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

Thursday, 10 October 2024

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 1

Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Consideration in Detail 1 09:01 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on amendments moved by the honourable member for Kooyong to the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that amendments (1) to (6) be agreed to.    

The House divided. [09:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 12 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 68 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, R. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 2 09:08 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 2

Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:10 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today we are really proud to be introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024. I'm also introducing it on behalf of my colleague the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, and I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge him and to thank him for the really substantial work that he does for the government and for the country when it comes to competition reform, supported, as always, by the Assistant Treasurer, the Prime Minister and our colleagues in the ministry. This bill is another big step towards reforming Australia's merger rules and further boosting competition and productivity in our economy. It outlines the biggest reforms to Australia's merger settings in almost 50 years. It will create a regime that more efficiently and effectively targets mergers that are anticompetitive, while allowing mergers that are procompetitive to proceed faster. We understand that most mergers have genuine economic benefits and are an important feature of any healthy, open economy. They can attract capital and retool businesses and improve the uptake of new technologies. They can allow businesses to achieve greater economies of scale and scope, to access new resources, technology and expertise. This can flow through to consumers via greater product choice and quality as well as lower prices. But some mergers can cause serious economic harm. This can happen when businesses aren't interested in improving profitability by lifting productivity. When they're solely focused on squeezing out competitors to capture a larger percentage of the market. This can strangle innovation. It can reduce productivity in our economy and punish consumers with reduced choice. Treasury's competition taskforce has spent a lot of its time hearing about and thinking about these issues. The assistant minister and I set up this taskforce and its work has made plain that Australia's approach to mergers is no longer fit for purpose. The need for reform is very clear. Australia is one of only three OECD countries that doesn't require compulsory notification of mergers. Last year, over 1,400 mergers were recorded, at a value of around $300 billion. Meanwhile, the ACCC looked at an average of 330 mergers a year over the past decade. But we don't know whether these are the right 330, or the mergers with the greatest potential to cause harm. When the ACCC does assess mergers, the current approach is not transparent enough for businesses or for the community. Clearance can be too slow and cause expensive delays for some businesses as they wait. This legislation will bring our merger system into the 21st century. This bill enshrines our historic reforms into law. The legislation will improve our regime in five ways, by making the system faster, stronger, simpler, more targeted and more transparent. Approvals will be faster under the new system, with mergers ticked within 30 working days where the ACCC is satisfied they pose no threat to competition. The regime will be stronger thanks to a mandatory notification system and empowering the ACCC as the decision-maker on all mergers. The system will be simpler, because we are reducing three streams to one streamlined path to approval that removes duplication and standardises notification requirements for mergers. It will be more targeted, because mergers that create, strengthen or entrench substantial market power will be identified and stopped while those consistent with our national economic interest will be fast-tracked. Finally, the merger regime will be more transparent, by ensuring the ACCC has better visibility of merger activity. We are creating a public register of all mergers and acquisitions notified to the ACCC to promote this transparency and this accountability. Reviews of ACCC decisions will be the responsibility of the Competition Tribunal made up of a Federal Court judge, an economist and a business leader. Under the strengthened system, not every merger will be captured. Only mergers above monetary thresholds will need to be notified to the ACCC and be approved before proceeding. The government intends to set these monetary thresholds in regulations following the passage of this bill. There will be three key thresholds. Firstly, any merger will be looked at if the Australian turnover of the combined businesses is above $200 million, and either the business or assets being acquired has Australian turnover above $50 million or global transaction value above $250 million. Secondly, the ACCC will look at any merger involving a very large business with Australian turnover more than $500 million buying a smaller business or assets with Australian turnover above $10 million. Finally, to target serial acquisitions, all mergers by businesses with combined Australian turnover of more than $200 million where the cumulative Australian turnover from acquisitions in the same or similar goods or services over a three-year period is at least $50 million will be captured, or $10 million if a very large business is involved. Land acquisitions involving residential property development and certain commercial property acquisitions won't be included to avoid clogging up the system with simple land purchases unless they are captured by additional targeted notification requirements. These thresholds have been developed in close consultation with industry and with the community. The thresholds strike the right balance between creating a rigorous and robust regime without having to call in every single merger. These thresholds will allow the ACCC to focus its efforts on the mergers that really matter. We want to see the majority of mergers approved quickly, so the ACCC can focus on the minority that do give rise to competition concerns. The thresholds will be reviewed 12 months after coming into effect, to ensure they are working as they are intended to. In addition, the legislation provides flexibility to allow the Treasurer to adjust and calibrate the thresholds to respond to evidence based concerns from the ACCC about high-risk mergers, like in the supermarket sector. This power, combined with the thresholds, will allow the ACCC to review all the mergers that they have been typically concerned about. Using this provision, the government intends to make sure the ACCC is notified of every merger in the supermarket sector. Our intention to mandate this approach is based on evidence already provided by the competition regulator. Reviewing every supermarket merger is all part of the decisive action our government is taking to help Australians get fairer prices at the checkout. We want to make sure supermarket mergers don't come at the cost of Australians, families and pensioners getting a fair price on their grocery bills. Our merger reforms will help ensure our supermarkets are as competitive as they can be so that Australians get the best prices possible. On the advice of the ACCC chair, the government also intends to use this power to get the competition regulator to review purchases of an interest above 20 per cent in an unlisted or private company, if one of the companies involved in the deal has turnover more than $200 million. This is all about lifting the level of scrutiny and transparency for private markets transactions, which have boomed in Australia in the last decade. It will give the ACCC the ability to analyse changes of control in private companies to ensure negative competition effects are avoided and to scrutinise these deals in more detail. The government will also consider designation requirements for sectors such as fuel, liquor and oncology-radiology. These merger laws will take effect from 1 January 2026 and apply voluntarily for six months before that from 1 July 2025. This bill has been developed through really detailed consultation, and I wanted to take a moment here to thank everyone for their contributions. We are especially grateful for the input from the Expert Advisory Panel, comprising Kerry Schott, David Gonski, John Asker, Sharon Henrick, John Fingleton, Danielle Wood and Rod Sims. We're also thankful for all the discussions and consultation we have held with businesses—individually and peak groups—the competition regulator and the broader community. That input and those views helped to shape this legislation that we are presenting to the House this morning. This bill also builds on the Albanese Labor government's substantial and broad competition reform agenda, which is all about creating a more dynamic, more productive and more resilient economy. This includes revitalising National Competition Policy with all state and territory governments. It includes abolishing around 500 nuisance tariffs to cut compliance costs, reduce red tape, make it easier to do business, and boost productivity; helping Australians get a fair price at the check-out with a new, mandatory Food and Grocery Code, an ACCC inquiry and more funding for its investigations, reforms for planning and zoning regulations and funding for CHOICE, so that there's more price transparency; promoting competition in our financial system, including in payments, financial market infrastructure and through the introduction of a financial services regulatory grid; and helping bank customers find and follow better deals on their mortgages and higher interest rates on their savings accounts. This agenda will help expand choices, lift living standards and grow our economy. It will help ensure that our people, businesses and industries are beneficiaries of the opportunities before us in the defining decade ahead. The legislation I introduce today forms a key part of these competition reforms. We are proud to introduce it to the House. I thank my colleague, again, and I point honourable members to full details of the measure, which are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 4

Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:22 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The report of the robodebt royal commission made it clear. Strong and effective oversight mechanisms are fundamental to safeguard the community in their dealings with government. Trust in government depends on this. The robodebt royal commission concluded that the robodebt scheme was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal. Stronger scrutiny may have prevented the scheme's continuance. But the royal commission found that institutional checks and balances that should have raised serious questions about the robodebt scheme were ineffective. Under the former Liberal government, these checks and balances were intentionally blocked. The government's response to the royal commission committed to improving public trust in government. It recognised the importance of impartial, independent and robust oversight to deliver on this commitment. This bill delivers on recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. It will bolster the powers and capabilities of oversight agencies to ensure a failure like the robodebt scheme can never happen again, because central to the institutional checks and balances that could have made a difference to the outcomes of the robodebt scheme are independent and external oversight bodies. Oversight makes our institutions stronger. Oversight makes our democracy better. And most importantly, oversight keeps government agencies accountable to the people they serve. For these reasons, the government is introducing amendments to the Ombudsman Act to ensure that Commonwealth agencies are subject to stronger and more rigorous oversight. The bill This bill recognises the importance of ensuring the Ombudsman has the necessary legislative powers to undertake full, independent and transparent investigations. The robodebt royal commission made two recommendations for legislative change to the Ombudsman Act. First was that a statutory duty be imposed on departmental secretaries and agency heads to ensure their department or agency uses its best endeavours to assist the Ombudsman in an investigation. The royal commission also recommended that a corresponding duty be imposed on the part of Commonwealth public servants. The bill implements this recommendation in full, but it goes further than this. The bill extends the statutory duty to assist the Ombudsman to all of the Ombudsman's functions. This means that agencies will be required to assist regardless of whether the Ombudsman is making preliminary inquiries, conducting an investigation, or following up on implementation of its recommendations. In doing so, the bill reinforces the responsibility of heads of agencies to ensure their agency acts in good faith and proactively assists the Ombudsman in the performance of all of its functions. By imposing this duty on the staff of agencies, the bill also ensures the responsibility to assist the Ombudsman is clearly individually borne by all those in the Public Service. The second recommendation for legislative change was that the Ombudsman be conferred with a power requiring Commonwealth agencies to provide all reasonable facilities and assistance to the Ombudsman when the Ombudsman exercises its power to access an agency's records. Amendments in the bill deliver on the full intent of this recommendation. The bill ensures that the Ombudsman has strong powers to obtain full, free and direct access to agency records as part of an investigation. To further enhance the Ombudsman's ability to access an agency's records, the bill also specifically empowers the Ombudsman to obtain access to records remotely. These amendments ensure that the Ombudsman has a modern suite of effective information-gathering powers to keep agencies accountable. While most agencies engage in good faith with the Ombudsman, the findings of the robodebt royal commission made it clear that the Ombudsman should not have to be reliant on this assumption. The amendments made by the bill will ensure that the Ombudsman does not need to depend on government agencies to undertake searches and provide documents and information in the course of an investigation. The new and enhanced duties and powers in the bill will be extended to apply in respect of all statutory offices of the Ombudsman under the act, such as the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, the Postal Industry Ombudsman and the Overseas Students Ombudsman. This means that, whether they are dealing with Commonwealth agencies or other sectors such as private health, postal or education providers, the public can have confidence that the Ombudsman has effective oversight powers. The government also recognises the importance of the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman in providing assurance to the community that taxation laws are being administered with integrity. The bill implements the commitment in the government response to the robodebt report to introduce equivalent amendments for the inspector-general as for the Ombudsman. Conclusion Strong institutions are fundamental to the key mandate of government—meeting the needs of the community that it exists to serve. The public must be confident that government agencies are acting with integrity and accountability and that they act in a manner that is lawful, fair and transparent. The government has committed to improve this public trust. This bill bolsters the powers and capability of oversight bodies to ensure that government agencies are accountable. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 6

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:29 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is a bill to increase funding for our public schools. I'm a product of public education and damn proud of it. Education is the most powerful cause for good in this country. It doesn't just change lives. Its impact ricochets through generations. It changes communities and it changes countries. It's changed ours. And it's public education that does most of that heavy lifting: more than 6,700 public primary and high schools across the country, full of children from every background, every religion and every culture, and mums and dads up and down the income scale, doing every sort of job. That's part of what makes public education special. It's for everyone. But it also does something else. It plays an outsized role in educating the most disadvantaged children in this country, the children who are most likely to start behind or to fall behind, the children who need our help the most. And these are the schools that are the most underfunded. One in 10 children today are below the minimum standards that we set for literacy and for numeracy. But one in three children from poor families are below that standard, and most of those children are in our public schools. Many never catch up and many never finish school. Over the last eight years the percentage of students finishing high school has gone down, not up—from 85 per cent to 79 per cent. That drop isn't happening everywhere. In non-government schools the percentage of students finishing school is either pretty flat or going up. Where the drop is happening is in our public schools—from 83 per cent to 73 per cent. And it's happening at a time when it's more important to finish school than ever before, where more and more jobs require you to finish school and then get a qualification from TAFE or uni. This is what we have to turn around. This is what we have to fix. And this is what this legislation is about. In 2011 David Gonski delivered the report that recommended a new funding formula for schools, what we now call the schooling resource standard—or SRS. The SRS sets the estimated level of total public funding each school should receive to fund the cost of schooling each year. At the moment, the base per-student amount is $13,570 for a child in primary school and $17,053 for a child in high school. As part of the model that David Gonski recommended, additional funding is also provided for: students with disability Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students students experiencing socioeducational disadvantage students with low English proficiency; and school size and location. These are what we call loadings. For most non-government schools, the base per-student amount is reduced depending on the median income of the parents of the children who attend the school. This means, for example, that at a non-government school where the median family income of the parents is very high the school only gets 20 per cent of the SRS base amount. All of this is what's often described as the Gonski model or needs-based funding. At the moment all non-government schools are funded at the level that David Gonski set all those years ago, or they're on track to get there, or they are above it and coming back down to it. But most public schools aren't. The Commonwealth government provides 80 per cent of the SRS funding for non-government schools and the state and territory governments provide the other 20 per cent. For public schools it's the reverse. The Commonwealth provides 20 per cent of the SRS funding and the states and territories are supposed to provide another 75 per cent. Some do. Some don't. That means that there is at least a five per cent gap. At the last election we promised 'to work with all states and territories to get all public schools on a path to 100 per cent of the SRS'. What that means is both the Commonwealth government chipping in more and the states and territories chipping in more to fill that gap. To do that we have to amend the Australian Education Act. At the moment the act says the Commonwealth government will provide a maximum 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard to public schools. This bill turns that maximum into a minimum. It turns that ceiling into a floor. It enables the Commonwealth government to ratchet up funding for public schools. And it makes it harder for future governments to rip that money out. It means that, when the Commonwealth government does a deal with a state or territory to increase funding to public schools, that bigger Commonwealth share becomes the new floor for the state or territory. It's locked in and it can't go backwards without changes to the act. We've done three of those deals so far this year: with Western Australia, with the Northern Territory and with Tasmania. All of them involve the Commonwealth government chipping in more and the state and territory governments chipping in more. All of them mean more funding from 1 January next year. In the case of Western Australia it means every public school there will be fully funded by 1 January 2026, just over 12 months away. In the case of Tasmania it means every public school will be fully funded by no later than 2029. And in the case of the Northern Territory it means something that promises to be truly transformational. At the moment Northern Territory public schools receive approximately 80 per cent of the funding that they are supposed to get under the Gonski model. That is less than anywhere else in the country. In effect it means one in five children in the Northern Territory are not receiving any funding at all. The agreement that I signed this year fixes that. It doubles the Commonwealth's investment in public schools in the Northern Territory. And it brings forward the day that all Northern Territory public schools are fully funded by more than 20 years. And it means that some of the most disadvantaged public schools in this country today will now be some of the best funded. But to make this happen we need to pass this bill. There are some people who say that funding isn't important and that we just need practical reform. And there are others who say the exact opposite. The truth is we need both: funding and reform. As David Gonski said in his report: … resources alone will not be sufficient to fully address Australia's schooling challenges and achieve a high-quality, internationally respected schooling system. The new funding arrangements must be accompanied by continued and renewed efforts to strengthen and reform Australia's schooling system. I agree. That's why the agreements we've struck with Western Australia, with Tasmania and with the Northern Territory are not a blank cheque. They are tied to real and practical reforms. That includes: Phonics checks and numeracy checks in year 1 or earlier, to identify children early who are behind and who need additional support. Evidence based teaching and catch-up tutoring to help children to catch up and to keep up. Extra funding for mental health and wellbeing services in schools, including counsellors, psychologists and full-service schools. Providing access to high-quality and evidence based professional learning for teachers and school leaders and providing quality assured curriculum resources that have been developed in partnership with the teaching profession, and Paying experienced teachers more to work in schools that need additional support. All of this is part of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, which the Commonwealth and the states and territories have developed together. It also includes targets and measures to make sure that this money glows in the dark. I want parents and teachers to know where this funding is going. That's why this bill and the agreement strengthen the reporting and public transparency requirements around how taxpayer funding is invested, without placing additional burdens on schools. The agreement includes requirements for states and territories to outline how the additional money is being invested in these key reform areas, and a new public reporting dashboard. And the bill includes a new annual ministerial statement to the Australian parliament on the progress of school education reform agreements. This is important reform. But it is just one part of the reforms that we need to make to make our education system better and fairer. We need to reform higher education as well. That's what the Universities Accord is about. It's a blueprint for reform to higher education over the next 10 years and beyond. What it says is that we need to build a workforce by the middle of this century where 80 per cent of working age people have a TAFE qualification or a university degree. And the only way to do that, it says, is to help more people from poor families, more people from regional Australia and more people from the bush to get a crack at university and to succeed when they get there. We also have to reform early education. That's what the Productivity Commission's report that we released a few weeks ago is all about. It says that it's these same children—children from poor families, children from the regions and the bush, and children from disadvantaged backgrounds—are the least likely to get access to child care or preschool and the most likely to benefit from it. And this, what we're doing here, is the critical piece in the middle: helping those same children who start behind or fall behind to catch up and keep up and helping more students finish high school. It is what the Prime Minister calls opening the door of opportunity—a country where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. That, at its core, is what public education is about—what it's always been about. That's what this bill is about. If you support lifting funding for our public schools you will support this bill, and I commend it to the House. Debate adjourned. Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 9

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:42 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Ahead of the anticipated passage and commencement of the rights based Aged Care Bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 makes small changes to the 1997 Aged Care Act that are needed now to improve integrity, fairness and choice in aged care. The bill will amend chapter 6 of the Aged Care Act 1997 to enable the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to conduct residential care data assurance reviews. Modelled on the home care assurance reviews already enabled by the Aged Care Act 1997, residential care data assurance reviews will assure the completeness, accuracy and reliability of specified classes of residential care information and documents that aged care approved providers submit to the Secretary. Residential care data assurance reviews will also help better inform residential care policy and education for providers to provide complete, accurate and reliable data. Good data underpins good administration. Complete, accurate and reliable data resulting from residential care data assurance reviews will ensure: older people can make better and more informed choices about their care better residential care subsidy payment integrity better evidence about how extra funding, provided following the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, results in additional care better risk targeting by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission when regulating approved providers extra information about aged care costing and pricing. Importantly, providers who do not provide reasonable assistance to assurance activities or who are found to have provided false or misleading documents may be subject to a civil penalty. The bill will also amend chapter 3 of the Aged Care Act 1997 and chapter 3 of the Aged Care Transitional Provisions Act 1997 to introduce a stronger foundation for income and asset determinations, administered by Services Australia and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. These amendments will support care recipients by enabling an income and asset determination to be varied, and will also: better align processes and procedures used for the income and asset determinations, introduce a provision to make it easier for care recipients to update their financial information with the ability for the updated information to be made either retrospectively or prospectively, and enable the government to use the information that is currently reported in the refundable deposit register for the purposes of calculating the means tested amount, verify that care recipients' income and asset details are up to date and ensure their aged-care fees are calculated correctly. Finally, the bill will amend the Aged Care Act to clarify the maximum accommodation payment that may apply for voluntary moves within a residential aged-care service. The amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Transitional Provisions Act 1997will ensure that the next phase of reforms is undertaken using a stronger information base than currently exists. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 10 COMMITTEES Nuclear Energy Select Committee 10 Appointment 10 09:46 Ms HWA Kingston RISHWORTH (—) (): On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move: That: (1) a House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy be appointed to specifically inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia, including: (a) deployment timeframes; (b) fuel supply, and transport of fuel; (c) uranium enrichment capability; (d) waste management, transport and storage; (e) water use and impacts on other water uses; (f) relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines; (g) Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks; (h) risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns; (i) potential share of total energy system mix; (j) necessary land acquisition; (k) costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations; (l) the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability; and (m) any other relevant matter. (2) the committee presents its final report by no later than 30 April 2025; (3) the committee may choose to table an interim report at any time; (4) the committee consist of: (a) seven voting members, four Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the Opposition Whip; and (b) two supplementary (non-voting) members (one Government, one non-Government) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the Opposition Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member); (5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (6) the members of the committee hold office as a House select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier; (7) the committee elect a: (a) Government member as its chair; and (b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; (8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another Government member to act as chair at that meeting; (9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote; (10) three members of the committee including at least one Government member constitute a quorum of the committee; (11) the committee: (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 or conduct public hearings; and (b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only; (12) 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; (13) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee including at least one government member; (14) 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; (15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; and (e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and (16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. 09:47 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I move, as an amendment to the motion moved on behalf of the Leader of the House: That paragraphs (1), (4) and (11) be omitted and replaced with the following: (1) a House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy be appointed to specifically inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors and modern larger plants, in Australia, including: (a) deployment timeframes; (b) fuel supply, and transport of fuel; (c) the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle including value-add opportunities such as fuel fabrication and uranium enrichment capability; (d) waste management, transport and storage; (e) cooling options including water, its use and impacts on other water uses; (f) relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines; (g) Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks; (h) risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns; (i) ability to complement renewables and potential share of total energy system mix; (j) necessary land acquisition; (k) costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations; (l) the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability; (m) the impact on energy affordability; (n) the impact on energy reliability; (o) the impact on emissions reduction; (p) the impact on energy security; (q) the impact on the environment including geographic footprint; (r) the impact on regional communities, especially coal communities; (s) the potential for employment and broader economic impact; (t) the potential to leverage and expand the uranium sector; (u) ability to leverage existing nuclear institutions and capabilities including ANSTO, ASNO, ARPANSA and ARWA; (v) synergy with AUKUS; (w) potential to replace coal as a source of 24/7 baseload power; (x) global trends and lessons to be applied in the Australian context; (y) market design options to facilitate lowest cost electricity supply; (z) a cost comparison between alternate pathways to achieving a net-zero electricity grid including nuclear energy and the 2024 Integrated System Plan of the Australian Energy Market Operator; and (aa) any other relevant matter; (4) the committee consist of: (a) seven voting members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the Opposition Whip; and (b) three supplementary(non-voting) members (one Government, one Opposition and one crossbench) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the Opposition Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member) ; (11) the committee: (a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members (including at least one Government and one Opposition member) and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and (b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only. It has taken 2½ years for the Australian Labor Party and the Albanese government to make some form of attempt to engage with the debate on the potential of zero emission nuclear energy in Australia. They do that today, at a time when the Prime Minister happens to be out of the country, which might be convenient because we know he's not very good at handling this debate. It is also noteworthy that the motion being put by the Leader of the House only appeared on the papers here this morning, and therefore the opposition was given only an hour or so to have a read and come into the chamber, which makes one think about why they're doing it. In the midst of such a mess from this government, they sought to pivot yesterday and talk about the NBN. That fell flat, so today they're talking about nuclear energy. Let's see how that goes. But for now I'm happy to stand here in this chamber and take the Leader of the House at his implied word—because I haven't heard him say this yet—and the implied word is that he is seeking to make a genuine attempt to have nuclear energy genuinely considered by this House. Therefore, the amendments that I put forward today represent a test of the Labor Party, the Albanese government and the Leader of the House. This is a test of whether or not the motion they put forward on nuclear energy is genuine or disingenuous. Is it a matter of them being interested in good public policy, or is this another example of trying to be cunning and playing politics? The test is whether or not they support the amendments that the coalition has put forward. Let me be very clear about what those amendments do not do before I cover off what they do do. We have today not put forward any amendments which change the words or the substance of what the government wishes to cover within the inquiry undertaken by this new standing committee—that is, we have not deleted any terms of reference. For every term of reference of substance that the government wishes to cover, the opposition stands and says, 'Yes, we come to the party; let us talk about that.' But we have added other things that need to be covered. Anyone in the energy sector talks about three big priorities: (1) affordability to consumers, (2) reliability of energy and (3) emissions reduction. It's what they refer to as the energy trilemma. Interestingly these terms of reference omit three key aspects: (1) electricity affordability for households and businesses, (2) reliability and (3) emissions reduction. So we offer our gratuitous advice and recommendation by way of amendments today to say let's include those three considerations in a new terms of reference. It's also interesting that Australia already is a nuclear nation, yet the terms of reference put forward by the government do not include the institutional capabilities of nuclear already within Australia today, including ARPANSA, ANSTO and ASNO. They've been ignored. Let us include that in any consideration. Let us also include the AUKUS deal and the synergy of AUKUS because we know nuclear technology in Australia saves lives today by way of ANSTO and we know that nuclear technology has the capacity to protect lives in the future because of AUKUS. So let's have a look at that. Let's also compare the cost, from a total system cost perspective, of a balanced energy mix to take Australia to a net zero electricity grid, including zero emissions nuclear energy, with that which the government supports, which is the Australian Energy Market Operator's Integrated System Plan. Let's compare those two pathways to net zero. That's vitally important. Let's also look at the importance and the opportunity of ensuring we maintain a source of always-on, 24/7 baseload power in our system—the transition from coal to nuclear. Let's have a look at the impact on the environment beyond emissions and the geographical footprint of those options: the option of having a rollout of an all-eggs-in-one-basket renewables-only grid or a balanced energy mix including zero emissions nuclear energy. Lastly we need to ensure the committee is equally represented by government and opposition members, which is not what they put forward. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is there a seconder? 09:57 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I second the motion. I welcome the opportunity that the member for Fairfax brings to this chamber to improve and create a genuine mechanism for us to have a proper parliamentary inquiry into the great opportunity that civilian energy generation provides to the Australian economy. I start by commiserating with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy because he spent months, if not years, bellowing at the opposition about his presumed confidence in the facts around nuclear, and his own government is now saying we need to have an inquiry to reconsider everything he said to us in every single question time any time that he's been asked about nuclear. That is extremely humiliating to him, and I feel for him. It's interesting that he's not even in the chamber for a debate on this issue, but I suppose he is still being consoled and resuscitated from the humiliation of his own government saying, 'Despite what you've been saying in the parliament and despite the confidence that you've portrayed about your views on nuclear and your supposed confidence in the facts on nuclear, we are going to ask the House of Representatives to undertake an inquiry reconsidering everything that you, as our minister with these portfolio responsibilities in this area, have said to the House.' So I deeply commiserate with the minister there. I thank the Minister for Social Services for being the one to move this, because she's a Labor member from South Australia. The Labor Party in South Australia, particularly her faction, have been the great leaders of changing the Labor Party's position on nuclear for a long, long, long, long time. There was a time when the Labor Party would be in here demonising nuclear from safety angles, but they can't do that anymore, because they signed up to AUKUS. Their greatest argument against nuclear for decades and decades—which the Labor right, and particularly the South Australia Labor right, sought to fight within their own caucus and amongst their own rank-and-file branch membership—was this fiction that nuclear was dangerous and could be demonised from a safety point of view. When we announced our position on nuclear, some members of the government caucus sought to make those safety arguments, and, of course, they were immediately pulled into line by those in the government who said: 'You know that we're bringing nuclear to Australia anyway? You know that there'll be eight nuclear reactors in the bellies of submarines lashed to the walls out at Port Adelaide. You can't actually demonise nuclear because we're part of a government that is purchasing eight nuclear reactors, putting them in submarines and saying that it is safe to have Australian submariners work adjacent to these nuclear reactors while they're out serving our nation and defending our nation's interests.' The Labor Party has come a long way on safety, but now they need a new argument against nuclear because they can't use the safety one, and they have been trying this bogus one to demonise the economics of nuclear when nuclear is an embraced technology across the planet. At least now we have an opportunity to have a sensible process to reconsider the rubbish lines and the faux criticism that's been put forward so far. So establishing a committee makes a lot of sense, but I will say that the member for Fairfax, in seeking to amend the terms of reference to this committee, is ensuring that we actually achieve a very genuine, proper, comprehensive outcome when it comes to assessing the great opportunity that nuclear provides to our economy. If the government don't accept this very sensible proposition from the member for Fairfax, then they will be revealing the fact that what they are seeking to do here is to concoct a process that is not hoping to be genuine—that is not hoping to achieve an outcome of a proper body of work that shows the pros and cons of the opportunities of civilian nuclear generation in this country—but instead is a base political tactic where they are seeking to establish a committee that they can control, to stack it and control the outcome of it because it would be majority controlled by government members, and setting terms of reference that don't allow us to look at all the comprehensive important issues to be considered. What we would therefore have, rather than an opportunity to genuinely move this debate forward, would be something that is a low-rent political tactic from the government. That is only if they vote down the sensible amendments that the member for Fairfax is putting forward here. I'm sure that won't happen, because I'm sure the government are genuine. I'm sure they want a genuine process, and I'm sure, therefore, that they don't require to have the numbers on the committee to control its outcome, because if the facts are on their side they should have nothing to fear. They should have nothing to fear from the broadest terms of reference for this committee whatsoever, because apparently this is a process that will get the answers. Why would they fear having a proper, open, genuine process that they don't control? We're about to find out. I look forward to the next speaker from the government indicating that, having reviewed the member Fairfax's sensible proposition, they very happily support it, because the most important thing here is to achieve a process and a mechanism to get proper genuine answers. Regrettably, if they don't support it, it will mean that from the very beginning the whole thing was a complete sham. It will have absolutely no credibility, will be a complete stunt and will be a worthless waste of the resources of the parliament. Let's have proper conversation and debate about nuclear. Let's amend the terms of reference that are being proposed so that we can have a proper genuine process. I'm a South Australian, and in South Australia we've had a long history of leading the nation when it comes to nuclear technology not just in this country but beyond. I'm very proud of Sir William and Sir Lawrence Bragg, the pioneers of the X-ray. Sir Lawrence went to school in my electorate, and the great nuclear physicist Sir Mark Oliphant was born in my electorate. I recommend Australians having a better understanding of the great heritage and contribution of Australian scientists in the nuclear physics field and also the contribution that South Australia has made to the nuclear industry. We had the great debate in the seventies about opening up the Olympic Dam mine. A former Labor member for Sturt, Norm Foster, was expelled from the Labor Party for crossing the floor in the upper house to support the Olympic Dam indenture bill, which allowed that mine to go ahead. The Labor Party have come a long way from the days in the seventies when we weren't even allowed to dig uranium out of the ground. It was Jay Weatherill, the Labor Premier, who undertook a royal commission into building the planet's biggest high-level nuclear waste repository in South Australia. It was his ambition, as a Labor Premier of South Australia, to store half of the world's high-level nuclear waste in South Australia. He undertook a royal commission and built a business case. His own party abandoned him on it, of course, but he took the Labor Party forward quite significantly on the issue of dropping the blinkers and the ideological dogma against nuclear. Even recently, the current Labor Premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas—probably getting into a reasonable amount of trouble from his colleagues here in Canberra—has been very ambitious for the nuclear future of his home state. The AUKUS agreement provides a great opportunity for South Australia to be at the centre of taking the next step forward in participating in nuclear industries, with the construction of nuclear submarines in Adelaide. How logical is it, therefore, to take the next step? We dig uranium out of the ground in South Australia. Labor wants half the world's high-level nuclear waste to be stored in the ground in South Australia. We are building nuclear submarines in South Australia, which will of course have nuclear reactors installed in them. Why would we not have a proper, comprehensive, engaged analysis of how we can embrace the next opportunity of the nuclear industry, which is zero-emissions civilian nuclear generation, to complement our electricity grid to provide baseload power security as we transition to net zero by 2050? That's the obvious opportunity that we have. That's the sensible policy leadership that the coalition has been providing on this issue in our term in opposition. There's an opportunity, through the creation of a genuine process, thanks to the amended terms of reference from the member for Fairfax that we have before us, to continue the process of properly revealing the facts and the great opportunity of a civilian nuclear industry in this country. It's now over to the government to show that they're genuine about having a process that is dedicated to uncovering the facts and the opportunities of nuclear by supporting the sensible amendments from the member for Fairfax. And it's for us all, as a parliament, to take the next step forward in embracing the opportunity that the nuclear industry provides to our nation. I commend the amendment to the House. 10:07 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise to support the motion moved by the Minister for Social Services on behalf of the Leader of the House. I have been out and about in the Hunter electorate listening to my constituents, and I've heard from people all across the nation about the opposition's proposed nuclear scheme. One thing that has been absolutely clear is that people have many questions. Whether they support or oppose the scheme, the questions raised by Australians show that they want more detail. Right now, the information Australians need to fully understand the proposal is simply not there. We believe that, for a policy of this magnitude, which could have a significant impact on the future of our energy production and the direction of our country as a whole, it is critical that the details are provided to answer the questions that many Australians have. Whether Australia's future energy needs will be met by incorporating nuclear or whether our energy needs will be better served without nuclear power is an important decision that must be made with accurate information and proper consideration. In the interests of providing clarity about the true potential for nuclear energy to play a role in our future energy mix, I support the establishment of this House select committee. This committee will allow experts to be consulted and heard. Its role will be to inquire into and report on the feasibility of nuclear power generation, including the deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia. The focus of this committee, as outlined by the minister, will include the deployment timeframes; fuel supply and transport logistics; uranium enrichment capacity; waste management, transportation and storage; water usage and impacts on other water-dependent sectors; our existing energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission networks; federal, state/territory and local government legal and policy frameworks; risk management concerning natural disasters or other safety concerns; the potential contribution to the overall energy mix; the necessary land acquisitions; and the costs associated with deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations. These are questions that have all been asked since the opposition's nuclear announcement, but these are all specifics that we simply do not have concrete details about yet. These questions are crucial but have, so far, gone unanswered by those opposite. The future Australia that includes nuclear energy cannot be either embraced or rejected outright without these important specifics being thoroughly evaluated. By establishing this committee, we will gain a clear understanding of whether exploring nuclear power is in our national interest. I look forward to the establishment of this committee and welcome the informed decision and discussions that it will bring regarding nuclear energy. The people of the Hunter deserve it, as do those that live in Lithgow, Collie, the Latrobe Valley, Port Augusta, Tarong and Callide. I also look forward to contributing information to the committee on behalf of my community in the Hunter. I would also like to address a couple of things that the shadow minister for climate change and energy had to say as well. He has said that there was only a one-hour notice on this motion; that is not correct. They got this information yesterday evening. Whether his team passed that on to him or not is a different story, but they've had plenty of time to talk and think about this. For him to say that it's only been one hour is really misleading to the Australian public. I am looking forward to this committee and hopefully being a part of it and making sure Australians are well informed about what the possibility of nuclear energy is or is not. 10:12 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Let me say from the outset that I strongly support the amendments put forward by the member for Fairfax at the beginning of this debate. It is no secret, of course, that I'm a supporter of nuclear energy. I think it is the right way forward for Australia. Not only do I think it's the right way forward for Australia; it seems that the top economic nations of the world actually agree with that point of view, and they want to go in that direction as well. I'm a little bit more jaded than the member for Sturt may be. I've been here a bit longer than him, and he seemed to show great faith that the government was doing this in good faith—that they are actually looking for the possibilities for a nuclear future for Australia, to give it real consideration and put the merits on the table. Next month I will have been in this place for 17 years, and I'm afraid that my confidence in his assessment of the government is severely tested. Has the government come to a reality moment? I suspect not. The minister is in the chamber at the moment, and it's not hard to find quotes from him on his opinion of nuclear energy. I suppose, if the government is going to push ahead, one of the first casualties would be the minister's future as minister, because, obviously, he could not pilot that kind of policy reform through the chamber. He said it's the most expensive form of energy in the world, it won't work and it definitely will not happen in Australia. Now, presumably, he is behind this piece of legislation that is set to throw light on this issue. He may be in for a great disappointment. He's wrongly called this story at just about every step of the way thus far, and, of course, any committee will have to accept contributions from the public as they come forward. I suspect there will be a lot of very strong scientific contributions to this committee. It will be a far better committee if the amendments put forward by the member for Fairfax are agreed to. I don't think the evidence coming forward to the committee will suit the minister's point of view. The problem the government has with nuclear energy is that it just doesn't fit its narrative—the 100 per cent renewable future that they are determined to take Australia into. It's worth noting that this committee will, as all select committees are, be controlled by the government, and it will be interesting to see what it's findings are at the end. It doesn't suit the government's narrative, but it shows how out of touch they are with the Australian public, because the conversation has moved on, not just in Australia but around the world, as nations are facing the reality of net zero and how we get there. When any nation, any country, any economy goes down the pathway of renewables, they find out that the firming up of that technology increases exponentially. Remember, earlier in the debates around the world on climate change, there was a lot of discussion about the J curve. But I'm telling you there's a new J curve in vogue here, and it comes to renewable energy—that when you begin to install renewable energy it's very cheap to back up. It's already there; it's free. But, as we've seen in South Australia, if you have enough cheap energy coming into the market—and renewable energy is cheap to generate; I don't make any bones about that—there is the problem that it puts the baseload generators out of business, and then you've got nothing to back it up when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining. I've said in this chamber before how lucky we are in Australia to have South Australia as a test case, as the canary in the coalmine. We have demonstrated in South Australia that this is exactly not the way to go. We have, in South Australia, the highest level of renewable energy in Australia, barring Tasmania, by double—twice as high as in any other state in Australia. And our retail electricity prices are 50 per cent higher than in the next state. I have a bill sitting on my computer at the moment. I was speaking to a business owner in Port Augusta the other day. And it's interesting that it was Port Augusta; the member for Hunter mentioned Port Augusta. Two years ago this business owner was paying 32c a kilowatt for electricity, and on the last bill it was 60c. We haven't quite hit a 100 per cent increase. But how on earth is anyone expected to run a business under those circumstances? This business owner has installed a large number of solar rooftop generators—PV. He's getting the princely sum of 5c a kilowatt hour for his contribution to the power network. It is interesting that it was in Port Augusta, because of course Port Augusta is one of those places the coalition have nominated as a possible site for nuclear power stations. I thought the best I could do would be to put a circular out in Port Augusta. It was a nice four-page contribution, with a letter from Member Rowan Ramsey to the people of Port Augusta about how I think this would be very good for their future. The other day I asked my staff, 'What feedback did we get on that?' It turns out that we haven't had any feedback. So I rang up my mate in Port Augusta and asked, 'Did you get a publication about nuclear energy with a letter from me on the front of it?' He said, 'Yes, I got that alright.' I said, 'I haven't had any negative feedback; I haven't had any feedback at all.' And he said, 'No, that's because everyone I know just reckons it's a good idea and let's get on with it!' So, if the government thinks they're going to run a scare campaign around these places that have been nominated as possible sites for nuclear reactors, they're wrong. That is why I say that they are out of step with public opinion on this. I think there are two things that have primarily changed here, and I thank the member for Sturt for bringing up the issue of AUKUS. You can't on one hand say it is safe to put nuclear reactors in a tin can, stick a heap of Australian sailors in it and then park it in the middle of one of Australia's bigger cities—because they won't be parked just in Adelaide; these submarines will visit Sydney and Melbourne. They will say, 'That's perfectly safe,' but, if you were to move that reactor onto the dock alongside the submarine, then, of course, it's a horrific idea and it would poison the whole of Australia. These are ridiculous arguments. It is immature of the government to assess the Australian public's perception, understanding and intelligence by belittling nuclear energy. Maybe they have had that dose of reality, as the member for Sturt hopes. I suspect not. This is all about a government in panic leading up to an election. Why did we spend half of question time yesterday talking about selling off the NBN, which no-one has any intention of doing? These are distractions. Why did the Prime Minister have question time in the morning and then scurry out of Australia? Because a torch is well and truly on the government, and they are seeking to divert the attention away from their failings on just about every level on any issue that you would like to bring up. We're watching a government in meltdown, in the final stages of attacking itself. This morning, there was a contribution to the media from the Minister for Defence's former chief of staff. Things are coming apart at the seams. The government have been talking about putting in regulations on gambling advertising, and we go month after month because they're stuck. They can't work their way through the muddle. So what do they do now? They say, 'Let's bring out nuclear energy,' and, 'Let's bring out the scare campaigns,' and, 'Let's give the Greens a chance to come onto this committee to try and scare all those poor Australian children out there by telling them that their future is going to be clouded by the green vapour of nuclear energy.' It is so shallow. It is so transparent and pathetic, and the Australian public will see through it; I have absolutely no doubt about that. It will be seen through by the electors of Grey. I'm becoming increasingly confident that by about April or May—when I no longer have a job in this place—I'll be picking up the newspaper in South Australia and reading about Prime Minister Dutton. I'm looking forward to it. 10:22 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I move an amendment, to the member for Fairfax's amendment, as circulated in my name: That paragraph (4) be omitted and replaced with the following: (4) the committee consist of: (a) seven voting members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the crossbench; and (b) three supplementary (non-voting) members (one Government, one Opposition and one crossbench) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the crossbench (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member); I thank the government for bringing up this important issue. The reliability and affordability of our energy system is a grave concern for all Australians. Every day, in our communities, every one of us hears about constituents' concerns about the cost of power. It is contingent on all of us to ensure that Australians have the cheapest and most reliable form of electricity possible. If that happens to be nuclear, and much of the evidence to date has suggested that that is not the case, then we should move towards making nuclear power part of Australia's energy mix. All of the evidence that we've seen so far suggests that that is not the best option, but I commend the government for taking on board the importance of this issue and recognise, as well, the commitment of the opposition to exploring all options as part of our potential energy mix. I, and other members of the crossbench, are very much supportive of the establishment of a committee to look into this really important issue. I also commend the member for Fairfax for acknowledging the great importance of the crossbench in this process, and for effectively offering the crossbench the balance of power on this committee. It's a very kind and generous move by the opposition—one which is very much appreciated by me and by my peers. However, there's a bit of a procedural problem here. It is not appropriate for the Opposition Whip to be the person who nominates the crossbench member on a committee such as this. So the amendment that I have circulated today merely cedes the responsibility for the nomination of the crossbench member of this committee to the crossbench. It's the appropriate thing to do. It affords the respect of the crossbench that we deserve and it's a simple measure of good faith on the behalf of both the government and the opposition that I hope all sides will accept. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? An honourable member: I second the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the crossbenchers. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:24 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Unsurprisingly, though I respect the different views that have been given, the government's view on the make-up of any committee in this place is that it should reflect the numbers that are in this place, and that's how committees ought to operate. So we won't be supporting the amendment, but we've had a very good airing of the issues, which is proof of the need for the committee. I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the question be put.    

The House divided. [10:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

74 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 64 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:33 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.    

The House divided. [10:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question negatived.

 10:42 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fairfax be agreed to.    

The House divided. [10:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question negatived.

 BUSINESS 20 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 20 10:45 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I present—and members might want to know this one—the sitting calendar for 2025. I ask leave of the House to move that the proposed parliamentary sittings be agreed to. Leave granted. Mr BURKE DYW I move: That the proposed parliamentary sittings for 2025 be agreed to. I would advise members that, once again, I have failed in my bid to sit every week! But the sitting calendar is there in a similar pattern to what has previously existed for election years. For those who have taken an interest in it, it does mean we will again be sitting on Melbourne Cup Day next year. I might add that there are more than one or two Australians who do work on Melbourne Cup Day! And we will again be among that number. I would also add that even the Howard government did that in my first term in 2005. I commend the sitting schedule to you all and hope that in future years I can win my endless argument to sit every week. Question agreed to. RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE 20 RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplace: Standards of Behaviour 20 Consideration of Senate Message 20 10:47 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution agreed to by the Senate relating to the behaviour standards for Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. Copies of the message have been placed on the table for the information of honourable members. I do not propose to read its terms, which will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution. Ordered that the message be considered immediately. 10:48 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That the House concur with the resolution of the Senate relating to behaviour standards for Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces and that a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it with this resolution. Question agreed to. BILLS 20 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024 20

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

Report from Federation Chamber 20 Second Reading 20 10:54 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Petrie be agreed to.    

