it is being reformed. It demonstrates that we are holding ourselves to the high standard that we expect of the sector. We made aged care more transparent with star ratings for residential care, empowering older people and their families to make informed decisions. We're delivering an $11.3 billion investment in an historic pay rise for aged-care workers. A registered nurse is now on site in aged care 99 per cent of the time, across Australia. Older Australians are receiving an additional 3.9 million minutes of care every single day, 1.7 million of which are delivered by a qualified registered nurse.</para>
<para>This is incredible progress, but we know that there's more to do, and that's what this bill is all about. This reform will put the rights of older people first. Thank you to all the older Australians; to carers, including Donna, who I met all those years ago; to union providers; to advocates; and to other experts who helped us get this incredibly important milestone to this point. I hope that it will now be passed and that it will become a reality. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety revealed an industry rife with neglect and one failing to deliver the services, safety and dignity Australians deserve. Australia's decades-old Aged Care Act has not been fit for purpose for many years and is long overdue for reform. In that context, I welcome the government's commitment to reform the aged-care system, because Australia's population is aging. According to the ABS, 17 per cent of Australians are currently over the age of 65, and, in 40 years, that percentage is expected to double. Given these demographic projections, it's clear the sector needs to evolve, and we need to work towards a sustainable aged-care system that delivers a dignified quality of care, consistent with our aspirations to be a nation that looks after our own.</para>
<para>In reviewing the Aged Care Bill 2024, I can see the time and effort that has gone into it. It is as complex as the system it is aiming to reform, and there is a lot to like in it, including the rights based paradigm, the simplification of the assessment pathways, the focus on aging at home, the improved standards of care in allocated funding to reduce wait times and, finally, the stronger regulatory framework. But there are also areas that my community wants to see strengthened.</para>
<para>Firstly, while the legislation purports to be rights based, I was surprised to find that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is mentioned only in the explanatory memorandum and does not appear in the bill itself. The upholding of human rights is an issue that's really close to my heart and the heart of my community, and I've long advocated for the establishment of a human rights act that will enshrine our basic rights in law. Many of the abuses and injustices of the past in our aged-care system might have been avoided if our most vulnerable had the fundamental protections of a human rights act. Instead, the statement of rights appears to be a selection of rights afforded under international human rights law with many key rights missing, such as the rights to life, liberty and security of person, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom from restraint, the presumption of legal capacity and the prohibition against torture. While an improvement, then, the statement of rights for individuals and the statement of principles to guide service provision included in this bill are a continuation of Australia's piecemeal approach to protecting basic rights. Arguably, a better outcome could have been achieved by introducing a federal human rights act.</para>
<para>Despite the best of intentions to put older Australians at the centre of aged care, the reality is the system is a closed one with an interdependent and shifting balance of power held between government, approved providers and the regulator. Many older Australians have little real choice about whether they enter aged care, particularly if their needs are high, and the availability of services often dictates whether people can stay in their community or who provides their services. While the bill includes a positive duty on providers to uphold the statement of rights, it is severely limited by the fact that it only applies to providers rather than the whole of the aged-care ecosystem, including aged-care advocates and needs assessors. There is also the practical ability for providers to limit rights, for example, to prevent harm. But, concerningly, the bill does not distinguish between permissible limitable rights and absolute rights.</para>
<para>Strengthened aged-care quality standards and additional powers of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will be critical, as they are the sole basis on which those receiving services can enforce their rights. Similarly, an effective compliance mechanism and whistleblower process will be crucial to ensuring older people are heard because these things are not currently protected in our legislation. Under this bill, rights can ultimately only be upheld through the complaints commissioner. Separating the complaints commissioner from the regulator is important in establishing trust. However, as it stands, there is no pathway for review for those unhappy with the decisions of the commission. Some in my community have also expressed their disappointment that the government reneged on the imposition of criminal penalties for bad actors. In removing criminal penalties, the needs of providers have been prioritised ahead of aged-care recipients and is likely part of a deal to get the coalition's support.</para>
<para>A focus on dignity, independence, privacy and control for people as they navigate ageing well should go without saying. This focus is necessary if we are to rebuild trust in the system and establish the new foundations for a robust and fit-for-purpose aged-care sector. This focus on these rights and principles should apply regardless of whether older Australians are accessing government funded services or paying privately. The number of people over 65 in my community of North Sydney is close enough to the national average of around 17 per cent, with most living or renting in private accommodation, including in retirement villages and social housing. Financially, these people live within a range of means. Some are on the full pension, many are Commonwealth seniors health card holders, while nearly 35 per cent are fully self-funded retirees who access non-government funded services rather than join the currently lengthy waitlist. However, despite that relatively high percentage of self-funded retirees, many still live within relatively modest means and should therefore be recognised for taking financial pressure off the aged-care system and rewarded with equal rights under this legislation.</para>
<para>When the superannuation regime was introduced, it promised to be a cornerstone of the government's retirement income policy. The aim was and continues to be, as far as I am aware, to move people towards self-funded retirement and it is working. In the past 20 years, the number of partially or fully self-funded retirees in Australia has more than doubled and now sits at around 43 per cent of those aged 65. But, because these people after accessing aged-care services outside the government's subsidised framework, they will not benefit from the same rights and contribution caps under this legislation, and that hardly seems fair. Ironically, in fact, this may incentivise people to access support within the currently struggling government funded system, which is undoubtably not in anyone's best interest. Ultimately, whether publicly or privately funded, there should be an equivalence of rights, as without equal rights we cannot ensure older people are being universally treated with the same level of care and dignity regardless of the service provider.</para>
<para>Acknowledging and responding to the desire of people to age at home for as long as possible is commendable and is consistent with what I hear from my community, both from older members themselves and from those providing unpaid care and assistance to older relatives and friends and, let's face it, it is what many personally hope for ourselves. By remaining in familiar surroundings, older people preserve their emotional wellbeing and maintain a sense of independence and autonomy, and these factors contribute to overall happiness and quality of life. A well-functioning system for supporting people to stay home is therefore critical and is rightly one of the key ambitions of this legislation. To be clear, the current home-care supports are, quite frankly, a mess.</para>
<para>Since coming to office, my team has heard consistently that wait times between being approved for a home-care package and receiving any funding have been steadily increasing as the availability of the local home-care providers has fallen. Wait times can be as long as nine months, with no indication of when their funding will become available. Obviously, this presents a significant practical challenge for people who need immediate support to live independently at home. Often the burden of this delay is borne by the family. Those with means are turning to privately paid care, not understanding the implications this can have for exacerbating wait times if, for example, they have turned down a lower-level package in order to wait for the one they have been approved for.</para>
<para>The additional funding to be provided to the new Support at Home program to address wait times is therefore welcome but many are actually questioning whether it will be enough. With forecasts suggesting that the funding will only effect the desired improvement by July 2027, we are set for another three years of people waiting excruciatingly long times for the help the government has agreed they need. This doesn't even include the often lengthy time it can take to be assessed in the first place. It wouldn't be alarmist, then, to state that some people will literally die waiting for care.</para>
<para>Along with wait times, another significant issue that has been brought to me by my community is the administrative complexity and difficulty in navigating the aged-care system. This includes navigating the assessment process, understanding the options for residential and home care, meeting the associated costs and interactions of contribution caps and means testing, understanding how to access funding and choose a care provider, accessing the availability of appropriately qualified care providers, navigating wait times and the decision of whether to hold out for the package funding or obtain a private service, and trying to stay close to family and community. The list goes on and on and on. This would be difficult for someone at the top of their game to navigate, let alone someone struggling with health concerns and general worries about ageing, finances and changing circumstances.</para>
<para>Streamlining the assessment process is an important first step, and I look forward to seeing additional detail and timeframes for the implementation of a single assessment workforce. Given the importance of the assessment as a necessary first step in the process for accessing funding services, it's surprising that the assessment workforce will operate outside the act with no obligation to have regard to the statement of rights. Any outcome from the assessment process should have reference to the rights.</para>
<para>Similarly, streamlining various contribution caps and ensuring there is a total cap across both Support at Home and residential costs is a welcome improvement. However, some members of my community have expressed concern that the need for them to contribute more will push them into poverty. Without seeing the modelling, it's impossible to reassure them that they will be left with a living income. One older woman I spoke to queried what will happen to Commonwealth Home Support Program recipients beyond 2027. She literally said to me, 'Does the government assume I will be dead?'</para>
<para>The financial sustainability of the aged-care sector is rightfully a key issue, given our ageing population. This has implications both for the federal budget and for the financial viability of providers, because the government relies on services being provided by private and non-profit institutions. However, the shift to a user-pays aged-care model represents a significant change in how aged care is funded in Australia. While it aims to create a more sustainable system, it also raises important questions about fairness and accessibility. The 'no worse off' principle and the introduction of additional means tested contributions from July 2025 have generally been well accepted by my community, notwithstanding the fact that it's likely that additional means tested contributions will lead to most paying more for aged-care services than otherwise. A critical caveat to that is the implicit guarantee that an increased contribution will result in an improved standard of care—both in the quality of care provided and through a requirement for increased transparency—so people can have confidence that their money is being applied to services they need and that they are in fact receiving. Again, with trust in the current system lacking, this increased transparency and accountability is crucial. I note the government has made inroads here with the dollars-to-care information available via My Aged Care.</para>
<para>Ultimately, this improvement will come down to the definition of 'high-quality care', the detail in the various standards being applied to providers, the ability for providers to attract and retain an appropriately qualified workforce and how the commission monitors and enforces those standards. It's important the government gets these standards and definitions right in the rules as they are a critical expression of the standards older Australians can expect and rely on under their statement of rights and will also determine what is funded as clinical care and what services require a contribution.</para>
<para>Like others, I'm concerned about where the lines might be drawn, particularly in relation to services that maintain independence. Does someone who has a clinical condition that means they cannot feed themselves have feeding included as part of their clinical care, or is it considered a service to assist in independence? Similarly, if someone cannot physically shower themselves, does their right to personal hygiene come down to affordability? The detail in the associated rules is paramount, and I will continue to listen to my community and other key stakeholders to ensure these rules meet community expectations.</para>
<para>Of course, quality care can only be delivered by a well-qualified and experienced workforce. The heartbreaking stories of neglect, pain and distress unveiled by the royal commission identified poor staff ratios, underqualified staff and inadequate training as key contributors to the systemic breakdown of the sector. The government's response to date has included some positive initiatives by way of the aged-care worker pay increases and fee-free TAFE courses. However, there is community concern that this does not go far enough and that the standards must specify carer ratios and qualification standards. I support the recommendations of Dementia Australia on mandating dementia care training. Similar to workers in the NDIS, the aged-care workforce should be registered with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to ensure oversight and minimum skills.</para>
<para>None of this is easy. The government has inherited a silo system of aged care on the one hand with complex practical independences on the other. On balance, my community and I welcome this bill. But, like others, I will be monitoring the rollout to ensure the community's expectations are met and that the promise of increased fairness, transparency and sustainability is being achieved across the board, from those who are most vulnerable to those who we are increasingly relying on to fund themselves.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my early years as the member for Macquarie in opposition, I witnessed our aged-care system descend into a crisis of neglect. We saw it happen. Since Labor came to government, we've made it a priority to reform the sector so ageing Australians receive the dignity and the quality of care they deserve. We've done this by lifting wages in the sector, putting nurses back into nursing homes, giving carers more time to spend with residents and offering fee-free TAFE so we can encourage more people to take up qualifications in aged care—and we've also improved transparency and accountability. These changes in two years have pulled the aged-care system out of crisis and brought back dignity, respect and quality. But there is so much more to do. We need to secure a long-term and sustainable future for the whole aged-care system, or, quite frankly, there will not be enough support to care for our ever-ageing population.</para>
<para>There are two major challenges we face. In the next 40 years the number of Australians aged over 65 is expected to more than double, and the number of those aged over 85 to triple. The current residential aged-care system just doesn't have enough beds to accommodate the ageing population, and at the same time—I know from speaking to older people, some of whom are simply my friends; we're all getting older—no-one, if they can help it, wants to leave their own home. People want to stay in their own home—and that includes my 84-year-old mum. But most people recognise at some point that they can't do it on their own. They simply can't do it alone. The Albanese government has listened to that message. We've heard what people are saying, and, along with improving the funding and viability of residential aged care so that providers will invest in building more rooms, we're investing $4.3 billion in a new system of home care that will help Australians remain independent in their homes and their community for much longer. We've worked really hard to achieve bipartisan support on these changes so that we have long-term certainty for older people, for aged-care providers and for aged-care workers.</para>
<para>The first thing I want to talk about is supporting people to be in their homes. That's what's going to be called Support at Home, starting from 1 July 2025. It will allow quicker access to support from the time you're assessed and provide more tailored support with eight levels of care. The top level will provide around $78,000 a year in support. There'll also be support for home modifications, with up to $15,000 to make homes safer, plus faster access to assistive technology like walkers and wheelchairs, and there'll be a new equipment loan scheme. These are all really practical things. If I think about the time it takes to get into the system right now, it isn't the assessment that takes time; it's being able to access a package. Faster access to a package, whatever level it is, will make a difference to people. I have heard people's frustration. It is the same reason we're training up workers so that that's not the area where the delay happens. It's making those packages available.</para>
<para>There's a new category. Support at Home participants will also have access to an expanded support program to get back on their feet after an illness or an injury, with a 12-week program that works with a team of allied health and other care professionals. That is often what people need—short-term support rather than ongoing support. So I'm really pleased to see that, and I know that's because the minister has listened to what I've been feeding through about what the needs are.</para>
<para>There's one other new support that is so crucial, and this is around palliative care. According to the Productivity Commission, up to 70 per cent of Australians would prefer to die in the comfort and privacy of their own home, but fewer than 10 per cent actually do. Support at Home participants will be eligible for up to around $25,000 in additional support to spend their final months at home so they can be surrounded by loved ones in a familiar and cherished environment instead of spending those precious last months in hospital and having family trying to see them within those constraints. This is another really significant part of the reforms that this bill brings in.</para>
<para>I think that at this point it's really important to make clear that, for people who are already on a My Aged Care package, there won't be any additional costs, and, for new entrants, the government is going to pay 100 per cent of clinical care services, with individuals making some contributions to the help they receive around independence—which might be help with showering, getting dressed or taking medications—and everyday living—the things that we do all our lives, such as shopping, cleaning, gardening or meal preparation. How much someone contributes will be based on the age pension means test and will be highly dependent on their personal circumstances. It is not going to be one size fits all. It will also be dependent on the level of support they are assessed to need and their combination of income and assets.</para>
<para>If you are eligible for contributions once you begin to access aged-care support, whether it's in your own home or in a residential setting, there will be a lifetime cap on what you pay, at $130,000. I think that really deserves a little bit more explanation. One of the things I want to absolutely clarify and make sure there's no confusion about is that there will be no changes to the means testing of the family home. Older people with low means will still be supported to access the care that they need. They're the things that just will not change. The government will also remain the major funder of aged care.</para>
<para>There are a whole lot of technical differences that will come through. In Support at Home, for instance, you will no longer have to pay a flat weekly fee. You will make a contribution towards services categorised as everyday living or independence, as I've said, and that amount will be assessed. In residential care, those residents who can afford it will make contributions towards the hotelling supplement and the non-clinical care, based on a means test. Accommodation pricing will also change. There will be an increase to the maximum room price and to daily accommodation payments, which will be indexed so their true value doesn't diminish, and people who pay with refundable accommodation deposits will pay a two per cent retention from the principal deposit for a maximum of five years.</para>
<para>These are some of the modest things that we're doing to ensure that there is sustainability for the aged-care providers. What we've seen in the last decade is no significant new residential accommodation built. There has not been enough viability and certainty for that sector. Quite frankly, I look around this chamber, and not all of us will need it as early as others—I think I'm probably the oldest one here, so I'll probably need it first! But I know our families will want to know that in the long term, into the future, this system is strong.</para>
<para>I'd like to talk a little bit about the approach to this bill. It is really about putting older people at the centre of their care and making sure the system works for them rather than anything being configured around the system. It is all centred on older people, and it's about high-quality, safe and compassionate care and services for older people.</para>
<para>It's also worth saying at this point that the people who work in aged care now are absolute heroes for the work they do, and I've witnessed this in recent years. My father spent two years in aged care. It was mainly during COVID, from 2020 to 2022. He died in 2022. During those two years I witnessed wonderful care being provided to him. People would have a joke with him in even the most dire circumstances. That's why those workers are so important. It's why one of the very first things we did in government was ensure there was a significant pay rise for workers in aged care. We've delivered more than $15 billion in funding for pay rises to workers. This has seen registered nurses earning up to $10,000 a year more and personal care workers earning up to $7,000 a year more. We want those care workers to also be treated with respect and dignity. We've made sure that across Australia there are registered nurses on site in aged care homes 99 per cent of the time so that our residents get the care they deserve.</para>
<para>Older Australians are now receiving an additional 3.9 million minutes of care every day thanks to our changes, and that has resulted in changes to the wellbeing of residents. There has been a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of residents experiencing polypharmacy antipsychotic medication use, falls that result in major injury, use of physical restraints, significant unplanned weight loss and consecutive unplanned weight loss. We're also seeing improvements in the star-ratings data, with fewer one- and two-star rated homes and more four- and five-star rated homes. That's about making sure the quality of care meets what we would all expect our older family members or neighbours to receive, and for us to receive one day in the future.</para>
<para>Along with this legislation around the financial reforms and changes and the new Support at Home program are things like a statement of rights for older people and a positive duty for providers to uphold those rights. There are also statutory duties for registered providers of aged care and there are civil penalties and a compensation pathway attached to those. There's a new approach to regulating aged care which really balances the incentives for continuous improvement and high-quality care and the stronger regulatory powers and civil penalties to protect people from harm.</para>
<para>Significantly, there is a new ministerially appointed complaints commissioner and whistleblower protections to make sure that older people, workers and other people have clear pathways to raise concerns about the quality of aged-care services. I think for older people and their family members, for carers, for advocates and for workers—and I really want to stress that—that a new complaints commissioner with powers and responsibilities independent of the regulatory commissioner means there is a voice to raise issues, to have them heard and to have them taken seriously, with an expectation that providers will work to address them or face really serious consequences.</para>
<para>This is a package of work that I'm really pleased to be supporting. These reforms are really significant because they are the next step in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care. The interim report of that royal commission was called <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>, but many of us could see that neglect happening long before it was the title of a royal commission report. It's what drove us to want that investigation to look into the practices, the systems and the flaws, and to try and identify where it was working and how we could replicate that across the board.</para>
<para>I'm very confident that the changes that we're bringing in will lead to a different way of thinking about aged care and about being supported at home. The changes will mean Australians have respect and dignity as they age. They get to stay in their home for longer—as long as they can be supported there, and we hope that that will be longer. I hope it also means that families will feel less of a challenge in supporting their older relatives, and I really commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Aged care is one of the most important parts of the federal government's responsibilities to its citizens. The Aged Care Bill 2024 results from the most significant recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in 2020, and it has been long coming and the subject of much consultation. There are unfortunately significant residual concerns with respect to the limitations of its rights based approach, to its complaint mechanisms, to its provision of supports for older Australians with a disability and those from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, and to its definitions of quality care.</para>
<para>This new aged care bill emphasises a rights based approach. It outlines a statement of rights for older people; however, those rights are not enforceable in any meaningful way. Parenthetically, this speaks to a bigger issue, which is the lack of a human rights act in this country. The bill relies on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the complaints commissioner to uphold the rights of older Australians, but there is no positive duty for providers to ensure that those rights are met. This lack of enforceability means that the rights it identifies are unfortunately, in reality, more aspirational than practical.</para>