The House divided. [10:54]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 57 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 79 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

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

 Consideration in Detail 22 10:57 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie On the consideration in detail, schedule 1 will modify the existing foreign resident capital gains withholding regime. One of the changes it makes removes the threshold, which is currently at $750,000 before the withholding obligation applies. The regime first started with a $2 million threshold and then went to $750,000 and above. It's now going to be on everything. The government will now remove this threshold entirely and impose the burden of compliance on everyone. As a result, schedule 1 will impose a broad compliance cost by expanding the requirement to obtain and provide a capital gains withholding clearance certificate to all Australian resident vendors disposing of taxable Australian real property. This regime was originally designed to be targeted at the higher value sales, and stretching it to cover the entire market will have some impact, if not an adverse impact. So I put the following questions to the minister in good faith to consider. How will the minister streamline the operation of the foreign resident capital gains withholding regime to minimise the compliance burden and cost on everyday Australians? This is effectively an extra cost when selling a home, for example, that will be passed on to Australians at a time when housing is going up and the cost of living is increasing. I'm sure the Minister for Housing wants to see more people in houses. This is an extra cost. So I want to ask that. Has the minister considered alternatives which would shift the burden of compliance to foreign resident tax avoiders? In relation to foreign resident capital gains tax compliance, what other actions is the ATO taking in relation to strengthening monitoring and enforcement? Has the minister considered the impact on regional areas and parts of the country with a lower value median house price? Obviously, in regional areas the homes are of a lower value and a lot more will be affected, given that this legislation will bring it in on everything under $750,000. Secondly, why is the schedule 1 measure described as complementary to housing affordability measures in the explanatory memorandum, when we believe it could have the opposite effect? I ask those questions in good faith. Thank you. 11:00 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for Petrie for his questions. This is a compliance mechanism. It goes to the capital gains tax that is payable by foreign residents who are selling or purchasing real estate in Australia. It's about ensuring that we have compliance with the existing regime. Since 2016, Australian residents selling property assets that fall within the regime have needed to obtain a clearance certificate from the Australian tax office to prove to the purchaser that they are not a foreign resident. This ensures that they do not inadvertently incur the non-final withholding tax amounts that the member for Petrie refers to. Applying for the ATO clearance certificate is free, and it's lodged online using basic personal information. For most Australians the certificate is autogenerated. Certificates are valid for 12 months from the date issued and can be applied for at any time. Important intermediaries, such as conveyancers and solicitors, are very familiar with this, and I'm sure the member for Petrie is familiar with it. They're familiar with the regime and assist people in selling their properties and navigating the process. The overwhelming majority of sales are conducted through intermediaries—conveyancers, lawyers, solicitors—who assist in the conveyancing, and this is one of a number of compliance measures intermediaries go through in advising their clients to ensure that they're in compliance with Australian law. If an Australian resident does not get a certificate in time for the sale of their property, they will be able to claim a refund from the ATO for the full amount that was withheld. The ATO has advised that, if this circumstance arises, they will prioritise the refund for that taxpayer. I hope that deals with the questions that have been asked by the member for Petrie. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 23 11:02 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 23

National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024

Second Reading 23 11:03 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise in support of the National Broadband Network (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024, as introduced by the fabulous Minister for Communications. This bill is all about safeguarding the NBN and ensuring its future and ongoing benefits for all Australians. The Albanese Labor government committed to delivering accessible internet for all Australians, and this bill supports that. I want to start by saying that the NBN is a fantastic Labor initiative. It was conceived under former prime minister Kevin Rudd. It came about because Labor fundamentally believed that every Australian—not just those who live in the cities or large regional centres but every Australian—should have high-speed, high-quality access to internet services. The NBN helps Australians in so many ways—in education, in health, in recreation and, very importantly, in business. The Menzies party of small business is now, let's be honest, the party of small minds. Labor understands how the NBN expands education, health, recreation and business, but those opposite do not. Labor led the charge, championing the use of modern fibre-optic technology for better broadband connections. Think of all the benefits that come, when it comes to education, health, recreation and business, because of the modern internet. Those opposite obviously took a different view. They thought that the existing copper networks—the stuff that was rolled out when horses and buggies were on our roads—that were already unsuitable and unreliable for Australia's needs, would be perfect for the NBN. It is a tale of two Tonys. I've mentioned one: a farmer called Tony Windsor—an Independent, and a former National Party MP at the state and federal level, who saw the benefits that would come to the bush in his sector, and that's one of the reasons that he chose, for the 43rd Parliament, the Gillard government. That Tony saw the future. He understood farming methods. When you go to a farm now, they can geolocate individual plants when it comes to dealing with water. And, for a nation that has water challenges, we need to do all that we can to support our farmers. The other Tony—who eventually became Prime Minister—had a different approach. He chose Malcolm Turnbull to destroy the NBN. I'm sure he sent a fax off to Malcolm's electorate office, down in Double Bay or wherever it was, saying, 'I want you to destroy the NBN'! The irony is: Malcolm Turnbull was the only dinosaur in that dinosaur pact that actually understood the NBN. He'd made money out of investing in it. He understood it. But Tony Abbott chose him to destroy the NBN—he sent the only bloke who understood it to destroy it. And Turnbull, to his everlasting shame, accepted that Faustian deal with Tony Abbott. Politics is a cruel business, and it is very hard to maintain one's dignity and sense of noble purpose in this building on occasions. We have 'one wild and precious life', and that was the choice that Malcolm Turnbull accepted. 'You're young until you're not,' as Regina Spektor said, and we destroy that life when we devote our time to not being true to ourselves. To Malcolm Turnbull's shame, he took on that job for Tony Abbott. Malcolm Turnbull was the bloke who actually said that Australians should just move if they want faster broadband—you know, move to Double Bay if you're having trouble! That sort of hardwired privilege would get the starving to dine out to solve their hunger problems. So naive! So the LNP fired up their Commodore 64 and decided that Australians were okay with copper and that we had enough bandwidth. In the late noughties they sent out their fax to their electorate offices confirming that they would sabotage the NBN. Fast forward a few years: we had a $30 billion blowout, and, finally, those opposite admitted that they'd got it wrong and they adopted Labor's original fibre-optic policy—the policy advanced by Tony Windsor, a man who had a national vision, who understood not just the Nationals' vision but who had a national vision of how this would benefit Australia. And now, not having access to affordable high-speed internet is unthinkable. Today, the NBN reaches to over 12.4 million premises across Australia. More than 8.6 million homes and businesses across Australia are connected to the NBN, a network that is worth about $51 billion. Australians in the cities, in the towns and in the bush rely on the NBN for their businesses, for their remote working, for health care, for education, for time spent for their families, for entertainment—for looking at cat videos, or even dog videos! The NBN is an integral part of our lives. It's not a luxury. Connectivity is a necessity, and it's one that we need to be able to rely on. As the Minister for Communications said, 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 interest of a privileged few. Those opposite have an opportunity to adopt another Labor policy. They have the opportunity to do right by all Australians by supporting this bill to keep the NBN in public hands. Sadly, we know that those opposite are all set to sell off the NBN, just like they did with Telstra. It seems that it doesn't matter if it's at a local, state or federal level, the Liberal and National parties just want to cut jobs and funding and then sell off public assets. You'd hope that MPs with electorate offices near the bush would be the NBN's Praetorian Guard, but no. The modern-day Nationals are weak; the tail no longer ever wakes the dog. 'Lapdog' is their new canine nomenclature. They'll sell off the bush for 30 pieces of silver and an extra minister's spot down the track somewhere near the trough. This is a common theme from those opposite about public ownership. They'll spend significant amounts of public money fattening up a public asset only to sell it off for the benefit of a privileged few, leaving hard-working Australians to suffer with the higher prices and poorer, more unreliable services. We don't believe in that on this side of the House. We believe that public assets like the NBN should benefit all Australians. That's why we've introduced this bill today. This bill amends the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011. We've committed to keeping the NBN publicly owned, and this bill incorporates changes to part 3. It clarifies the wording regarding public ownership specifically. It makes it clear that the preservation of the NBN is an explicit requirement. It also removes the provisions which enable an NBN Co sale scheme. We made this clear in the statement of expectations to the NBN Co back in 2022, and this bill makes the commitment part of legislative framework. These measures are necessary and they're responsible. They will ensure that regulatory oversight of wholesale pricing is ongoing. This means that access to broadband will remain affordable for Australians. The reforms also mean that required upgrade of the network will be ongoing. It's all part of our strategy to deliver a more connected Australia. This includes more fibre in the fixed line network and, crucially, it has a national security impact. The NBN is critical national infrastructure, and it's a key element of any planning and operations in regard to cyber security and national security imperatives. This includes transitioning to next-generation satellites. Strong government oversight is key when you're talking about a system that incorporates national security because—let's be honest—if this asset were to be sold, it would be bought by foreign capital, and national security could then become more problematic. Those opposite might be happy to privatise the NBN and let ownership fall into foreign hands, but the Albanese Labor government is not. We need to take these simple steps to protect the NBN not only from potential external threats that would open up with foreign ownership but also from that other enemy, the opposition. After all, they have form. Privatising Telstra was a disaster for many Australians, particularly for those in the regions. Under former prime minister John Howard, they made big promises on telecommunications prices and services and then sold up. The opposition tried to set up the NBN for sale before they said that the NBN was finalised and built, back in 2020. It was almost like putting a finished product on the self with a big 'for sale' sign pointed only at foreign companies. The Liberal and National parties also supported increasing wholesale prices to bolster income streams, making the product shiny for prospective buyers. The plan was to increase the cost by CPI plus three per cent. Thankfully for consumers, Labor and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pushed back at this dastardly plan. The Albanese Labor government will never leave regional Australians behind. There is a reason that our Prime Minister knows his Yeppen from his Yeppoon. He knows the bush and he loves the bush. We have invested $2.4 billion to expand full fibre NBN access to an additional 1.5 million premises by 2025, and 660,000 of them are in rural and regional locations. This project is proceeding on time and on budget. From September next year, download speeds will be boosted by up to five times the current speed at no additional wholesale cost, and we're installing more fibre in the fixed line network to ensure that future needs are catered for. We've also listened closely to Australians and know that those living in rural and remote Australia want to be able to rely on the NBN. A fast and reliable NBN also has a substantial impact on the Australian economy, fuelling economic growth. As the Minister for Finance said about a faster, high-quality network, it will deliver a $400 million uplift in GDP by 2030. Productivity uplifts, carbon emissions avoided by people working from home, lives saved, global markets reached—so much to offer. The minister has said that economic analysis commissioned by NBN Co shows that, for every one megabit per second increase in average broadband speed, Australia's productivity driven GDP increased on average by 0.4 per cent. Like the great and proud institutions that Labor has brought this country, such as Medicare, the NDIS and well-funded schools, the NBN must stay in public hands for the good of every Australian. I commend this bill to the House. 11:15 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I thank the member for Moreton for his eloquent advocacy of the public ownership of assets, and I lament that he won't be serving in the next parliament to support legislation to provide public funds to build nuclear power generation for our national effort to secure the grid and achieve net zero by 2050—another great example of public infrastructure that we will have the opportunity to talk about investing in in the not-too-distant future. I also pick up his criticisms of the privatisation of Telstra. He ran out of time to criticise things like the privatisation of Qantas and the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, but no doubt he'll have an opportunity to reflect on the merit of those decisions by a former Labor government in other debates in this chamber before he departs. We in the coalition are somewhat perplexed by this legislation, the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024, coming before this House. There are a lot of things we could be spending our time on. There are important bills on the Notice Paper. You would assume they were a priority for a government that introduced that legislation themselves well before this legislation was hurried into the parliament yesterday as part of a mechanism of distraction from a difficult period that the Prime Minister was enduring publicly in the media. I wish we were progressing some very important legislation that we have on the Notice Paper right now. There's national security legislation and economic legislation—important things that the parliament and this House should be doing. Instead we're debating a bill to answer a question that no-one out there is asking. There is no suggestion or proposition whatsoever that the National Broadband Network will be privatised. Indeed, even the government failed to properly explain, articulate or build some kind of political strategy around why they were introducing this legislation in the way that they were. We've seen all this before. We've seen them run very good scare campaigns. We've seen the 'Mediscare' campaign; that was a good one. They really did trick and deceive the Australian people on that one. They really did frighten unnecessarily and mislead some of the most vulnerable Australians with outright lies. The Labor Party did that in their 2016 campaign. This one's kind of bizarre because it hasn't even been set up to have any political effect whatsoever. In fact, when I looked for any coverage in the media of the fears there might be out in the community about the privatisation of the NBN or why there was a necessity to amend this legislation, all I could find was commentary on how bizarre and weird the political strategy of the government was in bringing this bill into the parliament, because no-one understands or can make sense of what the point of this would be because, even if it was a political tactic, it's such a poor and pathetic one. It's not like they properly created the fear out there in the community or we've been reading the suggestion in the paper or watching it on the nightly news that NBN is at risk of being privatised. No-one has raised anything like that whatsoever in the public debate. But we know that this is a tricky sitting week for the government. They're dealing with a lot of pressure and a lot of bad press—a lot of articles about their competence and the competence of the Prime Minister. We've had prime ministerial apologies in this chamber for mocking and offending people with a disability. One really does wonder about the interesting timing of this bill coming into this chamber. For the millions of people watching at home, who might not be aware of this, it is part of the decorum of moving government legislation that the opposition is offered a briefing to properly understand the factual elements of legislation—to be taken through what the government might suggest are the merits of the legislation so that the opposition of the day might consider supporting it. The vast majority of legislation that we debate in this chamber is actually supported in a bipartisan manner, particularly in this House. We often reserve our position for Senate inquiry processes and so on. Our shadow minister received his briefing on this legislation two hours after it was introduced into the chamber. The poor old bureaucrats at the department of communications—the quickest they could move and scramble to be available to brief the opposition was after the minister's very urgent need to introduce the legislation into the chamber. We also know—and we sometimes enjoy reflecting in a lighthearted way on our colleagues in the other place—that legislation never moves through the Senate to the same pace at which it moves through the House of Representatives. Whether legislation moves through this House in hours, days or weeks is completely irrelevant to how quickly the Senate chooses to deal with it—or not deal with it—when it comes from us to them. There has been no articulated justification for the timing of this legislation. More importantly, there has been no articulation of the need for this legislation. The Labor government are amending their own legislation, legislation that they put through the parliament 12 or 13 years ago, when the now Prime Minister was in the Rudd cabinet. We have a situation where we have urgent amendments to 15-year-old legislation that was brought to parliament by a cabinet that the current Prime Minister was part of. If this is truly urgent, if it is a dramatic oversight, this is an equally dramatic humiliation of the Prime Minister, and one that is occurring while the Prime Minister is out of the country. We've seen these things happen before: the Prime Minister is away and the behaviour in the parliament is all about triggering chattering and dissent amongst the ranks. Whether it's on this bizarre, weird attempt at a scare campaign or the other curious things that we've seen in the parliament this morning, the absence of the Prime Minister during a sitting week is an opportunity for those within his own party room who might not genuinely support him to cause trouble. I think there's a bit more trouble to come in this parliament today, but we wait with interest to see that transpire. We should be addressing serious issues in the time that we have. We don't have a lot of sitting weeks left this year. We've just received the sitting calendar for next year, and we know that an election will reset a lot of that. You can look at that sitting calendar and see that this is a government that's pretty frightened to be in this building and in this parliament. This parliament might not sit again after this year, based on the way in which they have constructed the sitting schedule for next year. My point is that we don't have a lot of time left, and right now the government is saying it wants to spend this Thursday—with possibly only three more weeks to go in the third term of this parliament—talking about legislation to amend its own legislation to address a fictitious nonsense of a proposition that the NBN might need legislative change to protect it from some kind of faux rumour or claim of privatisation. We in the coalition support the NBN. In our time in government, we were the ones that actually delivered the NBN. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 You're joking! Mr STEVENS 176304 I'm 'facting'; that's what I'm doing, but I welcome the interjection to suggest that the NBN wasn't constructed between the years of 2013 and 2022. That's an embarrassing suggestion, but I'm pleased to have it on the record. We'll hold the front pages of the nation's broadsheet newspapers tomorrow for that spectacular claim across. We built the NBN, and I'm a customer of the NBN, as a lot of members of this parliament would be. We support the NBN and all other best, low-cost technologies available to Australian families to meet and achieve their connectivity needs. We live in a time of technological change, and we encourage the NBN to embrace and think about how they're remaining a competitive service provider to Australians as technology marches forward and new ways of being connected come about. Obviously we've seen competitors to the NBN enter the market—with a degree of success, it needs to be honestly stated. The Starlink system is one that has a reasonable amount of profile and a lot of Australians have been turning to it—hundreds of thousands of Australians. They have the option of a type of competitor service via the NBN wireless product. Regrettably, it seems that the consumer decision-making process is leaning towards the alternative option being provided by Starlink. So, I certainly take the opportunity in this debate to make the point to the NBN that I hope they're reflecting on the need for them to be a competitive low-cost service provider to all Australians. Others in this debate have made the point about regional and remote connectivity in particular, and that's exactly where this point applies. And we know that, unfortunately, there are a lot of regional and remote customers who are turning away from NBN wireless and embracing alternatives, like Starlink. They're doing that as consumers, and they factor in the quality and the cost of the service. So, the NBN can't stand flat-footed. It needs to make sure that it continues to look at how it can embrace being the highest-quality service provider to Australians. We have spent a lot of money on this national infrastructure, and in our party we're about looking at ways to enhance and expand the quality of the service provision of the NBN, and there's nothing in this legislation about that—nothing whatsoever. There are different conversations we can have in this chamber about the NBN. One is the one the government wants to have, which is to debate a fictitious and unnecessary rumour, with no basis in fact whatsoever, and therefore spend the time of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia—with all the other options of legislation that we could be debating—on an amendment to their own legislation from their own last time in government, when their own Prime Minister served in that cabinet that brought that legislation through the parliament. Instead, we could be talking about other ways to invest in and enhance the quality of the NBN, the variety of service options that are provided to Australians. And we could consider why parts of the NBN business model are not succeeding right now and are clearly being eclipsed by options from competitors who do not enjoy the benefit of the significant public investment that we've undertaken, in a bipartisan way, in the NBN, both as infrastructure and as a business. This change is going to continue to happen into the future. We know new technology will continue to come online that puts at risk some of what we currently see as the most cutting-edge technologies, which may become legacy technologies into the future. Satellite wireless connectivity is a very obvious one that could have been predicted and has come to fruition, and there'll be other technologies that we can't necessarily predict right now but that provide an even better-quality, lower-cost connectivity option for Australian consumers. So, we could be talking about those things, and we could be ensuring that when we talk about the NBN we talk about Australian families and how we deliver to them the best possible service that they require in order to be connected and to live in the 21st century and participate in the 21st century economy. But, as I said, instead we're debating an unnecessary amendment to Labor's own legislation that they now seem to urgently need to move through this House, for reasons that have not even been articulated in the opportunities they've had when making their contributions on the second reading of this bill. We in the coalition are proud of what we've done when it comes to building the NBN—the actual building and delivery of the NBN through our time in government. There will be a lot of opportunities to talk about ways to further enhance how Australians are provided with the highest quality services in a range of ways, including through telecommunications and internet connectivity. We are very proud of not only what we've done but what we will do into the future, and we are quite appalled that the government's main focus in this area is on bringing forward this unnecessary legislation that they themselves can't even create an articulate or cogent argument to justify. I commend the shadow communications minister for his contribution on this bill and the work that he's doing more generally because he's actually making sure that the debate in this country is about the real issues affecting Australian families in the communications portfolio, not what this legislation's about. 11:30 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I often find it instructive to come into the chamber a little before my allotted speaking time to listen to the opposition member in the same debate, just to hear what they're saying, and it was absolute patent nonsense from the member for Sturt. To pick up a point from his delivery, he talked about the so-called 'Mediscare' campaign of 2016. I remember that election campaign well. It was the campaign in which I got elected to this place for the first time. People might not remember, but the Liberal government at the time had an actual taskforce called the Medicare services privatisation taskforce. So the then Labor opposition's campaign about the Liberals wanting to privatise Medicare was not a scare campaign; it was a truth campaign. The Liberal government at the time actually had a Medicare services privatisation taskforce—20 people, with a budget of $5 million, to look at privatising the payments system of Medicare, which is in the billions of dollars. It was not a scare campaign; it was absolute fact. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 I take that from the member for Sydney. Thank you, Member for Sydney. Ms Plibersek 83M They tried to do it for the visas. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 That's right. They did. The fact is the Liberals have never been a friend of Medicare, and the Liberals have never been a friend of the NBN. It was Tony Abbott, when he was opposition leader, who in 2010 appointed Malcolm Turnbull to the shadow communications portfolio—no doubt a decision he came to regret later on—with an instruction to demolish the NBN. That's how much bipartisan support of the National Broadband Network there has been from the Liberal Party; when they were in opposition, they wanted to demolish it. And then, of course, they came to government, and that's exactly what they did—10 years of neglect of the NBN. Neglect takes many forms. If you think about a house, you can leave it there, not maintain it and not do anything with it, and over 30 years it will slowly fall apart. Nature will take its course. That's one form of neglect. That's benign neglect. But what the Liberals did in government was active neglect. They neglected the NBN. But they also took active decisions to make it less than it could be. The Labor government of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard had a plan for the NBN which was based on full fibre to 98 per cent of households and businesses. Think of that. Ninety-eight per cent of the Australian population would have had full-fibre connectivity—superfast, eminently upgradable to bring on new technologies and new services, fantastic for telehealth, fantastic for education and incredibly important for business. That's what full fibre would have delivered. The Liberals came to power, and they absolutely smashed the NBN. They demolished that Labor plan for full-fibre connectivity to most Australians, and instead they brought in this hybrid monster—this multi-technology mix of fibre to the node, fibre to the kerb and all sorts of different technologies, even using coaxial cable in some places. They made an absolute mess of it. They said it would be cheaper, and you know what? It wasn't. They had to completely and consistently upgrade their budget offerings. The cost of the NBN under the Liberals spiralled up, while the quality of delivery went down. In 2020, they declared 'job done' and wiped their hands, but that was far from the truth. So many homes and so many businesses are still not properly connected. What have we done in the three years we've been here? This terrific Minister for Communications, the member for Greenway, works like an absolute Trojan. I have the great privilege of being the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications on the Arts. I work closely with the minister's office, and I see how hard she works across the incredible depth and breadth of her portfolio. She has been absolutely tireless in improving the NBN, particularly in improving the NBN's delivery and outreach to regional and rural Australia, especially in education services, which is an absolute passion of hers. She is delivering more fibre to regional homes—the homes that were left out by those opposite when they were in government. She is delivering fibre to the homes and businesses in regional Australia. That's our commitment to the NBN. We know what a powerhouse the NBN is, as a piece of national infrastructure, when it comes to the delivery of health, education, commerce and recreational services for so many Australians. Millions of Australians love to stream TV, movies and whatever else, and why shouldn't they be able to do that with a high-quality service? What we have before us today is a bill to ensure that the NBN stays in public hands, because we learn from experience. We know that those opposite—the Liberal Party and the National Party—sold Australia out when they sold Telstra. Telstra used to be a magnificent piece of public telecommunications infrastructure, but those opposite had dollar signs in their eyes. They couldn't wait to privatise it, and that's exactly what they did. The Nationals, to their great shame, sold out the bush, sold out regional Australia, by allowing Telstra to be sold, on the false guarantee that certain services would be guaranteed. Those guarantees have not come to pass in the way we would have hoped. There are so many communities, homes and businesses in regional Australia that miss out on the full suite of telecommunications services and mobile services, despite the so-called guarantees. If only Telstra had remained in public hands then we would have had the surety and accountability of services being maintained, particularly in regional and rural Australia. The fact is that Telstra is now responsible to its shareholders, not to the Australian public. They have a corporate responsibility to make as much profit as they can under the law. When you have a corporate responsibility to make as much profit as you can under the law, to deliver the best result for your shareholders, that means areas of no profit or low profit miss out, in favour of areas where there's high profit. And you know what? Regional Australia is sparsely populated—not a lot of customers and not a lot of profit to be made by Telstra—so it doesn't get the services. That is unless they're forced to the table by this guarantee, and it's very hard work getting the terms of this guarantee met. We don't want to see the same thing happen with the NBN, and we know that's what the Liberals and the Nationals will do if they are ever returned to the government benches. We are putting in guardrails for the NBN because we know how important it is as a piece of national infrastructure, in terms of both service delivery and cost control. We don't want to see NBN prices, under a privatised NBN, going up to whatever the market will demand. That's what this bill is about. I continue with the member for Sturt's contribution, when he made allusions to the PM being out of the country. I'm not sure if the member for Sturt was here yesterday, because I'm pretty sure the Prime Minister stood at that dispatch box when this bill was introduced. He spoke very proudly and very passionately in favour of this bill and said how passionate he was that the NBN should stay in public hands. I've got his speech here; it's a very good speech. It's in Hansard. For anybody listening to this, I recommend reading the Prime Minister's speech from yesterday morning on the introduction of this bill, because he spoke eloquently about the importance of the NBN as a piece of national infrastructure. He said: 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. They are very fine words from the Prime Minister, who has not been shy at all in his support for this bill. In fact, I think it speaks volumes that, in the hours before he was to depart the country for those very important talks at ASEAN, he took the time out of his schedule to speak to this bill. That's how important this bill, and the NBN remaining in public hands, is to this government. The member for Sturt was a repository of nonsense. I have more quotes from him. He talked about how the Liberal Party in government 'enhanced the quality and service of the NBN'. I mean, they were the mob who got rid of full-fibre NBN to 98 per cent of Australian homes and businesses and went out and bought—was it 60,000 kilometres of copper? I don't want to mislead the House. Yes, they bought 60,000 kilometres of copper—enough to wrap around planet earth 1½ times—to build their version of the NBN. Copper was terrific in the 20th century. In the 21st century we've got fibre-optic cable, which provides much better delivery of telecommunications. They turned their back on optical fibre in favour of copper—60,000 kilometres of it. It made the copper markets very happy but it wasn't great for telecommunications customers. They said, when they were in government, that their NBN version would cost $29.5 billion. Then there was an update, 'Uh-oh, now it's $41 billion,' and then another, 'Uh-oh, now it's $51 billion.' That was before they settled at $58 billion, which of course was around what a full-fibre NBN, under the Labor government, had been budgeted to cost. If they'd simply continued with what the then minister, Mr Conroy, started out with, which was full fibre to 98 per cent of the Australian population, we would have ended up, over their 10 years in government, with a first-class NBN we could all be proud of. It would have cost the same as the mess they left us with three years ago, which the Minister for Communications is still diligently trying to fix and repair. It's like we inherited a highway full of potholes and smashed up kerbsides, and there she is trying desperately to fix this mess they left us and deliver the first-rate NBN the Australian people deserve. I am very pleased to be standing here in support of a public NBN. It is so important for this country that we make sure it doesn't fall into private hands, because a privatised NBN will mean higher costs for consumers. And, frankly, I'm also concerned about the national security implications. The NBN is an expensive bit of kit. You're not going to find too many Australian buyers or investors leading the pack to purchase it, so we're possibly looking at foreign interests wanting to purchase it. There are national security implications in vital telecommunications infrastructure being purchased by foreign investors, and that's a concern of mine as the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts. It is absolutely in the public's interest, in our economic interests and in our national security interests to keep the NBN in public hands. That way it remains accountable. That way we can plug the gaps that the Liberal Party left us with three years ago, after their shocking term in government, and that this government is trying so hard to repair. Deputy Speaker, I'll leave it there. The NBN is vital to the national interest, and it must stay in public hands. I commend this bill to the House. 11:44 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook What's really going on here? We've got a desperate attempt to change the media narrative by the Labor government, who are so bereft of ideas, so bereft of things to say and so bereft of things to bring up that they go clutching at a scare campaign on the NBN. Average Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. Many of Australia's businesses are facing an energy crisis and a cost-of-business crisis. There are big issues, like gambling reform, that we should be addressing and discussing. But, unfortunately, those members across the chamber cannot get these issues up in their party room and cannot get aligned perspectives, so, instead, they cynically cook up an NBN scare campaign. The irony is that, as they're pushing a bill to stop misinformation, they cynically come up with an NBN scare campaign when there's nothing here. We discussed it: 'What is this? What do they want to talk about? We've never heard of it.' Our shadow minister for communications had not even been reached out to or briefed on the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 before it was brought on. So what you're seeing here is a scare campaign to try and change a media narrative about a government that's running out of steam, that is flailing and that is failing to address the very real issues that everyday Australians are facing. Real incomes are down nine per cent. What does that mean? People can buy nine per cent less than they could two years ago. Inflation is still stubbornly high at 3.4 per cent, and people's mortgages are still incredibly high. Interest rates are at 4.75 per cent. They're going down everywhere else in the world, but not here. We could be talking about these issues. We could be talking about gambling reform, months after the widely acclaimed Murphy report was accepted. The Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply speech, has said what the coalition would be doing on gambling. Yet we're still waiting for Labor's position. We could be talking about that today. I would much rather be talking about gambling reform today—taking a moral stance on gambling and actually addressing a problem that's affecting millions of Australians. I'm sick of explaining to my kids, during live sport, why they should be talking about the first try scorer. I'd love to be debating legislation that actually addresses an issue that's facing everyday Australians and solving a problem that everyday Australians face. Instead, we're talking about a non-event. We are talking about misinformation: 'How can we distract Australians from the problems they have and the crisis this government's in?' It's sad, it's cynical and it's disappointing. I've only been in the House for a very short time, but it is disappointing. We could be talking about how to make this place more efficient. I, at least, believe—and I think the Australian public believe—we have better things to be talking about than this. Mr KENNEDY 267506 You might scoff over there, but I don't know why. If you're speaking next, I'd love you to explain to me why we're talking about something we don't have a policy on. Deputy Speaker Freelander, if they're scoffing over there, I'd like to understand why we're talking about something we don't even have a policy on. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I don't think there was any scoffing at all. Mr KENNEDY 267506 My apologies if I misinterpreted that, but that's how I interpreted it. This is nothing but a distraction, and it brings out the lack of economic credibility. It was actually mid-afternoon before the shadow minister for communications was engaged on this, despite the debate being brought on by the Prime Minister in an attempt to change the media narrative. The only problem is that the media has seen through this. It's not getting picked up, it's not getting any buy-in and it's not getting any cut-through. We debated the bill for two hours before the briefing of the shadow communications minister was to get underway, so desperate are they to try and create a wedge or a public headline. This isn't the first time we've had scare campaigns. People will remember the 'Mediscare' campaign. It actually worked. It was much closer to an election, but it worked; it did pull votes away. But this is not working. People have seen this movie before, and they're looking straight through it. The Australian people have looked through this distraction, and they're much more focused on the cost of living. They're much more focused on how they're going to pay their mortgage and much more focused on why energy bills continue to go up—and will continue to go up—after this one-off subsidy runs out. Everyday Australians will not forget that they were promised a $275 reduction on their energy bills. Instead, the average Australian household in New South Wales and in my electorate is facing energy prices that have risen by over 20 per cent since Labor came to office—not a $275 reduction, but a 20 per cent increase. That has left some households more than $1,000 poorer a year. They were promised their mortgages would be better. The Prime Minister said that in the lead-up to the election. That hasn't happened. Interest rates are through the roof. Inflation is stubbornly high. Interest rates are coming down in New Zealand, Canada and the US. They're not coming down here. Why? It's because of the persistent government spending. The Reserve Bank is trying to keep a foot on the brake. That's why they're leaving interest rates where they are. Meanwhile, with its loose fiscal policy, this government is jamming its foot on the accelerator, the economy is shuddering and staggering, and everyday Australians are left bearing the price. It's mortgage-holders and renters in our society who those across the aisle claim to represent and want to help the most. But these are the people getting smashed up and crushed in the cost-of-living crisis. It's people in the outer Western Sydney suburbs, the outer regions of Melbourne and the peri-urban and rural areas in the rest of our states and territories. If you wanted more evidence that this bill is not real—normally, you get a briefing as part of the consideration of the bill, and we go through normal internal processes. This did not happen. We will review this bill in the usual way, but the farcical approach from this government is to do things the other way around. We've brought it on for debate; the Prime Minister got up and started talking about it before we'd even seen it or had a chance to talk about it. It's 'debate first, consult second'. It's a silly stunt, and that's all it is—a stunt. There's no need for it. We would much rather be focused on things we could work on in a bipartisan manner, like getting the NDIS under control. I get flooded with requests for the NDIS. People talk about getting funding cut, not getting funding, or getting abused. I'd love to work out how we can fix some of these endemic problems with the NDIS, like we did on aged care, where there was a bipartisan approach. We actually are getting the aged-care sector under control fiscally. The nonmarket sector of our economy is now the highest it has ever been. That means things like health care and child care. They're all very important things, but as that part of the economy grows, it's crowding out the business sector, or the market sector of the economy, which actually makes money and provides taxation revenue to pay for all these things. Why don't we sit down and talk about this, or about how to improve productivity in this country? Productivity is down seven per cent. Why does productivity matter? If you look at the last 30 years of Australia and at all the wealth and improvement in our living standards, 80 per cent of the increase in gross national income has come from productivity. That means, from the same amount of input or labour, you get more output. That is what productivity does. But productivity for the last two years is down 7½ per cent. That means, for the same amount of labour, you produce 7½ per cent less. That is unheralded. We have never had that in the history of our country. What does that mean? It means average Australian households get poorer. We would have been in a recession for a year and a half without immigration. The only way this country is not shrinking as an economy is from bringing more people in. We're not growing the wealth of the people existing here; we're just bringing more people in. So Coles, Woolies and CBA just have more customers—more people buying capsicums! That's how people are growing profits at the moment. It is just because of more people coming into the country, not because we're investing in productivity and growing wealth. We could be talking about this. We really could. And I would love it. I would love to be able to tell my constituents and my former colleagues we're dealing with real, tough issues in parliament for the good of the nation. But, instead, we've brought on this bill about the NBN without consulting without consulting the opposition first. We're having a debate on it without consulting. We're wasting everybody's time. We're wasting the parliament's time and the public's time instead of actually focusing on issues that are hurting this country. Don't we know there are a lot of them! Gambling reform is another one. I would love to see this brought on. The coalition has come out with a policy. I think it's abhorrent. I get emails and calls from my electorate from people who are sick of having gambling ads in live sport all day every day, just like the grand final last weekend—or two weekends ago, if you were watching the AFL. Wouldn't we love to see a clear policy position on it? We had the bipartisan Murphy report; it was bipartisan. This is something that the Liberal Party and the Labor Party agreed on—the Murphy report. We agreed on the recommendations; the changes we should make to gambling advertising were unanimously put forward. Yet those opposite are unable to bring a coherent policy—are unable to govern. This is the ultimate test, and, coming into an election within the next 12 months, it is not a good test to see them cooking up an NBN scare campaign—something we have no policy on; something we have not debated; something we have not been consulted on. We would love to be debating these real issues, and it is incredibly unfortunate that I'm now filling time on a topic that has no real substance. Ms Plibersek 83M You don't have to; you can sit down earlier if you want. Mr KENNEDY 267506 Well, the Prime Minister could have sat down earlier too, and we would not be here. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order. Through the chair, please. Mr KENNEDY 267506 Mr Deputy Speaker, those opposite are telling me I could sit down earlier. The Prime Minister could have sat down earlier— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order, order. The member for Werriwa, on a point of order? Ms Stanley 265990 Yes, a point of order, Deputy Speaker: 76—seeing as the member for Cook is having trouble staying relevant and finding something to say, maybe he could finish his contribution. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the member for Werriwa. I think that the member for Cook was, in broad terms, trying to be relevant. So the member for Cook can continue. Mr KENNEDY 267506 I'll go straight back to this bill. The irony of this bill—and, Mr Deputy Speaker, I'll address and try and go straight back to the bill, to the member 's concerns—is: it's their own bill from 2011. They had the time, if they thought there was something in that bill, when it was drafted, or to amend it shortly afterwards. Why is it that now this has become such a big issue? The Prime Minister had the opportunity to address issues that mattered before he flew out of the country. He saw this as the biggest priority before he left the country yesterday—to bring this on. I'd love to see him explain to the country why this is the biggest, most pressing problem: something on the NBN—a word he had uttered only six times since the election, five of them to sledge the coalition about copper. He'd uttered the word 'NBN' six times since taking office as the Prime Minister, five of them to sledge us, and now suddenly this bill has come up, as this government is flailing around. We would much rather deal with our homegrown inflation crisis. It's stubbornly high, at 3.4 per cent—still outside of the RBA zone and still much higher than where we can cut or reduce interest rates. Under this government's watch, we've actually seen a major decline in the NBN. The previous speaker was telling the House, 'We may not be able to find a local buyer for it.' Well, what a decline we've seen under them. Australians are being hammered with price increases. Service increases aren't going better. We're seeing people go to Starlink. We've seen six million families smashed by NBN price increases of up to 14 per cent. Australians have dealt with a double whammy of higher internet costs with two price hikes in the space of just eight months since the Albanese government backed a new pricing deal for the NBN last year. We're not talking about that. And what did the communications minister say about this? Infamously, she described these price rises as 'great news for consumers'. The NBN's satellite business is collapsing. Two years ago, the NBN had more than 120,000 satellite customers, and Starlink had virtually none. Today, the NBN is down to 85,000 customers, so it has shrunk 33 per cent, and Starlink has gone from zero to 270,000 customers. So, under the watch of those across the aisle, the NBN is leaking customers, leaking value and increasing prices. And the last member, in his own speech, was saying he didn't think there would be a buyer within Australia for it. That's not a very good advertisement for the management under this government, is it? So I would ask the government to return to issues, even bipartisan issues, whether on gambling or on making this place more efficient—which I, personally, would like to work on—rather than discussing farcical bills. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour. COMMITTEES 32 COMMITTEES Nuclear Energy Select Committee 32 Membership 32 12:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip, nominating members to be members of the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy. 12:00 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That Mr Burnell, Ms Mascarenhas, Mr Perrett and Mr Repacholi be appointed members of the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy. Question agreed to. Human Rights Joint Committee 32 Report 32 12:01 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report: Human Rights Scrutiny Report 9 of 2024. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—I'm pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' ninth scrutiny report of 2024. In this report, the committee has considered 14 new bills and 82 new legislative instruments and has substantively commented on five bills and concluded its examination of two bills and four legislative instruments. In this report, the committee commented on the Aged Care Bill 2024. This large bill seeks to establish a legislative framework for the Commonwealth aged care system. The committee considers that multiple measures in the bill would promote human rights. By providing the legislative authority for the delivery of funded age care services to individuals, which may include access to subsidised accommodation, food and other services, the bill would promote the rights to an adequate standard of living and health and the rights of people with a disability. However, the committee also notes that there are several other measures in the bill that would engage various human rights. These relate to the statement of rights allowing substitute decision-makers to consent to the use of restrictive practices, giving decision-making authority to suppliers and guardians, publishing banning orders and authorising the use of sharing personal information. The committee would ordinarily write to the minister, seeking a response to any questions it has about the human rights compatibility of these measures. However, the bill is currently subject to a short committee inquiry with several upcoming public hearings, and, as such, the committee has instead offered recommendations that may improve the human rights compatibility of specified measures. The committee intends that these recommendations are available to the minister, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and the parliament for a timely consideration. The committee has also commented on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which has also been referred to a committee inquiry. This bill would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to establish a regulatory framework that would require digital communication platforms and providers to manage the risk of content constituting misinformation or disinformation on their platforms. The committee notes that the statement of compatibility accompanying this bill is very comprehensive, and it considerably assisted the committee in the consideration of the compatibility of the bill. The committee considers that regulating the dissemination of certain content on digital platforms may promote numerous human rights where that content may cause or contribute to serious harm but would also necessarily limit freedom of expression and privacy. The committee considers that, while the scheme pursues a legitimate objective, some questions remain as to the proportionality in practice, noting that much of the operational detail will be provided for in delegated legislation. Again, as this bill is currently subject to an inquiry, the committee has recommended some amendments to the bill to assist with proportionality, and it draws its concerns and recommendations to the attention of the minister and the parliament. The committee also concluded its examination of the Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024. This bill seeks to extend the Unique Student Identifier scheme to all Australian primary and secondary school students by enabling the assignment of a schools identifier to each student. The bill would authorise the verification, collection, use and disclosure of a child's schools identifier and their school identity management information. In doing so, the bill would engage and limit the right to privacy and the rights of the child. The committee received a response from the minister and considers that it has not yet been demonstrated that the measures pursue legitimate objectives for the purposes of international human rights law or that the proposed limitations on rights would be proportionate in their current form. The committee considers there to be an impact on the right to privacy and the rights of the child and recommended some amendments to the bill to assist with proportionality. On that note I want to thank the secretariat and the committee members for their work on scrutiny report 9. As always, a huge amount of work goes into the human rights committee. I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments I commend the committee's Human rightsscrutiny report: report 9 of 2024 to the House. BILLS 33 BILLS Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 33