<para>This positioning of a statement of rights in aged care is at odds with the rights to access healthcare. The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights specifically sets out the right to access healthcare services and treatment which meet individuals needs. It's incongruous that we guarantee the right to healthcare services in this country to receive treatment in a medical fashion when you need it but we don't guarantee the same thing—we don't reciprocate this basic right—for older people. This seems curious, particularly given, as the previous speaker has pointed out, that our population is aging and that escalating aged-care needs will be in tandem with escalating healthcare needs for the Australian population.</para>
<para>Moreover, the rights delineated in this bill do not guarantee Australians quality aged care delivered when and where they need it. Rather, all the bill guarantees is the right to be assessed for eligibility for funded aged-care services. We all know that an assessment is pointless if the services that are required are not available. It's also worth considering that the statement of rights concludes, 'Nothing in this division creates rights or duties which are enforceable by proceedings in a court or tribunal.' This means that the rights enshrined in this aged care bill are enforceable only as far as the strengthened quality and safety standards extend. It means that the impact of a rights based approach is reliant on the effectiveness of the roles of the regulators, the system governor, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner and the complaints commissioner.</para>
<para>Unlike health care and the NDIS, the Aged Care Act retains a rationed approach to health care. Access to care is not a universal entitlement based on the needs that are assessed. This approach can lead to lengthy waiting periods and to inadequate support for people who need help. For people with a medium priority, the expected wait time for an approved homecare package is one to three months for level 1, three to six months for level 2 and nine to 12 months for level 3. I'm sure I'm not alone as a MP in having heard from many frustrated, anxious constituents and their families, who have been waiting for months on end to access the care that they need. Just last month, I heard from the daughter of a man who'd been waiting nearly 12 months for a level 4 package. On escalating the inquiry, the only immediate solution offered by My Aged Care was to go back to the existing level 2 provider to see whether any additional services could be offered under the gentleman's current package. It's not good enough.</para>
<para>Waiting for aged-care packages can have a significant impact on families. It leads to emotional, physical and financial strain. There are also productivity costs. I hear from family members who have had to reduce their own work hours or leave their jobs to provide care for elderly loved ones. It's not good enough for those family members and not good enough for those elder Australians. As this legislation does not address the need for a universal entitlement to care based on the assessed need, supported by adequate funding mechanisms, there is no guarantee that waiting periods will improve.</para>
<para>Secondly, although the new aged-care bill aims to improve the quality and accessibility of aged-care services, there are widespread concerns in the disability community that it falls short in supporting older people with disability. Firstly, it fails to provide a clear definition of 'disability' within the bill, which could lead to inconsistencies in how services are provided and accessed by older persons with disability. Secondly, the bill maintains a separation between aged care and other services such as health care, including allied health, and the NDIS. This siloed approach could well lead to fragmented care and support, making it difficult for people with disability to navigate the system.</para>
<para>The separation creates a gap where older people with disability may well not receive the comprehensive support they need. For instance, individuals diagnosed with dementia at age 65 receive limited home support, pushing them towards residential care. In contrast, those diagnosed at age 64 receive much greater support under the NDIS and can often remain at home for longer. Another example is several constituents of mine who have post-polio syndrome. Many were too old to access the NDIS when it was introduced, and they are now appropriately concerned there may be no pathway to adequate support via the aged-care system.</para>
<para>The EM for this bill has to clearly explain the bill's intention and purpose in relation to older people requiring disability supports. It should explicitly state that the aged-care act will facilitate provision of disability supports to older people who would otherwise qualify for the NDIS were it not for its age limitations. Further, the act should facilitate the development of a shared specialist disability assessment pathway which should be co-designed by and with people with disability and their representative organisations.</para>
<para>I have other concerns with respect to the legislation of eligibility for aged-care services for some people with disability aged less than 65. For the very first time in Australian history, this aged-care bill provides eligibility for aged-care services for people with disability aged between 50 and 64 who are from First Nations backgrounds, homeless or at risk of homelessness. These services include residential aged care and home care. This represents a policy reversal of over 25 years, with the federal government having promised to work to solve the issue of young people in residential aged care. There's real concern in the community that this eligibility change will lead to more young people with disability being institutionalised in aged care. These facilities are not suitable for their needs. This is occurring at a time when the Commonwealth is still claiming to be actively pursuing a national target to have no person aged less than 65 in residential aged care by January 2025.</para>
<para>I also point out that the bill's reliance on a market based model for aged-care services is problematic. It assumes consumer choice will drive sector development, but it's not always feasible for older people who may not have the capacity or desire to shop around for services. We need a values based public policy framework that integrates aged care with mainstream health and community services. We've seen the issue of leaving things to the market before with the NDIS. It didn't work with the NDIS, and we don't seem to have learned the lessons from that policy failure.</para>
<para>Ultimately, this bill's success will hinge on the availability of a well-trained and adequately staffed aged-care workforce. We note the workforce faces significant issues at this time. There's a risk that the bill's increased demands and higher standards of care could exacerbate existing workforce shortages. Without a concurrent focus on attracting new workers and retaining existing staff, the aged-care system might well struggle to meet the bill's ambitious objectives. On reviewing this legislation, Margaret, a 76-year-old constituent from Kooyong, summarised this issue for me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is a challenge and a tension between the aims for a quality and humane provision of care for older Australians and the realities of funding and staffing challenges.</para></quote>
<para>She also noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This could push smaller, not-for-profit providers out of business while larger providers' priorities for profit are counter to better quality care.</para></quote>
<para>I couldn't agree more, Margaret.</para>
<para>This bill introduces new practices such as the focus on supported decision-making and the revised incident management framework. These will necessitate substantial investment by aged-care providers in upskilling and training programs for their workforces to ensure that they can effectively implement the bill's provisions. The act does not, however, implement robust training requirements for aged-care workers, as was recommended by the royal commission. Those workers in all aged-care centres around Australia need to receive explicit training, as recommended by the royal commission, on cultural safety, trauma informed care, dementia care and palliative care to ensure high-quality care for all aged-care recipients.</para>
<para>Further, the bill lacks direct provision for services tailored to culturally and linguistically diverse groups. This oversight can lead to inequitable access to care for older people from diverse backgrounds, many of whom will have unique needs and preferences. In my electorate of Kooyong, nearly 20 per cent of the community are Chinese Australian. There is no dedicated Chinese residential aged-care facility nearby and only two in Melbourne. The bill does enshrine the right to services in recipients' preferred language, and we know that older people—particularly those with cognitive loss, but all older people—tend to revert to their language of childhood in late adult life. So we need to be able to make sure that all constituents can receive aged care in a setting where the people caring for them speak their language—in this instance, Mandarin. But there's no guarantee for my Chinese Australian constituents that appropriate aged-care facilities will be available for them when they need that. The fact is that best-practice care really necessitates future planning and taking into consideration all aspects of the patient population, but there is no facility in this bill for that.</para>
<para>Finally, the use of automated assessment tools for determining care needs is another area of concern, and many members of my community have expressed concern about this. These tools, many of which are AI based, may not adequately consider the complexities of individuals' disabilities and comorbidities. If they don't capture all of the needs of the patient, how can they possibly provide all of the care required?</para>
<para>Further, the bill expands the collection, use and disclosure of information within the aged-care system. This raises important data privacy considerations. It authorises information sharing between a number of entities, including government agencies, regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies. While some data sharing might be necessary for coordination and oversight, the broad scope of the bill does raise concerns about potential misuse or unauthorised access to sensitive personal information.</para>
<para>The bill includes provisions for whistleblower protections, aiming to encourage the reporting of suspected contraventions. That's a good idea, but the effectiveness of these protections in practice, particularly the requirement for anonymity of complaints and preventing victimisation of people in an aged-care setting, will require careful monitoring. The bill promotes transparency by requiring publication of certain information about aged-care providers, such as details of banning orders. While transparency is crucial for accountability, it's really important that we strike the right balance between public access to information and protecting the privacy rights of vulnerable individuals.</para>
<para>The introduction of co-payments has raised concerns for many of my constituents who are concerned that we are potentially creating a two-tiered system in which those who can afford to pay will receive better services. It could lead to inequitable access to quality care, particularly for those with higher needs, who may be discriminated against by providers.</para>
<para>In conclusion, while the Aged Care Bill 2024 does represent real progress in addressing the needs of Australia's aging population, it falls short in a number of critical areas, particularly in supporting people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and those with a disability. The lack of enforceable rights, the separation of services and the inadequate provision of specialist disability support are significant concerns that really need to be addressed. We need to advocate for a more integrated and comprehensive approach which will ensure that older people with a disability and older people from other cultural and linguistic backgrounds can always receive the care and the support that they need. All Australians deserve the very best aged care, which has to include clear definitions, enforceable rights and a commitment to equity and inclusivity in provision of our aged-care services.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I have spoken more on aged care than just about any other topic in this place. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. This legislation represents the most significant structural reform to aged-care laws in a generation. Some of the speakers in this debate have spoken in detail on the bill. I intend to talk about the background of what led up to this bill, why the bill is necessary and then give an overview of it. Our new Aged Care Act will modernise a labyrinth style system to be more future-facing and to enable generational reforms to the sector. The current Howard-era Aged Care Act was put in place with the primary focus of how to fund aged-care providers. But this new act will put people at the heart of care.</para>
<para>The bill implements a number of election commitments that we took to the last election while in opposition such as mandatory aged-care food standards, statutory duty of care for registered providers of aged-care workers, screening, and stronger investigation powers for the regulator. These new laws aim to protect older Australians in aged care with stronger powers to investigate bad behaviour and civil penalties for breaching standards. Reforms like this don't happen every day; they are generational and are a significant shift.</para>
<para>It is important to look where we have come from because this is another area where the Albanese Labor government has had to clean up a mess left by the former coalition government. Their record was summed up in the title of the 2019 interim report of the aged care royal commission—<inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. The reality is that the coalition, in nine long years, failed abysmally in the aged care of our people whether in residential aged care, in home care or through the Commonwealth Home Support Program. This is a government that had a revolving door of aged-care ministers.</para>
<para>One of the first acts of the Abbott government when they came to power in 2013 was to get rid of the aged-care workforce development fund, which we brought in as part of our $40.2 million living longer, living better package. This had a severe impact on aged-care workforce, including in regional areas, and they failed to develop an aged-care workforce strategy to replace it. They moved aged care out of health and ageing and into the mega portfolio of social services. Eventually, after Labor and stakeholders campaigned for years to bring it back into the health portfolio, they finally did so. They abolished the panel for positive ageing, which was led by Everald Compton, Susan Ryan and Brian Howe. But that committee went ahead anyway and did their report despite the fact they were defunded and abolished.</para>
<para>One of the other early acts back in September 2013 was to get rid of workforce supplements. That was funding to go to residential aged care to increase wages, training and workforce development. When Labor opposed that—and I was the shadow minister for ageing at the time—it took the coalition 32 minutes in the House of Representatives to cut $1.2 billion in funding to aged care. Then in June 2014 they cut the dementia supplement and the veterans supplement which were helping people stay in their homes and get the care they needed. That is why there was a royal commission, that is why its interim report was titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline> and it is why the final report talks about the far-reaching and almost dramatic changes that need to happen in the sector because those opposite neglected it again and again and again. They could barely find a budget or MYEFO where they didn't cut funding again and again. In the 2016-17 budget, for example, they cut $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the scoring matrix of the aged-care funding instrument that determines the level of funding paid to aged-care providers. That is not the $1.2 billion I was talking about before; that is an additional cut. So they cut $1.2 billion directly from the sector and they wonder why it was neglected. They wondered why people were leaving the sector when they weren't paid enough and didn't have career development, training or opportunity. People were malnourished. There were maggots in wounds. People were literally starving in soiled bedsheets and soiled clothing on the previous government's watch.</para>
<para>Our government's trying to make up for the failures of those opposite, who failed the aged-care sector and failed those people who were going before us and who need care. They were vulnerable. They were living with dementia; more than half the people living in residential aged care are living with dementia. Those opposite failed them massively. They shuffled money around all the time, and that's why the sector was crying out for reform and why the bill that we're bringing today is so necessary. The former coalition government should have had a look at the interim report that was handed down in October 2019, but what did they do? They continued to use sleight of hand to cut the funding, and they did this just before the interim report was handed down. If they could find a bit of money for aged care to placate the aged-care providers, they did so, effectively to try and pre-empt and gazump the interim report.</para>
<para>In contrast, what we need to do is structural reform, so we're providing structural reform and billions of dollars in this bill. This is necessary for a sector where Australians have been failed. <inline font-style="italic">Care, dignity and respect</inline> was the title of the royal commission's report, and that's what those opposite failed to provide—the care, dignity and respect that seniors deserve. We are taking steps and acting on the recommendations of the royal commission and the Aged Care Taskforce, and we know it's backed by the sector.</para>
<para>The bill before the chamber today, the Aged Care Bill 2024, replaces the Aged Care Act 1997—the Howard-era legislation—and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018. The bill builds on the work that the Albanese government has already done to improve the quality of aged care and increase the wages of aged-care workers. It responds directly to recommendations 1 to 3 of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and addresses 58 recommendations in total.</para>
<para>The legislation before the chamber is going to deliver a rights based aged care system; a new program that supports older people to live independently on their own, in their own homes, as long as possible; a new regulatory framework and a stronger regulator; new quality standards; and fair co-contributions to make the Australian aged-care system sustainable into the future. It includes reforms that we legislated through the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Act 2022 and the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Act 2022, including the requirement to have a registered nurse onsite 24/7. The bill will place high-quality, safe and compassionate care and services for older people at the centre of the system. The bill will enable the government's broader aged-care reforms to be implemented. We're on the precipice of an historic moment for aged care in this country and for older Australians and their loved ones. It's a landmark reform. It will shape the way people will live independently and with dignity as they age.</para>
<para>Since the tabling of the royal commission report in 2021, 136 recommendations have been addressed. As part of the government's response to the Aged Care Taskforce, we are rolling out a $5.6 billion reform package, including $4.3 billion for a new home-care system called Support at Home. One point four million Australians will benefit from the new Support at Home program by 2035, helping them to remain independent in their homes and communities for longer and contributing in those communities. This will come into effect from 1 July 2025. Critically, this will reduce wait times for in-home care, with a target of three months by July 2027.</para>
<para>Several principles underpin the reforms in this bill. Australians will get the support they need and make a reasonable contribution according to their means, as the taskforce recommended. Everyone already in residential and home care will benefit from a 'no worse off' principle from their place in the system. The government will pay all clinical care costs, with individuals contributing to the kinds of costs they would typically have paid throughout their lives, and the government will continue to pay for the majority of aged care costs. These reforms respond to the recommendations of the Aged Care Taskforce, which brought together older Australians, experts, residential aged-care providers and workforce representatives and recommended that Australians pay a reasonable means-tested contribution to the costs of their care. The reforms have bipartisan support, and we thank the opposition for their constructive engagement in the process, notwithstanding their abysmal record in government.</para>
<para>The Albanese government wants to give people more choice about the kind of care they can receive and help them stay in their homes and maintain their independence for longer. I know older people in Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Karana Downs area want to live independently in their homes. Our new Support at Home program will help to make that possible and will mean shorter waiting times for people to receive help. But if the time comes when a person needs to move into residential care, they deserve to live in a comfortable space that meets their preferences and needs.</para>
<para>These are the most significant aged-care reforms in 30 years. They will improve the funding, viability and quality of aged care and protect Australians in aged care from harm. And let's be clear about this: it's not about new taxes and it doesn't change the treatment of the family home. What it does help make room for in the budget is to ensure that we fund better services in the future and put aged care on a more sustainable footing. The government's reforms will provide certainty for the aged-care sector in my electorate.</para>
<para>I have been a strong supporter and advocate for local aged-care providers. Indeed, my family has worked in the aged-care sector in Ipswich for three generations. Earlier this year I arranged a visit by the minister for aged care to Cabanda Care in Rosewood to discuss the government's reforms and meet with staff and residents. Last month I visited Villa Maria Centre in Eastern Heights, in my electorate, to celebrate 30 years of Catholic health care in the Ipswich region. I know some smaller communities and regional providers like Cabanda will have concerns about what some of these reforms will mean for them around funding and workforce issues, and that's justifiable. It's good for them to have an opportunity to speak with a federal MP and the minister.</para>
<para>Prior to my coming to parliament in 2007, for 14 years I sat on the board of what is now known as Carinity, an aged-care provider in Queensland. As a lawyer working in private practice, I and my firm acted for many aged-care providers and many stakeholders who work with and for the sector, so I know a bit about this area and I'm pleased to see the progress we're making.</para>
<para>At a personal level, most of us know someone—whether it's a friend, a loved one or a relative—in home care or aged care and want to see them get the support they need. These changes will help us deliver better care for more people in our community in a sustainable way. We promised to act and we have. The bill has the potential to provide a new and enduring foundation for the aged-care sector from 1 July next year and for years to come. From then on, the aged care for people that we will put in place will put the rights of older people first.</para>
<para>The new Support at Home program will support all of us to live independently as best we can in our own homes for as long as we possibly can as we age. The aged-care system will be fairer, it will be financially sustainable and it will provide for contributions towards the cost—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 18:20</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this Aged Care Bill 2024. In July this year, I had the Lansdowne Aged Care Facility organise some of its residents to visit our parliament. It was the first time ever that Lansdowne Aged Care Facility have brought their residents here. They wanted to expose the seniors to Canberra and to the workings of parliament. It was organised by their manager, Nam Pham. She reached out and said, 'Do you think you can make it happen?' I did. I brought four elderly ladies—a couple with their walking sticks and walking frames—up to the members' dining room and hosted them to a nice lunch. It took them three hours to drive from Cabramatta to parliament. We were hoping to get them into question time but that three-hour drive and the whole experience in parliament was just so overwhelming that, after lunch, they drove back home. But it was a great experience for them and a great experience for Lansdowne Aged Care Facility to really see Canberra and Parliament House.</para>
<para>Lansdowne Aged Care Facility caters to our culturally and linguistically diverse community, in particular, Southeast Asian residents who have cultural needs in their food and care, particularly their language. I engaged with the Lansdowne Aged Care Facility when the draft of this bill was released. I reached out to them and other community providers, workers, as well as nurses in the system to get their feedback on what is working and not working.</para>
<para>Nurses who came to the forum were visibly frustrated with the understaffing of aged care. A nurse who attended the forum said, 'There is a growth in aged-care residents from multicultural backgrounds yet there is a lack of nurses with the appropriate language skills to ensure the residents' needs are supported. This is a gap.' Another nurse said, 'I want to do my best so each resident receives the care that they need but there are only a few of us at a time. To be honest, the aged-care sector is not really that attractive.' Nurses are the cornerstone of a functional aged-care system, and any health system for that matter, but they do not feel sufficiently supported. While there are current incentives available, there must be further conversation on how to better support nurses and, in turn, effectively assist older people within aged care.</para>
<para>Overall, I heard from providers, nurses and children of individuals about where our aged-care system has gone wrong. It was a mixture of different pain points: aged-care residents not having their needs adequately addressed, the lack of nurses wanting to work in aged care, understaffing, juggling competing demands, certain aged-care providers not doing the right thing, the minimal resources, the lack of training to address the complex needs of aged-care individuals of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and compliance—the filling out of paperwork, the demand on providers to provide that rather than focusing on the individual care—and the list goes on.</para>
<para>In my doorknocking, I came across elderly people who chose to stay home because their children feared that the aged-care homes would fail their elderly parents. For example, I met Mrs Kwang, who is 104 and still living independently—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know! Independently and in her home. She lives on the third level of a block of units in Carramar. I was so surprised because, when I knocked on the door and it opened up, there she was with her son sitting there. Apparently the children take turns in coming and cooking for her and cleaning for her. But I was so amazed to see this 104-year-old sitting there in her bed on the third floor of her block of units in Carramar.</para>