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

Second Reading 33 12:06 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Since I've been elected, one of the greatest joys in this job has been to visit early childhood education centres and meet with the hardworking educators and the bright young residents in my community who benefit so much from the time they get to spend with educators. I hear from families all the time about what a difference our policies in the early childhood education and care space are making to their lives and how they are improving the capacity for workforce participation, which I think we all know benefits women most. I'm also really proud to be part of a government that has recognised the importance of addressing the gender pay gap when it comes to feminised industries. Since we were elected, our government has taken a number of measures to do this, and I'm pleased that the pay gap is the lowest it's ever been; although, of course, there is an extraordinary amount of work we still need to do. This piece of legislation, the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024, really goes to the heart of making sure that there is, as the title of this bill would suggest, wage justice for workers in the early childhood education and care sector, a highly feminised industry. I've visited many early childhood education and care centres in my electorate, including a recent visit to the Goodstart centre in Mount Waverley with the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. We received a wonderful welcome, a very warm sense of hospitality and a beautiful painting created by the children, which I know now sits in the Prime Minister's office. The reason I mention this is that it really underscores how important it is to make sure that we offer the very best possible education and care and the very best possible wages in this sector. The fact that the Prime Minister has engaged so deeply in this area I think demonstrates our very sincere commitment to improvements in the sector. This bill establishes a special account to fund grants to approved early childhood education and care providers to support a wage increase of 15 per cent for eligible workers over two years and limit increases to fees charged by providers. So this is really a win-win situation. We are going to make sure that early childhood educators are paid more, with an increase of 15 per cent to wages, and we're also going to limit the increases to fees that are charged by providers. I know this will be very welcome for households right across my electorate of Chisholm and indeed right across Australia. This bill builds on our government's support for the early childhood education and care sector and our support for Australian families more broadly, including the cheaper child care measures which we've already implemented, which have made ECEC cheaper for more than a million families. We know that providers have been delaying expansion plans, they've been closing rooms and they've been limiting enrolments, unfortunately, because it's been really difficult to find staff. We know that one of the reasons for this has been that the wages have not been a fair remuneration for the kind of work that is being undertaken in centres right across the country. Fair wages—for those who, I hope we can all agree, are some of the most important workers in the country—are critical to reversing the attrition we've seen and for growing the sector workforce. This is a crucial step in charting the course to universal early childhood education and care. This bill delivers on the joint announcement made on 8 August to deliver a wage increase to address ECEC workforce shortages, improve service quality, support the affordability of early childhood education and care for families, ensure the sustainability of the sector and encourage good-faith bargaining and the making of enterprise agreements in the sector. This bill provides the legal framework for the establishment and operation of a special account which will be used to administer the Early Childhood Education and Care Worker Retention Payment grant. This grant program will deliver targeted financial support to ECEC providers, enabling them to offer wage increases to their eligible workers. The creation of this special account aligns with our government's commitment to supporting the ECEC workforce. This bill also establishes the terms and conditions of the ECEC worker retention payment grant, including a limit on fee increases charged by the provider. The grant guidelines will set the limit at 4.4 per cent in the year from 8 August 2024, and the ABS will develop a new ECEC cost index to guide limits on increases in future years. This is an important affordability condition that will ensure we keep downward pressure on fees for families. This is just another example of our government's focus on relieving the cost-of-living pressures that households are experiencing, and I hope that people in this place can support this initiative. The wage justice special account will be established from the date that the act comes into effect, with funds to be drawn from 1 July 2025. The account will be credited over two years, based on the estimated annual expenditure profile for the ECEC Worker Retention Payment. The special account will be time limited and will self-repeal on 30 June 2028. To enable the first payments to be made in December of this year, grant agreements will initially be supported by using a special appropriation which already exists under family assistance legislation. Transitional provisions in the bill will ensure that grant agreements are subsequently deemed to have effect under the bill, with funding supported by the new special account from 1 July next year. This is a really important piece of legislation. It recognises that decent wages—fair wages—are critical to reversing attrition and growing the workforce. The lack of fair wages has been impacting the availability of early childhood education and care for families and has been limiting opportunities for people who are passionate about working in this industry but require higher wages to support their own families. It is a significant development that early childhood educators are going to get a 15 per cent pay rise. In the time I've been in this parliament, and before, I've met with many early childhood educators and carers. I know just how passionate they are about the work that they do. But I also know about the level of burnout that our workers in centres are experiencing as a result of attrition and about the concern that they have for the children and families they care about when they aren't able to provide the level of service they'd like to. I want to very sincerely thank and acknowledge the many, many educators and families who have been advocating for change in this area, to commend them for their steely focus on this issue and for elevating it to ensure that it has received the national attention that it deserves. We all know that early education gives children their very best start in life and gives families the support and confidence they need to return to their workforce—because they know that their children are being educated by well-paid, highly skilled professionals. The pay rises we're seeing here will set a new standard in early childhood education and care, and there's no going back. This is a really important, big step forward. I've spoken to early educators who say that this pay rise is transformative. This has been a missing piece, as far as they're concerned, in the work that they do in providing children and families with the high-quality early education and care they deserve. As I said, there's been a lot of attrition and, as a result, a lot of staff burnout among those who remain. This pay rise will mean that around 200,000 educators who have been struggling to meet the cost of barest daily essentials will now have the opportunity for stability and security in their lives. I think we could all agree that's what they deserve. It's clear that this pay rise is part of a broader approach that our government has taken to lift the standard and improve accessibility to early childhood education and care. As I mentioned earlier, this goes to the heart of gender equality in this country. Not only are we lifting the wages of a highly feminised workforce but, through doing so, we're enabling carers, who are largely women, to enter the workforce, should they choose to do so, with confidence. Our government made a similar decision in relation to aged-care, again a highly feminised industry. It delivered a pay rise there that recognised and respected the highly skilled and very important work that aged-care workers do. I feel really proud to stand here and speak on this issue as part of a government that recognises the importance of this sector, but I wouldn't be able to do so were it not for the many people who've spoken to me about this over the years and who've been fierce in their determination to see this change. Every time I enter an early education centre, the love that educators have for their work is so apparent, and the children are clearly thriving in the centres in my electorate. I've spoken to families who say that this is a key issue for them, ensuring they have confidence to go back to work and ensuring that their children are educated from their earliest years. We know that the first five years are incredibly important in a child's life. It is so significant that our government is recognising that importance by ensuring the sector have certainty and, through pay rises and other changes, the respect that they deserve. I look forward to visiting, once I return to my electorate, more centres. I know I will be opening an early childhood education centre very soon. There's a lot of growth in this sector in my electorate. But for the moment I'm very pleased to stand here as part of a government that is delivering wage justice for early childhood education and care workers—wage justice that is much deserved. 12:18 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein The word 'care' is undervalued, and, by extension, women's work is undervalued, because historically women have been the caregivers and men the breadwinners, and social norms are hard to shift. But the good news is that this is changing. The word 'care' is finally getting the attention and respect it deserves. Australia's new Governor-General, Sam Mostyn, is leading the way. At her swearing-in she said: If I can capture in a few words my aspirations for our country, I believe that these testing times call for an unstinting focus on kindness, on care and on respect. …   …   … Care is the gentle thought and the outstretched hand that Australians have always been ready to share when great challenges present themselves. Care is the quieter, better part of ourselves. And it is that sense of care that Simeon and I will seek to depict and amplify as we take on this role. The binary system of women as caregivers and men as breadwinners, and the value we give each, is reflected in the type of work women and men do. The Australian labour market is highly gender segregated by industry and occupation, a pattern that has persisted for decades. According to UNSW's Social Policy Research Centre, Australia's most feminised jobs are those of midwives, early childhood teachers, dental assistants, child carers, beauty therapists and vet nurses. In the early childhood education and care sector 92 per cent of workers are women, and this is reflected in my electorate of Goldstein. Of the 1,500 early childhood educators in Goldstein, 95 per cent are women. Men are more likely to work as childcare centre managers than in any other type of ECEC role. The segregation of women and men into different occupations and industries is a key driver of pay inequity. Female concentrated industries and occupations tend to be on the lower end of the pay spectrum, while many male concentrated jobs sit at the upper end. This inequality accumulates across a woman's life course. But the undervaluing of women's work isn't just about money. The care sector itself is undervalued, because it's an area of the economy that we tend not to think of as being productive or about investment. This is also changing—and it must, for the sake of the country. Economists are at the forefront of this change. They've come up with the term 'care economy'. This consists of all those services that provide care in one way or another to people of various ages and abilities. It includes aged care, disability services, and early childhood education and care. It's not well understood, but the care economy is the single largest employer in Australia: more than 1.8 million people, 80 per cent of whom are women, currently work in care economy jobs. It's also our fastest-growing industry, as measured by job growth, by a long stretch. This growth has far eclipsed the growth in traditional industries, such as manufacturing. And it offers an unprecedented opportunity to innovate at scale while generating meaningful jobs and fulfilling careers. La Trobe University in Melbourne is seizing on this opportunity. Its vision is to transform the Australian care economy from a fragmented welfare and consumption industry to a global leader driving economic growth and productivity. I support La Trobe uni's mission 100 per cent, and I've spoke to the industry minister about the importance of this transformation. It requires a shedding of outdated views about the care sector and a willingness to embrace a new way of thinking. The Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 represents a shift in thinking—a shift towards respect. A valued and respected workforce underpins everything. This is why I was among those who fought tooth and nail for a pay increase for early childhood educators. In a sector that nurtures children, the educators have been left un-nurtured for years. These mostly female workers have been victims of a discriminatory system that has devalued women's work and the care economy. As a result, they've left the sector in their droves to seek higher wages elsewhere—and who could blame them? This bill provides a legal framework for the establishment and operation of a special account which will be used to administer the pay rise. The 15 per cent pay increase will support women and families with cost-of-living pressures and help attract and retain workers in the early childhood education sector. It's also a critical step in achieving equal pay for workers in occupations that historically have been undervalued on the basis of gender. Importantly, the bill also limits increases to fees charged by providers. Support for the early childhood workforce is a win for gender equality in the female dominated early childhood sector, and it's a critical step towards universal early childhood education and care in Australia. Now is the time to start shaping the system that we want for our children. Every child should have access to a minimum of three days of free or low-cost early childhood education in a week. It would give all children the start they need by increasing attendance, especially for those experiencing disadvantage; it would help alleviate cost-of-living stress for families by reducing out-of-pocket expenses; and it would get women back in the workforce. I've said it many times in this place; affordable and accessible child care is good for children, families, women and the economy. This policy ticks all the boxes. I promised the women of Goldstein I would fight for their economic security, especially for those who are not in the room, and I will continue to do so. I commend this bill to the House. 12:25 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Quality early childhood education and care is a hallmark of a Labor government. The previous Labor government took to this place legislation to ensure quality early education and care, setting milestones for early education and setting targets for the training of the professionals who were going to work in the sector. When I came to this place, of course, we were in opposition, and for nine long years I watched as the dream of quality childhood education and care went down the gurgler, while those now opposite twiddled their thumbs and watched it do so. The costs were great, but the costs were greatest to families in electorates like mine, where the majority are young families with children who need to access this and where the majority are double-income families trying to make incomes meet, with both parents working. From opposition we watched those who worked in the sector during the pandemic, when they were hailed as heroes. They were part of the essential workforce that kept us safe. It was in those dark moments, when early educators were being asked to show up to work to look after the children of essential workers, when everybody wanted to be out first to thank them for their service, that very serious conversations began again inside the Labor Party about the care economy—about its value, about the investment that was going to be required, about the feminised workforces, again, and about how far behind we were in the gender pay gap. I spent my life working in a feminised workforce called education. I spent my life working in schools. I spent my life working alongside, predominantly, other women—women who often felt that their work was not valued. So I completely understand how those working in the early education and care sector (a) felt during the pandemic but (b) feel generally. This legislation, the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024, is from the conversations that we had in the dark days of the pandemic about gender equity and how we could create equity in the care economy. It is from the conversations we had about the power of change in this space to drive economic change and how making early education and care affordable for families could mean women, predominantly, working two extra days a week and what that would do in terms of boosting our productivity. So we know that what we're putting before the parliament today is good for the economy and it's good for families, but, most importantly, it's good for the women who work in this sector. It is part of this government's driving agenda, which now sees the gender pay gap at the lowest it's ever been, around 11 per cent. There's still work to be done, but this piece is a seminal piece. The early education and care sector is the backbone of our nation. The people who work in it should be valued by our nation. Parents across our country rely on their passion and commitment to create a strong foundation for our smallest Australians. I fully support the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 because I've seen firsthand the contributions they have made, and continue to make, to our society. I saw that as a mother when I dropped my children, when they were toddlers, off to early education so that I could be part of our economy and our education system and make my contribution to this society. This legislation will help address significant workforce shortages that we're also seeing, because it supports the delivery of a much-needed wage increase of 15 per cent for eligible workers across two years. It's a wage increase that is long overdue for some of our hardest workers in this heavily feminised workforce, a wage increase that was needed but ignored by those opposite for such a long time. In fact, it was more than ignored. They openly said it would be a bad thing for the Australian economy if women were paid more to do their work. This bill is a step forward for the sector, for our nation and for our nation's women. It sends a strong message that without their work, their support and their care our nation would lack the contributions of so many. Across my electorate, one of the youngest electorates in the country and one of the fastest-growing regions in the country, I've spent a fair bit of time recently visiting our local childcare centres. I've enjoyed friendly conversations with staff at Goodstart Early Learning Tarneit. I've cuddled little ones before nap time at Goodstart Werribee. I've talked about the demand for quality early childhood educators at Child's Play Early Learning Centre in Wyndham Vale. I've met children who could already spell out their names at Goodstart Heaths Road. I've spoken to staff about their incentives to stay in the sector at Goodstart in Morris Road. I've witnessed incredible staff diversity at Goodstart Deloraine Drive and across these early education facilities in my electorate. I've spoken to students on rounds in these centres across the last few weeks. The one common factor I found amongst all of these centres and amongst all of these children was the quality staff and how much they cared, not just in a nurturing way but about the development of the children they cared for. They cared about their job and they cared about the children they looked after, their future and their development. I've heard stories about the demand for experienced staff in centres and the pressure workers are under. We want to ensure that our workers are adequately rewarded for the tireless work they do and the contributions they make. We want to say more than thanks. We want to say, 'You are valued.' We want to say: 'We see your work. We value your work. Our country can't run without your work.' Decent wages are not just critical to reversing attrition and growing the workforce; they demonstrate that this Labor government cares, like the educators do. Workers simply don't stay where they aren't valued. We've seen delays to expansion plans, the closure of rooms and limitations on enrolments because centres are struggling to retain quality staff. The struggle this sector is facing needs to end and this is part of the solution to that. I had the pleasure of visiting the Aspire childcare centre in Manor Lakes for Early Learning Matters Week. We read a story together, had a lovely morning tea and created some beautiful artwork to commemorate the week. The meaning behind Early Learning Matters Week could not have been clearer. Having spent time in secondary schools as both a teacher and a principal, I know that childcare centres are fundamental to not only a child's development in their early years but how that shapes their future years. We need to do the right thing by Australia's future generations by enhancing the early education workforce so they can put their best foot forward. This piece of legislation is part of that. It will give a 15 per cent pay rise across two years and cap what the centres can increase their charges by at 4.4 per cent. The significance of the Albanese Labor government's changes to the sector is that not only will they benefit the educators and the workforce but they will allow parents to have confidence in their children's future and wellbeing. I remember the reality of relying on those same educators to provide my own children with the care and support needed. I know how vital childcare services are to all Australian families. A factor of this legislation that we must not overlook is that it will also provide cost-of-living relief for the parents and guardians of our nation's youngest. It establishes terms and conditions which are inclusive of a limitation on the fee increase. As I said, centres will be prohibited from increasing fees by a set amount, with that amount being set at 4.4 per cent until August 2025. It will put downward pressure on fees and help to make child care more affordable for the families in my electorate. It is a measure I know many in my community appreciate, because they have already said so in communications to me. Families should not have to choose between going back to work and ensuring their children are well looked after, and this legislation is a part of ensuring they don't. As is common in the care sector, the early childhood education and care workforce is over 90 per cent women. For too long, previous governments have undervalued the work of this sector, despite this being a service that even those opposite have had to rely on. The announcement of this pay rise is grounds for celebration, and it was certainly being celebrated in the childcare centres that I visited. It is recognition that this sector is more than just—as the outrageous claim goes—a child-minding service. My good friend Jo Briskey has been an incredible asset to the early education sector through her work in the union. I recently met with her to chat about this win for childcare workers. Jo has been a strong advocate for the sector for as long as I can remember. The legislation is a result of the impacts and importance of her work and the work of many others in being available and reliable and in bringing people forward to have the very important conversations with members of the government to ensure that we all support this action. Through organisations such as The Parenthood and the United Workers Union, Jo has made an impact, and I'm sure, at home, she's very proud that this legislation is being debated in the House today. I wish her well as the Labor Party candidate for the seat of Maribyrnong in the upcoming election. The wage justice bill is good for workers, good for parents and, most importantly, good for children. It charts a course to universal access to early childhood education and care. It puts children first and ensures they are receiving the highest quality care, because they are our future. This legislation is part of a better future for all Australians. 12:37 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney As someone who has worked for most of their adult life and has also had a family, I know exactly how essential access to good-quality early childhood education and care options is. It wasn't easy when my kids were little. Using a combination of great care facilities, private services and a supportive partner and family, we were able to cobble together a system that worked for us. This was important as it not only allowed me to continue to pursue my profession but also ensured that I always knew my kids were in safe hands, benefitting from stimulating and good-quality care and education. In this context I welcome the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024, as it introduces a 15 per cent wage increase over two years, tied to the condition that providers limit their fee increases. Coming to parliament in 2022 as North Sydney's Independent MP, I have to confess I was frustrated that one of the government's first priorities at that time was moving on its industrial relations reform. In doing so, they consistently referenced the need for wage increases in the early childhood education and care sector to promote the multi-employer bargaining provisions that they were desperate to introduce. At the time, I spoke to the minister and advocated for an immediate review of the award system covering these workers, to ensure real-time wage increases were prioritised over widespread industrial relations reform. Indeed, the peak body for the sector, the Australian Childcare Alliance, also stated at the time that they were concerned the multi-employer bargaining provisions of the new legislation could result in the imposition of higher wages across the whole sector, without government planning or financial support. They warned that wage rises foisted upon small operators could force them out of business and reduce access to high-quality services for families. Instead, they called for a coordinated national wage increase with a transparent mechanism to ensure the wage supplement was passed directly on to the workforce. So it remains disappointing to me and many in North Sydney that the wage increases were not introduced by this government at that time. We have waited too long for this reform. When your pay is low and your cost of living is high, every month matters. It comes as an immense relief then for many that the government is finally acting on calls for better pay conditions for early childhood education and care workers. Undervaluing work and underpayment of wages are not unique to this industry and pervade every part of the care economy, from aged care to social services. Workers are having to deal with low wages and challenging work conditions, while the cost of living has continued to climb, but, despite this, the care economy work is fundamental. In the early childhood education and care sector in 2021, 93 per cent of workers identified as female. The predominance of women in this and other care workforces coupled with this historic underpayment means this legislation is not just significant for the industry but for the economic empowerment of women overall. According to the 2022 report from Chief Executive Women, workers in female-dominated injuries with a bachelor degree or above earn 30 per cent less per hour than workers in male-dominated industries. For workers in these industries with a certificate III or IV, the earning gap increases to 36 per cent. Currently, the more than 200,000 early childhood educators in Australia are among the country's lowest-paid workers. Not only do wages in the sector pale in comparison to other industries but they're well below the wages of other educators. According to the Productivity Commission, median wages for early childhood education and care workers are about 20 per cent lower than those of primary school teachers, and working conditions can be poorer than in other education sectors, with fewer leave days and greater workplace pressures. It's little wonder that more than half of the graduates of the early childhood sector seek employment in primary schools rather than the childhood education and care industry where they are so sorely needed. I've experienced it personally in the last couple of yours, as my niece has pursued a career in early childhood education to only now be in a position where she sees her only viable professional pathway to be in the school system. But it doesn't have to be this way. In the Netherlands, there is no gap between pre-primary and primary school teacher earnings. As Australians, we need to recognise that the work our early education and care workers do is just as valuable as the work of primary and secondary teachers, as the research is clear: the early years are incredibly important for learning and for the development for children. Additionally, workforce retention in the early childhood education and care industry is an increasing problem that, if left unaddressed, will risk facility closures and a reduction in accessible childcare options that would significantly impact families right across the nation. The severity of the problem was recently highlighted by a snap poll by the United Workers Union, which found more than 60 per cent of childhood education and care workers surveyed were planning to leave the sector within the next three years. High staff turnover and persistent vacancies will lead to a decline in the quality of education and care provided to children. This decline in quality will not only affect the immediate experience of young learners but will have ongoing effects on their development outcomes and future educational success. Indeed, many are arguing that at a time when we should be fighting for universal access for all children to early childhood education, our economic structure is such the opportunities are becoming fewer and fewer. To be specific about what the bill before us offers, it will introduce a special account from which to pay a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers over two years, tied to a condition that providers limit fee increases. The first period of this bill's implementation would limit fee increases to less than 4.4 per cent in the year from 8 August 2024 to 7 August 2025. To be eligible, providers will need to increase workers' wages by 10 per cent above the current award in the first year of payment and 15 per cent above the current award in the second year. This worker retention payment aims to attract and retain workers in the sector without passing costs along to families via higher fees. The 4.4 per cent fee cap is a key measure to ensure costs are not passed onto families through increased fees, yet, while it makes sense to tie the wage increases to the fee cap to protect families from excessive price hikes, it's unknown how it will be enforced. When you live in an electorate like mine, where families are paying over $200 a day currently to access early-childhood education and care services, this is a very real issue. I've heard from people in North Sydney who are concerned that the fees will rise regardless of this measure. To effectively limit fee increases, fees will need to be properly monitored, and early-childhood education and care providers will need to be held accountable for meeting these conditions. Interestingly, the legislation will affect early-childhood education and care providers differently depending on where they're based. Different regulations in every state and territory making wage increases contingent on a blanket fee cap of 4.4 per cent will have varying impacts. For example, in my home state of New South Wales, we have one of the highest educator-to-child ratios of any state or territory. But we will still be held to the same fee cap as other states with lower ratio requirements. We also need to consider the impact this bill will have on providers, particularly the many small and family-owned businesses that may struggle to adjust to the changes required of them. I have heard from owners of small childcare centres in North Sydney who are concerned about the administration of this bill. They absolutely welcome the pay rise for workers, but they've expressed two key challenges that they will face due to the legislation. The first is that the impact of fee caps, they believe, will be felt more by small businesses than by big providers, as the owners of small childcare centres often operate on thin margins and higher operating expenses. In this context, imposing limits on fees could have a disproportionate impact on them. Secondly, they're concerned about the added administrative burden the legislation will place on them as privately owned centres, as they already have, in their words, 'huge amounts' of administrative work to deal with under existing laws and government programs. Arguably, large early-childhood education and care providers have greater capacity to deal with increased administration, while smaller providers, who comprise up to 79 per cent of the sector, may struggle to keep up with increased administrative burden. Ultimately, the message I've heard from people in North Sydney is clear: we must improve wages for early-childhood education and care workers whilst also ensuring smaller operators aren't disproportionately impacted. We want a triple win. We want a win for industry, workers, and parents, carers and children who use these essential services. As a working parent, I know how difficult it is to have a career while raising children—educating them, caring for them and doing all this while working, all with a clear conscience. Parents like me rely on the incredible work of the 221,000 Australians who put their hearts and souls into childhood education and care. The work is just as challenging as it is rewarding. Until now, these workers have been underpaid and undervalued, despite their work being essential to more than a million families. As we continue these conversations around reforms in the early-childhood education and care space, I will be hosting the North Sydney community early childhood education and care deliberative democracy forum later this month. The event will bring together subject matter experts and around 30 to 40 randomly selected residents of the electorate to discuss the affordability and accessibility of early-childhood education and care services, with the goal being to arrive at a consensus on a policy approach that they would like to see the federal government pursue to ensure these services are affordable and accessible to everyone. It will be democracy in action in its truest terms. I look forward to hearing what my community has to say as a result of this event. In closing, there is so much more to be done to ensure early-childhood education and care is valued, affordable, accessible and of a high quality for all Australians. Paying workers what they deserve is an essential first step in this journey. I welcome this bill, and I very much look forward to supporting it as it moves through the House. 12:49 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Since we came into government, the number of early childhood education and care workers has grown by more than 30,000 people. This growth reflects Labor's drive to improve the sector. From Hampton Park to Lynbrook and from Narre Warren South to Cranbourne and Clyde, early childhood educators are some of the most important workers in our community. I have visited many of the childcare centres in my electorate, including Aspire Early Learning in Cranbourne West, Clyde North and Bella Estate; Merinda Park Kindergarten; Pebble Patch in Cranbourne West; Goodstart in Hampton Park; Kids House Early Learning in Clyde North; Cranbourne Drive early learning; and YMCA Early Learning in Cranbourne North. At each of these centres I met dedicated professionals who take on the enormous responsibility of caring for and educating our children while we work and manage our lives. To them I say: I have met you, I have heard you and I know that your work is irreplaceable. I want to say a heartfelt thank you as you shape the next generation and ensure that our children have the best possible start in life. Holt is one of the youngest electorates in the country, with one in four residents being under the age of 14. Early childhood educators play a crucial role in our community. To those educators I say: we place a huge amount of trust in you, relying on you to care for our children and support their development and wellbeing. But we know that simply increasing the workforce isn't enough. We must also ensure that these educators are properly supported and fairly paid. Despite the importance of their work, many early childhood educators face low wages and heavy workloads. Decent wages are crucial to retaining staff and attracting the most talented and passionate people to the sector. This is why I'm proud to stand here today, in the debate on the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024, to speak to the Albanese Labor government's commitment to funding a 15 per cent pay rise for 200,000 early childhood educators across the country. This commitment recognises the vital contributions these workers make to our community. This is fundamental Labor policy—a policy that comes from a party that puts Australian workers and families first and that recognises their essential contribution to society. This wage increase acknowledges that these workers—predominantly women—deserve to be paid fairly for the important role they play in supporting our families and communities. It is about respect and recognition for the hard work and dedication these educators show every single day. This increase will also provide a much-needed boost to wages, with the average early childhood educator earning the award rate seeing an increase of at least $103 per week by December 2024 and at least $155 per week by December 2025. This is an additional $7,800 a year for these workers. This wage rise is tied to a commitment from childcare centres to limit fee increases, ensuring that workers are paid fully without passing the cost on to families. This builds on Labor's previous efforts to make child care more affordable for families. Since we came to government, the number of early childhood workers has grown by more than 30,000, but we need more. Last year we implemented the cheaper childcare reforms, which significantly reduced the cost of child care for 96 per cent of families. These changes mean that a family on an income of $120,000 today is paying about $2,000 less in childcare fees than they would otherwise have had to. This policy was designed to allow parents—especially women—to re-enter the workforce without the burden of high childcare costs. It has been life-changing for families in Holt, enabling them to earn more, invest in their families' future and contribute to our local economy. This is the kind of support we aim to provide to all families in our community. The Albanese Labor government understands that, when we invest in early childhood education, we are investing in our future. Our commitment to fairer wages for early childhood educators is part of a broader commitment to ensure every Australian child has the best start in life. By improving access to quality early childhood education, we lay a strong foundation for children's development and learning. Research shows that these early years are crucial for cognitive, social and emotional growth. Children who receive high-quality education during this time are more likely to succeed academically and thrive later on in life. Accessible early childhood education ensures that all children, regardless of their background, can benefit from nurturing environments that foster curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. Moreover, it empowers parents to pursue their careers with the confidence that their children are in safe and supportive settings. This in turn leads to stronger families and a more resilient community. Investing in early childhood education is not just an investment in individual children; it's an investment in the future of our society. Paid parental leave was introduced by the Gillard Labor government in 2011. It is a policy that highlights the positive outcomes when women are a part of the decision-making process. This policy has provided hundreds of thousands of mothers with the financial support to take time off work and focus on what truly matters: spending those precious first weeks with their newborn child. It has lifted the financial burden that many new parents face, allowing them to bond with their child without the stress of returning to work too soon. The Albanese Labor government has made significant improvements to paid parental leave. From 1 July, every year we will increase paid parental leave until it reaches 26 weeks because we believe that, when parents have more time with their babies, it strengthens their bond and creates priceless memories that last a lifetime. My electorate is home to a diverse community of families, and every week I have the privilege of meeting countless parents who have benefited from Labor's reforms. They share stories of how affordable child care and paid parental leave have made a real difference in their lives. These are real stories from real families—families like my brother, Hamish, and his amazing wife, Christine. Last year, they welcomed their beautiful baby boy, my nephew, Xander. Knowing that Hamish and Christine could spend more time with Xander during those first few weeks brought me great comfort as a proud aunty. These changes are crucial for families across Holt, especially as they navigate the challenges of parenthood. They provide much-needed support, allowing families to focus on what truly matters: raising their children and building a future together. We are focused on ensuring that children get the best education at all stages of their life. From kindergarten to primary school, high school and onto university and TAFE, our education reform agenda doesn't just end at early childhood. The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement will see an additional $16 billion invested in our public schools over the next decade. Public schools are the backbone of our education system, and this funding boost will provide more resources for teachers, better support for students with diverse needs and upgraded facilities that foster learning and growth. This will mean that, for the first time, public schools outside of the ACT will be fully funded. This investment will ensure every student, regardless of where they live or their background, has access to the highest quality education. The Albanese Labor government is dedicated to supporting families in our communities, through cheaper child care, through extended paid parental leave, through paying new mothers superannuation and through cutting taxes so that every Australian has more money to spend on their family. Only Labor is committed to ensuring that no family is left behind and that every worker is valued for the work they do. We recognise that it is our government's responsibility to create an environment where early childhood educators are recognised, respected and paid fairly for their essential work. I would like to take a moment to thank the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and the Minister for Youth, Dr Anne Aly, for their outstanding work on this bill. Their tireless efforts have been instrumental in ensuring that early childhood educators receive the respect, recognition and fair wages they deserve. Minister Clare's leadership in education reform and Minister Aly's unwavering commitment to supporting Australian families have brought us one step closer to a system that values both educators and the children they care for. Their vision and advocacy have made a real difference for countless families across the country, and I am proud to support their work in this vital area. I urge everyone in this chamber to support this bill and to celebrate the work of our early childhood educators. Together we can build a better future for our children—one where every educator feels valued and every family has access to the quality of care and education they deserve. I commend this bill to the House. 13:01 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I think it's very important that when discussing the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 we put on the record the coalition's record when it comes to child care. We almost doubled child care investment, to $11 billion, in 2022-23 and locked in ongoing funding for preschools and kindergartens. We made the biggest reforms to the early childhood education system in more than 40 years. More than 1.3 million children have access to the childcare subsidy, from around one million families when we first came to office. Under the coalition, 280,000 more children are in early childhood education. And our targeted extra support, introduced in March 2022, made a real difference. Childcare costs came down by 4.6 per cent in the year to June 2022. That is worth repeating: our targeted extra support, introduced in March 2022, led to a 4.6 per cent decrease in childcare costs to June 2022. While doing all that, we saw women's workforce participation reach record highs, at 62.3 per cent in May 2022. That's compared with 58.7 per cent when we came to office. So, our track record in this area is an excellent one. Not only that, but we were able to carry the childcare sector through the pandemic. As you will remember, the sector faced its darkest hour when the pandemic hit. But we were able to take the sector through that period. Their resilience and their ability to work with the government meant that when we came out of the pandemic they were ready to go. Those in this place today will remember—and I remember it, because I'm pretty sure it was Easter Sunday—when we announced free child care during the pandemic. That approach was able to carry the sector through the pandemic. We of course readjusted after some months and were able to set the sector up to blossom again once the pandemic had ended. Can I once again give my thanks to the sector for what they were able to do throughout the pandemic because we needed a childcare sector, especially, when it came to emergency service workers and others who had to work, to look after their children. The sector stepped up to the plate, and they did it incredibly well. I have two areas of concern when it comes to this bill. The first is that it does nothing to address childcare deserts. The sad reality is we've seen these childcare deserts grow in just the two-and-a-bit years that the Albanese Labor government has been in office. Sadly, where those childcare deserts have grown most abundantly is in regional and rural Australia. I say this to the government: you need to seriously look at what you can do to make sure that child care is provided right across this nation—that it's provided in my electorate of Wannon. You need to be mapping where we have childcare deserts, and you have to be making sure we get the child care that we need. Not only that; you have to make sure that we can get the workforce that we need. That is one of the problems with this bill: we are not seeing anything which is going to help address that fact. We are not going to see these childcare deserts addressed. That is very, very problematic. The other thing that we also have issues with is: what is being done in this bill to make sure that out-of-pocket expenses for parents go down? What is it that will lead to those out-of-pocket expenses not continually rising for them? Just to give you a sense of this issue, after the last election, Labor promised cheaper child care. Instead they spent $4.7 billion, which was mostly eaten by inflation, and delivered higher out-of-pocket costs for families. To give you a sense of the higher out-of-pocket costs for families, they went up 8.4 per cent over the last 12 months. You've got a cost-of-living crisis, you've got a cost-of-doing-business crisis, and your out-of-pocket costs for families for child care have gone up by 8.4 per cent even though Labor has spent $4.7 billion. We all recognise and know how important our early childhood educators are, and all of us want to see them get extra income in their pockets because of the cost-of-living crisis. We know that, and we want that. But what we don't want is for the parents to see more inflation and see their out-of-pocket costs continue to rise. They've gone up 8.4 per cent over the last 12 months. If that continues, it's going to make life harder and harder and harder for those working families. So I say to the government: there are more things that you need to do. Looking at wages amongst our early childhood educators is important, but you need to have a holistic policy approach, one which won't cause inflation and which will mean that we can get more workers into the workforce and more childcare providers, especially in areas where there are childcare deserts, and that we won't see out-of-pocket costs go up by 8.4 per cent for families. That's the challenge. It's so often the case with this government that they'll see one aspect that they think needs addressing, but they won't understand that you need a holistic approach to do it properly. And that is my worry with this bill—the lack of a holistic approach. As I go around the electorate of Wannon and I talk to people, they're deeply concerned about the costs when they go to the supermarket. They're worried about the cost of insurance. They're worried about the cost of housing. They're worried about the cost of rent. They're worried about the cost of driving on the roads, due to the cuts to maintenance for our roads that we've seen from the federal and state government over the last two-and-a-bit years. They're all the things that they worry about, and there is nothing in this bill to ease the concern about out-of-pocket costs for families continuing to rise by 8.4 per cent year on year. If that does happen—8.4 per cent year on year—the compounding aspects of that will really hit families hard. That's why the government needs to take a holistic approach. If they don't, and inflation continues as it is, then what we are going to see, sadly, is this continuing—and this is the record: since the last election, the cost of health has gone up 10.5 per cent; the cost of education, up 11.2 per cent; the cost of food, up 12.3 per cent; the cost of housing, up 13.1 per cent; the cost of rent, up 16.3 per cent; the cost of financial and insurance, up 17.3 per cent; the cost of gas, up 33.8 per cent; and, of course, as I've mentioned, childcare, up by 8.4 per cent. We have to remember: Labor have had three budgets now—three budgets—to try and address this. Yet working Australians have seen their living standards collapse under Labor because of these soaring costs. Labor's failure to break the back of inflation means that hardworking families have seen their standard of living decline and decline dramatically. As a matter of fact, it's one of the highest declines, if not the highest decline, in real living standards anywhere in the OECD—anywhere for comparable countries. That is why this bill really needs to be far, far more holistic in its approach. We know and understand our early childhood educators deserve a pay increase, but we also know that there has to be a way to do that which doesn't lead to inflation going higher or those costs going higher or out-of-pocket costs for parents continuing to rise year on year as they have for the last 12 months by 8.4 per cent. So my challenge for the minister and for the government is this. What guarantees are you giving that parents won't see out-of-pocket costs continue to rise by 8.4 per cent, or higher, year on year? I remember, when we were in government, those opposite said it was all about out-of-pocket costs for families. Yet now we don't hear much noise at all when it comes to these out-of-pocket costs. Referring to those out-of-pocket costs and making sure that you're saying to Australian families, 'That needs to be a key component of what we are doing,' is critically important. The other thing that the government needs to focus on is: the childcare deserts. What are you doing to make sure that the sector expands? What are you doing to make sure that the childcare providers have that surety to be able to invest and keep investing and providing that opportunity for families to get access to child care? I can tell you we're not seeing anything in my electorate in that regard. That is one of the many disappointing things that we have seen recently. You have to remember that our record was 280,000 more children in early childhood education. I would love to see that number continue to grow and grow and grow, especially in rural and regional areas. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a government who could point to its record of seeing childcare provision in regional and rural Australia expand into these childcare drought areas? That's where we're seeing the extra numbers: in Warrnambool, in Port Fairy, in Portland, in Hamilton, in Colac, in Ararat, in Winchelsea—right across my electorate. I would love to see a government focused on providing more childcare opportunities for my constituents and doing it in a way which isn't going to see out-of-pocket costs for parents rise year on year by 8.4 per cent. That's the challenge for this government. What about bringing into this chamber a holistic approach to child care which is going to work for everyone? 13:16 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I'm proud to stand up here and support this bill, the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024. It is a very special bill. It's a bill that will enable early childhood education and care workers, who are some of the most important workers in the country, to be paid fairly and enable a betterment in our economy. They deserve to be paid fairly. Achieving quality outcomes for children relies on a highly skilled workforce made up of well-supported and professionally recognised early childhood education and care sector workers. Decent wages are absolutely critical to reversing attrition and growing this crucial workforce. Every day around this country, parents trust early educators with the most important people in their world and in fact the most important people in our nation: the next generation of Australians. We ask our early childhood educators to do some of the most important jobs imaginable, and they deserve a pay rise for doing that. That's what this bill delivers. It delivers a 15 per cent pay rise for up to 200,000 childcare workers—a 10 per cent pay rise from December this year and then a further five per cent pay rise from December next year. A typical early childhood educator will receive an additional $103 a week from December 2024, increasing to at least $155 from December 2025. A typical early childhood teacher will receive an additional $166 a week from December 2024, increasing to at least $249 from December 2025. This is important because what happens in early education and care is very important. It's not babysitting; it's early education. Ninety per cent of our children's brain development occurs in the first five years of life. It's crucial, as all the research that we've seen shows, that the earlier you start educating a child, the better it is for that child. The long-term benefits for their education are huge when you start early. Studies have been done all around the world, especially here in Australia, that show that. No child expert would argue with that point. We hope this pay rise will encourage more people to stay in the industry, more people to come back to the industry and more people to think about becoming an early educator. More educators mean more children and more parents can benefit from the life-changing work that they do. This bill also sets up the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers Special Account. This account allows us to deliver a 15 per cent rise over two years through the Early Childhood Education and Care Worker Retention Payment Program. It supports affordability for families by establishing a fee increase cap in the terms and conditions of the worker retention payment grant. This means that providers won't be able to raise their fees in the first year by more than 4.4 per cent. This will put downward pressure on fees, helping to make early education and care more affordable for the families that need it. The wage justice bill also encourages good-faith bargaining and the making of enterprise agreements in the early childhood education and care sector. It'll also help support the steps the government has already taken to make early childhood education cheaper for Australian families—and this is extremely important across the nation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, or ABS, census data shows that there were 2,280 childcare workers working in the Adelaide metropolitan area—mostly in my area—in 2021, which compares with 862 in 2011. This is equivalent to an increase of 1,418, or 164.5 per cent. As of July 2024, there were 157 early childhood education and care services within my federal electorate of Adelaide. This includes centre based day care, outside-school-hours care, family day care and preschools. There were 70 centre based day-care services and 50 outside-school-hours services in the electorate that I represent. There were 9,530 families using a childcare service in the Adelaide electorate and receiving the subsidy in 2023. Like many people in this place, I've had the privilege of visiting many, many childcare centres in my electorate, and I know that the news we are hearing today through this bill will be received by the centres positively. For example, very soon I will visit the Lady Gowrie childcare centre in Thebarton. It is a great facility doing renowned work through the Lady Gowrie system that was set up many, many years ago. In fact, both my children attended Lady Gowrie when they were in preschool and the education they received there as toddlers was amazing. I take my hat off to Lady Gowrie childcare centres. I have visited many others, including Goodstart Early Learning Plympton, Goodstart Early Learning Prospect, the Parkside Community Child Care & Early Learning Centre, the Unley Community Childcare Centre and many others—Precious Cargo Montessori and, of course, Little Oxford Montessori. They are all doing amazing work and all caring for our children but, most importantly, providing an early education. For the children who are there for preschool, their brains are developing, they're learning and they're going to get the best start and best chances in the world when they start their primary school. When you visit these centres, you get a greater sense of the importance of their work. When you sit and meet with parents, committee members and, of course, childhood educators who work there, you get a sense of how important this work is. You also get a sense of how hard they work, but, most importantly, you get a sense of the absolute commitment of these people, many of whom have been in this sector for a number of years. They do it because they're committed to this sector, not because of the pay. As I said, I've sat and spoken with them. Recently, I went to the Unley Community Childcare Centre, where I met with Djarra Liotta-Ndiaye, an early childhood educator there, and with Nica Hilditch and Kate Goodwin-Smith, who are advocates and parents. They told me about their trials and tribulations. They told me about the long hours that they worked and their difficulties in recruiting staff. Even though it's wonderful to see families receiving cheaper child care under this government's proposal, there are still simply not enough educators to meet this demand. That's why this bill is so important. It is clear how critically needed this pay rise is for childcare workers. We are desperately keen to retain many workers and know how important it is to help parents and carers struggling with cost-of-living pressures. Our government is absolutely committed to seeing Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn, and we will keep working every day to deliver for all Australians, including child educators. We all know that Australians are doing it tough; there's no doubt. I hear it when I go doorknocking, when I'm out and about in my electorate and when I'm talking to people. Certainly, child educators are among the lowest paid workers across industries. This is why our government's No. 1 priority is easing the cost-of-living pressures that are around at the moment by bringing inflation down—as we've seen, it has nearly halved since we got into government—and with our tax relief and a whole range of other things. That's why this Albanese Labor government has introduced this bill. That's why, as I said, we delivered a tax cut for all Australians, including 93,000 people in my electorate alone, with an average tax cut of $1,540 per annum. Those tax cuts are providing greater tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, who, like our child educators, are disproportionately women. These tax cuts see 90 per cent of women taxpayers retaining, on average, an additional $707 per year compared with the previous legislated tax cuts. So this bill that we're debating here today will also help reduce the gender pay gap. As the Prime Minister outlined in his speech yesterday, this is a good policy and a very, very necessary policy. Wages in early childhood education and the care work sector, which are very female dominated workforces, are among the lowest of the caring professions. These are the people that are looking after and developing our children and grandchildren. These are the people that are doing all they can to give those children the best chance in life as they grow older and go into school. As I said, the award rates for professional qualified educators often are comparable to rates for most unqualified workers; they're pretty much the same. An effective supported bargaining process will also lift pay and conditions for the workforce and contribute to the government's ambition for a universal high-quality sector. With gender equity at the heart of the workplace relations system, government funding in response to supported bargaining will contribute to improvements in attraction and retention within the early childhood workforce sector. Having a sustainable qualified workforce promotes workforce participation by enabling more parents and carers to engage in work, study and training and improves educational outcomes by providing, as I said earlier, that high-quality education and care to the most important people in this nation: the next generation of Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 44 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Parliamentary Representation 44 13:30 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash At six o'clock last night in my office we quietly celebrated the closing of the polls in 2004, which saw me re-elected to the parliament after being defeated twice before and being a oncer twice—and the member at the table was a participant in one of those election campaigns. It has been an honour to serve the people of McMillan and Monash, accordingly, in that time. Of course, in my 25 years in the parliament, I served as the member for Corinella for three years as well. It's been a very difficult time, in that two great achievements were, firstly, being on the wrong side of every leadership ballot for the whole 25 years because I supported the leader, and, secondly, being in a place where policy was particularly important to me and I was prepared to speak out on those issues, no matter who the government of the day was. I've never stepped back from the time that I spent in this place in the alternative, and I look forward to continuing in that role. Cost of Living 45 13:32 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo We all keep talking about how times are tough, and they are. Over the last few weeks and in the coming weeks I am taking the opportunity to meet with a number of welfare agencies in my electorate. What the volunteers tell me at the food banks and at the pantries is that demand is great, and it is growing. We recently opened Bendigo Foodshare, who is responsible for supplying the goods for many of these outlets. These welfare organisations call themselves outlets because they're kind of an onseller in many ways. They hand out the food that these people need. It is helping people get from week to week. The volunteers in these places also tell me that the cost-of-living relief delivered by this government is helping, particularly in the back-to-back increases to rent assistance—a 45 per cent increase in rent assistance since our government was elected—and in the 21 per cent increase to the JobSeeker rate since our government was elected. These two measures alone are helping people to not fall through the cracks. Increases to disability, age and carer payments and pensions are also helping. This is what responsible governments do; they help those most in need to make sure that they can get from week to week. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 45 13:33 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Today I'm proud to share the ideas of two remarkable year 8 students from Emerald State High School who have taken part in the Youth Voice in Parliament program. This initiative gives young Australians the opportunity to express their concerns and ideas and to have their voices heard at the highest level of government. Areebah, one of the young students, wrote passionately about the issue of littering in her home town of Emerald. She noted that, despite council efforts, community participation is lacking. She urges all of us to address this issue before it escalates further, calling for stronger efforts to encourage everybody to properly dispose of their waste and keep our communities clean. Amber, also in year 8 at Emerald State High School, raised her voice and wrote strongly about her beliefs that there should be more Indigenous involvement, and greater opportunity to embrace Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, in the gem fields in the greater Central Highlands region. I want to thank Areebah and Amber for their thoughtful contributions and for taking an active interest in shaping our future. Their participation in the Youth Voice in Parliament program is a testament to the power of young people in influencing positive change. I encourage other students to follow in their footsteps and participate in the program next year. Labor Government 45 13:34 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Labor understands that living costs are high for many Australian families. That's why the Albanese Labor government has delivered tax cuts for all taxpayers, energy bill relief for households and small businesses, wage rises for childcare and aged-care workers, cheaper medicines, more bulk-billed GP visits, including a bulk-billing urgent care clinic in my electorate of Makin, increased rent assistance and free TAFE courses. Labor will cut $3 billion off student debt and is taking action to prevent price rorting by supermarkets. Labor has done all that whilst delivering two budget surpluses, lowering inflation and getting more people into work. But what has been the response from the Dutton-led coalition? It has been to oppose all of Labor's assistance measures, to float a vague, uncosted, expensive nuclear energy policy—which, even if it was an option, is years if not decades away—and to cut $315 billion of government expenditure, which we know is code for cuts to pensions, cuts to welfare programs, cuts to Medicare and cuts to public service jobs. We know there is more to do, and Labor is focused on easing living costs, whilst the opposition leader's only plan is to be obstructive. Raise Our Voice Australia 45 13:36 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on the Raise our Voice Australia campaign and to share with you what Eden from my community had to say: My name is Eden, I'm 16 years old and I live in the Mayo electorate. I live in a regional area and sport is a big part of our community, yet we don't have the correct facilities to use for our sports. For example, the basketball seasons are held in the gym of the public school on only one court. This means that some people don't go home until 9.15 pm on some weeknights. The idea of a new stadium has been proposed several times, but nothing has ever actually gone ahead. Strathalbyn is a growing town, and more people are playing sports—especially young people—with not enough space to fit them all. I know a lot of people that have moved to a different club because that club had more resources and a better training capacity. In ten years, I want my community to still have sport as a way to bring people together and to have the resources to facilitate that. If Strathalbyn could access funding and get support to build a new multi-sport stadium, it would benefit everyone, regardless of which sport they play. Eden, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have met with council. It will need all three levels of government to make this work. I am here fighting for you to make sure we can get a new sporting facility for Strathalbyn. Cost of Living 46 13:37 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt We hear you, we see you, and we understand the pressures families are facing. And that's why we've delivered tangible cost-of-living relief. We have cut taxes for every Australian, provided $300 in energy rebates and increased wages for workers by the highest rate in two decades. While Labor delivers real cost-of-living relief, the Liberals are distracted by overseas issues and secret plans to cut vital services like pensions, Medicare and housing. Only Labor is focused here at home. We've frozen the cost of PBS medicines, made childcare more affordable and funded 500,000 fee-free TAFE courses. Rental assistance is up by 43 per cent. We are bringing manufacturing back onshore, and we have expanded bulk-billing to ensure better healthcare access. On top of that, we are providing $3 billion in student debt relief, and we are cracking down on dodgy behaviour at supermarkets by empowering the ACCC. We are delivering for families and tackling the cost of living. Housing Affordability 46 13:39 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Millions of people across the country are on the frontlines of a full-blown housing catastrophe. Rents and mortgages have skyrocketed. People are being forced to skip meals to keep a roof over their head. So many are sleeping in cars and tents because it's impossible to find an affordable rental. It's beyond clear that our housing system isn't working for anyone except wealthy property investors. Meanwhile, this government has nothing to offer except bandaid answers that are more slogan than substance. The Greens won't just roll over and rubber-stamp Labor's woefully inadequate bandaid approach, because you deserve better. Renters deserve better than unlimited rent increases. Mortgage holders deserve better than massive unrelenting interest rate hikes. First home buyers deserve better than to be outbid by wealthy property investors racking up their 7th, 15th or 30th property. People deserve so much better than a government that is throwing them to the wolves in a dog-eat-dog housing market, a government that's willing to let you struggle when it doesn't have to be this way. Big problems need real solutions. The Greens want to work with the government to take action that will actually make a difference: freeze rent increases, offer low-rate mortgages, build public housing and end the tax breaks which stack the deck in favour of wealthy property investors at the expense of everyone else. Labor needs to stop bulldozing and start negotiating with the Greens to fix the housing and rental crisis. Economy 46 13:40 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins When it comes to the economy, the Libs talk the big game but under the Libs inflation had a six in front of it and it now has a two. We've had two budget surpluses when the Libs had exactly zero—crickets, doughnuts. These surpluses mean we've avoided $80 billion in interest charges over a decade and that means we can build up our financial buffers again. On housing, we've had a housing minister from the get-go. Those opposite had none for at least six years of their decade in office. Is it any wonder that a housing problem morphed into a crisis? Under us, the gender pay gap has been crunched from 14.1 per cent when we came to office to 11.5 per cent now. Under the Libs, it was stuck in neutral going nowhere fast because they deprioritised women. It's closing thanks to wage rises for 2.6 million low-income workers, wage rises for childcare workers and for aged-care workers. We have banned wage secrecy and forced big business to reveal their gender pay gap. This all happened thanks to a female-dominant government which channels the spirit of a female Prime Minister, who stood at that dispatch box 12 years ago this week and said to those men who were blocking her path, 'Not now, not ever.' Latham, Mr Mervyn Sidney 46 13:41 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Today I rise to wish Mervyn Sidney Latham a happy 100th birthday on 14 October 2024. Born at Port Macquarie, Merv spent his early years helping out on the family farm and at his grandfather's blacksmith shop. His hard work at school meant he passed the rigorous entrance exam for the Public Service, where he subsequently started work as a clerk in the correspondence and records branch of the department of mines and forests. He joined the naval cadets as a telegraphist and crewed on a coastal patrol vessel, including on 31 May 1942, the night the Japanese midget submarines entered Sydney Harbour and fired torpedos at USS Chicago, missing it but hitting HMAS Kuttabul, killing 21. Later Merv enlisted in the Army, serving in a number of posts and then undertaking training through the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme in fitting and turning, diesel engineering and boot making before his discharge in 1946. Merv's post-military career was long and distinguished and included various roles with the departments of mines and forests and also industrial relations. Throughout his life Merv has travelled across Australia and around the world to places including Canada, Europe, England, the UAE and the Americas. All of these experiences have made Merv the person he is today—servicemen, accountant, traveller, inventor, husband, father and companion—a true gentleman. Happy 100th birthday, Mervyn Sidney Latham. Economy 47 13:43 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Our government's No. 1 priority is helping Australians with the cost of living, and our economic plan is focused on helping people while fighting inflation. We're making it cheaper and easier for households to get the medical care and medicines they need. We've tripled the Medicare rebate to see a GP for eligible patients, and our Medicare urgent care clinics, including one in my electorate, mean medical care is more accessible and people can get the care they need when they need it without having to worry about costs. I have spoken to residents in my community in Chisholm about this and it has been incredibly well received. I know our cheaper medicines initiatives have relieved cost-of-living pressures too because that's what constituents have been telling me. And Chisholm residents have the highest number of 60-day prescriptions in the state of Victoria, saving millions of dollars for locals. In addition to these changes we've also delivered: a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some; $300 in energy bill relief for every Australian household and $325 for eligible small businesses; and a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers. We know there's more to do and we'll keep fighting hard every day to deliver for every Australian. Aircraft Noise 47 13:44 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Bribie Island is a little piece of paradise in the electorate of Longman and, as more and more people discover that South-East Queensland is probably the best destination in Australia, our airport has grown and the number of flights has increased. As a result, the air traffic on the flight paths going over Bribie Island has become quite horrific. Airservices Australia have been approached by many of the people on Bribie Island, and unfortunately, to this date, those people haven't been heard. We had organised a drop-in session back in August but, unfortunately, they weren't able to attend because of illness, so that has now been rescheduled until the first quarter of next year. So I want to say to the people on Bribie Island, please keep an eye out. Let me know and I'll keep you up to date with when the drop-in session will be. Bribie Island is 90 per cent national park and, for the life of us, we cannot understand why the flight path can't be moved just a few kilometres north so that it's not going over this populated area, which, by the way, has the oldest average population in Queensland. These people, needless to say, don't like a lot of air traffic, particularly at night, when they're trying to sleep. So I'm asking for common sense to prevail. I wrote to the minister. Unfortunately I didn't get much of a reply, but, hopefully, between Airservices Australia, the people of Bribie and me, we can sort it out and have a commonsense solution to this real problem. Cost of Living 47 13:46 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Delivering cost-of-living relief is the No. 1 priority of the Albanese Labor government—a government that has spent the last 2½ years working for Australians. We know people are doing it tough, and that's why we've acted to help all Australians. This government has delivered tax cuts for every taxpayer. Our fairer tax cuts are helping with the cost of living, ensuring people keep more of what they earn. On top of this, every household is getting $300 off their power bill, and one million small businesses are getting a $325 rebate. We've made medicines cheaper and allowed 60-day dispensing, and this decision is very popular in my electorate of Dunkley. The cost of PBS medications has been frozen, meaning no-one will pay more than $31.60 for a script. We've helped families out by making child care cheaper. Out-of-pocket expenses are dropping to $4.22 an hour in the June quarter, which is excellent for families in my community. The Albanese Labor government has done more for the people of this country than the opposition. We have been exceptional in looking after the people who are doing it tough in our communities, including across communities like Dunkley. I am very excited to be an MP for Dunkley with this government and to be amongst the 53 per cent of women that make it up, which is exceptional. Queensland: Youth Crime 47 13:47 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom The time has come to hold Queensland Labor to account for the youth crime crisis that has swept through our state and hurt my home city of Toowoomba so badly. As we come to the election on 26 October, it is clear that only the LNP is willing to do what it takes to stop this youth crime crisis. In our city and in their home towns, people feel helpless in their own homes. I've spoken to residents who now sleep with weapons under their beds and under their pillows. I've spoken to residents whose children cannot get to sleep unless they're right beside their parents because they've witnessed a violent home invasion. I've spoken to elderly residents who watched as gangs of criminals ransacked their houses, abusing them on the way through. And I've spoken to police who feel absolutely helpless that they cannot in any way steer the kids that they're picking up on a Monday away from the crimes that they know they're going to commit on a Wednesday. This cycle has continued through our state. I've spoken to friends of Robert Brown, who died at the hands of a youth criminal on the streets of Toowoomba in a terrible assault that was, quite frankly, the last straw for Toowoomba, and we demanded change. But we are not helpless. On 26 October, we can stand up and tell Labor that we've had enough, that we're sick of their soft on crime stance and that we want a change. In Toowoomba, we have as candidates David Janetzki, Trevor Watts and Pat Weir. They are the right team with the right policy—adult crime, adult time—to sort out this youth crime crisis and finally bring it to an end. Housing 48 13:49 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton While some MPs grandstand on social media, the truth is that Labor is the only party committed to genuine housing reform. The Greens political party talk about housing but then block housing projects in their own electorates. They are a hypocritical cliche. Right now the Greens are blocking more homes for the rental market and 40,000 Australians from home ownership, all in the name of fantasy rent freezes. What exactly is the evidence on rent freezes? The Guardian, formerly the home of the magnificent Amy Remeikis, says, 'All experts Guardian Australia spoke to said this would not be sensible in Australia.' The Australian Financial Review concurred, saying, 'Economists from Left to Right agree it would make things worse by squeezing housing supply.' The Productivity Commission stated, 'Rent control is not an effective way to improve affordability for renters.' The study the Greens cited as their grand evidence of how good rent freezes are concluded there was no significant difference in affordability for renters. Maybe it's this complete policy illiteracy that has the party of whingeing puritans faltering on their own insane ideas. Is the fact that only 20 per cent of Greens voters support them blocking Labor's legislation why the party of populism is now running scared? In politics, second chances are hard to come by, but we're giving the Greens one more chance to do the right thing by Australians. We need builders, not blockers. We need workers, not whingers. It's time to back Labor's housing legislation in the Senate. Queensland State Election 48 13:51 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie On 26 October Queenslanders have a very important decision to make. Change is needed. Over the last 35 years, the Labor government have been in power for almost three decades. As a result we've got derelict MPs that do not do their duty. Labor MPs throughout Queensland have failed on public housing and homelessness. They've failed on infrastructure, roads and planning, and they've failed on health. They've failed, basically, on corruption where they're basically giving money to unions and ensuring that infrastructure programs are 30 per cent dearer than what they should be. Well, Queenslanders have had enough. We need change. We need David Crisafulli and the Liberal National Party, who have the right priorities for Queensland: a plan to restore safety where you live; a plan to reinstate health services when you need them; a plan to return respect for your money; a plan to reimagine a place to call home; and a plan to redesign a government that works for you. In my electorate we have exceptional candidates: Amanda Cooper in Aspley; Rob Barridge in Bancroft; Gary Fulton in Murrumba, who will take on the Premier and can beat him; Kerri-Anne Dooley in Redcliffe, who will be my state MP if given the opportunity and will be one of the best members Redcliffe has ever had; Chris Mangan in Sandgate; Fiona Hammond in Stafford; Dean Clements in Pine Rivers; Ariana Doolan in Pumicestone; and Sarah Ross in Morayfield. Show Labor the door in '24. Cost of Living 48 13:52 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Delivering cost-of-living relief is our top priority, but every day the 'no-alition' throws a tantrum, claiming we're not doing enough. What a joke! They continue to block our cost-of-living relief even though they've been about as helpful as a screen door on a submarine. I'm happy to help them out with a little memory jog. Let's run down the list, shall we: tax cuts for every taxpayer—you're welcome; wages moving again; big pay rises for minimum wage workers, aged-care staff and early childhood educators; and same pay, same job, which the Hunter Valley is still celebrating. When it comes to cost-of-living relief those opposite are just jealous. They hate us 'cause they ain't us. While they whinge and whine, we roll up our sleeves with cheaper child care for families, because raising kids is expensive enough without having to pay for it twice; $300 off the family electricity bills; lower medicine costs, because coughing up shouldn't cost you an arm and a leg; and free health care at Medicare urgent care clinics. And let's not forget that Commonwealth rent assistance has increased every year we've been here, the first back-to-back hikes in more than 30 years. To the 'no-alition': it's been an absolute pleasure reminding you what we've done. We know how hard Aussies are doing it right now, and this is why this government delivers real cost-of-living relief. We'll keep doing that because, unlike those opposite, we're not just talk; we actually get stuff done. Queensland State Election 49 13:53 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I'm excited! I am so excited because in 16 days Queensland residents will finally have the opportunity to change the government. For nine very long years we have had to endure nothing but incompetence from a lazy, pathetic Labor government who have put their hands around the throats of our family businesses, our farmers, our fishers and our miners. Queensland Labor have put thousands at risk on the Bruce Highway by not rolling out the millions of dollars allocated to them by the previous coalition government. They have robbed hardworking Queenslanders of their money with increasing power costs. They have kept Queenslanders locked up in their homes because they have let criminals walk free within our communities. Labor has created the worst ambulance ramping in the nation and the worst housing crisis in history. It's time this stopped. Queensland cannot suffer any longer. There is a better way, a better choice and a safer choice. The LNP will reduce crime, the LNP will fix the health debacle, the LNP will fix our roads and the LNP will back small business. There is only one choice this 26 October, and that is to vote in the Crisafulli led LNP government in Queensland. Say it with me, Queensland: let's show Labor the door in 2024! Mental Health 49 13:55 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Today, 10 October, is World Mental Health Day. I can't stress enough how important this subject is, because Aussies who can talk to someone about their mental health and who can receive quality care and support when they need it are given the best opportunity to thrive—to thrive not just in their personal lives but also in the workplace, our nation's engine room, where we spend a third of our lifetime. I point that out because the Productivity Commission estimates that tens of billions of dollars are taken from our economy every year from poor mental health at work alone. This government's investment in mental health is addressing that issue, helping everyday Aussies on the ground while supporting a stronger, more productive economy around them. This is happening right now in my electorate of Spence, with the opening of the Medicare mental health centre in Elizabeth in June this year, one of over 60 across the country being delivered by the Albanese Labor government. That followed the announcement in April of this year of a new headspace in Gawler, which will open in 2025, as part of a $290 million investment by the government. Efforts like these in Spence and across the country are helping to boost our economy by putting everyday Aussies and their mental health first in our communities, which is most important of all. Queensland State Election 49 13:56 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler It's on! In Queensland, it's on. There's a state election. We've seen the campaign buses. We see the promises. We see the scare campaigns. But in Bundaberg what we see is our local candidate for the Liberal National Party, Bree Watson. What a champion! A local champion schooled locally, working locally, raising a family locally, she is a cracking candidate for Bundaberg, and she has promised and committed to a level 5 hospital for Bundaberg. What have we seen from the opposition, the state Labor government? In August 2020 they promised a level 5 hospital. Then they decided it was a five-level hospital. The people that I represent know the difference. And guess what they've built so far, in four years? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, the Labor member for Bundaberg was in the paper celebrating yesterday that they've delivered mulch. They've raised some areas and they've delivered mulch. So the mulch man has delivered free mulch for community organisations, instead of a level 5 hospital. Can you believe that that is the strategy? They even celebrated that someone bought him a beer because he provided free mulch for them. The people in that region know they deserve a hospital and they need a hospital. It is only the LNP that will provide that hospital in that region, and that's with Bree Watson as the local member. I'm pretty sure that the people of Queensland know what this state Labor government is. There's another name for a mulch pile, and it's a pile of something unparliamentary. Albanese Government 49 13:58 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The Albanese Labor government's economic plan is about one thing—helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Every day, this side of the House works tirelessly to reduce household costs, bring down inflation and put more money in the pockets of working Australians. This week has been no different. On Tuesday we opened applications for Commonwealth funding to deliver the long overdue 15 per cent pay rise to early childhood educators, including those supporting over 30,000 families in my electorate of Hawke. Yesterday the Minister for Communications introduced crucial legislation to keep the NBN in public hands, ensuring fast, reliable and, most importantly, affordable internet for all Australians now and into the future. And just this morning the Treasurer introduced legislation to reform our merger rules, boosting competition and putting downward pressure on prices, particularly in the supermarket sector. This follows last week's announcement of a funding boost to the ACCC to crack down on supermarkets and make sure our shoppers get a fair price at the check-out. These are the latest steps in a long line of actions that this government has taken to support Australian households, from tax cuts, energy bill relief and increased childcare subsidies to more bulk-billing and real wage growth, all while delivering consecutive budget surpluses. Only the Albanese Labor government can deliver for working Australians, helping them to earn more and keep more of what they earn. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 50 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 50 14:00 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from question time today, as he is attending the ASEAN meeting in Laos, and I will answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living: Veterans 50 14:00 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. Dan Keighran, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for his heroic actions in Afghanistan, has been forced to sell his medals due to cost-of-living pressures. He said: The reason for getting rid of the medal is to look after my own family. It would afford the opportunity for schooling … Times are tough, things are hard, especially for a family of five. Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologise to Dan for the Albanese Labor government policies which have led to his heartache and to so much heartache for all other Australians? 14:01 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. I actually wasn't aware of that fact in relation to Dan Keighran. That is a very sad state of affairs. Dan Keighran is an Australian hero, and, whatever the physical place of those medals, nothing takes away the honour that has been bestowed upon Dan Keighran rightly and or changes the way in which our country should view him. What I would say, in relation to the questions of cost of living, is this: since we've come to power, we have been utterly focused on the economy. We've come in here each and every day focused on the economy and focused on Australians and the challenges that they face in respect of cost of living. We get that Australians are doing it tough. The global pandemic and the aftermath of it, with disrupted supply chains and global crises, has seen inflation impacting countries around the world, and Australia has not been immune from that, which is why we have been utterly focused on that task at hand each and every day. The most significant thing that we have done is fight inflation, and I'd remind the honourable member that the rate of inflation today is half of the rate that we inherited from those opposite. The truth is that what we inherited from those opposite was an absolute economic basket case. What we had was a Liberal government no less which gave this country a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it. Headline inflation when those opposite left office was at 6.1 per cent. It is half of that today. The most important thing we've been doing is fighting inflation through prudent economic management, and that has seen us deliver two surpluses—something that those opposite never did, despite the fact that they promised to the Australian people that they would be delivering a surplus each and every year. They were out there printing mugs around their achievements before they had actually made them. What we've done is printed surpluses which have had an impact on reducing the inflation rate and, in fighting inflation, that is now starting to succeed. And, where we have spent money, it has been focused on the cost of living—rental assistance and looking at ways in which we can have more affordable child care, cheaper medicines and energy rebates, most of which you opposed. That is the record when it comes to the economy. We are focused on the economy. We are focused on Middle Australia. You are focused on everything else. (Time expired) Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 You criticise our veterans. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Kingsford Smith is warned. Mr Howarth 247742 They're words from his mouth. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie is now warned. Cybersafety 51 14:04 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is for the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government working to support families to keep children safer on social media? 14:04 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question because the safety and mental health of our young people is paramount. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that we make the environments where children live, learn and interact safer, and that includes digital environments. We're taking a whole-of-government approach to minimising the harms that come from children accessing content online that's not appropriate for them. The Prime Minister has committed to introducing legislation this year to enforce a minimum age for access to social media. Implementing this legislation will be informed by the age assurance trial funded in this year's budget. The legislation is also being informed by engagement with National Cabinet, the eSafety Commissioner and recent work by former chief justice Robert French. I acknowledge the premiers of New South Wales and South Australia, who have kicked off the Social Media Summit today in Sydney; I will join them in Adelaide tomorrow. This legislation is one part of a comprehensive approach this government is taking to address online safety. The Attorney-General delivered legislation making it a criminal offence to share non-consensual deepfake sexually explicit material, and he is progressing important work to strengthen online privacy for children. The social services minister and I have delivered an Australia-first dating app industry code to ensure the industry improves the safety of Australians using dating apps, especially women. With the support of the Treasurer and the finance minister, the Albanese government quadrupled ongoing base funding for the eSafety Commissioner to ensure that they are equipped to respond to online harms. As minister, I have amended the basic online safety expectations so that platforms must place the best interests of the child at the centre of their products and services. I've also brought forward by a year the independent review of the Online Safety Act to ensure it's fit for purpose, and I expect to receive that report in coming weeks. Collaboration and co-operation within and across governments is the best approach to making digital environments safer. As we navigate solutions for parents, we're applying the principles to our social media age limit legislation. We're also engaging with experts and advocates around the unintended consequences that young people may experience through this reform. Let me reassure the House: our approach is not about punishing young people or letting big tech off the hook. We all have a role to play. Social media services must act to address the impacts of the content on their platforms and how it affects young people. Platforms have shown they're capable of doing more, and we welcome their efforts to make services safer. The Albanese government is determined to do our share to make digital environments safer for all Australians. Members of Parliament: Staff 51 14:07 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to the allegations that were made today by the chief of staff to the Deputy Prime Minister. Under the ministerial code of conduct: Ministers have an obligation to demonstrate and uphold the highest workplace standards, including maintaining a safe and respectful workplace for their staff. Is the Deputy Prime Minister satisfied that he has complied with his obligations under the code? 14:08 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question. Given what has happened, it's an important question to be asked. The short answer is that I am satisfied, but I would like to say this. Jo Tarnawsky first started working with me as my chief of staff when I was the Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, back in 2012. Jo is a person that I have known, therefore, for a long time. She is a wonderful person. In her role then and in her role now, she has given me great service, and I remain deeply grateful for that. Jo is a person who is completely committed to social justice in this country, and I very much admire her for that. Given all of that, it's stating the obvious that, in this moment, I feel deeply sad that events have got to where they have. This is obviously very difficult. Let me say that, in the way in which I've tried to manage this, I have done so with Jo's welfare in mind at every moment, as I would try to manage things on that basis for all of my staff. As is evident, this matter is now in the hands of lawyers—and of course that is absolutely Jo's right, but it does mean that it is very difficult for me to say anything more on this issue. National Broadband Network 52 14:10 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government futureproofing the NBN, after a decade of mismanagement, by making it more affordable and accessible for all Australians? 14:10 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question. In April 2009, more than 15 years ago, the Rudd Labor government established the National Broadband Network, and we understood, back then, that fast, reliable, universal broadband would go a long way to defining Australia's economic potential. The ability to transfer large amounts of data—detailed architectural drawings; medical imaging; complex computer modelling—in real time, was the future. And, while we did not imagine the advent of artificial intelligence, we did understand back then that there would be future technologies which would require increased data and that this form of connection would be at the centre of the way of life in the 21st century. There was something deeply democratic about the National Broadband Network, particularly for a country which has most of its population in large cities, because, for the first time, it was now possible to do businesses in places like Toowoomba or Orange or Geelong which had previously only been able to be undertaken in places like Brisbane and Sydney and Melbourne. At the heart of this was fibre-optic cable. When those opposite came to power, they swept that aside and they doubled down on copper, and, in the process, they doubled down on the past. To be clear, the ability to transfer data by copper was first patented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1881. The limitations of their imagination when it came to the National Broadband Network were completely encapsulated by Tony Abbott when he said: … do we really want to invest $50 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money in what is essentially a video entertainment system. This blinkered, this dogged commitment to the past remains writ large on the faces of all of those opposite. Just like with Telstra, we know that those opposite want to privatise the NBN. Well, as a result of the legislation that was put into this parliament this week, this side of the House has guaranteed that there will be universal access for all Australians to the NBN forever. So, while those opposite have their gaze fixed on the 19th century, the Albanese government is committed to walking Australia confidently into the future with a modern, reliable, first-rate, publicly owned NBN. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Visentin, His Excellency Mr Gabriele, Robinson, Dr Mark, MP, Republic of Fiji: Parliamentary Delegation 52 14:13 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the honourable member for Wentworth, I'm pleased to advise the House that joining us today is His Excellency Mr Gabriele Visentin, the Ambassador of the European Union to Australia. We have students from Bright, Wandiligong and Harrietville from the electorate of Indi joining us today—I hope I got that right, Member for Indi. Joining us also is Dr Mark Robinson, the retiring member for Oodgeroo, from the Queensland State Parliament. I am also pleased to inform members that present in the gallery today is a delegation from the Republic of Fiji, led by Deputy Prime Minister the Hon. Manoa Kamikamica. They are joined by His Excellency Mr Ewen McDonald, the High Commissioner for Australia to Fiji, and are here in parliament today on Fiji Day. We are privileged to share this day together in Australia as vuvale, which means 'family', reinforcing the deep respect of our relationship. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 14:14 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio on indulgence—Mr Speaker, can I join you in welcoming the Hon. Manoa Kamikamica, the Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji, and his delegation. To have Deputy Prime Minister Kamikamica with us in this place, where one year ago our prime ministers renewed and elevated our Vuvale Partnership, is a distinct honour. In the past year we've significantly progressed shared priorities, including economic recovery, security and climate resilience, and deepened the strong personal ties our two governments have formed. I'd also like to recognise the exemplary role that Fiji plays in our Pacific region. We are deeply grateful for that. Australia and Fiji share an interest in strong regional architecture and a desire to work through the Pacific Islands Forum in the Pacific way on our shared challenges. 14:15 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson ():  on indulgence—I join in and support the Deputy Prime Minister's kind words to our most honoured guest. I also welcome His Excellency Ewen McDonald, the High Commissioner to Fiji for Australia and Special Envoy for the Pacific and Regional Affairs. He does a fantastic job in our country's name. As you know, Deputy Prime Minister, this is a long, abiding relationship, and we're very grateful for your presence here today. More than ever, the relationship is important, and the government and the opposition stand as one in our support of the bilateral relationship and ways in which we can work with you, in the PIF and in bilateral ways. The only exception to that, I suppose, is rugby, where you give us a touch-up now and again! Apart from that, there is no tension in the relationship whatsoever, and we hope that you enjoy a most fruitful stay here in Australia. We thank you so much for making the effort to be here. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Business Investment 53 14:16 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is for the Treasurer. e61 research has shown that young, innovative firms drive productivity, yet Australia's early-stage investment per capita is roughly a third of the US's and a bit over half of the UK's. I'm concerned we aren't going to close this gap. We know that large super funds have halved their allocation to venture capital over the last ten years, and the taxation of unrealised gains is going to make it harder for those investments from super. So how will the government drive private capital towards the most innovative businesses that can drive Australia's next productivity boom? 14:17 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Wentworth for her question, for her interest and also for the earlier opportunities to talk about some of these really important issues. I'll go to the specific first and then to the general. When it comes to the superannuation changes before the Senate, these are all about making sure that there are still generous tax concessions for people in the superannuation system but that they are slightly less generous for people with the biggest balances. The honourable member knows that, and we've discussed it at length in this parliament as well. As part of a lot of consultation that we've done over quite a long period now when it comes to the superannuation tax concessions—and I salute the Assistant Treasurer for his work on this as well—one of the things we have discovered and that we understand is that the categories that measure venture capital in superannuation are only a very, very small sliver of venture capital in self-managed super funds. For example, if you think about the most recent comparison, which is a couple of years old now, listed assets are about 30 per cent, but the sorts of categories that VC gets captured in are about three per cent—a tiny sliver. I think, in fairness to the honourable member, she also acknowledged in her question that the challenge of VC funding and capital flows when it comes to VC—the industry minister has raised this in different ways in our forums as well—has been a longer term challenge and a longer term trend which is completely unrelated to the changes that we are proposing to super. But it is a challenge, and I acknowledge the concerns that the member raises and that others have raised about VC. That's one of the reasons why, when we first came to office, amongst all of the opportunities we had to put together different groups to help advise us externally on government policy, one of the most important things we did was we put together the Treasurer's Investor Round Table. That is all about trying to grapple with some of these challenges we have with capital flows in our economy. Our Future Made in Australia agenda, our agenda around superannuation, what we're trying to do in housing, the clean energy transformation and some of the other big beneficial shifts in our economy—a lot of what we're trying to do is about is trying to get those capital flows right. But for some of these especially difficult challenges, the investor roundtable, which brings together trillions of dollars of capital around a table to advise us on how we nut out and grapple with and solve some of the issues, has been a really important forum—not because we have fixed every issue that the honourable member rightly raises, but because we know that we give ourselves a much better chance of addressing those issues if we work together with people inside and outside the parliament. In that regard, I welcome and encourage the great work of e61. Broadband 53 14:20 Ms F2S Lingiari SCRYMGOUR () (): My question is to the Minister for Communications. What has been the community's response to the government's commitment to keep the National Broadband Network in public ownership? Why is the government committed to providing affordable, accessible, high-speed broadband for Australians, and what are the alternative positions that have been proposed? 14:20 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question. I know she is pleased that more than 10,000 homes and businesses in Alice Springs can now order a full fibre upgrade on the NBN thanks to strong investment under the Albanese government. Labor founded the National Broadband Network to provide fast, reliable and affordable broadband to all Australians, irrespective of where they live. Only by keeping the NBN in public ownership can that vision continue to be delivered. It's not just the government that supports this policy; the regions support it. Mayor Ken Anderson from Flinders Ranges Council said: I support the Australian government in keeping the … (NBN) in public ownership. I think it is more than fair to say that privatisation of essential services does no favours for regional South Australia. Consumers support it. ACCAN CEO Carol Bennett said: Retaining public ownership of this critical public asset will provide the opportunity for continued improvement in the communications services Australians need now and into the future. The workers support it. Shane Murphy, the CWU National President said: NBN workers and their families will also breathe a sigh of relief knowing their jobs won't be on the chopping block because of privatisation. The industry supports it. Optus interim CEO Michael Venter said: 'Optus welcomes the federal government's legislation to keep the NBN in public hands. Keeping this critical asset under government ownership is likely to be the best approach for Australian consumers and will also provide a welcome level of ongoing certainty to the sector.' The Albanese government's position on the NBN is crystal clear: it is not for sale. In 2021, we made an election commitment to retain the NBN in public ownership, to keep broadband affordable and to complete building a world-class fibre network. In 2022, we formalised this commitment in a new statement of expectations for the NBN. Yesterday, we introduced legislation to enshrine this position in law. The opposition has had three years to give their position on the NBN and to answer a simple question: will you preserve the NBN in public ownership or will you flog it off? Yesterday, they finally revealed their hand when a Liberal MP confirmed that privatisation was always part of their plan. When asked whether the NBN should be privatised, the answer was, 'It has always been in the contemplation that it would be privatised.' Australians have a clear choice to keep the NBN in public ownership or, under those opposite, have it flogged off. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 54 14:24 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the allegations that were made today by the chief of staff to the Deputy Prime Minister. When did the Deputy Prime Minister first speak with the Prime Minister or his office about the allegations of bullying within the Deputy Prime Minister's office? 14:24 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank you for the question. As I referred to in my previous answer, I'm limited in how much we can now talk about this, given that this is in the hands of lawyers. In answer to your question, specifically, what I can say is that it is evident now, on the record, that I've been working with the Prime Minister's office for months in respect of this matter and the Prime Minister has been made aware of this. Economy 54 14:25 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure a more competitive, dynamic economy and get fairer prices for Australians? How does this compare to alternative policies? 14:25 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Because the member for Holt is such a good local member, she understands that we need to engage in this fight against inflation on every front that we can. We need to provide as much help as we responsibly and meaningfully can to people who are doing it tough, whether it's in her community or communities represented by all honourable members in this place. That's why our cost-of-living relief is so important, but it's also why it's so important that we do what we can to make our economy more competitive, because a more competitive economy is an economy which is fairer for consumers and also, ultimately, a stronger economy. That's why it's so important that I was able to introduce legislation to the parliament today—and I acknowledge the work of Assistant Minister Leigh in putting together this legislation before the House—which represents the biggest change to our mergers regime in around half a century. It is a really important economic reform. It is a total overhaul of our mergers regime, and it will help make our economy more competitive, more dynamic and more productive as a consequence. The current system of merger approvals is too slow, and too many mergers slip through the cracks. These reforms will make the system stronger, faster, simpler, more targeted and more transparent. It's all about approving the good mergers faster—recognising that many are good—but also catching the damaging ones where we can. This means more competition for consumers and more certainty and more clarity for business at the same time. I want to acknowledge here the really quite outstanding work of the ACCC chair, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, who was at the press conference this morning reminding people that these are the sorts of changes that the ACCC itself has sought so that they can do their really important work when it comes to merger approvals. In addition to the monetary thresholds that we also announced today—they're set by regulation but we announced them today—we also made it really clear that there are some sectors of our economy which warrant particular attention. One of those, obviously, is supermarkets. We know, and the honourable member knows, that a lot of the cost-of-living pressure that people feel, they feel at the check-out, so we want to make sure that the supermarket sector is as competitive as it can be. That means that I have determined that every supermarket merger will be screened under these new arrangements. Not just the ones caught automatically by the monetary thresholds but all of the supermarket mergers that are proposed will be screened. That's because we do understand that, in order to make our economy more competitive, there are some sectors which are more sensitive than others. Supermarkets are an obvious candidate. It's not the only thing we're doing when it comes to competition policy but a really important part of it. (Time expired) Gambling 55 14:28 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, I refer to the June 2023 report prepared by the late Peta Murphy, a report I signed, concerning online gambling restrictions. In December 2023 the minister said she would ensure a policy would be resolved 'expeditiously' and would be announced 'without delay'. It is now October 2024 and the government still has not arrived at a policy. With which elements of the Murphy report does the minister disagree? 14:29 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question and I acknowledge her interest in this matter—as, I'm sure, all members of this place are concerned about the harms that occur when it comes to wagering in certain contexts. Of course, we understand, given the high level of community concern here and the fact that Australians lose some $25 billion every year in response to gambling, that this is an area in which improvements need to be made. That's why I commend the member for her work on that committee, and all members of this place who worked on the committee report. There are three things I'll say to the member. The first is that this report sets out some 30 recommendations, many of which go to the interaction between Commonwealth and state governments and their regulatory arrangements. We're working carefully through those, with the states, and I'm doing that in conjunction with a number of other ministers, including the Minister for Social Services. It is a complex area in that respect. It's complex because there are certain regulatory arrangements that the states obviously have a keen interest in. It's also one where of course the Commonwealth wants to ensure that we have the most robust response when it comes to dealing with wagering harms. The second point is, given the high level of gambling harms with both economic and social consequence, we need changes that go not only to regulation and to law but also to cultural change. The way we are seeking to achieve that is threefold. The first is breaking the nexus between sport and wagering. Second, it's concentrating on the exposure of children to gambling harms. Third, it's addressing the saturation of ads, particularly as they are targeted towards young men aged around 18 to 35. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause, and I'll hear from the member for Hughes. Ms Ware 300123 I take a point of order on relevance. This was a question particularly directed at the Murphy report, and I would say that the minister is not being directly relevant to what she disagrees with within that report. Government members interjecting— The 53517 The member for Hughes is entitled to raise a point of order. She's done so. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, the question was quite a long question, and obviously the Murphy report involves a large assessment of a whole lot of issues on this topic area. So, by virtue of what was just raised with respect to the Murphy report, that is in fact why the topic area is so wide. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll just make sure that the minister, in her answer, is referring to either the recommendations or the topic of the report. I don't know every recommendation; I'll be honest with everyone. But I need to make sure that she's within the standing orders. She can't just talk about the broad subject topic. She was asked a specific question by the member for Hughes about the recommendations, and I'll just make sure that she's being directly relevant and that her answer continues in that way. Ms ROWLAND 159771 The recommendations go to two areas. The first is in terms of reductions in gambling harms and the second is the way they can be implemented. The point I'm making to the honourable member—and I know she asked this question from a good place—is that we need to understand, but we also need to ensure that the impacts in responding to this report achieve their desired outcomes. To give some examples of that, the need to be forward looking and comprehensive in this response necessitates a response that is not only whole of government but also whole of nation. We're doing this through looking at areas where exposure might not yet be prevalent but could be in future. We're also looking at areas in which we need to ensure that there is a strong legislative response from the outset. So, these are complex areas. We're determined to make a difference. And the status quo, particularly in relation to advertising, is unacceptable. (Time expired) Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 56 14:33 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government's paid family and domestic violence leave making a difference to Australians? 14:33 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Corangamite. We often refer to individual members regarding their commitment or association with an issue. The member for Corangamite, with respect to paid family and domestic violence leave, has the status of having been the first employer in the world, when she was mayor of the South Coast, to establish this as a workplace right. Two years ago this parliament as a whole did a really good thing. We voted on world-leading legislation. There'd been arguments about how soon we could get there. There were arguments about amendments. But ultimately when we got to the final question as to whether we should take this step the parliament voted together in this place and in the other place. Effectively, what we decided was a very simple principle—that nobody should have to choose between safety and pay. That's the principle of family and domestic violence leave. As part of the legislation we put through, there was a requirement that there would be a formal review. That review, two years later, has been conducted and is in. The program itself has been, so far, extraordinarily successful. Fears that some had that there might be abuse of it and it wouldn't be used properly have not been well founded. But where it has been used, it has been life-changing. One of the decisions that we took was unusual for a leave decision. Normally paid leave is something that only applies to somebody who is in permanent employment, be they a full-time or a part-time employee. But there are a number of characteristics for people who experience family and domestic violence. They are more likely to be women, and women experiencing family and domestic violence are more likely to be casuals. So we took the unusual step to have this as a leave entitlement that would apply to casuals. I want to give one very simple case study that's appeared in the review that has been brought down as a result of the legislation we passed. A casual at a discount department store accessed family and domestic violence leave to leave her relationship and accessed it again at a point where her former partner tried to re-enter her life. As a result of having the leave available, she was able to organise temporary accommodation and able to spend time finding care for her children, and at no point did she have to compromise her capacity to pay her bills. That is exactly the scenario we wanted. This is a leave entitlement that in an ideal world would never be required. But in the world in which we live, where we know this will be the experience of far too many Australians and in particular far too many women, if we as a parliament can do as we have done and make sure that those who experience this don't have to choose between safety and pay, then we've truly done a good thing. (Time expired) Online Gambling 56 14:37 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, it has been 470 days since the late Peta Murphy's report concerning online restrictions for gambling was tabled. Along with the member for Hughes, the member for Cowper and many others in this place, I signed that report. Australian parents are expecting the government to deliver on its promise of reform. Will the government make a decision this month? 14:37 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for his question and again acknowledge his work and the fact this is obviously an issue which impacts many people in all our communities. The government is committed to responding comprehensively to the Murphy report. I have put on the record, as have other ministers, that it is our strong intention to be able to deliver on that this year. We are working towards that. As I said, it is a complex area. I would point out for the member's benefit that under the previous government—of which he was not a member, and he may not be aware of this—there was tinkering with the rules around advertising of broadcast of wagering, and it actually resulted, under the former government, in an increase in advertising—especially on regional TV. There was no comprehensive response provided. We are very determined to ensure that the response we have covers whole of government, goes to all the recommendations in the Murphy report and actually delivers not only legislative and regulatory but cultural change. We are committed to achieving this, and I'm sure all like-minded members of this House are committed to achieving this. I look forward to working with the honourable member to ensure this comes to fruition. Medicare: Urgent Care Clinics 57 14:39 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. After a decade of cuts and neglect, how are Medicare urgent care clinics making it easier for Australians to see a doctor and taking pressure off hospital emergency departments? 14:39 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Thank you to my friend, the member for Makin, for that question. A big part of our promise to strengthen Medicare, from Labor, was to introduce a network of urgent care clinics. They would be open seven days a week, extended hours and available for walk-in appointments. We promised to open 50 last year, and we opened 58. We'll open another 29 this year as a result of the Strengthening Medicare agreement the Prime Minister struck with premiers last December. This week we will pass 800,000 patients being seen since the clinics started to open last June—a third of them are kids under 15, a third of them are patients seen on the weekend. Every single patient, importantly for Labor, has been fully bulk-billed. Last week I was delighted to join the member for Makin to open clinic No. 76, the Para Hills Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. Now more patients in his community will be able to get the urgent care that they need when and where they need it—taking real pressure off those local hospitals, Modbury and Lyell McEwin, and their emergency departments in particular. The local clinical director, Dr Monkhouse, who joined the member for Makin and me, said this to the press: I'd just like to thank the … current federal government, for actually breaking the mould and doing something. There is a massive problem with patient visits to emergency rooms … and somebody has that last put their hand up, stepped up to the plate and done something about it. I thank Dr Monkhouse for that. Once the network of 89 clinics is fully up and running, they'll see as many as 1½ million patients every single year, most of whom would otherwise have turned up at the local emergency department. Already, with only some of those clinics open, we know that presentations for non-urgent conditions at the emergency departments at the three big states on the eastern coast are either flat or actually trending down, confirming that these clinics aren't just good for patients and parents; they're also good for our hospitals. Along with rising rates of bulk-billing and cheaper medicines, these clinics are making a real difference to millions of Australians, but we know it's still tough, and we know we have to do more. We also know that all of this progress is under threat from those opposite. The shadow Treasurer in particular could not have been clearer that Labor's investment to strengthen Medicare is all on the chopping block under a Dutton government. We know this. He could not have said it more clearly. The funding will be cut. The clinics will close. The patients will be forced back into the emergency department. If you think it can't be true, Mr Speaker, just look at what the Leader of the Opposition did last time he got his hands on Medicare. Aged Care 57 14:42 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. The government's aged care reforms include changes to home-care support, but people in rural areas of my electorate of Indi are concerned their packages will continue to be chewed up by provider travel costs, reducing the services they actually receive. How will you ensure regional and rural Australians won't be disadvantaged by the travel costs of delivering Support at Home? 14:43 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Indi for her question and for her ongoing dedication to making sure that we do improve aged care, particularly in the regions but for everybody, and lift the standard across the country. We are acutely aware of the challenges facing providing quality care and better care to people in the regions. That's why, like you talk about, the new Support at Home program, which is due to come in 1 July next year, represents $4.3 billion worth of investment in new money for the sector, to make sure that we can deliver better and higher quality services. One of the features of Support at Home is that pricing and what pricing looks like for everybody, no matter where they live, will be determined by IHACPA, the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority. That should give both providers and people needing care in your area some reassurance that there is an independent eye looking at this and advising the government on what those prices should be. We will be looking at that advice. We are required to table it in the parliament. It's very transparent, so you will be able to see it too. That will dictate what we offer by way of services and how much those services need to cost. I'd add by way of additional relevant information that we provided, I think, more than $600 million worth of services for providers in thin markets, which most frequently affect people in rural, regional and remote areas. That's $600 worth of measures specifically acknowledging the fact that, like you say, people in the regions have particular challenges that we need to address as a federal government when giving them aged care. Support at Home more generally will assist more than 300,000 participants in the next 10 years. It's the most transformational reform that this sector has seen, and will see, in 30 years. It will help with shorter wait times for people who are waiting for these services. We know that we need to get wait times down. It will give people more tailored support, so that the people you're talking about at the moment who are on home-care packages who use things like transport services will move to eight different permanent levels, which will better acknowledge the challenges that people face and the services that they need to receive as they stay at home for longer. There'll be support for home modifications—up to $15,000 for people in homes in your electorate to put in ramps and modify their bathrooms so that they can actually stay at home rather than needing to go into residential aged care. There's also a better transit arrangement, so that, if you have a fall, we're going to uplift the allied health support that you can receive both before going into hospital and when coming out of hospital so that you and your family aren't positioned in hospital having to make a decision about going into residential aged care purely because there's nothing to help you in the three to six weeks when you need that extra support before you can go back to normal living at home. All in all, I'm on the case and IHACPA will help regulate that pricing, particularly with respect to transport services. Early Childhood Education 58 14:45 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease cost-of-living pressures for early childhood education and care workers? 14:46 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. It wasn't that long ago that I was in Cunningham with the member where we visited KidsUni at the University of Wollongong. Whenever we visit early childhood education centres, whether it's in Swan, Reid, Bendigo, Robertson or Boothby, it's a great opportunity to interact with early childhood education workers and with the children and to see firsthand the vital job that early childhood educators do in supporting and educating our children's early learning and development in those very first five years of a child's life when 95 per cent of their brain development is occurring. They also make it possible for millions of Australians to do their jobs, take on extra hours or to take on extra study or volunteer work, if they so wish. That's why we are recognising the value of the work done by early childhood education workers and helping to ease the cost-of-living pressures for them by getting wages up, through an historic 15 per cent wage rise. That's because we know that, if we are to achieve the vision of universal early learning for every child right across Australia, we have to start with a strong, sustainable workforce. I'm pleased to say that early learning providers can now apply for the government funding to deliver this historic pay rise to early childhood education workers. What this pay rise means is that 200,000 early childhood workers right across Australia will have at least $100 a week more in their pay packets just in time for Christmas. By the end of next year, that's going to be more than $150 extra in their pay packet. Gemma, a passionate educator from Melbourne said this is what it means to her: 'It means we are acknowledged for the work that we do day in, day out. It means we can stay in our jobs and not live pay cheque to pay cheque, and it means we can build that strong and stable early learning workforce that we need.' Lisa, another educator from New South Wales, said these words to me: 'This is monumental—a history-making moment. It means I can stay in the job I love. I know it's going to change a lot of lives and not just my own.' Along with our government's tax cuts, early learning workers will now be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn. The Albanese Labor government is delivering real cost-of-living relief for Australian workers and for their household budgets. Infrastructure: Regional Australia 58 14:49 Mr IPZ Gippsland CHESTER () (): My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Minister, after almost 2½ years in government, how many projects funded under the Growing Regions Program have been contracted, allowing local councils to actually start work? 14:49 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for the question. It's a very important question, because we had a lot of work to do coming into government, cleaning up botched regional grant programs. We had regional grants given to the North Sydney pool. I'm not sure where the member for Gippsland was there, because I'm not sure how many members of your community—certainly none of mine—see North Sydney as a regional pool. The SPEAKER 53517 Minister, I'm just going to pause. The member for Page, the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. The minister was asked a specific question about a grants program. She's had a 30-second preamble; she will have to return to the question. To assist the House, I'm just going to cease the level of interjections. Ms McBAIN 281988 As I was saying, we've had a big job to do in cleaning up grants programs across parliament. What we've done is put in place transparent grant mechanisms for the first time in a very long time. We've had a multiparty panel that has assessed those grants, we've announced successful grants through round 1, and we are working with those successful applicants— Mr Littleproud 265585 It's a round number. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister is referring to round 1 of the grant application, so she is being directly relevant. I can appreciate the member is looking for a number. The SPEAKER 53517 I don't need to take the point of order; I heard that loud and clear. Under the standing orders, the minister can talk about the program, and I've already brought her back to relevance. I'll hear your point of order. Mr Chester IPZ The point of order was on relevance. It was a tight question—and, if it assists the minister, the number is between zero and none. The SPEAKER 53517 It is disorderly to add extra commentary during the point of order. The minister was talking about the grant process. She was talking about the round. So she is being directly relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of The Nationals, please don't interject while I'm trying to assist the House. I understand that the member would like a specific number or an answer, a bit like in the debates we've had about 'yes' and 'no'. The members know I don't have the compulsion to deliver that for the member. I do have the compulsion to make sure that the minister is being directly relevant, and she is at the moment. Ms McBAIN 281988 Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just for the clarity of the House, 'none' isn't a number! Honourable members interjecting— Ms McBAIN 281988 I know it took a little while to land, but that was a joke. The laughing should have come straight after I finished. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! The Leader of The Nationals and the member for Hume, order! Ms McBAIN 281988 As I was saying, round 1 has been announced. We have been working with those councils, states and territories to put in place those contracts now. Round 2 is now open, and round 2 is just about to close this week. What we've done on this side of the House is make sure our regional grants programs are transparent. We've heard from over 250 councils across the country that I've met with. They have spent time and money putting in applications, when there were colour-coded spreadsheets available previously. That meant the time and money they spent putting in grants were not treated fairly. We've heard from councils that they wanted a transparent process, so we've given them one, including a multiparty panel, which members from those opposite and on the crossbench are on, to make sure that our grants process is treated with integrity. We've seen the ANAO do a report concurrently with Growing Regions to say that it is done with transparency and integrity, which I know is a new concept to some of those opposite. But on this side of the House we want to treat local councils with dignity and respect. It's one of the reasons that we doubled Roads to Recovery funding. For a decade, those opposite didn't take their local councils seriously when they were asking for additional help with maintenance. They didn't take them seriously when they said they needed additional help with maintenance. On this side of the House, we're delivering not only a doubling of Roads to Recovery; we're delivering them back to the table of National Cabinet, and we're taking their voices seriously, because they serve every community across the country. Economy 59 14:54 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government's responsible economic management helping to shield the Australian economy from global uncertainty? How is this approach different from others? 14:55 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Dunkley for her characteristically thoughtful question. We are gravely concerned about the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. We're primarily concerned about the human cost and consequences of that horrible conflict on the other side of the world, but there are also economic consequences. We're seeing that, I think, most noticeably when it comes to the price of oil on global markets. Thinking back on the last year or so, the global oil price has come down about 11 per cent over the course of the last 12 months, but, in the last 10 days, it's gone back up seven per cent. That gives honourable members a sense of the extreme volatility in that market which reflects the global uncertainty and volatility more broadly in the global economy. And so, if you think about the consequences for us, we have been making really good progress in the fight against inflation, and we expect that progress to continue. But it is also the case that some of these global events are putting pressure on prices when Australians are already doing it quite tough. This is an important part of the global economic uncertainty, but it is not the only part. We're also seeing weakness in the Chinese economy. It's one of the reasons why we welcome so enthusiastically the steps that the authorities have announced to support growth and support activity in the Chinese economy. Our forecasts for China over the next three years, if they happen, will be the slowest three years of economic growth in China since it opened up around 40 years ago. That's why it's so important that the Prime Minister has just wrapped up his meeting with Premier Li of China. We believe that, in that economic relationship, which is full of complexity and opportunity, we best represent the workers and businesses and investors of this country when we engage with our Chinese counterparts, as the Prime Minister has been doing, along with a number of colleagues, including myself a couple of weeks ago. In the US, we're seeing data which is causing wild fluctuations in share markets in the US and around the world as well. There is always a premium on responsible economic management, especially when the global conditions are as uncertain and volatile as they are right now. Our responsible economic management has meant that we have halved inflation and got real wages growing again. We got a tax cut for every taxpayer. We created a million jobs in an otherwise soft economy. We've turned two big Liberal deficits into two big Labor surpluses, and we've avoided $150 billion of Liberal debt. That has meant that we can buffer ourselves against global economic uncertainty. We are confident that we can navigate this global uncertainty together, but we are not complacent because we know that the world is an uncertain place in security terms and economic terms, and that's why responsible economic management is a defining feature of our government. Rural and Regional Health Services 60 14:58 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Across the Central West, doctors are leaving the bush. From smaller towns like Canowindra, Kandos and Gulgong to larger ones like Wellington and Mudgee, our communities are being left without doctors, and those that remain can't cope. South Mudgee Surgery and now Mudgee Medical Centre have closed their books to new patients. This crisis is a disgrace that will cost lives. When will your government take real and effective action to immediately fix this outrageous crisis and deliver more doctors to Central Western New South Wales and country Australia? 