<para>I have also visited many other nursing homes within my electorate to speak to aged-care residents to understand the state of our aged-care system. I found some of our aged-care facilities in Fowler to be so professional. The staff provide so much care, especially when speaking the resident's language, and they provide the culturally appropriate food that is needed. I know that, if you're coming from a culturally and linguistically different background, it's very important to have food that you grew up with, and so some of those areas are working for them.</para>
<para>The population of people aged 60 in Fowler in 2021, according to the ABS, was about 39,498 people, which is more than 20 per cent of the entire population of Fowler. As of June 2023, there are 28,648 recipients of aged-care services in south-west Sydney. The cohort of the aging population will only continue to grow.</para>
<para>Constituents have attended my office and written in about the issues with the aged-care system on behalf of their parents or loved ones. Interestingly, a young consistent named Jennifer wrote to me, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I would never put my parents in an aged care facility as I heard it is full of substandard care and even neglect. My parents cannot speak English well so it's more concerning.</para></quote>
<para>I think this is a stigma currently attached to the aged-care system—that it is distrustful, incapable and not fit for purpose. The issues and concerns shared were not far from what was found in the report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.</para>
<para>There is a lot to unpack with the Aged Care Bill. I understand that the Aged Care Bill will address 60 recommendations of the royal commission's report and the <inline font-style="italic">Final report of the Aged Care Taskforce</inline>. The bill will establish a modern rights based legislative framework that focuses on the safety, health and wellbeing of older individuals and places their needs at the centre of the aged-care system. I'm glad to hear that this approach will be taken, and I commend the government for following the royal commission's report recommendations in drafting the objects of this bill.</para>
<para>It is crucial to get the objects of this bill right to set the scene for an aged-care framework that's workable, sustainable and trusted. If we all put ourselves in the shoes of those needing aged care—we will all age and be in need of aged care one day—wouldn't we want a system that has a high level of service and care that would ensure individuals accessing aged-care services are free from mistreatment, neglect and harm, that the services are accessible and more? Surely, we all would want a system of aged care that is of the highest standards.</para>
<para>However, as my constituent Jennifer shared, it is important to ensure that the needs of individuals of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds are being addressed and that they do not become unintentionally neglected. Whilst the object does provide for an aged-care system which takes into account the needs of the individuals first, regardless of their location, background and life experiences, I urge the government to clearly stipulate that the new aged-care system will ensure that the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse people are also being effectively accounted for.</para>
<para>When I spoke to my constituents, it was a common theme that they wanted an aged-care system which supported their ability to live at home safely. This is particularly relevant to older people who came to Fowler as refugees and migrants and who have invested their whole life working to buy their family home, so there is an undeniable attachment.</para>
<para>Again, in my doorknocking, I have met so many seniors living at home and being cared for by their loved ones because they believe that our aged-care system doesn't cater to their cultural needs. This is where our home-care package is crucial. The royal commission's report revealed, 'Older people are not getting the home-care package at the time and level needed, with the wait time to be as long as 34 months'—that's about three years—'for those with the highest needs.' This meant that people could literally die waiting for a home-care package. The report also found that the home-care packages were insufficient to meet the needs of many older people, such as the highest level of care only getting eight hours and 45 minutes of service per week. This is disappointing to hear.</para>
<para>I understand the government will be introducing the new Support at Home program, replacing the home-care packages and short-term restorative care to the tune of $4.3 billion, which works out to be about $19 per person. This is supposed to include more tailored support determined at assessment and eight ongoing classifications, instead of the four Home Care Package levels, starting at $11,000 per year and reaching $78,000 per year for the top classification. These figures might make sense to the policymakers who developed them, but the critical point will be: will this new program provide adequate care for our aging population? Not only that, but the government needs to ensure that this latest information is clearly explained and provided to those in culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Fowler and across Western Sydney. Too often when the government makes policy decisions and changes from the ivory tower of Canberra, by the time it gets to where lives matter, the information gets lost in the lack of translation and practice. Home-care services reported that the largest proportion of recipients were those with a preferred language other than English. Will the government ensure that the brochures are circulated in various languages to assist CALD older individuals navigate the new Support at Home program?</para>
<para>There will be new rules for aged-care providers and workers. Aged-care providers will be required to apply for registration which will be decided by the commissioner. There is also a separate set of obligations on aged-care workers and 'responsible persons of registered providers' to comply with the aged care code of conduct. Failing to do so will incur civil penalties. This is in line with recommendation 92 of the royal commission's report. There is pressure for the aged-care providers to do the right thing or risk a high civil penalty or lose their registration.</para>
<para>Aged-care providers who attended my aged-care forum shared two primary concerns regarding the Aged Care Bill during the exposure draft: financial sustainability for providers to meet the compliance requirements; and whether it would lead to uninsurable risk, such as that providers will not be able to obtain insurance due to the high civil penalties. To be clear, I think the new aged-care system must have strengthened compliance requirements for aged-care providers to ensure that individuals accessing the service are not subjected to harm or neglect. Providers doing the wrong thing need to know that there will be dire consequences under the aged-care reform.</para>
<para>However, there must be a balance and a compromise with key stakeholders, such as providers, for long-term and sustainable reform. We do not want to be in a position whereby older people will not be able to access the residential care and support that they need because providers are unable to support their operations. And we do not want to burden providers with excessive bureaucratic demands of filling out paperwork instead of focusing on what they do best, which is to provide care for our loved ones in an aged-care facility.</para>
<para>This aged-care reform is critical for Australians, and I welcome the government's efforts in taking the steps to respond to the royal commission's report for a better aged-care system. Aged care being a rights based model is a step forward. I reiterate that it is important that these reforms be explicitly inclusive to the needs of the culturally and linguistically diverse ageing population, especially those in my electorate of Fowler.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we all grow older, our lives change in both expected and unexpected ways. There are the stages we see coming such as retirement, watching our children grow and create families of their own, and perhaps downsizing to a smaller home. These are moments that we can emotionally and practically prepare for. However, there are also moments that catch us completely off guard, like the sudden decline in one's health or the unexpected challenges of caring for a loved one who now requires more support than before. These changes, whether gradual or sudden, affect not only individuals but their families as well. Families often find themselves struggling with complex emotions like stress, guilt and worry. There are scheduling difficulties like managing time and medical appointments and then there are the finances and caregiving responsibilities. This is in addition to trying to maintain their own busy schedule.</para>
<para>In the Illawarra, we have faced significant challenges. After a decade of neglect and a lack of investment by those opposite, we have a shortage of aged-care places across Australia. This has put enormous pressure on our aged-care providers and our health system, and none more so than in the Illawarra. Through this neglect, the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District have lost over 600 aged-care beds. This has now left a deficit of around 900 beds in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region, which was confirmed by the Department of Health and Aged Care. In Wollongong, we are really feeling the pressure of this deficit as 14 per cent of our population is aged 70 and over, which is higher than both the New South Wales and national averages. During the past winter period, the number of patients in Illawarra Shoalhaven hospitals awaiting placement into an aged-care facility peaked at 156 patients per night. These numbers paint a really stark picture of the crisis we are facing in the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven.</para>
<para>The shortage of aged-care places isn't just a statistic. It has a profound impact on the lives of families across our community. Patients who should be in a supportive aged-care environment are instead in hospitals which are already stretched to capacity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Margot Mains, Margaret Martin, Megan Foye, Professor Jan Potter and Dr John McKenzie from the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District. They have worked tirelessly to help manage this crisis which has placed pressure on our local hospitals. Margot and her team's dedication to providing the best care possible in difficult circumstances is truly commendable.</para>
<para>While hospitals are essential for providing acute medical care, they aren't suitable for the long-term aged-care needs of our elderly. Older adults, especially those with chronic conditions, thrive in specialised aged-care facilities that provide a supportive homelike atmosphere. Extended hospital stays can lead to increased infection risks, social isolation and inadequate rehabilitation. Aged-care homes and home based services are designed to enhance quality of life, ensuring the comfort and ongoing support that older individuals truly need.</para>
<para>I have met with many people who have shared with me the immense challenges that they face in trying to care for their elderly parents. Juggling work, the needs of their children and their own personal lives while searching for suitable aged care can be overwhelming. They speak to me about long wait lists, limited choices locally and the anxiety of not knowing when or if they will find the right care for their loved ones.</para>
<para>I met recently with a woman called Renee. Renee's story about trying to find appropriate care for her father is one that is truly heartbreaking. Renee contacted my office in June. She and her family were severely frustrated with the lack of available beds and respite. Renee's father, James, had advanced dementia and had been cared for by his wife, Jan, for over five years. Sadly, due to the decline in her physical and mental health, Jan was no longer able to provide the care that James desperately needed. Renee and her family faced a wait for a reassessment for James to get the care that he deserved. He was assessed while he was at home, while he was being cared for by Jan, but, as his needs changed and he was admitted to hospital, he was in need of a reassessment. James would be in hospital for the foreseeable future while the family waited for an assessment.</para>
<para>Caring for a patient with advanced dementia, like James, requires specialised support due to the unique and complex nature of the disease. Many staff in our hospitals are not equipped to provide high-quality and specialised dementia care. Dementia affects different people in different ways; each patient has a very unique experience. Medical professionals that understand this and have the appropriate training are able to provide better care.</para>
<para>Despite the family's efforts to find a suitable aged-care facility that had specialised dementia care to meet his needs, James's health continued to decline. While getting treatment for an eye infection, James developed pneumonia. On 20 August 2024, James sadly passed away. Renee's last memories of her father were not ones that she would have hoped for. She wanted somewhere where her father could live out his final days with specialised care in an aged-care setting.</para>
<para>Sadly, Renee and her family are not alone in this situation. Many families in our community are facing similar struggles trying to care for their loved ones. Stories like this truly break my heart. They keep me up at night thinking that too many families in our community are facing this struggle. Addressing the aged-care shortage in our region is crucial for these families and it has been something that I have been working to fix with the Minister for Aged Care and my New South Wales colleague, the Minister for Health and member for Keira. Our community deserve to know that when the time comes they will be able to access the right care for their parents without sacrificing their own wellbeing. Sadly, we don't have a magic wand to wave to make the years of neglect from those opposite and the subsequent problems we are now facing go away. We need to roll up our sleeves, do the hard work and find the much-needed solution.</para>