14:58 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Thank you to the member for that question. I'd be very happy to sit down with him and talk about some of the details of the clinics that he talked about. But I will say some more general things about the challenge of accessing a GP, particularly in rural and regional Australia but increasingly in parts of urban Australia as well. As the member knows, there is not the ability to click fingers and suddenly create a whole bunch of new GPs. GPs take a long time to train, and we are steadily working on a plan which is already seeing a greater number of junior doctors take up general practice as their career. The number of junior doctors taking up general practice as their career and training as a specialist GP this year is almost 20 per cent higher than it was last year. We're also bringing in more overseas trained doctors than was the case before COVID. Obviously COVID was a particular experience. The number of overseas trained doctors and nurses we've brought into the country is about 60 per cent higher than it was in the full year before COVID. We'll also put in place a range of incentives that seek to move doctors out of the cities and into rural communities. The incentives they are paid are higher than they were before we came to government. There's a range of other incentives. For example, the education minister has put in place HELP debt or university debt relief for doctors and nurse practitioners who graduate from university and choose a career in rural communities. I'm not going to pretend to the member, or to anyone else in this parliament or across the community, that this is going to be fixed overnight. There was a decade of neglect of Medicare and a running down of general practice that had a really serious impact on the culture of general practice. Time and time again, we heard junior doctors saying that they simply didn't feel that general practice was a career that would suit their life—in spite of the fact that there are all sorts of attractions to that speciality compared to the more procedural specialties. We're working very hard with state governments to fix this. When we came to government, there was one pilot, a small pilot in a part of New South Wales—again, to try and deal with some of the industrial disincentives to take up general practice as a career. We now have nine pilots, single-employer-model pilots, that ensure that GP registrars, as they're doing their several years of training, have a single employer and get all the industrial benefits, including access to paid parental leave and all the rest that goes along with that. We have a terrific trial that covers the whole of non-urban Tasmania; we have trials rolling out in states on the mainland, including in New South Wales, that slowly but steadily will start to increase the number of GPs coming through the pipeline. This is a really serious challenge. I've tried to be as honest and clear about this in my time as health minister. I'd be happy to talk to the member about it in more detail. (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 61 15:01 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Attorney-General. Why is it important that the Albanese Labor government acts to ensure schemes like robodebt never happen again? 15:02 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Lalor for her question. The robodebt royal commission concluded that the former Liberal government's robodebt scheme was a 'crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal'. This illegal scheme resulted in hundreds of thousands of Australians being served with wrongful debt notices. The royal commissioner, Catherine Holmes AC SC, stated: … made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms. And with those words, the royal commission summed up the human tragedy that was the robodebt scheme. Introduced by the Abbott government, expanded by the Turnbull government and defended right up to the last minute by the Morrison government. Despite warnings as early as 2017, the royal commission found: … the path taken— by the former government— was to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all. And while of course ministers of the former government bear the ultimate responsibility for the robodebt scheme, the royal commission found serious failings with the institutional checks and balances that could have put a stop to the robodebt scheme long before the Federal Court found that it was unlawful. The royal commission made it clear that it could have been stopped if there had been strong and effective oversight, and today I've introduced legislation that will implement key recommendations of the robodebt royal commission to ensure that Commonwealth agencies are subject to stronger and more rigorous oversight. The legislation recognises the importance of ensuring the ombudsman has the necessary legislative powers to undertake full independent and transparent investigations. The public has to be confident that government agencies are acting with integrity and accountability. This legislation boosts the powers and capabilities of oversight bodies to ensure that government bodies are accountable. But I have to say, while this is vital and useful legislation that I have introduced today, the best way to ensure that any legal scheme like the robodebt scheme never happens again is never to elect a Liberal government. Australian Ambassador to the United States of America 61 15:04 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it appropriate during a cost-of-living crisis, when Australian families cannot afford to pay their power and grocery bills, that the Australian Ambassador to the United States, Mr Kevin Rudd, has spent $90,000 on an alcohol fuelled celebration of drag queen DJ Kitty Glitter? 15:05 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question. Kevin Rudd is doing a remarkable job as Australia's ambassador to the United States. There will be members on the other side who have visited the United States during his time as the ambassador who will absolutely privately attest to that. Kevin has been a tour de force, as we all understand, in the United States Congress in a way which has created a generational change—for example, in establishing a seamless defence industrial base between our two countries, something that has been sought to be achieved for decades. It is his work, principally, in the United States Congress and across the administration which has brought that to fruition. His activities as the ambassador to the United States are entirely consistent with previous ambassadors. We could all go through the process of crawling through the expenses of former ambassadors to the United States, but the fact of the matter is that Kevin Rudd is there not just representing the government; he is representing us all, and he is doing an excellent job. While he is doing that in the United States, while he is carrying the weight of our country in Washington, what we are doing here is addressing the cost-of-living pressures that are facing the Australian people. By and large, as we go about the business of doing that, we are faced with the opposition of those opposite. When we seek to provide tax breaks for every income earner, it's those opposite who are kicking up a storm in relation to that, albeit at the end of the day they vote for it. When we have taken measures to provide for energy rebates, when we have gone down the path of providing more affordable child care and cheaper medicines, it is those opposite who stand in the way of meaningful action in respect of dealing with the cost-of-living pressures that are faced by the Australian people. We will go about our business of dealing with the cost-of-living pressures for the Australian people. Kevin Rudd is going about his business of representing everybody in this chamber and in this country in Washington, DC, and in that effort he is doing a sterling job. Energy 62 15:08 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cheaper electricity, and how does this compare to more expensive energy policies? The SPEAKER 53517 No, no, no. The minister is going to resume his seat. The member for Grey has been here long enough and has been through enough question times to know that yelling out during a question is highly disorderly. I just want to remind all members of the supremacy of members being able to ask a question in silence. I'm not sure how many times I have to remind everyone. The member for Grey is warned. Out of respect for the member for Hunter, he's going to ask his question again. Mr REPACHOLI 298840 My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cheaper electricity, and how does this compare to more expensive energy policies? 15:09 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Thanks to the member for Hunter for his question. As the member knows, the Albanese government is delivering cheaper energy by energy bill relief in the short term and by more renewable energy in the longer term. That's reflected in the fact— Mr BOWEN DZS I'm going to get to you in a minute, mate; just calm down—that the last inflation figures showed energy prices falling by 17.9 per cent in the year, which followed a 5.1 per cent fall and was described as the largest annual fall for electricity on record, something you'd think every member would be pleased about. That is partly due to the Albanese government's energy bill relief. We've had an alternative policy from the opposition. We had an interview yesterday from our old friend the shadow minister for finance. We always look forward to those interviews. She's one of the more transparent members of the opposition—she always says what she's thinking. She said, 'Subsidies for energy have never been coalition policy.' So the opposition is against a 17.9 per cent drop in electricity prices that was brought about by energy bill relief. The member for Hunter also asked me about more expensive alternatives. The Leader of the Opposition wants to introduce the most expensive form of energy available—nuclear energy. There have been, as I said the other day, developments since we last sat. The Leader of the Opposition gave a big speech called 'A nuclear powered Australia: could it work?' Based on the substance and detail in that speech, the answer is, 'Not sure, really; we don't really know.' The speech was a great big nothingburger. It was a great big fizzer—no data, no detail. This comes as report after report shows that the opposition's plan will put energy prices up. Professor Rod Sims said maybe $200 a year. Dr Dylan McConnell said $400 or $500 a year. Dr Roger Dargaville said $1,000 a year. And, of course, we've also seen the report from IEEFA which said $665 a year on average. This comes more than a year after the member for Fairfax said on Q+A: 'We are doing the modelling right now, based on actual data. Based on actual data.' He went on to say, 'We're the one formulating the policy.' Based on real data—based on Hitachi, Westinghouse and Nuscale! I understand the concerns of the member for Fairfax, because Nuscale was then cancelled because it reached $9 billion for one reactor. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS Do you notice that the opposition don't really like talking about their own policies? Q+A invited him and me on for a debate. I said yes; he said no. He said no, but they're going to get a chance. The parliament has resolved there will be a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy, chaired by our friend the member for Hunter, who's going to do an excellent job getting these issues on the table in regions and communities right around Australia. We can't wait for that detail to come out. Research and Development 62 15:12 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt ():  My question is to the Minister for Education. Is it appropriate that during a cost-of-living crisis, when Australian families cannot afford to pay their power and grocery bills, the Australian Research Council has approved research grants for projects including challenging the protectionist myth that Australia is an island girt by sea, investigating whether English translations of Greek tragedies have any gender bias and exploring musical approaches to advancing multispecies justice? Can the minister confirm that these projects received over $4 million of taxpayers' money? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order, we will hear from the Minister for Education. 15:13 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Over the last 10 years, the ARC has been bedevilled by political interference. I have ended that by getting politicians out of the decision-making process. Mr Dutton 00AKI Who did you put in? Mr CLARE HWL You shouldn't ask questions you don't know the answer to, Pete. It just happened to be the former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under you. Mr Littleproud 265585 What a joke! Mr CLARE HWL He's a joke now, is he? Peter Shergold is a joke; is that right? Do you want to apologise to him at the dispatch box now? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister needs to direct his comments through the chair. This is not a back and forth across the chamber. You are answering a question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Social Services is warned. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI If leave has been granted, I'm very happy to add to this question, and the point that I would make is that this is outrageous spending— The SPEAKER 53517 No. Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House is going to come to order immediately. This is not an appropriate way to behave. The minister is going to answer the question. He will not take interjections from the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition will not make the interjections. I'm just going to ask the minister to return to the question. Mr CLARE HWL He couldn't help himself, could he, Mr Speaker? More aggro than Cartoon Connection! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. I've already cautioned the minister. He has one more chance to return to the question. I don't want any more commentary about the opposition. I want him to return straight to the question, or he'll be sat down. Mr CLARE HWL All ARC project funding applications are subject to a competitive process, informed by peer review with recommendations made by experts. Peer review is the accepted world standard for achieving quality in research grant outcomes. The ARC is not the political plaything of the Liberal Party, and I'm actually surprised that the member for Sturt would ask this question, given that, when this was debated in the parliament a couple of months ago, he didn't even bother to participate in the debate. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right are going to cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moreton is warned. Economy 63 15:17 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How are the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living measures strengthening the Australian economy, and what is standing in the way? 15:17 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for Tangney for his question. The simple fact is that when this government came to office we inherited, from those opposite, an economic shambles. A Liberal government, no less, had delivered a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it. Headline inflation was at 6.1 per cent. Interest rates were starting to rise. The budget was in a complete mess. In areas such as defence and infrastructure, we saw billions of dollars of commitment without a dollar behind them. Through the leadership of the Treasurer and the finance minister over the last 2½ years, we have methodically worked to put the budget back into order. And since we were last here, in September, the government has officially booked its second surplus—a Labor government in power for two years with two surpluses, something those opposite never did, despite promising that they would do it each and every year. Since we were last here, we have learnt that inflation now is at 2.7 per cent—less than half of what we inherited from those opposite. We understand that Australians are doing it tough. As I said earlier, inflation is impacting countries around the world. We're not immune from that, and the best thing we can do is to wage a war on inflation, which is what we're doing. And we are now succeeding on that. Where we are spending money, we are focused on the cost of living, with tax cuts for every income earner as well as energy rebates. We have seen more-affordable child care and cheaper medicines, and all the while we've actually seen record investments in defence. This government is utterly focused on the basics of prudent economic management and sensible national security on Middle Australia. But those opposite are not so much interested in Middle Australia as they are in the Middle East. We've seen over the course of this week— really, over the course of the last few months—questions asked on visas, questions which have sought to undermine confidence in our national security agencies, questions which are about trying to create a faux divide on foreign policy, which simply does not exist. They are doing all of this so that they do not have to speak about the economy because this bunch of Liberals have forgone any claim to credible economic management or to sensible national security policy. They could not be further from their historic mission. As we leave here today you can count on the fact that the Liberals will continue to be the party of division, of distraction and of rank politics. But on this side of the House there is a government which is committed to focusing on Australians, on their personal budgets, on their households, on their lives— The SPEAKER 53517 The Acting Prime Minister's time has concluded. Mr Marles HWQ I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Department Of The House Of Representatives 64 Presentation 64 15:20 The SPEAKER 53517 Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2023-24 Document made a parliamentary paper. Presentation 64 15:21 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Cost of Living: Veterans 64 15:21 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert ():  I seek leave to table the article 'Victoria Cross recipient to sell medals to cover family expenses' to help the Minister for Defence to get across his brief. 15:21 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Leave is not granted for documents that are already in the public realm, which that document clearly is. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 64 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE PsiQuantum 64 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable the Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This government's decision to give American company PsiQuantum almost one billion dollars of taxpayers money. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of member required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:22 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield In April this year Australians learnt of a remarkable decision taken by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Science that Australian taxpayers would have almost $1 billion of their hard earned money tipped into an American company called PsiQuantum, which is supposedly going to build the world's first fault-tolerant error-corrected quantum computer in Brisbane. Since that time the opposition has sought to hold this extraordinary bet with public money up to the scrutiny that it deserves, and the government has trenchantly resisted that scrutiny at every stage. Yesterday the government was forced to release documents following an order for the production of documents we initiated in the Senate. As the Australian Financial Review reported this morning, the Chief Scientist sent an email indicating she was highly sceptical about PsiQuantum's ability to deliver on its promise to build a world-leading supercomputer in Australia. The documents revealed in the order for the production of documents only add to the many questions raised by this very curious decision. The Albanese Labor government has chosen to bet a very large amount of public money on one particular company, pursuing one particular technology path within the broad field of quantum, a field in which people working for 20 or 30 years cannot say with certainty which of the many paths being explored is likely to achieve a successful outcome. In any view it will be at least several years and very possibly longer before the technology being developed by PsiQuantum is proven to work—if it can be proven to do so at all. We know that a very poor process was followed to get to this decision. The Albanese government agreed to assess an unsolicited proposal from PsiQuantum as early as November 2022. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources entered into a non-binding agreement with PsiQuantum in June 2023, yet the government points to an expression of interest process which commenced only in August 2023. It was an expression of interest process in which companies were invited to participate by one email only. There were no follow-up telephone calls and there was no second email. Those who were invited to participate were told they could not speak with Australian government officials. This was after PsiQuantum had been speaking for more than eight months with Australian government officials up to and including the minister, who had visited their premises in California and had met with them directly. We now know the terms of the expression of interest, because that is amongst what was revealed, which essentially ask respondents to match the promise made by PsiQuantum of building a fault-tolerant error-corrected quantum computer by 2030. Many in the sector are extremely sceptical that this can be done, but scepticism is not welcome in Minister Husic's regime. We know that Minister Husic has a particular interest in venture capital firm Blackbird. In October 2022 he appointed Clare Birch of Blackbird to the National Quantum Advisory Committee. In December 2022 he appointed Kate Glazebrook of Blackbird to the Industry Innovation and Science Australia board. In May 2023 he launched the National Quantum Strategy with Nomad Atomics, a Blackbird funded company. On 30 April this year he announced the almost $1 billion in funding for PsiQuantum, a Blackbird funded company. Blackbird and the many other investors in this company of course greatly benefited. It is on the record that there is a close friendship between the minister's senior adviser Ellen Broad and Blackbird's Kate Glazebrook. I have written to the Auditor-General requesting that the Australian National Audit Office undertake an investigation into the Australian government's investment in PsiQuantum, and the Auditor-General has responded that a potential investigation is being considered. This decision raises many questions, which is why I've called on the Auditor-General to investigate. Why was the much-trumpeted National Interest Framework, which we've heard about a lot, not used in arriving at this decision? When did the government reach its decision to make this investment? How did the government assess PsiQuantum's claims, including but not limited to PsiQuantum's technology being able to deliver at scale in the timeframe that PsiQuantum claimed. Let's remind Australians what the minister has promised. When this announcement was made, the minister said that this will 'bring us close to getting that fault-tolerant computer, which, by most assessments, is 2026-27'. So mark your calendars to see whether the minister's claim that we're going to get this technology and this fault-tolerant error-corrected computer by 2026-27 comes to fruition. When you speak to most people across the sector, there is deep scepticism that that is going to be achieved. One of the obvious questions here is why this government, if it wanted to invest money in quantum—let's be clear, quantum is an important field. There's been bipartisanship support for quantum and consistent funding of quantum under both sides of politics. But, curiously, quantum companies other than PsiQuantum, such as Australian companies Silicon Quantum Computing from UNSW, Diraq from UNSW, Quantum Brilliance from the Australian National University and Q-CTRL from the University of Sydney, were told by this government that there was no money for quantum. They were directed to the National Reconstruction Fund, which of course has not yet put out $1, and they were told there was no program under which funding could be provided. If this government was going to fund quantum at this massive scale, why did it not decide to establish and announce a program to fund investments in quantum companies with publicly announced guidelines, and why did it not invite any interested company to put forward an application to be assessed against the guidelines? Why was that good process not followed? Why did government officials advise companies other than PsiQuantum prior to the expression of interest that there was no dedicated funding available for Australian companies? Why did the government have such extensive engagement with PsiQuantum prior to the EOI process? Why was this American company in the fast lane for engagement with this minister? Why was that opportunity not given to any Australian company? Why was the expression of interest conducted through the sending of a single email with no follow-up by the department to even ascertain whether the recipients of the email had seen it and opened it? Why were the companies which participated in the expression-of-interest process not given the same opportunities as PsiQuantum for direct engagement and discussion with Australian government officials and representatives up to and including the Minister for Industry and Science? Why were the companies which participated in the expression-of-interest process specifically directed, as a term of participating, that they could not directly approach nor speak with Australian government officials? Was the negative impact on Australian based quantum companies considered when the decision was taken to allocate funding to this American company? It is clear that the message that the Australian government is sending to international investors is that, having assessed a range of companies, it's chosen not to invest in Australian based companies, and that is a very curious decision to have taken which is making it more difficult for Australian companies to go to the private market and secure funding. Why was such weighting given to the requirement in the expression of interest to deliver the quantum computer at the earliest possible time, rather than considering a weighted assessment of factors like the amount of production in Australia, the likelihood of the technology being approved and other relevant factors? Isn't it the case that, when you look at the expression of interest—which a number of those who participated are reported to have expressed their concerns about—it was written with a view to giving the money to PsiQuantum because the decision had already been taken? This was nothing but a reverse engineered sham in which a minister who had been dazzled by the particular technology promises of one particular company took a decision that money was going to be spent and directed his department to reverse engineer a process to try and construct some kind of veneer of respectability. A deputy secretary who advised against this subsequently left the department after being on gardening leave for a considerable period of time. Export Finance Australia was directed to commence work on providing the funding even before the expression of interest had concluded. This was nothing but a sham, and, as a consequence, Australian taxpayers have got almost a billion dollars of their money put at risk in what is a remarkably speculative venture. 15:32 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley One hundred and sixty-four days after this was announced, we finally get an MPI out of the member for Bradfield on this issue. We had about 50 FOIs, the bulk of them from the member for Bradfield; no questions in question time; no MPIs; and, on this final day, they've decided to put an MPI on and the member for Bradfield can't even sit in here to hear the response. This is a classic case of asking all the questions and not listening to the answers—refusing to do so. I really would love it, I would absolutely love it, if there was a member of the coalition that could prise that conspiracy tinfoil hat off the member for Bradfield, because, I've got to tell you, it is clouding his perspective. He keeps trying to retrofit smoke into a gun that never fired a bullet. He used his whole moment here to make a series of allegations, none of which could stack up. But the worst thing, friends, is that there are conventions in this place, and there are red lines. One in particular is that you don't go after the people that work for us. And yet nothing stops the member for Bradfield, in a grubby, smear-laden claim, suggesting that members of my team had done something inappropriate—people that I regard as having the highest integrity and character that I've ever had the opportunity to work with. Yet the member for Bradfield will do it. If that's what the opposition are saying now—'the people who work for them are in the firing line'—they should just say it. But, I tell you what, the way the member for Bradfield has conducted himself is a poor reflection on him, because I know it's not the standard by which a lot of those opposite operate. It was a desperate attempt to smear people and find something that doesn't exist in terms of what we are trying to do. What we are trying to do is very important. We're investing in one of the most powerful computers on the planet, which is to be based in this country, will be able to be used to benefit our economic and national security and will create a lot of important jobs in Brisbane. This is a company—and bear this in mind—that was set up by two Queenslanders, trained in Queensland, who left this country because, frankly, the coalition never backed these type of firms under their term. If they did back these companies, the coalition gave them small amounts of money. What is ignored in this debate is that the coalition funded Silicon Quantum Computing by Michelle Simmons. We welcome that commitment, and we as well backed it in our budgets when coming into government. We have backed the development of quantum strategies through the National Quantum Strategy that was released by us and has never been done before. We have set up a $1 billion critical technology fund in the National Reconstruction Fund and put that money there. We also went through a complex legal, technical, commercial probity process to make the decision about the investment of—let's get it right, please—$500 million out of the Commonwealth matched by $500 million out of the Queensland government. Roughly half of that is a loan that gets repaid, and half is an equity investment which will make double digit returns for the Commonwealth. I get that the Liberal Party doesn't understand the whole notion of investing in companies, because anything the Commonwealth does under the coalition gets sold off. But we're actually trying to build something here that is important for the economic and national security of the country. That process is not about one person. It's not about being able to have a minister or prime minister make the decision. It goes through an expenditure review committee, the National Security Committee and cabinet processes. It's not the decision of one; it's the decision of many based on the work of the public service, done in ways that broadly align with the way they have made decisions. For example, when they made the investment in Silicon Quantum Computing, they also brought together departmental officials, just like we did, to make the investment. The coalition made an investment in Moderna of $2 billion to set up mRNA manufacturing. The only thing I criticised was how long it was taking, in the middle of a pandemic, to secure that capability. The coalition conducted a process where they put $2 billion in. And by the way, since you're suddenly big supporters of Australian industry, why didn't you back CSL, an Australian firm, to do that in Victoria? They never did that, and they never talk about it. While we're at it—because we've had the smear put on us saying that Labor lobbyists influenced this—the lead negotiator on the Moderna deal just happened to donate $20,000 to the Liberal Party after he did the deal. You never talk about that, but you're quite happy to smear people. We have gone through a process to make sure that the decision is made properly. Also, I've got to tell you, I am absolutely loving the member for Bradfield talking to us about proper process. This is a Morrison government minister that signed off on a Leppington land deal that cost the Commonwealth 10 times more than it needed to for land that, by the way, happened to be owned by Liberal Party donors. And this is a person telling us about probity, integrity and proper process after we subjected this to a lengthy process that also involved the Chief Scientist. This is just how cute and sneaky the member for Bradfield is! He quotes the Chief Scientist from the Financial Review today. But he doesn't mention that the Chief Scientist did actually go on a process of starting with scepticism but, through her own analysis—doing what a Chief Scientist does, which is analyse, assess, check the facts and make a decision with other people—then said this deal was our 'Taiwan moment'. This was our moment to build capability that would be important for long-term economic and industrial capability. The member for Bradfield didn't quote that today. He just quoted the bits that suited him. I'm quite happy to acknowledge the Chief Scientist was sceptical, but I'm happy also to acknowledge that all those folks, at arm's length from government, make their own calls and make the advice accordingly, and that's how we act. The problem with the Liberal Party in particular is that they believe that everyone works like them. This government does not. We don't do the coalition 'donate now, decide later' approach in the way that they make decisions on public policy. We make it on the basis that people give the advice as to whether or not things stack up and whether or not those decisions should be made. We do not act in the way that the Liberal Party or the coalition do in the way that they make their calls. The amount of hypocrisy in the way in which this has been approached over time has been completely staggering. Despite all efforts from the member for Bradfield to, as I say, retrofit smoke into a gun that never fired a bullet in the first place, he has never been able to come up with why this has been bad and why this has been wrong. There are a whole series of questions. For instance, he made a reference to the Australian National Audit Office, which I have said we would welcome if they make that decision. We're quite happy for that level of transparency; we've said that. What did the member for Bradfield do when the ANAO didn't respond? He decided that he would come into parliament and call for a parliamentary committee. He hasn't brought that on yet, but we will be more than happy for the ANAO to assess that deal—and to take on board quotes from people like Andrew Horsley, who was awarded one of the PM's prizes for innovation this week. He set up Quantum Brilliance, one of the firms quoted by the member for Bradfield today. Dr Horsley said: You need these billion-dollar scale investments to help build the critical mass. There's a whole supply chain and set of infrastructure around any activity here that needs to be built up. That's what people in the sector are saying. People in the sector are also receiving record amounts of investment interest that they didn't have before, as a result of the spotlight that's been put on our capability. In closing, we are doing this because we believe that our economy should be strong, modern and future facing. We need to invest in capability and to not be vulnerable to dependencies on others. We want to be the global frontrunners in this race. It's important for the country, long term, and it absolutely is vital for our economic and national interests. We will not play games the way that those opposite do when it comes to these types of vital investments. However, all you will see is smear, innuendo, a failure to back up their claims and conspiracy theories galore from those who, when they had the chance to make these investments, ignored them and didn't back them. They also bag out Queenslanders and always claim it's an American company, when it's Australians that made this firm what it was. (Time expired) 15:42 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I appreciate the opportunity to contribute on this very important topic. In doing so, I recall that it was about six months ago when the Prime Minister gave that speech—which I think was up in Brisbane—outlining the great vision he had for his policy, A Future Made in Australia. It was on the eve of the budget and, in the theatre of politics, all part of building great momentum around the purported concept that this government had some exciting new agenda to invest in and to develop capability for Australian manufacturing. As my good friend the member for Casey—who might be angry with me for stealing a line he's about to use again, but I credit him—has said, quite cleverly, the first thing that they did under the Future Made in Australia was to invest in the future made in America, and to make a decision to put a billion dollars into this American company, with the—obviously—lost opportunity of enormous investment, were that same investment going into local firms and local Australian businesses in the same sector. On the way up to that speech, I think he made the solar panel announcement which we might remember—that's been really successful in Newcastle—and the PsiQuantum computing decision that I hear might be being looked at by the Auditor-General. We're very pleased to hear that. I'm pleased that the minister has given his permission for the Auditor-General to have a look at it! It's good of him to do something that's absolutely irrelevant to him whatsoever, because the Auditor-General doesn't need to know that the minister would welcome having this looked at or that the minister is happy for that to happen. The Auditor-General will look at what the Auditor-General chooses to look at. As the member for Bradfield has articulated to the chamber, there are very significant grounds which we hope will justify the Auditor-General making the decision to have a look at this. If the minister says he's got nothing to fear, so be it. We don't really care whether he does or doesn't support or give his permission for the Auditor-General to look at this matter, because hopefully the Auditor-General does look at this matter. Hopefully, other integrity bodies are looking very closely at what has happened in this deal. As I said, when I heard the Prime Minister's announcement back in April, or it might have been May, about Future Made in Australia, I had assumed that the announcements that were being made, like the great solar panel one and the PsiQuantum American billion dollar investment one, were actually part of a new policy position that he was announcing and that was going to be in the budget. What we have found out since the announcement is that quite a stark and concerning set of circumstances led to a billion-dollar decision being made in this way, as the member for Bradfield has pointed out. It seems to be very clear that this was a captain's pick. This was a political decision and one that maybe they thought would garner them a bit more significant successful political coverage than it has turned out to, but this always happens when you do the dodgy. Then they reengineered the process to try and make the decision stack up and seem logical and robust after it was made. It's completely against the principles of what a Future Made in Australia purported to be. It's not about investing in Australian capability and Australian businesses. It's not about having a merit based process where a whole range of people are given the opportunity to bid for taxpayer funds and to compete with each other and having the most meritorious option of government support being chosen. This was an unsolicited process. There was a lot of murkiness, which the member for Bradfield has pointed out, around the links between different people associated with that approach to government to people in government—good things for the Auditor-General and maybe other integrity bodies to have a look at, I might add, about how this decision was made. Instead of the great businesses of Australia, particularly the great technology businesses, looking upon this overarching faux 'made in Australia' policy position and agenda of the government and thinking, 'This is something that we could be a part of and something that gives us some confidence that our government supports us and backs us and wants us to get ahead,' they give a billion dollars to an American company. Because of that the decision, the confidence of the sector is at absolute rock bottom. We look forward to a number of important inquiries by the appropriate integrity bodies of this nation looking very closely at this whole thing, because, as the member for Bradfield has pointed out, there are a lot of significant questions to be answered. The minister just had the opportunity to do so and regrettably did not take that opportunity. (Time expired) 15:47 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Both of the previous opposition members have warned that they are writing to the Auditor-General on this matter. The Manager of Opposition Business is picking up the pen; he's writing to the Auditor-General. The member for Sturt wants to write to the Auditor-General. There is a lot of letter writing going on. I hope when they write those letters that the members opposite mention in their correspondence to the audit office, and tack on an apology for, the Community Health and Hospitals Program that they presided over. Members will remember that this was the Morrison government program the Auditor-General found 'fell short of ethical requirements'. This was a waste of $2 billion. In its scathing report, the Auditor-General assessed 63 major projects under the scheme. Of those 63 projects, guess how many the Auditor-General found had been assessed properly by the then Morrison government? Two—two of those 63 projects. The other 61 missed the mark. In the words of the ANAO: The Department of Health and Aged Care's administration of the Community Health and Hospitals Program was ineffective and fell short of ethical requirements. I hope when the member for Sturt is writing to the Auditor-General, he tacks on a little apology for that program. I also hope that in the member for Bradfield's letter to the Auditor-General he pops in a quick apology for the sport rorts program. Everyone will remember that before the May 2019 election then sports minister Senator McKenzie and her office funnelled a hundred million dollars to coalition electorates. The Auditor-General found that Senator McKenzie and her staff used public money to look after their own side's naked self-interest. The ANAO reports states that their private judgements were inconsistent with the published guidelines that applicant organisations had carefully obeyed in their own submissions. So I hope that, as they write to the Auditor-General, they remember to tack on apologies for all of the rorts and maladministered programs under their government. Unfortunately, their letter-writing campaign so far hasn't borne fruit. It's an unrequited letter-writing campaign! Not since Christmas-time at the playgroup have there been so many letters sent that haven't been returned! It's disappointing, but maybe they'll get a reply someday soon. The biggest problem with their suggestions that the Auditor-General should look into this is that they were the government that tried to gut the ANAO. Through successive budget cuts and budget pauses, the Morrison government tried to cut the funding and reduce the resources of the Auditor-General, and the Auditor-General, in an astounding public remark, an astounding rebuke of the Morrison government, said that the ongoing cuts to his office 'will continue to reduce the ANAO's capacity to deliver performance audits into the future'. Now, the possibility of reducing the number of audits that the ANAO could do was of great concern to the Morrison government—in fact, they wanted to reduce the number of audits that the ANAO could do, because they had delivered so many scathing reports about Morrison government programs. They had delivered scathing reports about their health program, about their sports program, about the $30 million of taxpayers' money funnelled to a Liberal donor for Western Sydney airport land worth no more than $3 million. In report after report, the Morrison government kept the ANAO busy looking into poorly administered and unethical programs that were consistently run by their government. The Labor Party didn't need to write a whole lot of letters to the ANAO to get them to look into these things. It was blatantly obvious that they were rorts, that they were inappropriate uses of public funds, and the Auditor-General was consistently scathing in his review of those programs. So I'm glad the Liberal Party have re-found their love of the Auditor-General. I'm glad they're back on good terms and back in communication. But when they write to him, they should make sure they include a couple of apologies for all the awful programs that they themselves ran. 15:52 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey The member for Parramatta—I will give him credit: a very smart man—did not mention PsiQuantum once, did not seek to defend the Minister for Industry and Science once, did not seek to defend the process once. He spent his five minutes talking about the opposition. Let's be clear: he's been around this place for a long time. He's a very smart man. He knew exactly what he was doing, because he knows this process is not defendable—he knows this process cannot be defended. So I understand the member for Parramatta—as he walks out—didn't want to defend it. But it wasn't even just the member for Parramatta who didn't want to defend it. The minister for industry had 10 minutes to answer the questions that the member for Bradfield put to him, and he didn't. He spent 10 minutes talking about the opposition. As to what he did say, he said one thing repeatedly, multiple times: 'This went through a process.' Well, the minister is correct. And that's not the charge. The charge is not that it went through a process. The facts are that the process was set up to make sure PsiQuantum won this bid. Late last year, I received a phone call from someone in the quantum industry who was upset for a couple of reasons. They had been asked to be part of this EOI and, as soon as they read it, they knew the fix was in. So in November last year in the Federation Chamber, I raised concerns—their concerns; the industry's concerns—that the fix was in. And, lo and behold, in April 2024, it came to fruition that PsiQuantum won the contract. So we know it went through a process, Minister, but we know it doesn't stack up. I also know, from speaking to those in the industry, about the email that the PsiQuantum ownership sent to venture capitalists in April last year. It talked about the agreement that they had with the federal government, when they were seeking more funding to bridge the gap as they ran out of capital until the federal government money came in. The industry is well aware of this email. I've spoken about this before. The minister has never given an answer about this email, because, as I said, this process does not stack up. He also talked about the Chief Scientist. Let's quote the Chief Scientist, and in fairness to him I'll quote the first thing— Ms Sitou 298121 It's a female. Mr VIOLI 300147 In fairness to the minister! If you'd let me finish— Mr Rob Mitchell M3E She's a woman. Mr VIOLI 300147 Maybe the member for McEwen could sit in his own seat and let me finish. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Just a moment please, Member for Casey. Mr VIOLI 300147 Well— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm asking you just to take a breather while I get the House in order. It's not fair that you are having interjections, and I want them to stop. And I would like to hear what you've got to say. Mr VIOLI 300147 For the record, I was referring to the minister for industry. Last time I checked, the minister for industry was male. He talked about how the Chief Scientist made a quote at the start of the process and at the end of the process, and I said, 'In fairness to the minister, I'll quote both.' She said—the Chief Scientist, Cathy Foley: I was also put off by the "salesman" push and lack of detail in the information provided and how it was presented. I really dug in and was very negative giving the company a pretty hard time about this as an investment and where their capability had got to. She also said: This is a high risk, high return venture … That is what we're talking about. Picking one company as a winner is high-risk. It's like going into the casino and putting everything on black. What the minister should have done, what the industry wants and what the industry needs, was have a testbed strategy where you invest that money in the whole quantum industry. We go to the Saturday Paper and how they quoted Minister Husic. This is from an industry insider, who said: 'This is a minister who is a conviction politician, who gets very excited and very enthusiastic about big ideas that can potentially change the nation. But the downside is that when this same minister is presented with advice that goes against one of those big ideas, he really loses his mind.' And that's what has happened in this situation. Minister Husic got dazzled in Silicon Valley when he was over there. He decided that PsiQuantum was the place to go. He was prepared to put it all on black. He did not listen to any advice once he'd made his decision. He then set up a process to make sure that that decision was ratified. When there's a billion dollars of taxpayer money being used, you need more than a sham EOI process. 15:58 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I too would like to quote the Chief Scientist, Cathy Foley. She has done a remarkable job as Australia's Chief Scientist, and I want to pay tribute to her extraordinary reign. She says of this announcement of PsiQuantum: This investment shows that Australia is serious about its quantum industry development by ensuring we are at the front of the pack in the global race to build the first useful quantum computer. I just wanted to make sure, if we are going to quote the Chief Scientist, like everyone in this chamber seems to want to do, that we also put that quote on the record. Deputy Speaker, it is very clear that where a government directs its funding is where it directs its priorities. It shows us what governments prioritise in this place. With the announcement earlier this year, when he announced the Future Made in Australia policy as well as this investment in PsiQuantum, the Minister for Industry and Science clearly demonstrated that we prioritise Australian industry and manufacturing, prioritise Australian jobs, prioritise Australian researchers and innovators, and prioritise Australian scientists. If we are to follow that same logic, what do those opposite prioritise? They have put up so few policies that it is really difficult to be clear about what they do prioritise. We can only go on the one policy that they have given us, and that is nuclear energy. They have decided to prioritise nuclear energy. According to the Smart Energy Council, the coalition's nuclear energy proposal could cost taxpayers up to $600 billion and deliver only 3.7 per cent of the energy we require. On the side of the House, we are backing Australian jobs, Australia manufacturers and Australian scientists. On that side of the House, they are backing a nuclear energy fantasy that could potentially cost taxpayers $600 million. You've got to wonder: who are they backing? Are they backing Australian consumers? Unlikely. The CSIRO has said that the most expensive form of energy is nuclear energy, so they're not backing Australian consumers. Are the backing Australian taxpayers? Again, unlikely. This nuclear fantasy of theirs will cost—I'm going to repeat the number because it is so ridiculous—up to $600 billion. To steal a quote from Griffith University's Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, the coalition's nuclear energy proposal is 'legally impossible, economically unachievable and environmentally irresponsible'. I couldn't have put it better myself. Given the mountain of evidence from experts, I'm a bit surprised that those opposite continue to back nuclear energy. What I'm not surprised by, though, is their opposition to our investment in PsiQuantum, because it continues their anti-science attitude. They won't back Australian scientists and innovators and they won't back Australian industry. PsiQuantum wants to build the world's first commercial-scale quantum computer in Brisbane and establish its Asia-Pacific headquarters here. It will advance research and education, create industry opportunities and establish a dedicated climate research centre, so of course they don't want to back that. They don't listen to scientists when it comes to climate change and they don't listen to scientists when it comes to concerns about their nuclear energy proposal, so why would they listen to scientists when it comes to the importance of quantum computing? Quantum computing is going to be essential for the use of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and medical research into the future. Again, this is another example: when we need the opposition to rise to meet the moment, they always fail; when we need them to think big, they can only think small or fantastical. 16:03 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden It's very interesting getting up to speak on this MPI today, because it is a matter of public importance. There is a significant quantum of public money at stake, and we're talking about a genuine process of allocating that public money—somewhere, somehow—for an outcome that is meaningful. Honestly, I am bewildered but unsurprised that each of the speakers on the other side have wanted to talk about everything but PsiQuantum. In fact, they've hardly mentioned the word. The member for Reid clearly has an obsession about nuclear energy. It's interesting that she talks about that today, on a day when the government has itself decided to—we hope—genuinely investigate nuclear energy through a select committee. It actually makes me wonder who is afraid of the science. For decades the Labor Party have been telling us to trust the science on climate change, and we have. Now, when presented with nuclear energy as a potential solution, they run the other way. Perhaps it's because of the leadership in this portfolio. Quite frankly, I would have thought that the Minister for Industry and Science, having had, as he said, 164 days to prepare an answer to this MPI, would have done a bit better than he did. Then again, I'm not surprised, because it was in this place, in question time, that he said, 'We've got a constant supply of sun and wind that blesses our continent.' Now, the last time I checked, there's no sun at night-time. Is this serious? This is the same guy who is trying to run this process, with a billion dollars of public funds. That is why this matter of public importance today deserves to be thoroughly examined: $1 billion; an American company; and, quite frankly, a process that absolutely smacks of a predetermined outcome, completely reverse-engineered in order to get one proponent to be successful. What we've seen in the past 164 days is an absolutely shameless cover-up by the minister. I walked in here today thinking: 'I'm a fair-minded guy. Maybe I'll hear something from this minister that actually puts my mind at ease. Maybe he'll step us through the process, his thoughts; he'll explain exactly how the value-for-money proposition was contemplated.' But no: we got absolutely nothing but bluff and bluster. There was no explanation. What's interesting to me as a Queenslander is of course that we've got a partner in crime in this little situation: the Queensland state government. The feds and the Queensland state government are in this for $470 million each. So, in addition to my interest federally, as a Queenslander—with an upcoming state election—I am very interested as to how the Miles-Palaszczuk government have been spending our hard-earned money. On the Queensland Treasury website they are so keen to link us—such a tenuous link—to the Australian element: While the company is headquartered in Palo Alto in California, PsiQuantum has deep roots in Australia. Two of its co-founders, CEO Professor Jeremy O'Brien and Chief Architect Professor Terry Rudolph, were both born and raised in Australia. Well, that's absolutely wonderful, but our billion dollars is floating away across the Pacific to 700 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, California 94304. I just wonder how on earth this Labor government hasn't explained this so far today. Where are we getting value for money from this proposal? And how on earth can any Australian have any faith in the way this government will go about making investment decisions in the future? 16:08 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I can't help but feel that the debate today is a debate on science and whether the government accepts science or not. Sometimes people talk about science as though it's a religion. It's not a religion; it's about facts, it's about methodology and it's about doing things that are evidence based Guess what? The future is coming. And the future is quantum computing. What I hear from the other side is that they want to be stuck in the dial-up internet era, or to be using the brick Nokia phone, which had predictive text. The truth is, these were technologies that were groundbreaking at one stage but aren't used today. Quantum computing has amazing benefits for society. We are at the precipice of amazing breakthroughs. I'm also really grateful because in Swan I have a supercomputer that is using quantum, which is very exciting. With this decision, the Albanese government, along with the Queensland government, committed to investing $470 million in equity and loans to build a fault-tolerant computer with PsiQuantum. This is not just a tech upgrade. This is about making computing transformational. It is the future. It is the next big thing in computing. And it is exciting that Australia can be at the forefront of this. We can make it happen, but we need a government that will make this a priority, and that is exactly what this government is doing. This isn't just about making things faster. It's about solving problems that classical computers can't even touch. We're talking about breakthroughs in medicines. We're talking about making strides in artificial intelligence and even tackling climate change—which reminds me: we are a government that accepts science; we accept the science of climate change. The former member was talking about an obsession with nuclear, but, I don't know, $600 billion sounds like a pretty big obsession to me! Using the words of the member for Reid, it is a nuclear fantasy. That's not the kind of fantasies that I have. I have dreams of a net zero emissions world where we have amazing medicines and wellbeing for all of our society. And Australia is in it to win it. This deal was a massive milestone, and now the real work starts. Soon we will see why it's so important to invest in quantum technology. It's about securing our future both economically and from a national security standpoint. This investment will help Australian industries and researchers get the tools they need for the coming decades. We didn't jump into this blindly. We did the homework. Our public servants tested the market. They looked at more than 20 companies to find out what could be delivered. It was a rigorous process. And this wasn't just about building a computer—although building computers is fun. This was about seeing how many jobs it would create and what benefits it would bring to the Australian economy. And guess what? PsiQuantum came out on top. This is a huge opportunity, and it is a chance to lock Australia into the technology frontier and to reshape industries around the world. We've missed out before. Remember, we could have had Intel in the 1990s. We're not missing out this time. This project isn't just about keeping tech. It's about keeping Australian talent—no more brain drain. We want the best and the brightest. We don't want them going overseas to commercialise ideas; we want them to be doing it here. This is a part of the reason that this is part of a suite of policies, such as building a future made in Australia. This project has a chance to build an incredible future for Australia. Some people might have doubts. That's fine. Reviews are welcome. Unlike the opposition, we're doing everything out in the open. We're transparent. We're not operating in secret, like the former government did. Remember when the former member for Cook appointed himself to secret ministries? That's not how we do things. This process went through rigorous due diligence. The future for Australia is exciting. Quantum computing— (Time expired) 16:13 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes On 18 August 2022 the Prime Minister said, 'The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy.' Well, I certainly agree with the Prime Minister on that point. But this recent decision of the Albanese Labor government to invest almost $1 billion of taxpayers' money into an American company raises several serious questions that cast doubt over the deal. I've heard in this place some suggestions from those on the other side that for some reason those on our side are not people of science or don't believe Australia is really committed to a future around technology and innovation. I say to those who have spoken on this MPI today: that is precisely what we on this side have been saying with respect to the debate that is underway—about the future of our energy supply, for example. We are looking at Australian technology that we have already developed—in my electorate, at ANSTO—and how we can use that and innovate into the future to determine the best way to continue to supply Australians with cheaper and more-affordable electricity. But I'll return to the matter at hand. It is the process that has been undertaken by the government on this that is causing those on our side the most difficulty. It's a deal that's been cloaked in secrecy from the beginning, where both Labor and the Minister for Industry and Science have gone to great lengths to avoid scrutiny and transparency—the complete opposite to the thing that the Prime Minister, two years ago, said that Australians deserve—and it has followed a terrible process. There are many details around the commercial arrangement which have still not been disclosed. This first came into the public domain when the funding was announced. The funding was announced on 30 April, and then, during Senate estimates, and through many freedom of information requests—and for that I think that the honourable member for Bradfield really needs to be congratulated—it was revealed that this deal is nothing more than a captain's pick. It's a reverse-engineered process designed to benefit PsiQuantum. It's still clear on the available evidence that this investment does not meet the normal standards of contestability, fairness and probity that would be expected from a funding decision of this size: $1 billion. That is a sizeable amount of money, even in 2024. The Albanese Labor government, though, has chosen to bet a very large amount of money on one particular company, pursuing one particular technology path within the broad field of quantum—a field in which people who have been working for 20 or 30 years cannot say with certainty which of the many paths being explored is likely to achieve the most successful outcome most rapidly. On any view, it will be at least several years, and very possibly longer, before the technology that is currently being developed is proven to work—if it can be proven to do so at all. What is particularly troubling is that so much funding has gone to an American incorporated and based quantum computing company, with a large ownership stake in the company being held by venture capitalists, including American venture capitalists, rather than to any of the outstanding Australian based quantum computing companies and researchers. It would be a particular tragedy if this decision by the Albanese Labor government—to allocate, alongside the Queensland government, almost a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to this particular American company—ended up making it more difficult for other Australian based quantum computing companies to compete for and attract global investment because of a perception that their own government, having surveyed the field, does not believe in them and considers that their work is inferior to the work of this American based company. The Prime Minister was right: the Australian people do deserve transparency and accountability, and that is not what has happened in this instance. (Time expired) 16:18 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong At every turn in this parliament, the coalition have made clear that their priorities for the nation are totally disconnected from the needs and aspirations of everyday Australians. Let's just have a little shopping list here. They oppose action on housing. They oppose action on climate change. They opposed our fairer changes to Scott Morrison's tax cuts. They oppose a future made in Australia and bringing manufacturing back home. They oppose elements of our cost-of-living relief. They oppose energy rebates, and they oppose renewable energy rollout. Here today, with this MPI, they're opposing reasonable action by this government to ensure that we have a competitive and world-leading quantum sector here in Australia. Quantum computing isn't just the next step in our natural technological evolution; it's a leap into the future. What have the coalition done? Instead of embracing it, they've turned their backs on a technology that could create thousands of jobs, drive billions of dollars in investment into Australia and position Australia where it should be: at the cutting edge of global tech innovation. Let me be clear: when the coalition opposes quantum and our investment in this technology, they're not just opposing a technology; they're opposing Australian jobs and Australia know-how. They're opposing a brighter future for our tech sector, and they're opposing Australia becoming a world leader in this technology. We should be an economy that does more than crops and rocks. We need to have a diversified economy. If you look across the world, what sector brings wealth to economies? What sector drives better jobs and better living standards? It is the tech sector. It brings well-paid jobs. It brings flexible working conditions. It builds rewarding careers. And with the investments that we have said we would put into the tech sector, we're saying to them—not only here in Australia but across the world—'We want the tech sector; we want quantum technology to be developed here in Australia.' With this investment, we've listened to the experts. We've run a rigorous and detailed process that's gone through every angle of scrutiny—economic, technical, commercial and, importantly, in terms of our national security considerations. It concluded that investing in quantum is the right decision for our nation. PsiQuantum, co-founded by two brilliant Australians, Jeremy O'Brien and Terry Rudolph, is a globally leading firm in the quantum computing space. Our investments, partnering with the Queensland government, will mean that this technology will return to Australia and be developed right here. In partnership with the Queensland government, we've committed $470 million in equity and loans to PsiQuantum. It will mean that Brisbane will be soon be home to the Asia-Pacific headquarters of one of the world's most highly valued quantum computing companies. That means jobs for Queenslanders. It means jobs for the tech sector. The investment aligns perfectly with our first ever National Quantum Strategy, which our government announced just one year ago. The difference between us and them is that we have a vision for the tech sector and we have a vision for quantum. PsiQuantum and this investment are a core part of that vision. Since our announcement, understandably, everyone has got a bit excited, and they've hit the ground running. They've formed research education partnerships with the Queensland universities. They've opened a research development lab, and they've begun building their Australian team. This week our government released the advice from the Chief Scientist which underscores the importance of this investment in local industries, and this is the kind of future that we, as part of the Albanese government, want to build. We want to make things here. We want to develop things here. We want to tap into our potential in the tech sector as much as any other. And the rewards, if we get this right, will be transformational, both economically and scientifically. With this investment, we could become a global leader in an industry that will shape the next century, just as others did with semiconductors in the 1970s. If we shy away now, we will miss an opportunity that could never come again. While the coalition continue to oppose our vision and continue to oppose investments in jobs and technology, on the side of the House we'll continue to invest in the industries that will make our country richer and safer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 74 BILLS Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 74

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

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

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

Returned from Senate 74 COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Standards Joint Committee 74 Appointment 74 16:23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I am informing the House that the Senate has considered message No. 457 of the House and concurs with the resolution relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards. Nuclear Energy Select Committee, Parliamentary Standards Joint Committee 74 Membership 74 16:24 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Ted O'Brien, Mr Pitt and Dr M Ryan be appointed members of the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy; and (2) Mr Chester, Ms Payne, Ms J Ryan, Ms Stanley, Mr Stevens and Mr Wilkie be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards. Question agreed to. BILLS 74 BILLS Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 74

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

Second Reading 74 16:25 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide In the short time I have left, in continuation of what I was saying earlier before question time on this very important bill, I'll start where I left off. As I said, we need to respect the professionalisation of the early childhood workforce. After nearly a decade of neglect and inaction by the former Liberal government, changes are needed. That's what the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 is doing. It will ensure that we have a sustainable early childhood educator workforce, which is important to our nation. Early learning educators do a vital job, making it possible for millions of other Australians to do their jobs. But, most importantly, they're responsible for the education of our children—the next generation of Australians. I know that a supported and valued workforce is absolutely critical to making early childhood education and care more accessible and more affordable for all Australian families. This bill demonstrates the government's absolute commitment to supporting wage increases in a historically undervalued, mainly female dominated care sector, and it complements recent workplace relations reforms through the secure jobs, better pay act. We know that early childhood educators do a very important job. They are some of the most important workers in our country. We entrust them with our children when they leave home for the first time and we entrust them with their care and education. We know that they deserve more than our thanks; they deserve to be paid properly. 16:28 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker With a couple of minutes before adjournment it might not surprise members to hear that I won't be able to conclude my contribution on the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024. But I want to say that of course the coalition understands the importance of early childhood educators and of childcare workers, so this increase in their take-home pay is welcomed. However, this funding is slated to cease on 30 November 2026. It does beg the question, and I think it's an important question: what happens in year 3—that is, after 2026 and beyond? It's a very important question. In my contribution I don't want to focus on the question of what childcare workers are paid or of what the government has done around subsidies for parents. Rather I want to focus on the childcare deserts that persist across our country. It might come as a bit of a surprise to some in the gallery that many parts of Australia don't enjoy child care and don't have the ability for parents to put children in child care. Much of my electorate is situated in those deserts. In fact, child care is delivered a half-day a fortnight out of the boot of a car in some of my locations. That's not good enough. I want to see the minister responsible for this important portfolio area focusing some of her attention on addressing the childcare deserts, because it doesn't matter how much you're prepared to pay a childcare worker or how much you subsidise parents if there are no places— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 75 ADJOURNMENT Maugean Skate 75 16:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark In August, I had the pleasure of providing work experience to a 15-year-old Hobart year 10 student named Hannah. During that time, I invited Hannah to write about an issue that was important to her, and this is what she had to say: I am a fifteen-year-old Tasmanian, and today I want to speak about how salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour is driving the Maugean skate close to extinction. A couple of months ago I decided to ask Andrew whether I would be able to work in his office for work experience, which my school was organising, as I have always had an interest in politics and have a passion for helping others. During my time on work experience I learnt many things that altered my understanding and respect for politicians. I also had the fortunate opportunity to write this speech. And this topic is something me and many others feel needs to be heard. Salmon aquaculture in Tasmania has expanded quickly with around 60 leases now across the State. Ten of these are in Macquarie Harbour, a closed-in area with a narrow exit to the ocean. Now while previously there have been complaints about the environmental impacts of salmon aquaculture by the public, we have been kept in the dark. Only recently have the fatal conditions of Macquarie Harbour been revealed, showing its devastating impact on the Maugean skate. Salmon farming involves the release of fish waste and food into the Harbour, resulting in a large reduction of oxygen in the water. This decrease in the oxygen levels where the skate lives has led to their population decreasing by nearly half between 2014 and 2021. So although the Maugean skate, an ancient creature, has thrived in its environment since the age of the dinosaurs, the species is now on the verge of extinction. Indeed scientists and researchers from Tasmania's Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies have stated that salmon farming is the primary cause of the decline of the skate's population. However, minimal action has been taken by governments to prevent the inevitable extinction. The Federal Government has set a goal of zero extinctions, yet we are now only one extreme weather event away from the extinction of the skate, a ray found nowhere else in the world. Yes there have been various attempts by scientists to reduce the skates' risk of extinction, including pumping oxygen into Macquarie Harbour. However, this is merely a temporary solution that will not bring the Harbour back to its full state of health. So it's clear that unless governments take action to stop salmon farming in the Harbour, the species will remain endangered, and may even become extinct. And if the Tasmanian Government won't listen to the scientists, then the Federal Government must step in. But despite a promise by Minister Plibersek to reconsider federal approvals for salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour last year, the Federal Government has still not taken any further action. IMAS has since established a breeding program to assist in saving the Maugean skate as a species. Yet while this project has been promising, the head of the programme has said it is early days and only one of many steps needed to save the species. There is overwhelming evidence that salmon farming is the key issue endangering the skates and yet the Government has not taken action. Why? Maybe it's because we are prioritising the salmon industry, and we don't care enough about a species that does not necessarily impact us. But when has it ever been right for our actions as human beings, with complex, intelligent minds to wipe out a species that has been around for millions of years. A species that existed long before we did and that has lived in Macquarie Harbour since long before we discovered it. Do we really have the right to ignorance, to turn a blind eye and watch as the Maugean skate becomes extinct, to in fact cause its extinction? Of course not. So please hear me now when I say that immediate political action is essential for the ancient Maugean skate to survive. And that if governments and the salmon industry refuse to act, they will only have themselves to blame. No wonder I now call on the Minister to act in the interest of Tasmanians to save this dying species. So there you go. I reckon Hannah nailed it and gave voice to a great many people. Those in the aquaculture industry who would deny that actually do the industry no favours and will ultimately be its downfall. His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Greek Australian Community 76 16:35 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Today I'd like to speak about a very important visitor to our nation, and that is His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, leader and head of the Greek Orthodox Church. The visit of His All-Holiness is a great honour to our nation. Of course, it is of tremendous historic significance and is very important to our Greek community all over Australia. He's here to commemorate 100 years of the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese here in Australia. His All-Holiness is based in Istanbul, where the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has been located since the 4th century AD. His All-Holiness is the 270th Archbishop of Constantinople. Patriarch Bartholomew has jurisdiction over different territories, including Asia Minor, diaspora here in Australia, America, Western Europe and many other places, and he is renowned as the head of the Greek Orthodox Church. His theological focus has been on spiritual revival, orthodoxy, unity and Christian reconciliation, interfaith tolerance and coexistence and, very importantly, protection of the environment and a world united in peace, justice, solidarity and love. He is known as the Green Patriarch for his environmental protection statements and is active in interfaith activities, particularly in building links with the Catholic Church. Patriarch Bartholomew's last visit to Australia was 28 years ago in 1996 and is remembered by Australia's Greek Orthodox community with great warmth and appreciation. It was the first-ever visit by an ecumenical patriarch to Australia. I recall that visit because he visited my son's primary school at the time, St George College, and I have a wonderful photograph of him with my eight-year-old son—who is now in his late 30s—sitting on the wall in my electorate office. Australia is home to a significant Greek Orthodox community, which has a population of over 400,000 people across the nation. As I said, this year marks 100 years since the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. There are now more than 120 parishes across the country. This visit is a poignant moment for Orthodox Christians across the nation and provides a demonstration of the ongoing ties between their religion, their faith, for many their birthplace and the home of our faith and the new lives so many have built here in Australia. We know the Greek Australian community is such a vibrant part of Australia's identity across all parts of our society, through business, politics, the arts, sport and public service. His All-Holiness will spend two weeks in Australia meeting with Greek Australian communities, Orthodox parishioners, political interfaith leaders and community groups. I know that the Prime Minister met with and hosted him last weekend in Sydney, where the Prime Minister had the opportunity to welcome His All-Holiness. This coming Sunday and this coming week, the Orthodox faithful of Victoria and Melbourne will host the celebration of the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy at the Margaret Court Arena, where an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 people will be in attendance. There will be a national youth parade at the Kia Arena in addition to a formal reception for His All-Holiness at the Grand Hall in Melbourne. I know my very good friend the member for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou, will proudly be in attendance. I hope to attend with her if my schedule allows me, this weekend. We look forward to welcoming him. It is a significant event for the Greek community in Australia and for all the parishioners. It will be his second visit to Australia. I've had the opportunity to meet him on three occasions, once in Adelaide many years ago in 1996, as I said, and twice when I visited Istanbul, went to his office and met with him. On both occasions he was very welcoming. He told me all about his love for Australia, and the parishioners in Australia, and how much he wanted to visit. Well, the visit has come to fruition, and many of the Greek Orthodox faith will be joining the services this weekend. Renewable Energy 77 16:40 Mr JOYCE e5d New England It is amazing. The world has gone upside down. I want to tell you about my life as a grazier in the New England area. Every two years, I have to fill out the Livestock Production Assurance form. This is for livestock that could be exposed to sites or sources of unacceptable contamination from persistent chemicals, pathogens, recycled water or physical contamination. Basically, we have to fill this out to keep you safe, so that if we send you food we don't hurt you or harm you. This is one of the questions that we've now got. Question 2.8 is 'Do livestock have access to leaking electrical transformers, capacitators, hydraulic equipment?' I understand all that, but then come the clangers: 'Do they have access to solar panels or wind turbines?' What else do you want? We've got these photos of frolicking sheep and grazing cattle around what the accreditation form itself says is toxic. That means we can't sell it to you. Here are my answers: 'Yes. No. I'm now aware and making plans to restrict access.' What do we do when a wind turbine, one of these swindle factories, is on our border, blowing particles and microplastics onto our land? What are you going to do about the cadmium and lead—the heavy metals that are in the solar panels? Our own government accreditation processes require us to move the stock off the area. This is an absolute stroke of genius: we are subsidising billionaires, multibillionaires and multinational companies, through the Capacity Investment Scheme—secret agreements—to come onto the land and turn it into a toxic site, so much so that we can't put stock on it. There's the fact that government doesn't pay for the rehabilitation and decommissioning, so what happens is that they just fall over in the paddock. It costs between $400,000 and $600,000 per tower to pull them down, after they've built them, and if they've got a structural problem it's about $1 million. The value of decommissioning the towers is more than the value of the land. The land has a negative value. There's the fact that it's intermittent, meaning that it goes and stops, goes and stops—how would you like your fridge to go like that? It wouldn't be too good for your health. There's the fact that no other country on earth has been able to run its economy on intermittent power. And now we have the slight problem that they're toxic where they stand. We are subsidising the conversion of a swathe of the countryside into something that you can't graze cattle or sheep on. This is amazing. Every country has a time where it does something that is just bat-poo crazy, and this is our time. It's the intermittent power swindle time. There was the tulip mania of 1637 in Holland. There was the South Sea Bubble of about 1720 in England, where they started buying and selling debt, actually using their own shares as leverage to buy more shares. There was the sale of the island of Run, in the Banda islands, with the Dutch deciding it would be a great idea to exchange Manhattan Island for it—another stroke of genius. But they won't be alone, because Australia will be able to go forward in the future and say, 'Yes, and we decided that we were going to power Australia with a windmill.' People will look back and go, 'That can't be right.' 'No, no; it's true.' Why are they doing this? Here's the trick. This means that billionaires get the capacity to provide you with a vital service, electricity, where you can only buy their product, intermittent power, at their price. A lot of people in here have fallen for that. The outcome of this is you get ripped off; you get gypped. The SPEAKER 53517 I remind the member for New England to direct remarks through the chair. Raise Our Voice Australia: Manufacturing Industry 77 16:45 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite We need young people to be engaged in decisions that affect their future, and the Raise Our Voice speechwriting campaign is just the catalyst young people need to do this. It has inspired so many young people in my electorate to raise issues that matter to them, like climate change, the creation of green spaces that nurture our wildlife, supporting local manufacturers, and infrastructure needs in a rapidly growing region like mine, in the seat of Corangamite. The speech by Lucas, a 12-year-old from Waurn Ponds, stood out. This is his speech: My name is Lucas. I'm 12 years old and I live in Waurn Ponds, Victoria. In ten years from now I would like my community to look different. I would like to see 70% of products in the shops be Australian made, this means there will be more jobs for people. Increasing Australian made and grown products will: Help to support farmers, which increases their income and helps them to make improvements on their farm; Lead to better quality and fresher foods; Reduce shipping and transport costs, which leads to less pollution and less use of petrol. These changes aren't hard to make it could be done by supermarkets and shops buying more Australian products. Thank you, Lucas. Your passion for Australian manufacturing reminds us of the responsibility we all have to be innovative, to build our skills base and to invest in a future made in Australia. To make this a reality, the Albanese government has invested $22.7 billion into making more things here, including in renewable energy technologies that will drive down Australia's emissions. And, Lucas, many of these technologies will be developed in your backyard. Waurn Ponds is home to Deakin University and an amazing, innovative community that's punching well above its weight on the world stage. Our government has invested $50 million in Deakin to develop the Recycling and Clean Energy Commercialisation Hub, a hub that is supporting local business to develop new-generation battery technology, carbon fibre and new recycling technologies so that we have less waste in landfill and in our oceans. We understand that a Future Made in Australia plays a huge role in supporting manufacturers and building our regional renaissance. Just recently I was joined by the Minister for Industry and Science to announce $1.7 million in funding for Li-S Energy to develop next-generation battery technologies. Then, in the weeks that followed, I joined the McLean family from GT Recycling to celebrate the now completed expansion of their facilities. The federal and state governments contributed joint funding of $3 million to make the expansion of the factory a reality. The upgrades will boost capacity to sort and process plastics from the industrial and agricultural sectors, with the installation of a second processing line at the facility to recycle 8,000 tonnes of plastics each year. These investments are all about driving our economy forward and, in the process, creating new and rewarding work. Again, thank you, Lucas. Your speech reflects an understanding of the value of local manufacturing and the potential it holds for our country's future. It also recognises the need to keep our supermarkets honest and to make sure they look after all Australians, from the fruit grower to the dairy farmer to the consumer. The Albanese government understand this, and that's why we're introducing hefty penalties for supermarkets which deal in dodgy discounts. In closing, I'd like to thank Lucas and the teachers at Freshwater Creek Steiner School for encouraging so many students to take part in this competition. I'd also like to thank every young person who made a submission. Picking a winner, can I say, was incredibly difficult. We had so many amazing submissions and so many fresh, awesome ideas from school students and locals as young as 12. I have no doubt that all of your ideas will continue to spark important conversations and influence future decisions. We share your vision for a resilient, self-sufficient Australia, and it's a vision we are proud to stand behind. Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards 78 16:50 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom The 35th Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards will be held on 19 October. They will coincide with the 125th—and one week—anniversary of the chamber, one of the most important institutions in our region. I have the form guide for the evening in my hot little hands and I'm going to go through it and call out the finalists, who have done such a great job of contributing to our local community. In the tourism section: Globetrotters Travel and Cruise, Magnifico Creative, Darling Downs Elvis—Speaker, you may think Elvis is dead, but Darling Downs Elvis is the best Elvis in the world right now; Reflections on Cooby; the Empire Theatre; and the Toowoomba Fashion Festival. In the ag section we've got CoBright Ag Marketing; Feed Central; GF Oats Australia, who came down here to Canberra and, in the national showcase, were selling their goods in Parliament House; and The Farm Shop. In the innovation and technology section, a great section for our region, we've got Feed Central, Feather & Lawry, Joe Wagner Group and Milton & King. If you want to see the best wallpaper you can get in Australia, and now around the world, jump onto the Milton & King website. In the hospitality section—this is a good one—the Bone Idol Brewery is first up. Frente are playing there next Friday night. 'Accidently Kelly Street' and 'Bizarre Love Triangle' are sure to be on that playlist. We also have Gelatissimo Toowoomba, Fritz Pasta and Lily's Artisan—all fantastic places. We then have the professional services section, 10 employees or less. This is one of the best ones here, as increasingly our economy is driven by the services sector. We've got All Star Brokers, CDI Pest Management, Finch Legal, Mosta Hair, Smith Diesel Fitting and SWQ Training, from Harristown. In the professional services, 11 employees or more, category there are AimBig, CoBright Marketing, Feather & Lawry Design and Wilsonton State High School. Some of these businesses are getting multiple runs, Speaker, because they're such great contributors to our economy. My money's on Wilsonton State High School in that one. In the retail section we've got Clever Bugs; Daimler Trucks, based in Toowoomba; Milton & King—again; and, just around the corner from my office, Ryley Jewellery Creations. This is one of the categories that matters most to our community. This is the community and not-for-profit section. There is a great group of enterprises here. We've got BASE Services—Nat and Tiff, who always do such a good job. We've got Hope Horizons. Jo Capp has been magnificent in leading that organisation. We also have Momentum Mental Health and Tony's Community Kitchen. The member for Deakin came and joined me at Tony's just a little while ago to help me out at the food kitchen. It's great to see them get a run. There are the Toowoomba Hockey Association and the Toowoomba Community Organic Gardens Association, both of whom make a huge contribution to our community. In the industry section we've got Gears Mining and Harness Energy Services. Talking about visits, Michaelia Cash joined me on a visit to see what they do in the oil and gas industry in our region. We have the Joe Wagner Group and, once again, Milton & King, doing a great job. Under 'health and wellbeing' there are Clarity Consulting Co.; Complete Body; Identity Coaching; Momentum Mental Health—I'm going to give a shout-out here to Shirley-Anne Gardiner, who is doing a magnificent job, as she has always done, for the people of Toowoomba in that role; and Red Sand Sisters. For property construction and development, a huge contributor to our local economy, we've got Alliance Building and Construction, Electrical Sensations, Feather & Lawry Design and McAdam & Turnbull Realty—and I give a big shout-out to Bronwyn Evans there. In the export section—and exporting is something we've been very good at in our region—there are Gears Mining, Milton & King, and my favourite one, Salty Sharks, which has an extraordinary offering. It's a virtual and interactive aquarium experience so kids in rural areas can experience something they wouldn't otherwise. In the arts and culture section we've got the Choral Society, Feather & Lawry Design, Shoebox Theatre Company and Stirling & Truffles—again, Speaker, a business that joined you and me down here at the national showcase to sell their goods in Parliament House. For 'best regional business' we've got Feather & Lawry Design, Feed Central, Gears Mining and, again, Harness Energy Services. I put my money on Harness. I'll move to the big ones now. For Businesswoman of the Year, there's Angela Brown, Petria Cumner, Shirley-Anne Gardiner, Annie Sendall and Tiff Spary; I can't pick a winner. For Future Leader of the Year, we've got: Josh Bamford—thank you for all your help on employment and training issues, Josh; Dominique Gillespie; Damon Harris-Brennan; and Caitlin McManus. For Sole Trader of the Year, we have: Clarity Consulting Co; Clever Bugs; Red Sand Sisters; and, in there again, Stirling and Truffles. The big one is Micro Business of the Year, and there's All Star Brokers; MegaBuzz; Ryley Jewellery Creations; Smith Diesel Fitting; Karma Collective; and Vali Garage, who I might have to go to and get them to fix my Defender, because it no long works. What a great list of contributors to our local economy. Hunter Wetlands Centre, Play Our Way Program, Hunter Business Awards 79 16:55 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to congratulate the Hunter Wetlands Centre, who are celebrating their 40th anniversary this year. The story of this community-run, not-for-profit organisation is truly remarkable. In just 40 years, they've successfully converted 45 hectares of old rugby fields and dumping grounds into the vibrant ecosystem that is today recognised as a wetland of national and international importance. These Ramsar-listed wetlands are now home to more than 200 bird species—including my favourite, the freckled duck, who, thanks to the wetlands centre's successful captive-breeders program, is no longer on the vulnerable ducks list. Indeed, after 40 years of restoration and over 400,000 plants, the Hunter wetlands is now an absolute haven for the freckled duck and many of its native wildlife friends, and for Novocastrians who love to visit and experience the joy of nature. The Hunter Wetlands Centre has earned a growing reputation for its excellence in wetland conservation, education and ecotourism. This is all thanks to the exceptional efforts of more than 160 volunteers freely giving their time and expertise to protect and restore our wetlands. Thanks also to the board, under the leadership of its chair, Peter Nelson; to the volunteer CEO, Ken Bayliss, who stepped down just last year, and his replacement, James Wilson, the current General Manager. Congratulations and thanks to the entire team at the Hunter Wetlands Centre on this important milestone. Congratulations also to the two outstanding Newcastle sports organisations who have received much-deserved recognition and funding under the Albanese Labor government's $200 million Play Our Way grant program, which is designed to make sports more welcoming and equitable for women and girls. I was excited recently to call Ennia Jones from A Splash of Colour Swimming in Warabrook, to let her know that she was receiving $976,900 in funding. Ennia, who has put her heart and soul into this program, was overjoyed—indeed, speechless—to hear the news. A Splash of Colour is a holistic and inclusive swimming program that provides swimming lessons and water confidence to culturally and linguistically diverse women from across Newcastle and the Hunter region. In a culturally-safe setting, A Splash of Colour helps women address aquaphobia and learn water safety and gives them the skills to enjoy and be safe in the beautiful water and beaches of Newcastle and beyond. The program has supported over 110 women in the past year, and the Labor government's funding will be used to expand the program to reach more women and expand it beyond Newcastle and New South Wales to include the ACT, Queensland and Victoria. Heartfelt congratulations also to Girls Day Out from New Lambton, who received $590,000 in funding. Girls Day Out is the ultimate come-and-try sport event for girls, including girls with disability. With over 50 per cent of girls aged 11 to 15 years dropping out of sport, Girls Day Out provides a day for girls to try a range of sports without judgement and with accomplished female athletes to lead the sessions and show them that they, too, can make anything possible. With this funding, Girls Day Out will deliver 25 come-and-try events, to over 7,000 girls, including nine disability-specific events. Kirsten Ansell was thrilled when I called her to tell her that this would all now be possible with the support of funds from the Albanese Labor government. Congratulations to these two fabulous sports organisations. They are creating positive outcomes for women and girls in Newcastle to enjoy, and to thrive in, sport. The Hunter Business Awards are held every year to highlight the contribution that businesses make to our community and our region, across the state and indeed the nation. This year it was a celebration of 127 finalists across 21 categories, to recognise the very best in business. Congratulations go to the following winners from my electorate of Newcastle: Home In Place, who won the Outstanding Community Organisation award; SAPHI, who won awards for both Excellence in Small Business and Excellence in Sustainability; the Hunter, New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network, who was awarded Employer of Choice; Out of the Square Media, who won the award for Contribution to the Region; to CoastXP, who won the inaugural Outstanding Visitor Experience award; and to Rob Dawson from Myrtec, who took out the award for Outstanding Business Leader. These awards also recognised the significant contributions made by Daracon, Orica and Marcia Chapman, the late CEO of Jenny's Place, as well as the former mayor of Lake Macquarie, Kay Fraser. It was a wonderful night, celebrating the very best of Newcastle and the Hunter businesses. Congratulations to all of the award winners! House adjourned at 17 : 00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:30.

Thursday, 10 October 2024

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 81 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Youth Voice In Parliament Week 81 09:30 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Today I'm proud to read the speeches of two young Warringah residents who entered speeches in the competition for the Raise Our Voice campaign as part of Youth Voice in Parliament Week. They were asked, 'What do you want your community to look like in the next 10 years, and what can the next parliament do to achieve it?' In some way, I'm very grateful to have these two speeches but I'm a little sad at the topics. The first one is from Zoe: My name is Zoe, I'm 12 and my electorate is Warringah. I want our community to be climate change free in 10 years. Today I will explain the very simple changes our Parliament can introduce to make this happen. We use coal as a fuel to generate electricity for our homes and we don't even think about the damage to our environment. Every morning when you turn on the light do you even once think "Do I need this, or should I just open the curtains?" We need to educate people! Open the curtains and think about renewable power. Coal causes 0.3 of each degree in global warming leading to extreme weather events like fire and flood. We must reduce mining, even though it is Australia's biggest export. We should bring in laws to encourage miners to invest outside coal. In the meantime, I have a plan to help Australia's mining industry get money and balance air pollution. For every 100 tonnes of coal mined, companies should plant 1 tree. That's 4 million new trees per year! Only when these tasks and many more are completed will we be at rest from the war against climate change. Emmy has a, I think, very challenging contribution: I Want to Walk Home. I am a 16 year old girl and I cannot walk around my neighbourhood by myself at night. I am 16 and I can have a full time job, I can apply for my own passport, and I can have my own Medicare card. But I still can't walk around my neighbourhood by myself at night, because it's dangerous. 35% of women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual violence. I am privileged enough to be able to say that I live in a safe community, but I still can't go out by myself at night and in the next 10 years I want to be able to do that. I want my community to be a safe space for women and I want gender-based violence to be a focus by the police force in my community. The future needs to be a safe space for women, where girls don't have to be too cautious of the person walking behind them, it's achievable if it is put as a focus. This is an issue that we face now, because what if it was your wife, or daughter, or your friend? Thank you, Emmy and Zoe, for very powerful contributions. They are very topical subjects to pick. From a personal perspective, they are two of the most important issues that drove me to come into politics and to be in this place to try and make change on these very big issues. I know many people in this place are dedicated to making sure those two big issues—gendered violence against women, and climate change—remain the core focus of the government. Youth Voice In Parliament Week, Infrastructure 81 09:33 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'm delighted to represent the winner of the Macarthur Raise Our Voice campaign, Lania Saumamao, and stand here in this parliament to read her winning entry: My name is Lania, I am 18 years old and as the School Captain at Campbelltown Performing Arts High School, I have seen the profound impact of rapid urbanisation on our Macarthur community. The growth and verticalization of our area, while bringing in new opportunities, have also led to cramped spaces, outdated infrastructure, and a troubling increase in pollution, especially in areas like Queen Street in the Campbelltown CBD. In the next 10 years, I envision Campbelltown evolving further into a 'green city'—a community that prioritises open, green spaces, celebrates our native flora and fauna, and embraces modern, sustainable infrastructure. By doing so, we can not only enhance the beauty and functionality of our community but also foster a stronger sense of belonging and pride among residents. This transformation requires commitment and collaboration. I believe that with additional federal funding, we can maintain and expand our green spaces, plant more native plants, and revitalise our outdated buildings and shops. This investment is not just about aesthetics; it's about creating a healthier, more vibrant environment that meets the needs of our rapidly growing population. I believe by working together with community members, local leaders, schools and businesses this vision would become a reality. Together, we can ensure that Campbelltown stands as a model for sustainable urban development, where the environment and community thrive hand in hand. Very well said, Lania; I couldn't have put it better myself. I believe Lania's views are shared by a great number of people in Macarthur, including me. I will continue to advocate to our councils and to state and federal governments for greater green spaces, for wildlife protections and for community areas that are smarter and more lifestyle friendly. I am very frustrated by the constant urban development that has occurred in south-west Sydney and the lack of infrastructure to go with it—be it in health, transport or education—that should be provided to these new areas but isn't. This also includes poor planning for environmental protections, particularly for our koalas. I believe every generation has a duty to ensure that the generation that follows inherits a community that is better than the last. We must do better with our local infrastructure, particularly for our young people. My electorate is in one of the most rapidly growing areas in Australia. In fact, my electorate has recently had some major boundary changes because it is the biggest electorate in the country by population. Yet state governments and federal governments have not provided the infrastructure. For example, they haven't provided a public transport link to the new Western Sydney airport from south-west Sydney. This is terrible, and it's a great shame that this has not happened either under previous governments or under this government. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 82 09:36 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes Today I'm making a speech on behalf of someone else as part of the Raise Our Voice Australia campaign. I'm about to read a speech written by Molly from Dubbo. When I read this speech, everyone in Dubbo will know who I'm speaking about. The speech reads: Honourable Members of Parliament, I am from the Parkes Electorate, and today I stand before you not just as a survivor, but as an advocate for change. At 18, I've spent over a third of my life fighting osteosarcoma—a rare and deadly cancer that too many young Australians face, yet too few know about. In the next 10 years, I envision a community where sarcoma is no longer the "forgotten cancer", and where every young person diagnosed with this disease has access to the research, treatment and support they need to survive and thrive. But to make this vision a reality, Parliament must act now. Sarcoma kills more teenagers than any other cancer, yet it receives less than 1% of all cancer funding. This is unacceptable. We need dedicated funding for sarcoma research, national awareness campaigns, and the resources to ensure that no family has to face this battle alone. As a member of the Dubbo Youth Council and the 2024 Dubbo Citizen of the Year, I know far too many families who have lost young people to this deadly disease. I've raised funds, shared stories and fought to make a difference—but I need your help to secure the necessary funding to bring hope to these families. Together, we can ensure that in 10 years, sarcoma is no longer a death sentence, but a challenge we have faced and overcome. I won't rest until we do. Local Government: Governance 82 09:38 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I'm afraid to report that a terrible abuse of power has been uncovered at a council in my electorate. The Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC, yesterday released its special report into Operation Leo, an investigation into bribery and misconduct between some councillors, the Moonee Valley City Council and some associates of the Essendon Royals Soccer Club. The report is shocking and underscores the seriousness of local council work. IBAC spent 17 months examining Moonee Valley City Council and the Essendon Royals Soccer Club. It found systemic corruption, vulnerabilities, failure to follow proper processes, conflicts of interest and failure to report corrupt conduct. Former councillor Cam Nation, Councillor Jacob Bettio, Councillor Samantha Byrne and Councillor Narelle Sharpe were raided. They had their devices seized in August 2023 as part of the investigation. The wide-ranging anticorruption investigation found that some Moonee Valley councillors misused their positions as elected officials to seek or obtain preferential outcomes for the Essendon Royals Soccer Club. They used their power to influence council decisions, bypassed council decision-making processes and inappropriately disclosed council information to the Essendon Royals Soccer Club. IBAC found Cam Nation, the former Mayor of Moonee Valley City Council, in Melbourne's inner north-west, received drugs and kickbacks in exchange for using his power to influence council decisions. IBAC found that several Moonee Valley councillors received other inducements, including dinners paid for by the sporting club. I want it on the record that my office has attended meetings with the soccer club. As part of our electoral duties, my office and I meet with hundreds of sporting and community groups. As an elected member, I take my role meeting with various groups seriously, and nothing can be more serious than elected officials abusing their power for their personal gain. I'm glad this behaviour has been rooted out; Cam Nation resigned in May this year. However, the investigation does vindicate some of the other councillors of Moonee Valley City Council who are working hard to represent their community. Through all this, the three Labor councillors, Pierce Tyson, Rose Iser and Katrina Hodgson, have acted with absolute integrity, standing up to the worst of local council conduct. They consistently called out this bad behaviour. The IBAC commissioner, Victoria Elliott, said in her report: When councillors misuse their positions as elected officials, they undermine a council's effectiveness and the community's trust in their local government. It's critical, therefore, to vote for councillors who you can trust will always do the right thing. She also said: Operation Leo highlights the importance of progressing local government reforms to address enduring concerns with councillors misusing their positions for personal advantage and at the expense of public interest. This is not the community I know, nor does it reflect the values of the community. I fully support the report and its important findings. Fourmile, Mr Gudju Gudju (Seith) 83 09:41 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise to honour an incredible man whose life and legacy left an indelible mark in our region and, indeed, in our nation: Gudju Gudju, also known as Seith Fourmile. Gudju Gudju was not only a dear friend but a mentor, a leader and a source of immense strength and wisdom to many people in my community, myself included. His contributions to the Indigenous sovereignty movement, social justice and environmental advocacy were profound. He was a man deeply committed to preserving the rich cultural heritage of the Yidindji people. Perhaps one of Gudju Gudju's most remarkable achievements was his unwavering determination to bring home the remains of ancestors that had been taken to Germany back in the 19th century. His journey to repatriate those remains was not just an act of cultural preservation; it was an act of restoring dignity and justice to his people. It was a victory for all First Nations Australians. Gudju Gudju was a powerful figure. Whether in his role in seeing the Aboriginal flag officially flown in Cairns—and we were one of the first cities in Australia to do so—or leading the campaign to rename Blackfellows Creek to Bana Gindarja Creek, Gudju Gudju's actions were bold, meaningful and driven by his deep passion for justice and his commitment to his people's sovereignty. In every conversation I had with him, Gudju Gudju's understanding of land, culture and history left a lasting impact. He had a unique ability to not only communicate the issues facing his people but make you feel the soul behind those issues. Despite his achievements, Gudju Gudju never ever sought the spotlight. He was a humble man. His laughter and warmth would light up a room. Above all, he was a devoted family man. To his greatest source of pride and joy, his wife, Jenny, and his children, I offer my deepest condolences. Your husband and father was a man of great courage and wisdom, and his legacy will inspire generations to come. Though we mourn his passing, we must also celebrate the incredible life that he lived and the work that he did to make our region and our country a better place. Rest in peace, my friend. I love you dearly. You are certainly dearly missed, but I can assure you that you will never ever be forgotten. Raise Our Voice Australia 83 09:43 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby The Raise Our Voice competition asked young people to write a speech to parliament. This year they were asked, 'What do you want your community to look like in the next 10 years, and what can the next parliament do to achieve it?' I was lucky enough to have a number of speeches from students in Boothby, with topics as broad as homelessness, plastic recycling, the impact of academic pressure on mental health, artificial intelligence and tree legislation. This year's winner is 18-year-old Chelsea. Chelsea writes: Twenty-one per cent of Australians live with a disability. In 10 years, I envision equal tertiary education outcomes for students with disability, including achieving population parity within universities. Many states are just tertiary selection ranks to account for disclosed disabilities but South Australia's Tertiary Admissions Centre fails to, disadvantaging students with disabilities in achieving the required ATARs for their preferred courses. While reasonable adjustments like extra exam time and assistive technology aim to level the playing field, they are often poorly organised, failing to meet students' needs, which can, at times, fluctuate, often incompatibly with the rigid structure of year 12. People with disabilities are also more than twice as likely to face financial stress. I urge parliament to encourage universities in all states to increase the placement of disability based scholarships on EAS portals, as finding funding is often the most difficult for those who need it. Including disability in tertiary EAS schemes and centralising financial aid would boost commencement and retention rates for students with disability. Chelsea finishes by saying: I encourage members to engage with universities and admission centres in their states to incentivise these changes, and to champion legislative commitments, ensuring our educational outcomes both domestically and abroad. Chelsea, thank you for your speech. Equitable access to education and employment opportunities are an important part of disability rights and, as you say, an important part to enable people with disabilities to have secure financial futures as well. It is an important part of ensuring every Australian has every opportunity to maximise their potential and live a fulfilling life and, of course, it is an important part of workforce strategy, making sure we have a skilled workforce for all types of jobs and sectors across the economy. I would like to give a shout out to the Up the Hill Project, which encourages participation of adults with a range of disabilities, including intellectual disability, in the social and educational life of Flinders University in my electorate. Up the Hill provides an inclusive and supportive opportunity, enabling people with a disability to access the university environment with support from a peer mentor, because access to education and employment for people with disability matters and it is achievable. Hibbert, Mr Rhys 84 09:46 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Rhys Hibbert of St Ives High School is an inspiring young constituent of mine. When he was 18 months old Rhys was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia and underwent extensive treatment which, happily, was successful. His resilience and strength led him to set up Donate for Life, a charitable organisation which is doing important work. This charity encourages young people to register their stem cells on the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry and to donate blood products to Lifeblood when they turn 18. Rhys also participated in the Youth Voice in Parliament competition organised by Raise Our Voice, which encourages young people under the age of 25 to write a short speech about the issues that matter most to them. I received several impressive proposed speeches from young constituents. I thank all of them and I will post all speeches on my website, but I have chosen Rhys's speech to read out. Rhys wrote: My name is Rhys. I am a 17-year-old who lives in the electorate of Bradfield. In 10 years time I want my community to be much more encouraging of young people. In 10 years, I want young people to be seen as the biggest givers, the biggest donors. What do I mean? I mean that our ageing population is going to need young people to donate. They need us to donate our time, our blood products, stem cells and our organs. We have to now encourage young people to learn how they will be important parts of our future society. We need to encourage them more to become donors and help other people. We need young people to be at the centre of the giving community and acknowledged as such. We need to encourage, as the words of John F. Kennedy said: ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. Today we have to put in place ways that young people are rewarded by giving to society in whatever way they can. This is not the 'me' society but the 'us' society. Those are fine words from Rhys Hibbert and I can say that they are entirely consistent with Rhys's character. I have had the chance to meet him on several occasions. I've been very impressed, first of all, with his courage in going through what he endured, particularly as a very young child. I also met his parents and heard from them what an ordeal that was for their family. But I have been very impressed by the work that Rhys has been doing over the last few years in sparking and driving practical support for people who have a need for these kinds of transfusions and his work in encouraging people to register their stem cells on the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry. So congratulations, Rhys Hibbert, and thank you for the work you are doing. Cunningham Electorate: Community Events 84 09:49 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The Illawarra is an extremely diverse and multicultural region where, for decades, people from all walks of life have come together to create such a vibrant community and to help build the industries that support our region. The rich cultural heritage is celebrated almost year round with numerous festivals and community events, which was on full display when we had the Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Julian Hill, visit Wollongong last month. Assistant Minister Hill spent the weekend visiting a number of the many vibrant multicultural organisations that make our region so unique. Our first visit was to the Illawarra Filipino & Multicultural Women's Group, who were celebrating their 39th anniversary. For 39 years, this remarkable group has been supporting the community, providing a welcoming space where women from diverse backgrounds can come together, share their stories, inspire one another and keep cultural traditions alive. They have built a supportive and inclusive network where women can find friendship, guidance and a sense of belonging. Over the years, the Illawarra Filipino & Multicultural Women's Group has also supported many incredible causes, such as the Cancer Council and disaster relief efforts both here and overseas. Thank you to their president, Remi Macina, founding member Lilia McKinnon and the committee for working so hard behind the scenes to create such an inclusive group. Our second visit was to celebrate with the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Cross for their 70th anniversary. For the past seven decades, our vibrant Greek community in the Illawarra has made significant and meaningful contributions to our local area. The parish priest, Father Sophronios, and the Church of the Holy Cross in Wollongong have been a central pillar in the lives of many of the Greek community, providing a space of worship and enabling cultural activities. Thank you, Eugenia Spyrides, for your lovely speech at the event, and thank you to the whole parish for enriching our community by sharing your customs, traditions and amazing food and coffee with the Illawarra. The third stop was to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Nan Tien Temple. The Nan Tien Temple is one of many temples of Fo Guang Shan, which was founded in 1967 by the late Venerable Master Hsing Yun. The late venerable master's life was a wonderful example of not only how the teachings of Buddha can impact ones personal journey towards enlightenment but also how they can radiate compassion, wisdom and selflessness. It was an honour to join the Most Venerable Hsin Bau and Venerable Miao Yu for the celebrations, where they were presented with a signed certificate by the Prime Minister in recognition of this momentous occasion. The final event for the weekend was a barbecue with the Multicultural Communities Council of Illawarra, where we shared a meal with many of our local multicultural leaders and shared stories over a delicious meal. MCCI is an integral part of the Illawarra, with a proud history of supporting local migrant communities. Queensland State Election 85 09:52 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Well, it's on. In Queensland, it's on—that is, the state election campaign. It will be run and won by 26 October, and, in my local region, I've got three exceptional candidates for the Liberal National Party. Firstly, David Lee in Hervey Bay is a well-known local and a local councillor who works hard and is fighting every single day for the people of that region, and he's up against a Labor state member who's been in witness protection for the last four years. Right now, you'd think he'd be out and a bit more vocal, but he's like Homer going into the hedge in The Simpsons; he's just disappeared. In Burnett, we've got a local champion in Stephen Bennett, and Stephen is an absolute champion for the regions. He has held that seat for four years, and he's running for his fifth election. I wish him every single success. And then we come to Bundaberg, my home town and where I was born. The LNP has Bree Watson running up against the state Labor member for Bundaberg, who, I've got to say, is absolutely hapless. In 2020, as a candidate, he actually committed to a new level 5 hospital in Bundaberg—four years ago—and then withdrew that commitment to say: 'No, it's actually five levels. We weren't talking about level 5 professional hospitals but talking about five storeys,' which is absolute nonsense. No-one will fall for that. In recent days, the member for Bundaberg went on the record and said, 'It's absolutely progressed so far, since our commitment in August of 2020.' This was from the Courier Mail, on 8 October. He also said, 'In fact, we've cleared land and we've provided a pile of mulch, and that pile of mulch was delivered to community organisations.' I know what the pile of mulch is. It is the commitment from state Labor to actually build a hospital. This is ridiculous. In fact, Mr Smith celebrated that someone offered him a beer because he gave mulch for free to a local community organisation. I can tell the Labor member for Bundaberg who is not buying a beer: all those individuals and their families who have been ramped in ambulances at the local hospital over the last four years and who are not getting the services that they demand and actually need. This hospital will not be built by 2027. Can you imagine? It hasn't started yet, and apparently it will be built—a $1.2 billion hospital—by 2027. It is nonsense. Bree Watson has committed the LNP to a level 5 training hospital. It will service up to 300,000 people across a regional population. It is an incredibly important piece of infrastructure. They'll continue to deliver Paradise Dam; the LNP is committed to it. This federal Labor government took away the funding. We secured $600 million for Paradise Dam, and it has been struck from the budget. That is a tragedy for our local agricultural producers. It is an absolute disgrace. Those who think it's funny that there's a pile of mulch instead of a hospital should go and talk to some of the people in our regional community who need those services that should have been delivered. It is another broken promise from state Labor, and they deserve to have their campaign in ashes on 26 October. Whitlam Electorate: Youth, Housing 85 09:56 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam Since 2010, I've been holding a forum for young people in my electorate to ensure that their voices are heard. They don't get to vote, but they do have strong opinions on the things that we deliberate on in this place, and I'm very pleased that this year I held my 14th roundtable of young people. Over 100 students from year 9 through to year 12 attended this year, from over 10 schools: Dapto High School, St Joseph's Catholic High School in Albion Park, Warilla High School, Albion Park High School, Illawarra Sports High School, Lake Illawarra High School, Corpus Christi Catholic High School, Oak Flats High School, Kanahooka High School, Shellharbour Anglican College, Moss Vale High School, Bowral High School, Oxley College, Chevalier College, and the Southern Highlands Christian College. At the conclusion of the forum, I promised that I'd come back to parliament and report on the matters that they discussed. One of the big issues facing young people is housing and housing affordability. Their aspirations and deep concerns to either own a house or be able to afford to move into a house and pay the rent were on display. They expressed their views about their future if this government, state governments and local governments don't work together to ensure we're working on the issue of housing affordability. They told me that every Australian, regardless of how much money they make, where they live or where they've come from, deserves to have a roof over their head. It's why I am proud to be a part of the government which has greenlit nearly 14,000 new social and affordable homes, which is the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in Australia in over a decade. Our plan is focused on supply, which is why we're not giving up on our program to enable 40,000 low- and middle-income families to get into the housing market through the government's Help to Buy Scheme. I'm pleased that the housing minister has reintroduced the bill into the House of Representatives this week. It's about ensuring that we give more Australians the opportunity to own their own home. Of course, there are many who will not be able to buy a house outright immediately and some who may never be able to. That's why our 25 per cent increase to rent assistance has been a meaningful uplift, the biggest uplift that we've seen in decades to assist low-income families to put a roof over their heads. We believe that it's a legitimate aspiration and a proper role for this government to be focusing on. I wasn't surprised that the issue of vaping also came up, and I want to congratulate the students on the really intelligent discussion we had. We discussed the need for stronger legislation, more education and more enforcement to support their concerns in this area. Access to medical services, HECS debts and domestic violence were also discussed. I'll be putting their ideas into practice to ensure that they're represented in this parliament. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BUSINESS 86 BUSINESS Rearrangement 86 09:59 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley by leave—I move: That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 86 BILLS Aged Care Bill 2024 86