<para>On a local level, we have worked together and introduced a range of short-term, medium-term and longer term initiatives to take the pressure off the healthcare system and ensure that the elderly in our community receive the care that they need. The Albanese and Minns Labor governments have worked together to provide significant additional support for aged care in our region including joint funding for 35 new transition care places through to June 2025 to help transition older people out of hospital and back into their homes. They are also introducing the New South Wales Aged Care Outreach Service, a special flying squad of doctors, nurses and specialists who visit aged-care homes across the Illawarra. We've also got funding to the Acute to Residential Care Transition Service program, run by Dementia Support Australia, which assists people living with dementia and their families in transitioning from hospital to residential care. We've also supported an eight-place specialist dementia care program at HammondCare Horsley. We've also opened the Wollongong Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in Corrimal to provide urgent care and reduce unnecessary hospital presentations. We've also secured $16.5 million in federal funding, through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program, for the Illawarra Retirement Trust. This funding will enable the opening of 48 additional much-needed beds—18 of which will be part of the memory support wing, helping people with dementia—as well as refurbishing 50 two-bedroom suites. All of this will be completed late next year.</para>
<para>On top of this, the Albanese Labor government knows the importance of aged care and how instrumental all staff working in this sector are. That's why we've committed to providing a much-needed wage increase to retain the skilled aged-care workforce and to providing fee-free TAFE courses to attract more people to the industry. During the recent local government elections, I called for an aged-care planning review, and the new Wollongong council lord mayor, Tania Brown, has committed to an aged-care planning review to help address this pressing issue.</para>
<para>These measures are already making a difference, but there is still much work to be done to address the ongoing aged-care shortage in our region, and this bill is set to do that for the long term. The introduction of the Aged Care Bill 2024 marks a landmark, once-in-a-generation reform that will shape the way we support people to live independently and with dignity as they age. I want to take this opportunity to commend the minister for her hard work to make the aged-care system better and fairer. These changes are bold, they are brave and they are a turning point in how we care for our aging population. They will ensure that older Australians receive high-quality care that is designed around their individual needs. They set out to improve their quality of life, whether they are receiving services at home, in the committee or within residential aged-care facilities. The legislation introduces a new era of transparency, accountability and respect, aimed at restoring trust in the aged-care system</para>
<para>One of the many key changes that this bill is set to bring about is the introduction of the Support at Home program, scheduled to commence on 1 July next year. This program will replace existing home-care systems, allowing older Australians to receive more tailored support that promotes their independence and enables them to remain in their homes for as long as possible. For many Australians, aging at home is the preferred option, allowing them to stay in familiar surroundings with the care and support that they need. This means around 1.4 million Australians will benefit from the new Support at Home program by 2035, helping them to remain independent in their homes and communities for longer.</para>
<para>In addition to Support at Home, the bill responds to the recommendations of the royal commission by focusing on key areas of reform. This legislation is also going to deliver a rights based aged-care system; a new regulatory framework and a strong regulator; new quality standards; and fair co-contributions to make the Australian aged-care system sustainable into the future. The reforms respond to the recommendations of the Aged Care Taskforce, which brought together older Australians, experts, residential aged-care providers and workforce representatives. The government's response to the Aged Care Taskforce will ensure that the aged-care system is adequately resourced to meet future demand. This includes making sure that funding is allocated in a way that is fair and equitable, ensuring that all Australians, regardless of where they live or their finances, have access to quality aged care.</para>
<para>The government will now fully fund all clinical care, while participants make contributions towards services that they have paid for or been responsible for their entire lives, such as gardening, cleaning and personal care. The 'no worse off' principle will ensure participants are no worse off because of the reforms. This will ensure that participants will make the same contributions, or lower, that they would have under a home-care package arrangement.</para>
<para>In residential care, residents who can afford it will now make contributions towards the hotelling supplement and non-clinical care based on a means test. These measures will ensure residential aged-care providers can attract the necessary investment to keep current facilities operational, enhance quality and build new homes. A lifetime contribution cap for care costs will be implemented across the aged-care system, ensuring no-one will contribute more than $130,000 to their care costs regardless of their means or duration of care.</para>
<para>The Aged Care Bill also recognises the vital role aged-care workers play in delivering high-quality services. By establishing an enforceable code of conduct for aged-care providers, the bill ensures staff are held to the highest standards of professionalism and care. This code will provide protection for older Australians while giving providers clear guidelines on how to meet their obligations. It is a step towards creating a culture of respect and accountability within the aged-care sector.</para>
<para>In addition to this, the new regulatory framework will give the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission greater powers to take enforcement action when providers fail to meet the required standards. This will ensure that aged-care facilities are not only compliant with regulations but actively delivering the best possible quality care. This bill is not just about fixing the problems of the past; it is about building a system that respects and cares for older Australians in the way they deserve.</para>
<para>For the Illawarra, these reforms are crucial. We need more beds, better services and a system that delivers the care and dignity that our older people are entitled to. Through increased capacity, improved quality standards and greater support for both workers and providers, the Illawarra and all of Australia will be better equipped to care for our ageing population. Together, we can make a real change to so many Australian lives through this once-in-a-generation opportunity, ensuring that no older Australian is left waiting for the care they need and that they can live their later years with the dignity and respect they deserve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So many touching personal stories are being related here. I and many others can absolutely relate to them personally, through personal experience. We need reform.</para>
<para>Labor says this bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, is a once-in-a-generation reform. But who is this supposed reform for? It seems it's not for all older Australians, who deserve dignity and respect as they age. No, it seems it is more for the for-profit providers, who are looking to squeeze every cent out of that profit out of an already problematic, some would say broken, system. Any aged-care reform needs to be actual reform centred on the dignity and the rights of older Australians. Instead, it appears we're getting a somewhat suspicious deal between Labor and the LNP that's a dream for for-profit providers and a nightmare for potential participants. I've certainly had many concerns raised with me by the older citizens of Ryan, and the Greens and I share their significant concerns about what this deal will mean for older people. It's absolutely critical that older people have a say on this bill and the implications it will have for them. We can't risk creating a two-tiered system that bakes in inequality. The government needs to fund an accessible system for all Australians who need it.</para>
<para>Opening the door to an expanded user-pays model risks serving only to increase the profits of private providers, many of whom are effectively committing daylight robbery of older people—we've seen it—with no consequences for those operators. It's cruel treatment when we should have a system of proper care and support. We should be building systems that last and that provide for everyone in our community, not continuing down the path of prioritising profits over older people.</para>
<para>The Greens have long called for a shift to a rights based framework in which older people must have rights that are unequivocally clear and enforceable. We're concerned about the lack of enforceability of rights in this new bill. The elderly are not commodities for the profit of aged-care providers; they are citizens who have made lifelong contributions to our communities, and they deserve respect, dignity and care. We all deserve to know that in our later years we will be looked after. It should be an obligation for the government of any moral and mature society to ensure that older people get the care they need. But Labor has yet again let their agenda be driven by the coalition and for-profit providers to the clear detriment of older people. So much of this process, problematically, has been discussed behind closed doors, and older people must have a right to input and to understand the extent of the changes that will impact them. What we do know is that under Labor and the LNP's deal, they've already made significant changes to the benefit of the providers like actually removing any criminal penalties for any wrongdoing.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety exposed the appalling neglect and abuse in our aged-care sector and made recommendations designed to fix these systemic issues, yet the Labor government has again decided to merely tinker around the edges, rejecting the royal commission's recommendation for an aged-care levy, opting instead to increase contributions from aged-care participants. Fundamentally, any reforms to aged care should enshrine the rights of older people who are seeking or receiving aged care. If the government is truly serious about making sure this is true once-in-a-generation reform, we need to get it absolutely right. For these reasons, the Greens will be opposing this bill in the House and reserving our final position in the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Human beings need care. Without care, none of us would have survived our arrival into the world. We need thoughtful, loving care when we are children. We need care when we are in trouble or unwell in any way. That is throughout our lives. We have to look after each other. The toughest and strongest don't always feel tough and strong. A person who seems invincible one day can be vulnerable and uncertain the next. As mature adults, we see our relationships not only with our parents and older family members but with older people generally changing and evolving. We don't all age the same way. There are people in their 80s and 90s who are forces of nature, bold and challenging, and there are others who seem to have lost their sense of themselves and their place in the world, who are heartbreakingly vulnerable, even fearful. All of them deserve and must receive our respect. If we wish to be respected as we mature and age, we have to set the example. On an individual level, the vast majority of us do that the best we can. Working adults are often time poor, and looking after older family members ourselves is often not an option, and particularly in a culture—unlike in some other cultures—where we are not a nuclear household, that is made even that much harder. On a societal level, it is complicated. It takes intense and serious commitment.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety established in 2018 was initiated by reports of appalling carelessness, heartlessness and actual brutality. Aged care, it was not. It was neglect at best and was in places much worse than that. Was this the future that awaited our parents, ourselves and our children one day? Once you could no longer earn a living or fend for yourself, could you be treated as worthless? The royal commission's final report tabled in March 2021 was entitled <inline font-style="italic">Care, Dignity and Respect</inline>. It called for a new act which would have as its objective the provision of a system of aged care based on a universal right to high-quality, safe and timely support and care to (1) assist older people to live an active, self-determined and meaningful life and (2) to ensure older people receive high-quality care in a safe and caring environment for dignified living in old age.</para>
<para>The Albanese government was elected in May 2022. Aged care is now on our watch and what have we done? Well, in July 2022 we set to work. We reached out to some of the most vulnerable of all older Australians, older First Nations people. We invested $106 million in the provision of face-to-face support and $115 million to build culturally safe aged-care facilities. In the same month, we made it clear that a qualified registered nurse was to be on site in every residential aged care across Australia 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That has now been achieved. We set aside $9.5 billion in funding and made provision for an additional 40,000 home-care packages. In October 2022, we initiated a $3.9 billion package of reform. We provided $25 million for research into dementia, aging and aged care. The May 2023 budget announced an overall spend of $36 billion on aged care for the financial year 2023-24.</para>