Aged Care Bill 2024

Second Reading 86 10:00 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I'm pleased to rise in support of the Aged Care Bill 2024, which is in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety findings. The bill delivers on our election commitment to fix aged care. The royal commission passed down 148 recommendations for aged-care reforms: 136 have been addressed since the tabling of the report in 2021; 94 have been addressed by the Albanese Labor government since coming to office. This bill responds directly to recommendations from the royal commission into aged care and will address 58 recommendations in total. The bill will build on the aged-care reforms already put in place by the Albanese government. This includes $11.3 billion committed for aged-care workers to receive a 15 per cent pay rise. This is to make our aged-care workers feel valued by our community and to demonstrate their value, to demonstrate that, as Australians, we appreciate the value of the work that they do. And it ensures that the community understands the importance of the work they do. We've improved the quality of aged care. We've seen nurses put back into aged-care facilities. We've seen improvements in nutrition rates. We've seen reductions in some of the behaviours that were highlighted in the aged-care royal commission. In that report we read about some of the terrible things happening in aged care. That interim report was titled Neglect, and for all those here in this place during the royal commission that pretty much sums up what we were seeing across our aged-care sector. Residential aged care has seen an additional 3.9 million minutes of care from registered nurses since the Albanese government took office. The Aged Care Bill 2024 is a $5.6 billion package that will improve the way services are delivered to older Australians by providing them with support to live independently and with dignity as they age. At this point, I would like to thank the opposition for their bipartisan support in this process to get to this point, their support for the task force and for the measures in this bill. A statement of rights for older people and a positive statement of duty for providers will uphold and outline the rights of older people in the aged-care system and guides how workers and organisations must behave and make decisions under the new laws. It includes a single entry point to the aged-care system with clear eligibility requirements and a fair, culturally safe assessment process which brings together the different assessment services into a single system, which makes it easier for Australians to access and enter. The framework for delivery of a range of aged-care services, including residential care, includes $4.3 billion in a new system of home care, the Support at Home program, which will replace My Aged Care, to support older Australians to stay in their home and in the community they love for longer. We'll have improved access to assistive technology and financial assistance to modify homes to make them safe, and we'll see 1.4 million older Australians benefit by 2035. The Aged Care Bill means we'll have fair contributions from those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their aged care to make sure the aged-care system is sustainable into the future, but ensuring that the government takes responsibility for all clinical care, and mechanisms for the Commonwealth to find aged-care services, including aged-care related grant programs to providers. It has a new approach, regulating aged care which will balance explicit incentives for continuous improvement and high-quality care, including through new quality standards, 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. I know how important those provisions in this bill are for communities like mine. I know people will feel safer and will trust the system more readily knowing that those provisions are in place and knowing that there is a complaints commissioner. We all lived through the behaviours that led to the royal commission and we heard about the conditions in many aged-care services during the royal commission. Of course, we then had the pandemic and the utter devastation that that meant for a lot of families. In my electorate, that was acute and critical. We lost a lot of our older community members during COVID in aged care, and I know that families would have welcomed, at that point, a complaints commissioner. They would have welcomed whistleblower protections because in parts of my community which are connected to particular aged-care services, they were ringing me—for me to be that complaints commissioner, if you like. Staff members working in the sector were doing similar. They were contacting people as much as they could to blow the whistle about what was potentially happening in our aged-care centres during COVID. We know that, once the infections were in place in facilities, they were very difficult to contain, and we know that that led to an enormous amount of angst and grief. Several principles will underpin these new reforms. 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 based on their place in the system. The government will pay all clinical-care costs, with individuals contributing to the kinds of costs they would typically pay throughout their lives. The government will continue to pay for the majority of aged-care costs. The taskforce that was put together has looked at our system and how we might improve it. It has looked at the recommendations from the royal commission and has brought together and consulted widely with older Australians, their advocates, unions, providers and other experts. The interim report by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was titled Neglect, as I said. The first chapter of the report was titled 'A Shocking Tale of Neglect' and it did just that. It told a shocking tale of how the former government allowed Australians to be disrespected, neglected and basically forgotten. This bill puts in place measures, with support from those opposite, to ensure that we don't see that fragmented system repeated. It was a fragmented system that was poorly managed, unsupported and underfunded, and which saw our older people, who are very often vulnerable people, neglected, isolated and powerless in an uncaring and unkind system that did not deliver uniformly safe and quality care. This legislation tries to ensure the system that we're talking about is no longer fragmented. The aim of the government and the aim of the sector is to ensure that we're providing quality aged care. There's a temptation to always want to look back when we're talking about aged care to what were very dark days and what were very dark scenes. But I am feeling really positive about the changes already made to the aged-care sector under this government. I am feeling really positive that post pandemic our aged-care system has recovered and renewed itself. When I visit the aged-care centres in my electorate, I find people working in the sector committed to quality care for the people they're caring for, and I find my residents in aged care happy when I visit and speaking in glowing terms, as they always were, about the people who are paid to care for them. That was always the case. One of the key changes here that need to be considered, though, is the package around the new Support at Home program, because this is critical. We know that people would prefer to stay in their own homes for as long as they can, and this package will go a long way to supporting people to progressively make that choice. It's an important program. I lived the My Aged Care program with my own mother. The Commonwealth provided assistance for her to stay independent for as long as she did, and I know that this new version will be even better in supporting people at home to stay at home longer. Part of that is around the assessment process being a single entry point and not having to tell your circumstances or the story of your life over and over again to multiple people. That assessment, once made, can then be progressively reviewed. The Support at Home program will mean that people's clinical needs are met at home. It is important work that is being done to bring this legislation forward and to create an environment where aged-care workers are feeling respected and valued. This is a sector that was under considerable pressure, both financial and in terms of public perception. It's important that the work that's been done across the last 2½ years had the sector at the table, prepared to embrace the new provisions, because it means that we can all move forward now with a view to our older Australians being cared for in a way that will leave us able to sleep at night, bluntly—because there were moments during the pandemic when that was certainly a struggle for me and for many in my community. I'd like to pay tribute to Minister Wells for the work that she has done in preparing this. I'd like to thank all members of the taskforce for their work, under difficult circumstances, in coming together to reshape this sector and have a look at how it might be improved under this government. I'd like to again thank the opposition and the crossbench for the way that we've worked together to ensure that this is done in a bipartisan way. 10:12 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Today I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. Australia's aged-care system is facing a crisis. It's unsustainable and not effectively meeting the needs of our older Australians. With an ageing population, demand for care services is only going to grow, making it crucial that we develop a system that promotes the wellbeing of older people while remaining economically sustainable. In the next 40 years, the number of Australians over the age of 65 is expected to double, and the number of those over 85 is expected to triple. In Warringah, nearly 17 per cent of the population is over 65, with over 25,000 individuals entering their senior years. These numbers highlight the growing demand for aged-care services, particularly the increasing desire for independence and support to age at home. The Aged Care Bill 2024 is an important piece of legislation aiming to deliver significant reforms that ensure quality of care for older Australians. It also seeks to help seniors maintain their independence, especially through ageing at home. My electorate office in my electorate of Warringah regularly receives calls from constituents who need assistance navigating the complex aged-care system, and it's not just those needing it themselves; it's often family members finding it incredibly complex. The current system is clearly not meeting the needs of the community, and that's why I welcome the reforms. There have been long delays and difficulty in getting the level of care needed by people. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety revealed hard truths about our system and horrendous stories of neglect. The final report, titled Care, dignity and respect, made 148 recommendations for improving the standard of care. Following the report, there have already been three legislative changes, and now this new bill responds to about 60 of the royal commission's recommendations, alongside those made by the Aged Care Taskforce. This bill will replace the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018. The new legislation gives the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission increased regulatory powers as recommended by the royal commission. It introduces a new regulatory model focused on ensuring that registered providers offer high-quality care while being held accountable. Often the most important part of the feedback that we get from the community is: 'How do you know the facility you are proposing to have your loved ones live in is actually going to meet their needs?' Accountability and oversight are essential in delivering better care, and I support the introduction of a statement of rights for older people in this legislation. Placing the rights of older people at the centre of the law is a necessary step to recognise and protect their dignity. However, I am very concerned. Alongside key stakeholders, I ask: how are those rights going to be enforced? There seems to have been a watering down of the initial intention when it came to that statement of rights. When I visited constituents and discussed this with them, many had concerns that a statement of rights for older people not just be window dressing but that it have some effect on their standard of care and treatment. The Support at Home program, which would come into effect on 1 July 2025, is also another key change in this legislation. It will replace the current four Commonwealth home support packages. Those four will become eight ongoing classifications and there will be two additional short-term classifications, one for restorative care and one for end-of-life palliative care, and I welcome these changes. They aim to better support older Australians ageing at home, meeting their changing or developing needs and ensuring they maintain their independence. Of course, the additional short-term classification of restorative care will assist people to meet short-term increased needs. The sad aspect of palliative care one is that, of course, it is the end of life, so that assistance can make such a difference to the quality of life and to supporting the person and their family through that difficult time. However, I would note that while these changes are good they do very little to address age discrimination and the huge gap that remains between services of the NDIS, aged care and other areas. It remains that those over 65 who have an accident or who develop a disability can still not access a similar level of support and assistance on the NDIS as those under 65. There is still a massive difference between the maximum level of support in these eight aged-care classifications, even with the additional restorative care aspect or home improvements, compared to what is available under the NDIS. Keep in mind the age of 65—many in this place are at that age threshold. While 65 has been traditionally thought of as a time of slowing down and maybe retirement, many people are incredibly active at 65 and are still contributing and working. If an event occurs that significantly changes that situation, it is still such an incredible contrast. Just because of that age threshold, the difference in dignity and support the people receive is still incredible. It is still an age discrimination that needs to be addressed. A central feature of the Support at Home program is the no-worse-off principle designed to provide continuity and certainty for those already in the aged-care system. Of course, these are big changes. People have contacted my office, concerned about what it means for them if they are already in the system. The program also introduces a new assessment tool allowing for more tailored support. I welcome that but, again, the proof will be in the pudding in terms of how that assessment occurs and in making sure it is not just an automated, overly administrative process but that it is genuinely flexible and recognises the individual needs of people. One of the key aims of the Support at Home program is a reduction in average wait times for care approval and access to services to three months. It is a significant improvement compared to current approval wait times of some 12 months or more. That delay is devastating, because we have had instances where some people have passed away while they are still waiting for their care approval. So I think it is incredibly important, when we look at this type of service, that the administrative side of it is effective, efficient and resourced well enough to make sure there is no delay in wait time. I welcome the government's intention to reduce these wait times, but I have questions about how they plan to implement the ambitious reductions. If we've got circumstances going from over 12 months to now being done within three months, you have to question how. I hope this is going to be done sensibly and efficiently. I am also concerned about the measures that will be in place to ensure people are not neglected or forgotten during those wait times. Even if they are reduced to three months, a person's condition can significantly deteriorate in that time and a lack of support for their need can make a significant difference. The new funding model requires older Australians to contribute more to their care cost—I know that's of great concern to some—in both the Support at Home care model and residential care. We know that, for this to remain sustainable with an ageing population, that contribution is necessary. The fees will be based on services used, with full pensioners making low contributions for some aspects of care. Part-pensioners and Commonwealth senior health card holders will contribute depending on their income and assets, and self-funded retirees will face higher contributions. Changes to residential care will include increased contributions to daily living costs and reforms to accommodation contributions. Both residential care and Support at Home care will be categorised into clinical care, independent services and everyday living care. In terms of financial contribution, clinical care will be fully funded by government and funded for everyone. The second category, the independent services such as personal care, will require contributions. These will range from five per cent for pensioners to some 50 per cent for self-funded retirees. Everyday living services, the third category, which can include things like cooking and cleaning, will require the highest contributions, from 17.5 per cent for full pensioners to 80 per cent for self-funded retirees. I welcome that the contributions will have lifetime caps and aim to create cost parity between home care and residential care. Needless to say, these cost arrangements and contribution arrangements are complex but I commend the minister and her team for their diligence in working this out. I note the bill has been referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for review; that will hopefully provide a careful analysis of its economic impact and the viability of the structure. For my constituents, I will endeavour to have more information as soon as possible and ensure that people are engaging with these changes and understand how to properly access the services and what these contribution models mean for them. Our older Australians deserve to live with dignity, and the new aged-care bill represents a positive step in addressing the challenges we face as a nation with an ageing population. However, much more needs to be done to ensure that all Australians receive the care and support they need in their senior years. I recently visited St David's Village in Frenchs Forest to hear concerns from residents there, and the recurring theme was a desire for agency. Older Australians want to maintain control over their lives with autonomy in their services, independence in their living arrangements and choice in end-of-life care. Another key concern was how the government plans to communicate the changes, what transition plan will be in place and how the government plans to support people through these upcoming reforms. Ensuring older people maintain agency during this transition is crucial. To help seniors, their families and their communities navigate the aged-care system, my office, like those of many other MPs, recently released a seniors guide to assist in organising aged care. What is interesting is that so many of the services are digital—they're online—but for many people that is incredibly complex. They just need a proper hard copy—a road map to using these services. The seniors guide has been an incredible success, demonstrating the importance of providing accessible information for informed decision-making. Much of the key information on aged care is assessed online via an online portal. By making this information available in a simple printed booklet, we've received huge feedback and appreciation from the senior community because it makes it a lot easier to navigate. I encourage the government to be mindful that, whilst we want the efficiencies of everything being online and digital, information remains accessible for all. Lastly I'd like to mention that, when considering changes to aged care and how to improve that quality of care, we need to consider how these changes will impact First Nations Australians. The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aging and Aged Care Council is working to better ensure that aged care policies are culturally safe and trauma aware for elders. It's a massive issue. For older First Nations Australians, the concept or the prospect of residential care brings back huge amounts of trauma, especially if they are part of the stolen generation. We have to make sure that, throughout this system and throughout legislation, we acknowledge the complexity and the challenge that First Nations Australians face. The council has made a submission on the bill to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and makes key recommendations. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:25 to 11:01 11:01 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi When the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was released in 2021, it was a moment of reckoning for this country. It was the culmination of what I have described as a slow collapse, one that occurred over decades of the aged-care system in Australia. It was a collapse overseen by Commonwealth governments of all political stripes. The royal commission found the aged-care system was in such dire need of renewal that an entirely new aged care act was required. The current system simply could not be salvaged. It's the policymaking equivalent of knocking down the house and starting all over again. At the time the royal commission was released, I supported all 148 recommendations and called on the government to respond with action and funding not just words. The Aged Care Bill 2024 is an important step forward in responding to these recommendations. In assessing the bill before us, I'm guided by the same values and principles that will always guide my work as the independent member for Indi: Will this bill improve the lives of people in the north-east of Victoria that I represent? Will this bill improve the lives of people all over Australia? Will it help older Australians age with dignity and empower them to enjoy all the richness of their later years? I know for the people of Indi, where we have a much higher proportion of older people compared to the national average and where, in our beautiful towns, many people move to retire, this crucial reform is absolutely essential to their quality of life. I also ask whether this bill will assist aged-care providers and aged-care workers. This bill is about putting older people at the centre of our aged-care system; it's not about putting the providers at the centre of our aged-care system. But it's important to remember that aged-care workers—the nurses, the carers, the cooks, the cleaners and the admin staff—are essential. For many of these people, working in aged-care isn't just a job. It's a vocation worthy of dedication. If I turn my mind back a long way, I remember being a young matron of the Chiltern Bush Nursing Hospital, pulling my clothes on over my pyjamas at two in the morning to make sure one of my older residents received the care that they needed. I cared deeply about the residents under my watch, and I know that people working in aged care do too. They want to see a system that delivers the best care possible for their residents. I thank those who provide these services in Indi. I thank those places like Kellock Lodge in Alexandra, the rural city of Wangaratta, Westmont in Wodonga and St Cath's in Wangaratta. I thank all those who spoke to me about what the bill means to them, and I thank aged-care workers right across Australia. It's important our aged-care system is sustainable now and well into the future. Australia is ageing. By 2026 more than 22 per cent of Australians will be aged over 65—almost triple the eight per cent of the 1970s. As our country ages, more people will enter the aged-care system and we need to set it up for long-term success—and that's a task that cannot wait for future years and parliaments; it's a challenge we must tackle right now. In analysing this bill, with more than 1,000 pages of legislation and explanatory material, I'm guided by three key questions: Will it put the sector on a sustainable footing as our population continues to age? Will it provide regional Australians with equitable access to quality aged care? And will it enable more Australians to access home care without harmful delays? The Aged Care Bill 2024 implements the first recommendation of the royal commission to create a new aged-care act built upon a rights centred approach to aged-care services. This bill impacts almost all aspects of the aged-care system. This includes changes to how at-home care and residential care are funded and establishes a new single assessment pathway for all aged-care services. It creates new powers of oversight and enforcement for the aged-care regulator and a new statement of rights for older persons, and they will underpin the sector. I will address each of these. One of the biggest challenges introduced in the bill is to change the way people contribute to the cost of aged care, both residential and at home. While the government will continue to fully fund clinical services like nursing care, allied health and other therapeutic services, a revamped means testing process will ensure those who are able to will contribute more to nonclinical costs like personal care such as showering and everyday living like food or gardening costs. The government has made it clear lifetime contributions will be capped at $130,000, and how much you will contribute will also be means tested. For those currently in the aged-care system, whether at home or in residential care, the government's no-worse-off principle is one we must hold on to and hold them to. This means that no-one currently in the aged-care system will see their contributions change; the new system will only apply to new entrants. When an older person currently receiving at-home support moves into residential care, they will keep their existing contribution arrangements or opt to move to the new arrangements. However, for new entrants, I hear concerns about this difference in contributions for clinical and personal care. I query whether a person should have to contribute for showering services when, as they age, they absolutely need this basic help. For people who are frail or have chronic disease, it is not an optional extra and can in fact be important clinical care. One of the ways to ensure a sustainable residential aged-care system is to ensure it is financially sustainable. The bill seeks to address this by putting more money into the system. To be clear, the government will remain the major funder of aged care. But new provisions in this bill will enable aged-care providers to retain up to two per cent of the refundable accommodation deposit, the RAD, in residential aged-care facilities each year for up to five years. I cautiously welcome this change because I know how hard it is for providers in my electorate to balance their books. We know that in the past year almost half of residential aged-care facilities were making a loss from accommodation. This included facilities in my electorate. By making changes to the RAD and to room prices, we can help ensure providers stay open in our regional centres and tiny rural hamlets. Capital improvements are incredibly difficult to achieve, and I hope this changes that. However, I will be following the implementation of these changes very closely because we must ensure any increased revenue resulting from these changes will be reinvested into infrastructure and amenities that residents need, not corporate profits. This bill also makes changes to the home-care system for older people so that more people can stay at home in their communities for longer. We know Australians want this. I welcome the government's investment of $4.3 billion into home care, and I'll be pushing the government to ensure people in regional Australia have equitable access to home care. There are a few major themes for people in my electorate of Indi when it comes to the home-care system as it currently exists. These themes include the waiting times for assessments, the long distances that must be travelled for care and the workforce shortages to deliver this care. Across my electorate, whether it be in the upper reaches of the Murray at Mitta Mitta or in the far south part of my electorate in the Murrindindi Shire, I hear from older people who do not receive the full benefit from their existing home-care packages because of the costs of travel for providers and taxis, and other travel costs for the participant, and this means their budgets are chewed up way too quickly. I'm also concerned, as are the people I represent in Indi, that the new Support at Home packages will not be large enough for regional participants and these issues will be repeated all over again. This concern was echoed by Dr John Davis, a member of the government's Aged Care Council of Elders, who lives in Wangaratta in my electorate. He's concerned that there will not be enough funding in packages to cover the reality of the costs of gardening, cooking and cleaning. We must ensure new Support at Home participants are going to receive all the care they need and I'm hopeful the government's plans to expand the tiers of home-care packages from four to eight will address these specifically regional concerns. These tiers must be carefully considered to cover travel costs, in particular, and they must truly reflect the time it takes to keep a home clean and the garden under control. Support at Home will be underpinned by a single assessment pathway, and under this new single assessment model, non-government providers can play a role in assessing new claims for support, not just government assessors. Providers in my electorate tell me that this new system is showing real signs of promise and hope that wait times for assessments will, in fact, meaningfully reduce. Because it's critical here. The implementation of these changes is the bit where the rubber hits the road. For too many people in Indi, long waitlists are stopping them from getting the support they need. Even for people who do not receive a funded package, workforce shortages and a lack of suitable providers in regional towns means it can be hard to actually get any care. The bill will also establish a new, independent statutory complaints commissioner and expanded powers for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. These were key recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. I support these expanded regulatory powers because unscrupulous providers and workers must be held accountable. We heard shocking stories of abuse, neglect and violence during the royal commission and in the years since. The government must do more to protect vulnerable older people. A new complaints commissioner and expanded quality and safety commission, underpinned by a new statement of rights and principles that focus on the safety, health and wellbeing of older people and puts them first is indeed a good start. When I spoke to Jim Blundell, a resident of Mansfield in my electorate, he said that he wants to be listened to and to be heard by the new aged-care system. He wants genuine consultation with older persons to be at the heart of the new system, and he wants to feel safe to make a complaint when one is warranted. However, I share concerns of some older persons advocacy groups that not all rights under the act will be enforceable by the quality and safety commission and the complaints commissioner. I am also concerned about limited pathways for reviewing any decisions of the complaints commissioner, because if an older person does not feel that the response to their complaint is sufficient, they should have fulsome review rights. I urge the minister to consider any amendments to address this particular concern. There are further improvements that the government should make to this bill. I support calls for amendments such as strengthening whistleblower protections, which the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International have said are not up to scratch and provide a worse level of protection than employees in the corporate or public sectors. I support their calls for an end to the fragmented, overlapping and inconsistent whistleblowing regime and the creation of a whistleblower protection authority. I also very strongly support calls for triennial reviews of the act. It's currently set at five years, but, as we know, that's a long time in aged care. Any unintended consequences should be looked at much sooner. I will pay close attention to recommendations from the Older Persons Advocacy Network and COTA Australia, and I thank them for meeting with me to discuss this bill and for their substantial and long-standing work in this area. I acknowledge that this bill is part of a broader package of reforms, many of which I hope will benefit communities in north-east Victoria. While I welcome many aspects of this bill, I hear from older people and providers alike that it will do little if we cannot address workforce shortages. Regional communities in my electorate know all too well that this is often a significant contributor to the delays our older people experience in accessing the quality, reliable, affordable aged care that they deserve. The government must do much more to address these workforce shortages. In conclusion, while this bill isn't perfect, it's a significant step towards fixing our aged-care system and a significant step towards learning the lessons of the royal commission and doing better by our mothers, our fathers, our aunts and uncles, our brothers and sisters and our friends and neighbours. I look forward to working with the government more to improve aged-care services, especially in regional Australia. I want to thank the minister for the exceptional hard work that it has taken to get us to this point. I thank her staff, the department and the many, many people who have contributed collaboratively to this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 11:15 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden It's wonderful to be here today speaking on the Aged Care Bill 2024 and to have just heard from the member for Indi. To have that level of genuine crossbench interest in this matter—an interest I think we all have—and to see so many parts of our parliament pulling in the same direction to achieve the best possible outcome in aged care is a credit to where we all are in relation to this bill. My electorate is at the northern end of the Gold Coast, and I reflect often on the ageing population that we have in my electorate, in the member for McPherson's electorate—she is here in the chamber today with me—and in the nearby electorate of Moncrieff. These are all areas which have ageing populations and large retiree populations, and these issues of future needs and aged care are very present in the minds of our local residents. It's with that lens that I take particular interest in this bill. In fact, it's often said there are only two types of people: those who live on the Gold Coast and those who want to live on the Gold Coast. We are fortunate that many, in their later life, do end up having that opportunity, and we see that that retiree population ultimately will transition to needing further care. Illustrative of this, only two weeks ago, I attended the Aged Care Expo Australia in Southport, and to see the energy and the vibrancy in that room from providers, stakeholders and end users and to see some of the innovation in care was actually quite impressive. It was incredible to see the function centre at Southport Sharks actually filled with people who service this very much-needed industry. As we embark on this journey with this legislation and the future that it holds through future committee scrutiny and hearings and public commentary, I think it's important for all of us to reflect on the end goal of this, and that is very much, in this bill, the word 'care'. That care cannot happen without solid economic foundations, solid structural foundations and support for the sector that will ensure that they're given the tools that are required to give dignity, respect, security and enjoyment to people in their later life and to make sure that that part of life's journey is, ultimately, done in the best possible way. We know that our population is ageing. There's an ageing bubble, if you like, that's coming, and so it's even more critical that we get the policy settings right in this sector. I'm very proud to be part of a coalition that, when we were in government, responded with a significant funding injection to ensure that the initial response to the royal commission was done with some substance. And to lift the funding from $14 billion to almost $30 billion is, in my view, something that we, as an opposition and as a coalition, remain very proud of. That's because it started the process of how we would see change in this sector. We literally put our money where our mouth is in ensuring that the funding was there for the care. Unfortunately, in the last year alone, we've seen 49 aged-care homes close under this Labor government. It becomes extremely obvious that things need to change to ensure that we are providing a sustainable system that will last into the future, a system that balances the needs of the person in care in a dignified way with a solid financial foundation to ensure that it's done in a sustainable way. If we keep having closures, there will be no aged-care facilities left for our ageing population. All of this is done with the royal commission in the background, which simply cannot be ignored. That is the background and the basis for this legislation, and for which a new and fresh approach to aged care must be taken. And as I move around my electorate, I'm very fortunate to have been guided on the concerns and importance of this issue for many of my local groups. National Seniors Australia, who I visit regularly, are very keenly engaged in this issue. When I visit Meals on Wheels, who provide over 30,000 meals out of Paradise Point each year, they say the future care needs of our ageing population is very apparent. I must say that I'm very proud of some of the aged-care facilities we have in my local area. The TriCare and the Arcare facilities provide extremely high levels of great aged care. But we know that there are challenges now and into the future, and that's why it is so important that we deal with this legislation in the keen way that we are. The opposition has provided a clear offer to work with the government because sensible aged-care policies are so critically important. As I said, we need a system that is strong and sustainable for future generations. Since calling for and responding to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the coalition has remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve. This legislation delivers on the first recommendation of the royal commission, appointed by the coalition, to implement a new rights based aged-care act. As I said, we took the first steps when in government by providing a massive uplift in funding to support what were very obviously the immediate needs of the sector. But it is important that we recognise that age care is not just a department or a sector, it's how we value and care for our elderly population. It's through good faith negotiations that the coalition has sought to ensure that any reforms provide dignity and clarity for older Australians. And we have held the government to account to finally introduce their package of reform and bring all Australians into what is a very important conversation. The issue before our aged-care system is undeniable, with more than half of our aged-care homes across the country operating at a financial loss. We have an ageing population with a very legitimate desire for people to age in their homes where they can. The way that aged care is delivered and supported needs to change. This bill represents a significant package of reforms, which is why we have pushed for this bill to immediately be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry. We look forward to continuing to have an open dialogue with older Australians and the aged-care sector, the stakeholders, about the government's proposed reforms through this open and transparent Senate inquiry process. We will, of course, reserve our final position on this legislation until that committee delivers its final report. I'm very pleased to say—I referred to this at the outset—that there has been cooperation in relation to this issue. I see another crossbench member has walked into the chamber. There has genuinely been interest and engagement on this bill from all sides of the political spectrum, and, through good-faith negotiations with the government, the coalition has achieved significant changes to the government's proposed legislation that will protect the interests of older Australians and future generations. We've worked tirelessly to ensure, through a positive dialogue, that the government's reforms are fairer, particularly for Australians who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirements. That is why, importantly, we pushed the government to include grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps, a much lower taper rate and an assurance that the federal government, not the consumer, will remain the majority funder of aged care. We think all of these things and nothing less are what older Australians deserve, and it is through these discussions and negotiations that the bill is in its current form. I welcome the contribution of the coalition in formulating how this bill has ultimately been presented, and, in the next phase of how this is aired and discussed, I welcome our listening to the needs of Australians and how they see it being delivered in a sustainable way. One of the most critical outcomes of those discussions to date has been the introduction of the grandfathering arrangements. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care or who are on a home-care package or assessed and waiting for their allocated home-care package will not see changes to their existing arrangements. That is fair. In effect, it means that all Australians currently in the aged-care system will not pay one cent more for their aged care. We also advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions to ensure those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement are dealt a fairer deal. The taper rates we demanded mean that funding contributions increase at a much slower rate than what the government had originally wanted, and I thank the government for their genuine engagement on this issue. Furthermore, we sought an absolute assurance from the government that they, not the consumer, would remain the majority funder of aged care. We simply cannot turn the dial that far. We also fought for and will continue to fight for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions. These caps mean that Australians will always know that the maximum they could ever be required to contribute is fixed. Again, that is only fair so that people can plan for the future. It means that a lifetime cap provides families with the peace of mind that they need when it comes to the costs associated with caring for their loved ones. In addition to these financial safeguards, the coalition also secured an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers, who are currently struggling to remain open under this current government. One of the benefits of being in the coalition is that we are provided with a broad range of views, particularly on issues affecting rural and regional Australia. I'm very proud of our advocacy for those people, because, no matter where you live in Australia, you deserve nothing but the best. This funding is critical for upgrading facilities that often struggle to meet the necessary standards due to financial constraints. Everyone deserves quality aged care, so, in closing, I welcome the approach of the government to open themselves up to the opposition for discussions and contributions in this matter. As we move forward, the coalition will continue to work constructively on what has been, and will be, a very important series of changes to the way aged care is delivered in this country. 11:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Before I entered parliament, I was a general practitioner. I felt close to all my patients, of course, but I often had a really special relationship with my older patients, and I treasured the opportunity to care for them. Older people are often so beautifully skilled in the arts of conversation and connection, and they were so appreciative of the care they received. They deserve our care, our attention and our respect, so I rise today in support of the Aged Care Bill 2024. Unfortunately, it took a very long time and a royal commission for this country and this place to properly grapple with all the ways in which our aged-care system has been failing older Australians. The report of the royal commission shocked the nation. The royal commission has described it as 'a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation', the story of which is 'a shocking tale of neglect'. Our aged-care system needs an overhaul, not only because of its deficiencies but also to cope with the projected increase in the number of Australians who will need its services in the future. In 2018 and 2019, there were around 515,000 Australians aged 85 and older—two per cent of the population. It is projected that, by 2058, that number will increase to 1.5 million people or 3.7 per cent of the population. The corollary to this, of course, is the diminishing proportion of working-age people in Australia, relative to the retired proportion. In Australia in 2019, there were 4.2 working-age people for every one person aged 65 or over. And by 2058, this will reduce to 3.1. The direct implication is that there will be proportionately fewer Australians both funding the aged-care system and working in the aged-care system. However, it is hugely important not to think of older Australians as a burden. Ageism, like so many other biases in this country, is real. The Human Rights Commission reports that more than one in three Australians aged between 55 and 64—35 per cent of us—have experienced age discrimination. The most common forms of discrimination reported include being turned down for a job, being ignored or treated rudely and having disparaging jokes made about their age. More than one in four older Australians live in poverty, and we know the situation for Indigenous Australians is even worse, as they are twice as likely to live in poverty than non-Indigenous Australians. For whatever cultural reason, older people do not enjoy the same levels of respect, let alone reverence, that they enjoy in Asian and African countries and in the Mediterranean—respect that they deserve. After all, Australians aged 65 years or over contribute almost $39 billion each year in unpaid caring and voluntary work. If the unpaid contribution of those aged 55 to 64 was also included, that figure rises to $74 billion per year. If employment rates of Australians aged over 55 increased by five per cent, it would add another $48 billion to our economy every year. The contribution they can make in the workplace is immense. Experience and wisdom are powerful assets in any industry. Older Australians are our mothers, our fathers, our uncles and our grandparents. Walking alongside them in their later years is a privilege. The mark of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable. That's why I applaud the fact that this legislation is centred on the rights of older people. It is based upon the rights that older people in the aged-care system should expect. What have the government already done? They have instituted 24-hour nurses in residential care and a 15 per cent increase in the pay for aged-care workers. This is a really good start to what must be a dramatic overhaul of the system. Since being elected as the member for Mackellar 2½ years ago, it has been my absolute privilege to run an electorate office that assists elderly constituents and their families with the aged-care system as one of its core functions. It is unfortunate that so many people need to turn to their members of federal parliament for assistance, however. We are usually an avenue of last resort for them on a range of issues. Nevertheless, it has been wonderful to watch my team ease constituents' difficulties navigating the aged-care support system. People seek our assistance in relation to all aspects of the aged-care system: the Commonwealth Home Support Program, home-care packages and residential care. Australians may not appreciate that while most of the national aged-care budget is spent on residential aged care, more than two-thirds of the people using the aged-care services do so from home. There are clear patterns or themes to the difficulties my constituents have been facing with the aged-care system. These include long wait times for home-care package approvals and upgrades, sometimes up to 12 months; insufficient hours of care provided through the packages; high management fees which then reduce the available care hours; low carer allowances to families compared to the time they invest and compared to rates paid to home-care package workers and providers; quality of care concerns; system inefficiencies and perceived mismanagement; and inflated costs for equipment and services when billed through packages. Here are a couple of actual stories my constituents have shared with me about their experiences with the aged-care system. I have changed the names of these people, whose stories I am sharing. Joan's father, who has Alzheimer's, recently deteriorated while in respite care after a fall. Despite accessing physiotherapy and dementia support, Joan and her father have been waiting nine months for his home-care package to be upgraded. Joan's mother, who is elderly and struggling with the daily care of her husband, desperately needs the extra support and is putting her own safety at risk. Cynthia has been caring for her elderly mother on the northern beaches for years. After her mother suffered a fall and began receiving assistance through My Aged Care, Cynthia started noticing inconsistencies in the quality of service. Cleaners sent by agencies were unreliable and often unprofessional, with one alarming incident where two identified cleaners showed up unannounced, leaving her mother feeling unsafe in her own home. Despite having access to government funded care, Cynthia and her siblings found themselves stepping in to maintain the house, take their mother to appointments and manage day-to-day tasks that they knew could be done better by family members. Cynthia now wonders why family members who are already providing care out of love can't be paid through aged-care packages or the Commonwealth Home Support Program to ensure a higher standard of care. Finally, Cora feels that aged-care providers and service companies are overcharging. She was shocked by the inflated fees for physiotherapy and equipment when she booked them through her My Aged Care package, costing much more than if she had paid for them directly. Cora worries that this is an abuse of taxpayer money, and she is concerned about the long-term sustainability of the system if the overcharging continues. Moving now to the bill which has been introduced to address all of these issues and more, I applaud the government's adoption of the rights based model for the provision of aged-care services, which has been recommended by the royal commission as the best way to ensure access to quality, safe and timely support; to facilitate social participation and dignity; to allow for self-determination; and to provide freedom from harm, mistreatment and neglect. I completely agree that this is the appropriate framework for the bill, as do the experts. The other big changes proposed in this bill deal with the funding of the aged-care services. Overall, the changes that the bill introduces will shift the funding model to a means-tested one, with co-contributions from aged-care users and the Commonwealth. The changes will mean that people who can afford to pay more will pay more. I agree with this in principle, because the system has become unsustainable and, with an ever-ageing population, the cost will only keep growing. It should not be contentious for people to pay for their own accommodation where they can afford to do so. If they cannot, the state steps in to assist. That is as it should be. As to accommodation costs, the maximum amount providers can charge for rooms will increase from $550,000 to $750,000, which will now be indexed. That price can be paid by residents either as a refundable lump sum, as daily payments or as a combination of both. The lump sum payment can be made by way of a refundable accommodation deposit, an RAD. In this new bill, the RAD concept will remain in place, but those deposits will no longer be fully refundable. Providers may retain two per cent of the RAD per year for a maximum of five years. In her second reading speech, the minister explained that this is to ensure that residential aged-care providers can attract the investment they need to keep the current facilities open, to improve quality and to build new homes. With the trend towards an ageing population, new wings and new facilities will need to be built to accommodate greater numbers of people requiring care. Experts including Professor Kathy Eagar from the University of New South Wales noted that there is no corresponding requirement that any of this additional funding that providers will receive or profits they will make be spent on more or better services for residents. This is a missed opportunity. It seems a balance could have been struck between increased profits to aged-care providers and the care and service that those providers are required to provide to their residents. What I think is absolutely critical to note is the stipulation in the bill that aged-care users will pay no contribution to the cost of their clinical or medical care. This is indeed fundamental to the objective of universal access to medical and health care. This is partly so that individual contributions can be targeted to services that support people's independence and everyday living costs, such as cleaning, gardening and accommodation. It is also welcome that there will be a lifetime contribution cap of $130,000 on non-clinical care contributions or cessation of contributions after four years. Finally, there is a 'no worse off' guarantee so that people already in or assessed as needing home care or already in residential care won't make a greater contribution to their care than they had already planned for. Unfortunately, what constitutes clinical care, independence support and everyday living support is not included in this bill but will be contained in the rules. At this stage, therefore, it's hard to properly assess the extent to which people soon to enter care will be worse off under the new funding model. Advocacy groups like the Older Persons Advocacy Network are concerned about the lack of detail here. They are sensibly calling for modelling which will enable them to properly understand the real impact on self-funded retirees. This lack of detail and clarity also makes it difficult to decide whether to support the bill at the point when it comes before the House for a vote. It is akin to the government again saying, 'Just trust us.' In summary, I support the aims of this bill. The system must be made sustainable and our elderly population must get the standard of care they deserve. The aim of universal access is critical. It is not perfect, but it is progress. I will continue to advocate for the government to continue their efforts to improve our aged-care system and support its residents. I commend the bill to the House. 