<para>Taking aged care seriously means taking aged-care workers seriously. The people caring for our aged should be skilled and valued professionals who are treated accordingly and able to devote themselves to their careers in this vital field. The Albanese Labor government made a commitment in 2023 to fund the 15 per cent award wage increase determined by the Fair Work Commission. This is already bearing fruit. The turnover of staff in aged care had been very high, and now that's dropping. In places it's down to half of what it used to be.</para>
<para>I was thrilled recently to visit the Midland North Metropolitan TAFE with the Minister for Skills and Training, Andrew Giles, and to see and meet the new young generation of people working towards a career in aged-care services. They are delighted and enthusiastic about their career path ahead. This means greater stability, greater continuity and the chance for aged-care workers to really get to know the people they're caring for as human beings. We're spending billions on this, as we should.</para>
<para>Here's an important point though about spending billions: you have to do it carefully and deliberately in pursuit of what you believe to be right and necessary. You look at what you want to achieve and move towards it step by step, with each step being sustainable and heading in the right direction. We've set ourselves a goal, putting the rights and needs of older people at the centre of the aged-care system. The older people you love and who you will become have rights—the human rights that many of them, in their different ways, work for. Like every human being, they have needs. They need respect, friendship, support and dignity. We have a statement of rights for individuals and a statement of principles for government agencies and bodies. The statement of rights declares Labor's belief in the essential right of independence, autonomy, empowerment and freedom of choice. People receiving aged care have the right to make decisions and be supported in making those decisions and the knowledge that those decisions will be respected. They also have the right to take personal risks in pursuit of a quality of life, social participation and intimate and sexual relationships. Let's think about that for a minute. It's a declaration of belief in the right of a human being to go on growing, challenging themselves and learning. Whether or not they are retired from paid employment, they should not be expected to retire from life.</para>
<para>Labor is also emphasising something at the heart of all we do in every aspect of policymaking: the importance of equitable access. The right to equitable access to education, training, care of all kinds and the chance to be all that you can be is a fundamental Labor value. We acknowledge the right to be treated with dignity, respect and safe, fair, equitable and non-discriminatory treatment. We insist upon the right to have one's identity, culture, spirituality and diversity valued and supported.</para>
<para>A couple of weeks ago Minister for Aged Care, Anika Wells, someone who actually worked in the sector, managed to remove coalition disagreement to another set of investment in the proper care for senior Australians. I hope I don't sound too cynical when I suggest that perhaps some Liberals and Nationals hoped that voters in years to come will imagine that these ideas and changes were theirs when they were not. The minister was able to announce an additional $900 million worth of incentives and funding to support aged care in so-called thin markets like regional and rural areas and peri-urban, like mine is, areas. Under the coalition, despite the presence of the Nationals, these areas often missed out. So, when Labor says 'all Australians', we mean it. The Aged Care Bill 2024 is a big step forward for the people we love, for the people we know and respect, for ourselves—all of us, the people we will become—and for Australia's children and, of course, their children. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We all want our older Australians to have the care that they deserve and that they so desperately need. We all want equity in our aged-care system. The care that you receive should not be determined by your postcode. It should not be determined by whether you live in a remote region or in the middle of a city. Every single Australian, irrespective of where they live or their situation, should be able to seek their own pathway into retirement clearly and be able to look forward with confidence, not fear, to how they will live in their later years. Unfortunately, that's not always the case in today's aged-care system, so it is beholden on government to do better—much, much better. Our goal as a parliament must be to create a world's-best-practice model of care when it comes to our older Australians. That's the only benchmark that our older Australians deserve, and it's a model of care we must start delivering immediately, forthwith. This cannot wait.</para>
<para>The new Aged Care Bill 2024 will replace the existing aged-care laws, including the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018. The introduction of the bill follows the release of the exposure draft of the Aged Care Bill on 14 December 2023 and the <inline font-style="italic">Final report of the Aged Care Taskforce</inline> on 12 March 2024. The bill will cover all aged-care and home-care services that are funded by the Commonwealth. The primary aim of this bill is to simplify the aged-care sector. It moves it away from being far too complex to navigate to being a system that tries to remove the stress involved in transitioning into this phase of one's life.</para>
<para>For its part, the coalition has worked tirelessly for six months with the government, in good faith, in order to progress the bill. But, to be clear, this bill represents Labor's reform package, and this has not been a co-design process. We have fought hard to make amendments where we believed that changes were necessary, and we have achieved significant changes throughout this process—changes that will ensure that the dignity of older Australians is at the front and centre of our policymaking agenda, and changes that will ensure that no Australian is penalised because of their geographical location, cultural background or financial position.</para>
<para>The aged-care sector is growing exponentially when it comes to funding for aged care. In 2021-22, the government spent $24.8 billion on aged-care services for around 1.2 million people. In the next 40 years, there will be around 3.5 million Australians over 80 years of age. This will mean that the cost of providing residential and home-care services will continue to rise exponentially for the foreseeable future. We will need to see at least 10,000 new beds opened each year for the next two decades in order to keep up with that demand. This is an unprecedented challenge for the sector as a whole, which is currently not profitable as it stands today. The Aged Care Taskforce report highlighted that 69 per cent of residential aged-care providers made an operating loss in the year 2021-22. The report stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Unless the aged care sector's financial viability improves, it will be difficult to attract investment, either as debt or equity. Improved financial viability is necessary to deliver improvements in service, quality and to address service gaps.</para></quote>
<para>The bill proposes significant changes in how aged care is funded. Government funding currently constitutes around 75 per cent of the total cost of residential aged care and around 95 per cent of home-care funding. The Aged Care Taskforce noted in their report that this was 'not an optimal or fair mix'. Their recommendation was that the participant co-contribute an increased amount in order to make this sustainable. This is a recommendation that government has adopted.</para>
<para>Of significant concern to us, as the coalition, was the retrospective nature of Labor's bill and Labor's proposal. If it had been implemented, Labor would have placed significant financial penalties on those who are already in aged care. All aged-care residents and their loved ones would have planned for their retirement in good faith, based on the arrangements that they had prior to making that arrangement. They shouldn't be penalised for this. That's why the coalition negotiated so hard for the government to adopt a grandfathering arrangement for those already in aged care.</para>
<para>The coalition has advocated on behalf of older Australians who are currently in the aged-care system, to guarantee that they will not pay one cent more for their aged care during their lifetime, and we've been successful in bringing about changes to this bill. Anyone in residential care when reforms begin on 1 July 2025 will be exempt from the fee restructure. This will also be the case for anyone who was on the waiting list for home care on Thursday 12 September—the day of the package being announced.</para>
<para>When it comes to older Australians in the bush in regional and rural Australia—this is particularly pertinent to my own electorate—older people living in rural, regional and remote Australia face significant challenges and barriers when accessing aged care. Disproportionately, older people living in rural Australia experience delays in accessing aged care or simply do not receive the aged care that they need or deserve. This leads to increased frailty, to functional decline, to increased hospitalisation and to premature entry into residential aged care. It's heartbreaking to see families pulled apart from their loved ones when they must relocate to communities hours away, making it difficult for connections.</para>
<para>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples represent a higher proportion of people living in remote Australia. However, the number of older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples accessing aged care in remote areas is low. This indicates that there's a lack of culturally safe and appropriate aged care on country, where they live and where their communities are. There are significant workforce shortages in rural Australia also, and attracting and retaining an appropriately skilled and multidisciplined aged-care workforce is exponentially difficult.</para>
<para>Higher operating costs, workforce shortages, travelling distances and smaller population sizes limit economies of scale in remote areas, creating unique challenges for the provision of aged care in the bush. This is a snapshot of life in the bush, and this bill must address the current inequities between the capacity to provide aged care in the city and in the bush. That's why the coalition fought to ensure Labor understood the realities of living life on the land, in the bush and in the regions.</para>
<para>Our advocacy for regional and remote communities ensured that the bill now contains an additional $300 million for infrastructure funding for those regions. This funding stream will be available through the ongoing Aged Care Capital Assistance Program that funds regional, rural and remote aged-care providers. This funding is critical for upgrading facilities that often struggle to meet the necessary standards due to fiscal and financial constraints. Older Australians will now have better access to quality and safe aged-care services, regardless of where they live, and that's only right.</para>
<para>The bill's specific provisions for regional areas will also include an investment of $600 million in Support at Home, as part of a $5.6 billion aged-care reform package. This funding will be available for eligible Support at Home providers from 1 July 2025, and the grants will benefit people with diverse backgrounds and life events, while supporting service stability in rural and remote Australia.</para>
<para>Introducing criminal penalties into the bill was a promise Labor made. This included jail time on what they termed as 'dodgy aged-care providers' who were negligent or who mistreated residents. This was not a recommendation put forward by the royal commission, and it's simply another example of this government's heavy-handedness and naivety when it comes to the regulation of the industry.</para>
<para>Labor's proposal has been described as terrifying by those in the industry. That is the last thing we want when we are trying to attract good people to the industry. The coalition's position on criminal penalties has always been clear. We have responded to recommendations of the royal commission, we have listened to the aged-care sector, and what they told us time and time again was that it will force highly capable staff from the sector in fear of being criminally punished. It will do nothing to improve safety. We would see an exodus from the industry at a level not seen before and not seen by any other industry if these were to continue.</para>
<para>Of course the coalition supports the need for older Australians to be safe and be cared for in our aged-care system. However, in the middle of a severe workforce crisis Labor's plan was heavy-handed, it was an approach that was not needed and it imposed an unacceptable risk in our opinion. The threat of jail time if the last thing that aged-care workers and volunteers need as they work hard to care for older Australians in their care. We were non-negotiable on this issue and were pleased that Labor listened and were able to remove this from the provision of the bill.</para>
<para>Moving through the aged-care process should not be traumatic; it should be as seamless as possible. We want an aged-care system that is driven by the desires and expectations of our older Australians, models that reflect the way they want to live in aged care. For that to occur, aged care must be sustainable. The coalition will work continually with older Australians and the aged-care providers to ensure this model is fit for purpose and robust enough to ensure the support of future generations as they age.</para>
<para>As I close, I want to also mention something that is not in the report. As I travel around my electorate and visit my aged-care providers, it takes me about two minutes to work out as soon as I walk inside the door what the culture of the place is like. You can see it in the eyes and in the faces of those in the aged-care home. Nine times out of 10 it is a positive place and our older Australians love being there. That is not mentioned. That culture, that leadership, that care, that empathy, that understanding, that respect that we want for every single aged-care home throughout all the states and territories must be at the centre of every piece of legislation. We must refer to that and reinforce that and encourage that because that is what makes an aged-care facility a home. After all, that is what older Australians expect and deserve. They need a home and they need someone to respect them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It might be said the health of a society can be judged on its treatment of its elderly people. On that score, Australia's record is far from perfect. A quarter of a century ago, not that long ago, we were treated to the horrors of nurses ordering kerosene baths for nursing home residents. What followed was a litany of cases of neglect in aged care and, at worst, abuse. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed even more shocking failures in the treatment of people who deserve the utmost respect in their advanced years. After decades of indifference to the operation of Australia's aged-care industry, we could no longer go on looking the other way, ignoring how the system was failing our most vulnerable citizens—our elderly.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety did not call its interim report <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline> without good reason. Evidence to the commission revealed a government-commissioned report that estimated there were no fewer than 50 sexual assaults per week in aged care, the majority being perpetrated by other residents with dementia and cognitive disabilities. Under existing regulations, there was no requirement to report or even register those attacks and still it goes on. In February, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission reported more than 1,000 cases a month of neglect in residential aged care. A 'concerning spike', the commission called it—concerning indeed. In what other sector of our community would we tolerate this failure of care? That quarterly report on performance standards confirmed 3,134 cases of neglect in residential care homes and 556 in home care. Rates of neglect have increased since late 2022, when 1,861 cases were reported by the commission.</para>
<para>It's very likely that the spike in cases was a consequence of providers taking the issue more seriously and being more diligent in reporting incidents to the commission. If so, it's better that we know the true situation in our residential aged-care homes, but it is still not good enough. Nor is the process leading to this legislation. Yes, there was an exposure draft, but the bill we have before us is the result of closed-door negotiations between the government and the coalition. No sunlight shone on those discussions. Again, this House is being asked to put the cart before the horse. The Senate inquiry currently underway gives the opportunity for the quality of the legislation to be publicly assessed and for stakeholders to have their say. But, again, we are being asked to vote on a bill before it has been fully scrutinised. The Senate inquiry is also arguably being conducted in such a rush that stakeholders are still scrambling to make submissions, even as hearings are already being conducted. Given the level of neglect and abuse that has been exposed in aged care, this is concerning.</para>
<para>Australians facing the prospect of accessing residential aged care need to have full confidence that the horrors exposed by the royal commission are a thing of the past. That said, it seems most stakeholders—both representatives of aged-care facilities and services as well as representatives of the aged themselves—have welcomed the legislation as a step forward. The Council on the Ageing, for example, says there have been improvements since the consultation around the exposure draft. However, COTA says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is still our view that the Act should proceed, hopefully with amendments … to improve its approach and implementation.</para></quote>
<para>COTA applauds the direction of the legislation on several fronts. There is the focus on person centred quality care; the availability of services to all Australians, irrespective of their means; a stronger regulator to monitor and enforce provider obligations; and a complaints process focused on resolution, headed by an independent commissioner.</para>
<para>It was originally envisaged that providers could face criminal penalties for substantial breaches of good practice and good standards. This was central to the concerns raised with me by providers in Goldstein, who argued that they would provoke an exodus of capable workers from the sector due to fears of criminal punishment. These criminal provisions have been dropped from the bill. Instead, there would be civil penalties for providers, including fines of more than $1.5 million for serious failures that lead to a person's death. However, COTA points out:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Most civil penalties proposed in the Act will require the Commission to initiate and successfully prosecute poor practices by providers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are concerned by the curtailing of the Commission's ability to issue infringement notices—</para></quote>
<para>or fines—</para>
<quote><para class="block">compared to both their powers today, and the broader powers originally proposed through the exposure draft.</para></quote>
<para>One question is whether the commission will have the resources to ensure it is effective. It costs more money and takes more time to initiate legal action than it does to issue infringement notices. Infringement notices might also have a greater deterrent effect than the threat of legal action, with offenders knowing they have the resources to delay legal action rather than to clean up their act or act more responsibly in the first place.</para>
<para>The creation of an independent complaints commissioner is welcome. It's important that, in a change from the exposure draft, the commissioner would have the powers to secure an enforceable undertaking from a provider as part of the resolution of complaints. COTA, though, would like the legislation to go further, to include mechanisms to ensure mediation and consultation as part of the complaints process are enshrined in the legislation. Should that be the case, we could be well and truly assured of the minister's prediction that the commissioner would be:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a voice to raise issues, to have them heard and taken seriously, with the expectation that providers will work to address them or face serious consequences.</para></quote>
<para>We will know for sure once the Senate has completed its inquiry and made its recommendations, and once we have seen whether the government acts on these concerns.</para>
<para>The Inspector-General of Aged Care—who's responsible for overseeing the administration, regulation and funding of the system by government—already has reservations, stating in a submission to the Senate inquiry that the government has fallen short of implementing the quality of safeguards envisaged by the royal commission. The submission says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Office does not consider the approach taken in the Bill to embed high quality care meets the standard envisaged by Royal Commissioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Office considers the approach taken in the Bill to safeguard individuals' rights to be largely aspirational. In particular, the Office is concerned that it will not implement a rights-based framework as clear or as robust as Royal Commissioners envisaged, because the pathways available to individuals to understand and assert their rights lack the necessary vigour to drive real change.</para></quote>
<para>COTA also believes there are shortcomings—for example, that the statement of rights should apply equally to government officials or those contracted to implement their functions in the same way as is being proposed for aged-care providers. COTA also says it's concerned that 'the new legislation does not have an exceptional circumstances pathway for people under 65 years of age to access the most appropriate service for them'. That may be the aged-care system in particular for sufferers of early-onset dementia. COTA adds that 'while supportive of the fact that 99 per cent of participants in aged care will be over this age, we remain concerned that some younger people could be left unsupported as there is no alternative'.</para>
<para>One of the big remaining questions is whether the new arrangements will make the aged-care system financially sustainable and more equitable. I think all MPs in this place know that many aged-care homes are struggling. The government and the coalition agree it will, so either way the bill will pass. It is right that those with more should pay more. It's also right that the maximum amount people will contribute to their care at home or in an aged-care facility will increase from the current lifetime cap of $79,900 to $130,000. And it's sensible that the new cap will be indexed to inflation. Those in residential care when the reforms begin next year will be exempt from the new fee structure, as will anybody who was on the waiting list for home care when the package was announced last month. That decision is also welcomed. Introducing more means testing arrangements for everyday living and nonclinical care costs should allow taxpayer funding to better target support towards residents with less financial means.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that this bill is a step forward, and a considerable step at that, for a sector that has been plagued with problems and scandals for decades. However, some of the remaining issues with the legislation could have been sorted out so that we wouldn't have legislation that will change once the Senate inquiry has concluded.</para>
<para>I finish by saying that there are profitability and workforce issues in aged care, and the system remains a huge challenge for families to navigate; I'm sure every staffer in an electorate office around the country would agree with that from their dealings with constituents. The system is very complicated. There is much more to do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the brief time remaining, I will speak to this being a moment of the parliament at its best. Many people in the community lament the lack of reform out of this place and the lack of constructive engagement. This bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, has both. This is an example of the parties of government working with each other on a critical part not just of our economy but of our society. It is about who we are. We know all Australians deserve an aged-care system that is sustainable into the future but also provides for a dignified retirement for Australians who deserve no less.</para>
<para>I will briefly speak to the people in my community who are passionate about this area. Someone who is very close to me, Helen Jurcevic, is someone who gives up a lot of her time to work for others. She runs a group called the Women's Friendship Group. It is a group of women, many of whom lost their husbands years ago and many of whom live in facilities that are subject to this act. They gather regularly, share stories and acknowledge different multicultural days. It's quite a diverse room. I want to thank Helen and all of those who are with her for the work that they do in giving that dignified life that is not lonely.</para>
<para>When I go to events that are run by Helen and I speak to many people who either are in these facilities themselves or have friends who are, they tell me how much the staff mean to them. Of course, we know that the staff who provide medical care—those who are nurses and look after people who have particular needs—are important, and they are really valued, but you often don't hear about the other staff: the people who make their food for them with care; who chat to them in their own time, their spare time on their breaks; and who show a smile when they're tucking them in at night or helping them do things that might otherwise make them feel embarrassed. It's that human touch that really matters.</para>
<para>Recently, I got to go to one of the facilities where the staff were being recognised for the good work that they do. What I saw there was a mostly female staff, mostly multicultural—most of them weren't born here. They were proud of the work that they do. They were honoured to serve people at this stage in their lives and also listen to them about all of the stories and experiences that they've had in life. You could tell that they get joy from that job, but it's a bloody hard job.</para>
<para>I'll finish in the remaining time by saying: thank you, Helen, and thank you to all of the staff, at all levels, who work in this critical area. To future generations of Australians, I say: you can be proud of the parliament. This is an example of us working to keep future budgets in check and not see them fall apart. We do keep one eye on the <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline>, and this is one of the five key line items that we have been warned to address. This parliament has turned its mind to that, and that is a great credit to the government and also to the opposition and all those in this place who have worked towards that. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and thank you, everyone—on indulgence.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being virtually 7.30 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 11 September 2024 and varied on 9 October 2024, the debate is interrupted. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. I thank all of the staff of the Federation Chamber for your assistance today.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:27</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>