11:45 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Last week I saw how important aged care is in my electorate. I visited the Eventide Lutheran Home. About 50 of the residents gathered for morning tea, and they asked me to have a word with them, which I did, and then we went to Q&A. I've got to say: it was like question time and a bit more! They had questions on everything for me. In seeing all the residents come together like that, with some of the staff and with the manager, I saw an example of what aged care can provide to the community. It was wonderful to see. I say to all the aged-care providers right across my electorate: thank you for what you do. Having good aged-care providers in our country communities, in our country towns, is so important because it means that our residents can age where they've lived, that we can provide employment through our aged-care sector and that the community can visit their loved ones, the elderly, and don't have to travel to do it. That's why it's so important that we get any changes to our aged-care system right. While I'm talking about great community events, it would be remiss of me not to mention another community event I did last week. I called in and saw the Hamilton VIEW Club ladies, who were having a luncheon which they do once a month to raise funds for The Smith Family Learning for Life students. They've been doing that for well over 45 years. What these ladies are doing for the community is wonderful. To give you a sense of the contribution they've made, some of the Learning for Life students they've helped have now grown up and are mentoring students through Standing Tall, a wonderful mentoring program in my electorate. That goes to show what our wonderful volunteer organisations can do. I take this moment to give a big shout-out to the Hamilton VIEW Club ladies; thank you for what you do on behalf of our community. Getting back to the Aged Care Bill 2024: as I mentioned, that visit to the Eventide Lutheran aged-care facility brought home to me how important it is that we get these reforms right. The coalition, after commissioning the royal commission report, said to the government, 'We want to work with you in a bipartisan way so that, after the royal commission, we can get the reforms right that are needed for our aged-care sector.' What was detailed in the royal commission showed there was a need for us to change the way the aged-care system works in this country, and especially for us to have a look at what we can do about this new rights based aged-care approach. That's why we will have a new rights based aged-care act, and that is incredibly important. We have continued to honour that commitment of working in a bipartisan way with the government to get this right. The government came to the coalition and detailed some changes they wanted to make. We looked at that and said, 'We think you actually need to make changes to the approach you're taking.' We have argued very strongly for making sure that the funding for rural and regional Australia is right. You have to remember the advantages that aged-care provision has in the city versus those in regional and rural Australia. This was a real focus of ours, to make sure we got it right. As part of those discussions, the coalition was able to secure $300 million in additional capital funding through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers to upgrade their facilities, as well as additional care funding, particularly for regional, rural and remote aged-care homes. Targeted support for regional, rural and remote aged-care homes was not included in the government's initial proposal and that is why this was absolutely vital. I know that in my electorate of Wannon it has always been the community that has sought to fund a lot of our not-for-profit providers through lots of volunteer hours because they know how important it is that people can age in the community where they live. But given the expense of regulation and everything that has been added to aged-care provision, it is now getting harder and harder for local communities to be able to support, especially capital upgrades, facilities and that is why this additional $300 million for these capital upgrades is will be so important going forward. It is crucial we understand that providing the care that is needed in regional, rural and remote areas can sometimes comes at additional cost and build that recognition into the system so our aged-care providers in rural Australia can get the additional assistance they need, whether it be for nurse provision or for any other provisions. The government has listened to us and made adjustments, especially when it came to the provision of care in regional and rural Australia. The aged-care providers I have been speaking to in my electorate say that, from the headlines that have been detailed so far, the changes that have been proposed through this package look okay but, once again, they do want some more detail. That is why we continue to reserve our final position on this bill until this package and this legislation go for a proper Senate inquiry. Once that inquiry hands down its report, it will be a lot clearer what adjustments still need to be made to this bill. One of the things mentioned previously was how much will be in regulation versus how much will be in the legislation. Until we know exactly what is going to be in the regulation and how it is going to be framed, there will be some uncertainty as to the final details and the impacts that these aged-care reforms might possibly have. We have to make sure that we get it right. There a few things that we have also insisted on which I think are really important. We insisted on grandfathering, so everyone who is in the system and everyone who has begun the process of entering the system will not have the rules changed on them. They can rest easy knowing that these changes will not impact them and that is incredibly important, because a lot of families are doing it tough trying to provide the aged-care support for their elderly loved ones. They do not need changes which upset the apple cart because a lot of them have planned and planned meticulously to enable their loved ones to be able to get the support they need, so the last thing we want to be doing is pulling the rug from under them, especially given the cost-of-living crisis, the cost-of-doing-business crisis, that so many people are facing at this moment. The other thing that we fought for is a much fairer deal for hardworking Australians—for those people who are struggling to make ends meet at the moment. We wanted to make sure that there was the inclusion of a much lower taper rate to ensure equitable contributions for Australians who have worked hard all their lives. That was something that we obviously impressed upon the government as well. We also fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions, across both residential and home care, to provide certainty to families as they're thinking about what could be the final financial contribution that they need to make. Importantly—and I know this is important, because this is one of the largest pieces of feedback that I got from my aged-care provider boards—you've got to remember that in regional and rural Australia, and it's one of the things that I love about regional and rural Australia, is you get volunteers. You get volunteers that go on the not-for-profit boards of our aged-care facilities because they understand how important those facilities are. They're prepared to give up their time to make sure that aged-care provision continues in our community—whether it be in Casterton, Hamilton, Warrnambool, Portland, Camperdown, Ararat or Colac. Right across the board, we've got people volunteering to make sure there is aged-care provision. The idea that these people, all volunteers, could face criminal penalties for circumstances which may be completely out of their control was, I think, the wrong approach to take, and a lot of the feedback I got from the people volunteering on those boards was, 'Given the high regulatory environment of aged care, why would you volunteer if a mistake could end up with you in jail?' I think it makes perfect sense to change this removal of criminal penalties, because otherwise what would have happened was these volunteers would have said, 'Sorry; we're not going to volunteer anymore on these boards,' and then you wouldn't have aged-care provision in our communities. You have to remember that the vast majority of people who provide that aged-care provision—whether it be in Mortlake, Winchelsea, Lorne, Apollo Bay or all those other facilities that I've mentioned—want to do the right thing. I think it absolutely made common sense to make sure that they wouldn't face criminal penalties. The other thing that we fought very hard to remove was something called the 'worker voice'. This was about forcing unions into every aged-care home in the country. You have to understand what this would mean, especially for these not-for-profits that I'm talking about. If all of a sudden they're dealing with unions' right for entry, unions dictating to them everything that needs to happen in an aged-care facility, these boards, which have wonderful volunteers, and the staff that are doing a wonderful job caring for our elderly would see their workplaces upturned through the unions marching in the front door. Taking out what was nefariously called the worker voice was also incredibly important. It means—once again, we've got to have this inquiry—is that this bill is in a far better place than where it was when the coalition started discussions with the government. Obviously we've still got a long way to go because there is that inquiry and the feedback that comes from that inquiry. We'll be making sure that we interrogate this legislation fully. The recommendations that come back from the inquiry are going to be really important in making the final decision on our side as to whether we ultimately can support this legislation or not. Changes like securing that extra $300 million, taking out the worker voice, making sure that those working Australians who have worked hard all their lives can have certainty around what they're going to be paying when it comes to aged care, and more, have made this bill better. But we'll wait and see what comes out of the inquiry to decide our final position on the bill. 12:00 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff It's always a privilege to talk in the chamber about aged care, our older Australians and the care that they are given. Of course, I have many, many providers in my electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast, and I do enjoy regularly visiting those residential care homes. I always look forward to chatting with the elderly residents about their concerns, and I look forward to doing that next week when I visit a few in the Nerang area of my electorate. Whilst we're talking about aged care, we're also discussing in-home care. But I would like to say hello to those residents across Moncrieff in all of the aged-care facilities, those at Homesteads in Nerang and those in Earl Haven, which has some assisted living units. I'll be visiting there next week with the state candidate for Gaven, Bianca Stone. She is running for that seat at the state election. She is an incredible person with a great history and will be a remarkable MP, I'm sure, in the next Queensland parliament. I would like to give a shout-out to all of those people. I look forward to meeting you again next week. We can all recognise the importance, of course, of a strong, dignified and world-class aged-care system that supports all older Australians now and into the future. When I think about the baby boomer generation or even when I think about my grandparents, I think about my grandmother who was in an aged-care home in Adelaide for some years. I visited her a number of times, and I reflect on the care she received from the workers in that environment who cared so deeply about her in her last years. And now, in my own family, my father and my aunts and uncles are getting to that age when they might be looking at getting some in-home care assistance or, certainly, leaning on the services and providers that are around the country. This is an important area that needs reform, and the coalition has been working closely to try to improve the Aged Care Bill 2024. But, with more than half of aged-care homes across the country currently operating at a loss, an ageing population and a growing desire to age at home, there is definitely a need for that sector reform that I talked about. We need a system that provides dignity and clarity for older Australians. This legislation delivers on the first recommendation of the royal commission appointed by the coalition to implement a new rights based aged-care act. In response to the royal commission, I'll note that the former coalition government provided more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate needs of the sector. I recall Minister Hunt, who was the minister at the time, and the fantastic job he did with his four key pillars for the aged-care sector reform and the funding that went along with that. I congratulate him on the previous work that he has done. I also congratulate Senator Ruston, who has done so much work on this particular bill that's before the House, working with the government to make it a much better bill. While it's not perfect, it's much better than it was. The coalition provided a clear offer to work with the government on sensible aged-care policies because we need a system that's strong and sustainable to support future generations, and that's probably my generation. I see the member for Bass is here. Our generation is probably next after our parents, and so this is something that's so important to a large proportion of our population and their families. I want to be clear about this package because these are Labor's reforms. This has not been co-designed by the coalition. So, whilst we have been able to make some changes, we're still not a hundred per cent on Labor's package, but the coalition has worked tirelessly to ensure that the government's reforms are fairer, particularly for Australians who have worked hard all their lives to save for their retirement. All of our families have worked very hard throughout their lives and paid their taxes, and, in their twilight years, they must be looked after. I want to commend the work, again, of my colleague Senator Ruston for her efforts in negotiating on this bill and making sure that we're able to fight for the inclusion of grandfathering arrangements to ensure that every Australian who has already commenced their journey of ageing will not be impacted. All of us have commenced that, haven't we? Nobody is getting any younger day by day, so it's only a matter of time before a larger proportion of the population have to lean on the aged-care sector for that support and help. But those Australians who have already commenced their journey of ageing within the Commonwealth system will not be impacted by these changes, and I think that's a really important point—to make sure that there is grandfathering applied to this so that there is certainty across the sector moving forward. That means that older Australians who are currently in the system, including those on home-care waitlists, will not pay one cent more for their aged-care journey. That delivers certainty where there was known before with this package. A fairer deal for hardworking Australians ensures the inclusion of a much lower taper rate, to ensure equitable contributions for Australians who have worked hard all their lives to save for their retirement, and ensures that the federal government, not the consumer, will remain the majority funder of aged care. I think that's also a very important point. As I said, I've watched my parents work their whole lives and pay their taxes, and they should be looked after when they're on the pension—and, particularly, looked after well. It's so very important that that assurance is there as our population ages. Many older Australians who have paid their taxes and done the work don't have the benefit of superannuation either, and I think that's really important to highlight. So they don't have that nest egg to lean on in retirement or when they need to go into a home, where they have that support and assistance, or when they need in-home care. So there is certainty for families who have had loved ones in care for many years, as well as the inclusion of a time-limited cap for residential aged care to ensure that older Australians and their families will only be required to contribute to care costs for four years. The government's original proposal saw no cap on home care and a $184,000 cap on residential aged care only. We gained the concession that no older Australian will ever pay more than $130,000 for home care and the non-clinical care in residential care combined. These were concessions that Senator Anne Ruston and the coalition were able to negotiate for a better deal for our older Australians. We secured $300 million in additional capital funding through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers to upgrade their facilities, along with additional care funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care homes. It's unsurprising that the Labor government included no targeted support for rural, regional and remote aged-care homes in its initial proposal, because regional, remote and rural Australia is not on the government's mind. The government is chasing the city vote, not the regional vote, and that's why it wasn't included in this package—because the Labor government doesn't care about regional Australians. It's the Liberal and National parties that care deeply about regional Australia, and that is why we delivered that in this package. We strongly pushed for the removal of criminal penalties from the bill following serious concerns that their inclusion would force the exit of highly capable staff from the sector, in fear of being criminally punished to a level not seen in any other industry. You should not be going to work in fear of a criminal penalty—unless you have committed a criminal act, of course—so we've managed to remove that from the government's package of bills here. The government wanted aged-care workers and even volunteers to be criminally liable under the new act, so we fought hard for the changes to make sure that Australians who have worked hard all their lives to save for their retirement are dealt a much fairer deal. The coalition strongly believes the government needs to be talking with older Australians—with the stakeholders—their families and the sector, bringing them to the table and taking them on the journey of aged-care reform, because they are very substantial reforms to the sector. They've been excluded from this conversation for far too long. That's why we fought for an open and transparent Senate committee inquiry which will bring out all the questions and bring the stakeholders to the table to ask the questions they like of the government on what they are doing in terms of reform across the sector, and what implications that has for aged-care facilities, for their residents, for their workers and for their families. We strongly encourage anyone to participate in this inquiry process, to make sure their views are heard and to make sure the government listens to their views. This is the opportunity, during the Senate inquiry, to do that. We look forward to having an open conversation with older Australians and the aged-care sector through that Senate inquiry process about the government's proposed reforms, and we welcome Australians putting their views forward and asking the government many questions about the future of aged care in this country. 12:10 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Today I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Bill 2024, a bill that, while no silver bullet, marks a step towards rebuilding the structure, reputation and sustainability of Australia's aged-care system. I congratulate the government for bring this bill forward, and I commend the coalition for their constructive engagement in the process and helping to build a robust piece of legislation. I was recently invited to visit an aged-care facility in my electorate to mark the awarding of an Order of Australia to a resident, Kalman Bloch. Please indulge me for a moment while I commend Kalman and his family for the contribution he's made in my community over many years. He's been a Lions member for the last 50 years, and that was why he was recommended and awarded the Order of Australia. His commitment to his community, to volunteering and to helping people in times of need was remarkable, and it was wonderful to celebrate that with his daughter, grandchildren and great-grandchild as well. It was a very special event, and it was at an aged-care facility. During that visit I spent about an hour or so with residents and staff, and I was struck by the genuine decency, humanity and connection shared between staff and residents. I witnessed genuine compassion and care, and that is what all of us seek and want for our families. We all fear ageing, and gradually losing our faculties and the independence we take for granted for so much of our lives. We also fear becoming dependent, whether on a spouse, friends, carers or our children. A well-functioning aged-care sector is a critical part of our social security safety net and provides assurances that the worst of ageing can be managed with dignity, respect and compassion. But I fear in recent years we have lost faith in that safety net. The need for reform has never been clearer. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety painted a harrowing picture of the failings of our current system. It showed us that too many older Australians have suffered not just from poor service but from neglect and, in some cases, even abuse. The stories that emerged from the royal commission were heartbreaking. We heard of elderly residents left in soiled clothing, of people going days without adequate food. It revealed the human cost of allowing the system to drift away from a model of care concentrated on the rights of individuals, their wishes and their autonomy. COVID-19 further exposed the fragility of this sector to external shocks. It showed us the system was stretched to capacity and unable to adapt to a crisis, leaving both residents and aged-care workers at significant health risk. When I speak to care providers in my electorate, they talk about the challenges they have to deliver the growing need not only in my community but also in communities around the country; the challenges in building more facilities and providing more beds; and the challenges of getting the right staff in to support this incredibly important work. As a daughter who has recently lost two parents, one of whom was desperately afraid of going into aged-care facilities, that fear that many of our community have—that they will not have the facilities in place and will have to move to other parts of the country where they do not have the same connections to friends and families that they have in their local environment—is a real concern. Speaking briefly on Wentworth, one thing that startled me the most is that the aged-care provider, who is a provider of many aged-care facilities around the country, said they have as much of a problem getting aged-care workers in Wentworth as they do in some rural electorates because of the enormous cost of living and cost of housing in communities like mine. So there are some really significant challenges in the sector. However, we need to be honest: the sector has been failing. It has failed residents, it has failed its staff and it has failed its community. But, when I go into aged-care homes and when I talk to other aged-care providers, I think that there's a really important reminder that the majority of the sector is deeply committed to the preservation of dignity and quality of life for elderly Australians. The system has been broken but it is not beyond repair, and I think this bill goes some distance towards doing that. As I said, I commend the government for working closely with stakeholders and with members across the parliament to produce a bill that has received broad support from the sector and from aged-care community representatives. There are still some areas to strength, and a significant part of this bill is actually in regulation, but stakeholders that I have spoken to have acknowledged the improvements to this bill since the exposure draft. It is clear that the government and others have been listening to the voices of those most affected by these issues—older Australians, their families and workers. Once again, I commend the opposition, the coalition, for their engagement, and I know that my community does appreciate the changes that were made based on the opposition's feedback. This bill represents a substantial overhaul in the way that aged care is provided in Australia, explicitly legislating a rights based model that acknowledges every Australian's right to age with dignity. It also introduces revised funding arrangements that acknowledge the roles of both home care and residential care in addressing both capacity constraints as well as the wishes and needs of elderly Australians. This new rights based framework is grounded in the principle that older Australians should be able to access quality, safe and timely care and was a key recommendation of the royal commission. However, as a number of organisations have pointed out, these rights are not enforceable under the act and will rely on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and complaints commissioner to ensure that these rights are upheld. The Aged Care Bill provides civil penalties for infringements on registered provider obligations, and I think this is a really important part of the bill. I know that there is some concern that these don't go far enough but I also recognise that we need to find the right balance here to make sure we are not only working constructively with our aged-care providers to ensure that bad actors always face the full force of the law but also that we recognise there are many people and many in the sector who are working constructively and genuinely to improve quality of care and look after their residents in an effective way. We need to strike the right balance. The funding arrangements proposed in this legislation appear to be sensible adjustments to the current user-pays system, although I note that the community eagerly awaits the release of rules that will actually determine the individual fees that will be charged. The bill maintains a means-tested co-contribution system based on a service's need with different funding arrangements, subject to whether a required service is considered clinical care, independent support or everyday living. This co-contribution model has caused some concern that the service quality of aged care will become dependent on ability to pay, and, while the government has noted incentives for providers to provide ratios of supported residents, this is not mandated and is an area we do need to closely monitor. There are provisions that allow for more a sustainable sector, such as allowing services to retain up to two per cent of the refundable accommodation deposits, which the sector has been requesting for some time. This will have an enormous impact on the ability of services in my community to expand, grow and invest. I want to briefly note why this is important and why the whole legislation is important. Our community is aging. The great joy and the great benefit of this is that Australians have a greater chance of living healthier lives for longer in our country, but we also need to recognise the impact that that has on our tax system and on our ability to fund the services that are most important. Back in the 1970s and eighties, there used to be six younger, working-age Australians for every older Australian over the age of 65. This is now under four, and the expectation is that, in another generation, it will be under three. We do know that the community is aging, so the burden and the cost of actually providing quality services are going to increase. We do need to face how we're going to pay for that and pay for that in a way that shares the burden appropriately across different generations and across different people's ability to pay. I do acknowledge that this bill goes some way to trying to address that in a way that is fair, particularly for those people who are already in the aged-care system and have made their plans, but that is also thinking forward. A key part of the legislation which I'm really happy to see is the emphasis on home care. When I talk to people in Wentworth who have had engagement with the aged-care system, one of the things they talk to me the most about is how difficult it is to get home care in a timely way. When you're assessed for a package and you're on a waiting list, by the time you actually get the package you're often significantly more unwell, as you have not been able to get the services you needed right then to support yourself. This can often precipitate having to go into aged care, which, had you got the right services in your home when you needed them, you potentially wouldn't have needed to do. So I think this emphasis on home care is really important. This bill will introduce greater flexibility, allowing older Australians to receive early interventions and a high level of support, including services like meal preparation, cleaning and personal care, with an easier transition between different levels of care when needed. I also commend the government for expanding the end-of-life care pathways to allow more people to access palliative care in their homes. I have experience of this on a personal level, having seen my father go through palliative care. He had the great benefit of having a wonderful palliative care team that he relied on very much at the end of his life. It is really important that we acknowledge the importance of palliative care for individuals and their families at end of life. It also gives people a chance to die at home, an aspiration that many, many people have but that many fewer reach. Apart from the integrated assessment pathways, I still hold some concerns about the wait times to receive some of these home-care supports. When an older person, as I said, is deteriorating, receiving timely care is absolutely essential, and I would ask the government to more explicitly address this issue in their work and in their future legislation. I also would like to acknowledge that a significant amount of the reform will be delivered through delegated legislation. While I understand the need for the bill to pass quickly to implement these much-needed changes by next year, I know that the community eagerly awaits closer scrutiny of the aged-care rules, which include the final quality standards, the code of conduct and how fees will be calculated. Again, this bill is a positive step towards a better model of aged care in Australia, but the market based model means that the success of this legislation hinges critically on the ability of providers to provide adequate services, not to mention addressing the issue I identified earlier, which is the shortage of aged-care workers. In 2021, the Committee for Economic Development in Australia estimated that we would have an aged-care worker shortage of 110,000 by 2030. Bills that legislate rights and standards are promising, but, unless we have a suitable and sustainable workforce, the standard of care and quality of care for aged-care residents are likely to continue to be unmet. I mentioned before how much this issue affects my community in Wentworth, where the chronic shortage of aged-care workers means that aged-care providers can't expand in the way that they would like to in my community, and they are really concerned about their ability to continue to attract great aged-care workers. I am concerned—I'll be honest—that the government isn't doing enough in this area. I want to outline that, while they have brought in a migration policy to attract aged-care workers from overseas, my great concern with that model is that it is tied up with, basically, an agreement between the aged-care workers and the unions, which is the only way that those special fast-tracked visas can be accessed. I have real concerns about that because many of the providers I've spoken to do not have those union links at the moment and would like to be able to work with other groups, such as Fair Work or other government institutions, to be able to access these workers without having to necessarily agree to all of the requirements that the unions impose on them, because in some cases they feel that they are unnecessary or onerous. I am concerned that their migration settings are not yet pulling that way. The other issue I always come back to is that, in this place, we as parliamentarians are very good on imposing obligations on businesses, and in aged care it's absolutely critical, but we should also be constantly thinking about how we make sure that we are rightsizing the burdens that we put on individuals and on care providers. How do we make sure that we can still allow for innovation, growth and productivity in sectors like aged care, because this is an increasing part of our economy? How do we make sure, particularly for our frontline workers, that they're spending time on the care they want to give, rather than on paperwork and bureaucracy? I used to work in a hospital, and I have worked in education. The consistent feedback I got from the nurses, the doctors, teachers and the principals was that they were spending less and less time on the things that mattered to them most, the things that were the reasons they got into the sector in the first place: their desire to provide care and education to people. They were spending more and more time on bureaucracy. I think every government needs to aspire to constantly rightsize this, to constantly come back to say: 'Here's this regulation. It's there for protection, but are there other ways of providing that protection while still giving people flexibility and unburdening the frontline workers so that they can do what they do best, which is to provide care and education to those who need it?' In conclusion, while I believe that this bill represents a good reform and a significant step forward, there is still further to go. We must continue to push for greater investment in the workforce, in particular. We must address long wait times for care and ensure that reforms are implemented in a way that truly benefits older Australians but also allows innovation and productivity growth in the sector. 12:25 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Last sitting week, the Albanese Labor government introduced its new Aged Care Bill 2024 to the parliament. We, as the coalition opposition, think that the bill ought to go to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. As you can see, there are a lot of pages to it. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. It is an improvement, but there is still a long, long way to go. Late last year, I held a roundtable with aged-care providers throughout the Riverina and the central west. They expressed to me their deep concerns about the aged-care sector. They are at the forefront of what is seen by them, by residents and by many in society as a failing system. It's become a whole lot worse under this Labor government. The roundtable that I had originally came about after discussions with John Knight, the chair of Uralba Hostel in Gundagai. Gundagai, like many communities in my electorate, has an ageing population. Indeed, in many places in rural and regional Australia there are ageing populations, and people are desperately worried that when they reach that time of life when they can no longer look after themselves that there won't be a bed, a place, for them in the community in which they've lived for most, if not all, of their lives. It is simply not right, not fair, not equitable and not economical that they just get shipped away hundreds of kilometres, in many cases, from loved ones, family and friends and away from the communities that they love and cherish. They're left to spend their twilight years, which should be their golden years, in communities that are foreign to them. This is of particular concern in rural and regional Australia. I was interested to hear the member for Wentworth express the same view, and she is in the largest city in Australia. If it's an issue in Sydney, then it's certainly going to be an issue in rural and regional Australia. In remote Australia it's going to be even worse. To that end, I was particularly aggrieved by the fact that Labor initially did not intend to have funding for rural and regional Australia committed as part of this act. The coalition secured $300 million in additional capital funding through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers to upgrade facilities. This was in addition to additional care funding, particularly for aged-care homes throughout country Australia. This is important, necessary and vital. Targeted support for rural, regional and remote aged care homes was not included in the government's initial proposal. And— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Do you want to finish your sentence, Member for Riverina? Mr McCORMACK 219646 I'd only said the word 'and', but I'm in your hands, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Okay. The time allotted for the debate has expired, unfortunately, and the debate is interrupted. The member for Riverina will be given the opportunity to continue his remarks at a later date. The debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 102 ADJOURNMENT AUKUS 103 12:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I've long argued that Australia should adopt a more independent foreign and security policy, which is to say not that we shouldn't have allies or be a member of alliances but rather that at all times we should put our national interest first and only team up with other countries if doing so is genuinely in our national interest. To that end, it was arguably not unreasonable for Prime Minister John Howard to invoke ANZUS after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, considering the value for Australia, at the time, of demonstrating our support for the US and bolstering our own security posture. By contrast, it was clearly not in our national interest to stay mired in Afghanistan for decades or to join the United States and the United Kingdom when they invaded Iraq in 2003. Iraq, in particular, was a failure of foreign and security policy of historic proportions, a disaster made all the more appalling by the undeniable fact that the war was based on a litany of lies. Of course, the Howard government would have argued in 2003 that our relationship with the US was so important that Australia had no choice but to go along for the ride, but Canada didn't, and the world didn't open up and swallow it, nor did the US abandon its Five Eyes partner New Zealand when it also refused to join in the invasion. In other words, the Australian government had options in 2003 but chose to put the US's national interest ahead of our own. What, then, is to be made of the recent diplomatic relationship between Australia, India, Japan and the US, known as the Quad, or, more importantly, of AUKUS, the highly controversial security relationship binding Australia, the UK and the US? In my opinion, they're not inherently bad for Australia insofar as they promise international cooperation among like-minded countries, but, of course, this is a somewhat intellectual take on the situation, and the reality of AUKUS is that there is good reason for many people to be alarmed about the consequences of the agreement. For a start, AUKUS is mostly about nuclear submarines, and nuclear submarines are the wrong technology for our needs, not least because they are big, relatively noisy and unsuited to the shallow waters of South-East Asia. Sure, nuclear boats are fast, go deep and enjoy remarkable endurance, but all the pumps, steam, turbines and reduction gears normally involved in nuclear propulsion make a racket compared to a conventional boat. Frankly, it would have made much more sense for the US and the UK to continue to focus on nuclear while Australia continued with niche capabilities like improved conventional submarines and autonomous underwater vehicles. Frankly, that would have been in the best interests of all three countries. Such a future would guarantee that Australia maintains a sovereign underwater war-fighting capability, something that will effectively be denied to us if our submarine fleet, hardware, software and crew are all entangled in the US and UK nuclear submarine architecture. To suggest that the US will sell its Virginia class submarines and not be fussed about when and if we operate them is just a fantasy. Then there's the cost, which, by one estimate, is put at more than a third of a trillion dollars over the next 30 years. This is not just an awful lot of money in its own right; it's also so much money as to gut funding for other capabilities, as the submarines skew capability towards expeditionary coalition operations in far-flung corners of the world. That's assuming, of course, the Royal Australian Navy can find enough crews, which is an heroic assumption seeing as they don't have enough crews for the much smaller Collins class boats in service currently. And all of this has been thrust upon the Australian community with no public consultation and not even a parliamentary debate, despite the enormity of the philosophical shift in the country's position on nuclear energy and all the attendant questions about opportunity cost, safety, waste and so on. This is an appalling failure of governance, made all the worse by the then Labor opposition's obsequious response to the coalition government's shock announcement that Australia is getting a nuclear Navy. That's where I land on this one: more nuanced than many people, especially those not schooled in strategic matters and Defence capability, but, then again, I did enjoy more than two decades in the military and intelligence establishments. Health Care, Mental Health 103 12:35 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Before the introduction of Medicare, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in Australia was unpaid medical bills. One in seven Australians at the time had no medical coverage. That's why Gough Whitlam introduced Medibank, which at the time was strongly opposed and eventually scrapped by the Liberals before being reintroduced as Medicare under Bob Hawke. In the 40 years since, Australians have largely had access to affordable and timely health care. But over the last decade, under the former Liberal government, we saw Medicare come under attack. When the now Leader of the Opposition was the health minister in a Liberal government he froze the bulk-billing incentive for six long years. When we came to government, bulk-billing was in freefall. Since then, we've been working to strengthen Medicare. Our record $3.5 billion investment to triple the bulk-billing incentive has seen bulk-billing rates not only steady but begin to rise. Across the country we're seeing five million more GP visits bulk-billed, and in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales we have seen a 7.7 per cent increase in bulk-billing, with 77.4 per cent of all visits now bulk-billed in Dobell. As a pharmacist, I also know how important affordable medicines are. Labor introduced the PBS, and now we've made medicines more affordable through 60-day prescriptions and by freezing the maximum PBS co-payment. We've also opened two Medicare urgent care clinics on the Central Coast, including the Lake Haven Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which I visited with Minister Butler last week. This clinic has seen more than 10,000 visits since opening in December last year. It provides fully bulk-billed care over extended hours for urgent but not life-threatening conditions, seven days a week. The response to this clinic from my community has been really heartening. Marion from Warnervale said: After experiencing a deep cut on my hand, I sought treatment at the Medicare Urgent Care Clinic at Lake Haven. From reception through to treatment, the care I received was brilliant. I am grateful to have had access to professional and prompt care so close to home. Marion's experience has been reflected by almost 10,000 other locals on the Central Coast. We have seen at the UCCs that one in three visits are made by children under 15 and more than one-quarter are presenting on weekends, showing this is a trusted alternative to the emergency department for local families. And now we're putting mental health at the heart of Medicare. Acknowledging today is World Mental Health Day, we're opening a Kids Hub in Tuggerah which will deliver mental health, emotional and developmental support for young children and their families. We've expanded and enhanced Lake Haven headspace and opened a new headspace in my hometown of Wyong, providing support and care across the four key pillars of headspace. Twenty-year-old Lily detailed her headspace journey, saying: I first visited headspace in 2019 after opening up to my dad about how I'd been feeling. I confessed that I had been feeling depressed, anxious and engaging in unhelpful coping strategies. I was afraid to ask for help and initially felt like I was a failure. However, little did I know that by taking that first scary step, it would completely change my life. Five years later and now not only can I say I'm in a much healthier headspace, but I'm also proud to be a member of the headspace Wyong Youth Reference Group. And yesterday we marked national headspace day. The two local headspace services in my community are supporting hundreds of local young people like Lily on the northern end of the Central Coast of New South Wales. Now, in adult mental health, our new Tuggerah Medicare mental health centre is offering free walk-in mental health support and care from a multidisciplinary team with wraparound supports, including a social worker, a psychologist and a peer support worker. Nationally we're opening 61 Medicare mental health centres across the country, bringing mental health into the heart of Medicare and providing free walk-in support and care closer to home for people when they need it most. And we recently opened a new veteran and family hub in Wyong, which offers connection and support to more than 8,000 veterans on the Central Coast and their families. From physical health to mental health, we're strengthening Medicare to deliver better and more affordable health care for everyone on the Central Coast and across the country. Labor is the party that created Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We have always fought for Medicare and universal health care, despite attempts from the other side to try to dismantle it, and we always will. Menzies Electorate: Neighbourhood Watch, Menzies Electorate: St Bishoy and St Shenouda's Coptic Orthodox Church 104 12:40 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I rise to talk about an institution in my electorate that is dearly valued—our Neighbourhood Watch. Recently I have been doorknocking in my electorate, and the top three issues are cost of living, housing and crime. We have seen an uptick in crime in my neighbourhoods, particularly aggravated burglaries. Aggravated burglaries are not just another property crime; they're a crime where a person is at home and where the sanctity and safety of a family is threatened. I have seen CCTV footage of people violently breaking through front doors to steal car keys and other valuables. When I met with Neighbourhood Watch, I thanked them for the work they do in keeping our community safe. I met with Geoff Kloot, Angie Lew, Ian Morris and Herman Harberts. They wanted me to stress that it's all the volunteers in Neighbourhood Watch that make a difference. In fact, it is one of the largest neighbourhood watches in Australia. Recently they have been giving up their own time to help our community and inform them. They have been doing letterboxing in Templestowe, delivering crime prevention pamphlets. They have been running a campaign to prevent motor vehicle theft and a campaign to prevent burglaries. They spoke to me about a campaign they ran at the Park and Ride, where people's number plates were getting stolen so the car could be used for another crime. There's a particular screw you can get from Bunnings that, if you put it in, is almost impossible to pull out—and it's a very cheap one, so to those watching: please do the same with your number plates. Thank you, Neighbourhood Watch, for all you do and for giving up your time. It is greatly appreciated by me and our entire community. I have many churches in my electorate, and I single out one that I attended recently for a key event: St Bishoy and St Shenouda's Coptic Orthodox Church, in Bulleen and Donvale. The history of the Coptic Orthodox Church is an old one. It was founded in Egypt by St Mark in 43 AD and is one of the world's oldest Christian churches. Coptic is derived from the Greek word for Egyptian; it is an Egyptian church. This particular parish moved from Springvale to Bulleen in 1981, and, like many churches, it was the generosity and foresight of people who wanted something that lasted long beyond themselves, something for their children, their grandchildren and beyond—and that is a great credit to them. The congregation is over 300, and it runs youth services and discipleship programs; that is very important. The event I attended wasn't a religious event; it was a community event, the Bulleen Festival. It was hosted by the church on Saturday 21 September. There were many stalls that included Mediterranean barbecue, face painting, Egyptian sweets, an animal farm and many other things. More than anything, it was a celebration of Egyptian and Coptic Orthodox culture. I single out the leaders of the church: Father Mina Isaac; Father Jonathan Alexander Awad; Father Salib; and the Board of Deacons, which includes treasurer George Saleh, secretary Ereni El-Aschkar—Ereni kindly hosted me for the event—Abanoub Saleeb, Amgad Girgis, Eng Attalla, George Samuel and Bassem Yacoub. When I was at the event, we spoke about the Orthodox calendar and how Christmas Eve is one of the most special services that they run. I was invited to come and join them on Christmas Eve, and I want to let them know that I will be there. I want to thank them. They are a very special church, full of generous and wonderful people who contribute to our community. I say to them: I'm so honoured to be your representative in this place, and I look forward to joining you at many more events. Hindu Community 105 12:45 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Last night, we celebrated the 20th Diwali here in Parliament House, and, in the last two decades, the whole of Australia has fallen in love with Diwali. From Darwin to Hobart, people right across Australia celebrate Diwali as one of the most joyous events of the year. The reason for that is that, behind all the colour, movement, lights, food and celebration, Diwali is a recognition of fundamental values—the values of positivity, of unity, of generosity, of success and of coming together as a community. These are the values that have made people who practice the Hindu faith, across Australia and across the world, so successful. They are what has made the Indian diaspora in Australia such an incredibly important part of the Australian community. Today is a good opportunity to recognise the importance of Diwali in the Australian annual calendar. In fact, I like the suggestion of the Hindu Council to call this month 'Hindu Heritage Month' in recognition of everything that happens in this month across the Hindu calendar, from Navratri to Dashain to Karwa Chauth to Diwali to Lakshmi Puja to Chhath Puja to Durga Puja. All of these celebrations in October give us an opportunity to recognise this month as 'Hindu Heritage Month'. I want to thank the Hindu Council for everything they've done to promote the values of Diwali right across Australia—in particular Sai Paravastu, who's here today in the chamber, as well as Surinder, Rakesh, Marali, Shanti and Neelima. I appreciate everything you have done on behalf of the Hindu community to make the Hindu community one of the most successful waves of migration in Australia's history and a community that delivers so much to the Australian community across sport, business, culture, media, health and far beyond. There's much that we can do in Australia to support the Hindu community and recognise everything that it contributes to the broader Australian community. Not only can we recognise Diwali and Hindu heritage month but we can also support Hindu education right across Australia and make sure that Australia is a nation free of Hinduphobia, where everybody, no matter who they are and where they come from, can practice their faith in peace and harmony. Hindu heritage month is an occasion for us to reflect on the values that the Hindu community have brought to Australia and the contribution they've made to our nation, and it should be embraced by all Australians. O'Connor Electorate 105 12:48 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to thank Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price for taking the time recently to visit the remote Northern Goldfields region of O'Connor, where the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians received a warm Goldfields welcome, despite the unseasonably cool weather. Together with Rowena Olsen, the Liberal candidate for Kalgoorlie; Neil Thomson MLC; and Senator Matt O'Sullivan, our strong Goldfields Liberal team was pleased to engage with community members and discuss their specific issues. I give a big thankyou to the Shire of Laverton for hosting a cuppa at the Great Beyond Visitor Centre, which marks the start of the Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut. The sealing of this iconic trans-Australian highway has been a labour of love for shire president Pat Hill. Over 27 years, he and the Outback Highway Development Council have worked relentlessly to secure over $1.2 billion in federal, state and territory funding to seal the 2,700 kilometres of road that links Laverton to Winton and that goes through Deputy Speaker Scrymgour's electorate of Lingiari via Australia's Red Centre and Senator Nampijinpa Price's home town of Alice Springs. In Laverton, I was proud to introduce the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians to a remarkable Indigenous training project, the Laverton Training Centre, a novel program run by former NORFORCE major Mac Jensen. Mac's boot-camp style of training has really caught on, and every time I take visitors like Peter Dutton, Julian Leeser and, now, Senator Nampijinpa Price there, they cannot fail to be impressed by the enthusiasm and achievements of his trainees. These trainees have mostly come from extremely remote communities with limited education and training opportunities, and they thrive under Mac's direction. Since 2022, almost 200 trainees have completed nationally accredited certifications, which have led to local job opportunities in more than five extremely remote shires, with plans to expand and replicate this successful training model. Unfortunately, despite a multitude of attempts to secure federal funding, the future of this program remains uncertain. The barren site of the proposed Laverton Hospital tells a long and sorry story. In 2015, the WA Liberal-National government allocated $19.5 million to redevelop the 1973-built Laverton Hospital. However, when the McGowan government came to power, in 2017, they decided to redirect this funding to projects like the Mandurah foreshore redevelopment and the construction of a high-rise train station car park. After a public outcry, Laverton managed to claw back $4 million from the state government, and in March 2019 I secured a $16.8 million commitment from the federal coalition government to enable this much-needed project to proceed. So here we are, approaching the end of 2024, and the WA government has still not turned one sod on the Laverton Hospital site. It's an absolutely travesty that Roger Cook redirected money away from this project when he was WA health minister and now continues to drag his heels on the build as the Premier. In Leonora, the Goldfields Liberals team and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price caught up with councillors and community members of the shires of Leonora, Menzies and Wiluna for a cuppa and a chat. Hot topics raised with the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians included local native title issues, the effects of the withdrawal of the cashless debit card, the need for more Indigenous youth diversion activities, like Rene Reddingius's basketball program, and the creation of a safe space for families fleeing domestic and family violence. It was my absolute pleasure to introduce Senator Nampijinpa Price to some of my favourite Leonora leaders, including: Geraldine Hogarth, who received an AO for her work in child health and language preservation; elder and dear friend Nana Gaye Harris; and local councillors Fifi Harris, Larnie Petersen and Naomi Sprigg dos Santos, who are taking a strong stand against domestic and family violence and creating a safe house for Indigenous families where they can not only take refuge but be supported in normalising their lives. I have long supported this project and believe it could be a pilot for a new model for helping families recovering from trauma, re-engaging them in normal family behaviours, education and training, and restoring social connections. I was thrilled to secure funding for this project as an election commitment from the then coalition government, but, sadly, the Albanese government, despite my ongoing representations, has failed to recognise its importance to the Leonora community. In closing, I extend my thanks to Senator Nampijinpa Price for taking the time to travel the vast distance required to see firsthand the issues in my more remote O'Connor communities. I thank my strong Goldfields Liberals team Rowena Olsen—candidate for Kalgoorlie—Neil Thomson MLC and Senator Matt O'Sullivan, who join me in challenging the current Labor government at both the state and federal level, urging them to do better and deliver for our Goldfields communities. Victoria: Floods, Tertiary Education 106 12:53 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to acknowledge that this weekend will be a tough weekend for many in my electorate as it is the two-year anniversary since our region was devastated by the October floods in 2022. The communities of Campbells Creek, Castlemaine, Huntly and Heathcote still remember the speed, the volume and the fierceness of the water that flooded into their homes and into their streets. Unfortunately, two years on, some people in these areas are still not back in their homes. Long disputes with insurance companies, problems with planning and the debate about whether to invest your own money to build up higher and build up better are still unresolved. The Rochester community will come into the Bendigo electorate after the next election, so I took the opportunity during the Elmore Field Days to visit and meet the people of Rochester. They too were devastated by flood on 13 October 2022. All of the town was impacted. Over a thousand homes had water over the floorboards and every home had some flood damage. We all remember the scenes from Rochester. For those who do not live in Victoria, it is very odd for Victoria to flood this way. It is a demonstration of how climate change is impacting our weather patterns and the volume of water we are receiving now and these heavy downpours are not something that our systems can cope with. It is why I'm proud the federal government is working with local government to get proper planning in place to work with these communities so we can mitigate future flood events that may occur because of the impact of climate change. I am also very concerned to share with the House that in September La Trobe University, which has a campus in my electorate, has announced its decision to close its community planning and development program. This is where many of our local planners come from. It is the eighth university in eight years to stop delivering planning courses and programs, something we should be alarmed about when we're talking about reform to higher education. Right now, in our country, there is a critical shortage of planners in urban and regional areas alike. Our own government's data says 33 per cent of local governments have no planners currently working for them at all. This includes many regional towns. In my own electorate of Bendigo, the City of Greater Bendigo has a constant ad up recruiting local planners. I raise this because without planners we do not have homes; without planners, we do not have roads. Planners are essential not just to this government's commitment but to every government's commitment to solving our nation's housing crisis, to building the infrastructure required to get to net zero and to allow for the growth needed for a Future Made in Australia. Planning for growth is a growing profession yet our universities are walking away from training the planners required. Jobs and Skills Australia has forecast an almost 20 per cent increase in demand from 2021 to 2026 on current numbers before the fact we deal with they have nowhere to train. These secure well-paid jobs are crucial. These are jobs in local government and state government, with organisations to help get the planning done appropriately, so why are universities—including in my own electorate—cutting and closing down planning courses? What is our university sector up to? Why is it not focused on the skills we need? It is the latest demonstration of how our university sector needs to do better, needs to stop working in silos and start working with Jobs and Skills Australia, with industry and with governments to make sure we get the courses, offer them to students and encourage them to consider a career in areas like planning. This should be the focus. The universities should be focused on encouraging Australians to enrol in courses like planning. It is not a problem that we will experience just in Bendigo but throughout the country. Higher education is an opportunity. It is an opportunity we want to see afforded to all Australians if they choose to pursue it, but we need to make sure the courses are relevant to the careers that we have available in this country. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:59