2024-11-05 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 5 November 2024

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024, Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024, Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 1

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024; and (2) Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024, Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 1 Report 1 12:01 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 7 of 2024, Department of Defence—Explosive Ordnance Facilities Northern NSW Redevelopment project and other works. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—This report considers two proposals referred to the committee from the Department of Defence. Both are for public works at the Defence Establishment Orchard Hills in Western Sydney. In total, these works have a combined value of $614 million. In the first proposal, Defence are seeking to spend $360 million to provide new and upgraded infrastructure to manage, store and maintain munitions and for related workforce training. This will include new and upgraded water, electrical, ICT and wastewater infrastructure; administration and working accommodation; facilities for the training school; living-in accommodation; a small gymnasium; and a multiuse sports court. The committee did not identify any concerns with the proposal; however, the committee recommended that the budget be increased to allow additional living-in accommodation to be built. The second proposal would allow Defence to build additional storage facilities for guided weapons and explosive ordnance. The storage facilities and associated infrastructure upgrades are budgeted at $240 million. The committee notes that there are some concerns from the community about safety and bushfire hazards. Overall, the committee was very satisfied by the risk management protocols that Defence has in place. However, the committee urges Defence to maintain a high standard of community consultation about these works and all upcoming activities related to guided weapons and explosive ordnance. The committee also encourages Defence to think long term about the practicality of this location and the impact of increasing urban development in south-western Sydney. The committee noted that Defence would build additional earth covered buildings if there were savings made but, otherwise, does not have the budget in the current project. Considering the efficiency of doing these works together, the committee recommends that the budget be increased so that additional earth covered buildings can be constructed at the same time as the rest of the project. The committee would like to extend its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of these inquiries. For both projects, the committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works be carried out. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 2 BILLS Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 2

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2 12:04 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise today to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024. The primary purpose of the bill is to amend the Australian Education Act 2013 to enable the Commonwealth's share of funding for government schools to be increased. The government says this is all about delivering its election commitment to 'put every school on a path to its full and fair funding' under its so-called Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, formerly known as the National School Reform Agreement. The Albanese Labor government is very enthusiastic about applying slogans to the names of agreements and bills like this one. It is not so good, however, at delivering on its commitments. After 2½ years there is still no national school funding agreement, and time is running out. The Commonwealth has reached bilateral agreements with the Tasmanian and Western Australian governments to lift its contribution to government schools from 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard to 22.5 per cent. The government schools in the Northern Territory's Commonwealth share would be a much more significant 40 per cent from 2029, recognising the dire challenges facing Territory schools, particularly in remote communities. But there is no funding deal with the other states—New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia—or the ACT. There are no national school reforms as the member for Blaxland had promised to ensure that every child reaches his or her best potential. What we have instead is a full-blown school funding bill. It can only be described as a fiasco. There is nothing better or fairer about leaving more than 5,500 government schools across the nation, 83 per cent of government schools, in limbo. With one in three students failing NAPLAN, there is nothing better or fairer about failing to deliver the national school reforms which are critical to ensuring every child can reach his or her best potential. It is of deep concern that the member for Blaxland was not able to conclude by his self-imposed deadline of 30 September, now very rapidly receding in the review mirror, a funding and reform agreement with the state and territory Labor education ministers. Instead, on 21 August this year, the state and territory Labor education ministers came to Canberra to protest against the Albanese government, with the Victorian Labor education minister, Ben Carroll, even declaring on ABC radio that morning that the Liberals did a better job funding public schools when in power than the current government. You couldn't find a more objective witness. He spoke the truth. Over nine years, the former coalition government nearly doubled annual school funding from $13 billion in 2013 to $25.3 billion in 2022. Our quality schools package drove record funding of $318.9 billion to all schools between 2018 and 2019. We also strengthened the curriculum with strong evidence based content, including teaching phonics and the science of reading, and improved teacher training. We backed our high-achieving teachers and delivered best-practice literacy and numeracy programs designed to close the gap. Under the Gonski funding model, it is important to reiterate that, while the Commonwealth is currently meeting its agreed 20 per cent schooling resource standard share, it is the states and the Northern Territory which have fallen short to varying degrees. Queensland's contribution as a percentage of the schooling resource standard to government schools is just 69 per cent, well below the 80 per cent requirement, and Victoria is not much better at 70 per cent. Northern Territory is just 59 per cent. So it was always misleading for the Albanese government to claim that it would 'fully fund' government schools when the Commonwealth was fully meeting its agreed obligations. The current National School Reform Agreement, extended by a year, is due to expire on 31 December 2024. While the government is proposing in its draft heads of agreement a number of important reforms, including evidence based teaching interventions, screening tests, such as the year 1 phonics and numeracy check, and improved student attendance and performance targets, the reforms are both light on detail and inadequate. Evidence based teaching methods, such as explicit instruction, must be mandated in every classroom. This is now starting to happen in some states, but it needs to happen across the country. The draft agreement contains plenty of motherhood statements but says nothing about the need to further improve the national curriculum or deliver crucial reforms to combat classroom disruption, such as a national behaviour curriculum, particularly as Australia has some of the unruliest classrooms in the world. This bill permits but does not require the Commonwealth to increase its share of government school funding beyond 20 per cent, with the exception of the Northern Territory, which would receive a 40 per cent share from 2029. These provisions grant the Commonwealth new flexibility in funding arrangements with states and territories, principally because of the member for Blaxland's threats that government schools in the four biggest states will miss out on any increase if they don't sign up to a 22.5 per cent share from the Commonwealth and agree to contribute 77.5 per cent. This is no reflection on the newly elected Crisafulli government in Queensland, of course, which is still getting its feet under the table after an overwhelming vote of no confidence in Queensland Labor. For students, teachers, principals and parents, this funding fiasco must be resolved. In many respects, this situation is not surprising. Whether it's school funding, evidence based teaching reforms, the gross mismanagement of international students or Labor's economically reckless and profoundly unfair HECS debt policy, much is going wrong in the education portfolio. Let's not forget those on the front line—our hardworking teachers, principals and other educators. Without better training from our universities, evidence based teaching materials, such as lesson plans, and ongoing professional development, teachers cannot excel if they do not receive the support they deserve. That's why it's so important to deliver a back-to-basics education sharply focused on literacy and numeracy, underpinned by explicit teaching and a knowledge-rich commonsense curriculum. This is critical to turning around declining school standards. This is critical to the next generation of Australians. The coalition supports this bill. We do note that there is a Senate inquiry into the bill which will report on 18 November, hence providing all stakeholders with an important opportunity to raise any concerns. We urge the government to get on with the critical job of finalising school funding and reform agreements with every state and territory. Debate adjourned. Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 3

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 3 12:14 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer The Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 seeks to change three aspects of the current Aged Care Act 1997 to achieve three key outcomes to allow for the Department of Health and Aged Care to conduct residential care data assurance reviews, allow for the variation or revocation of income and asset determinations and clarify the maximum accommodation payment arrangements that may apply for voluntary moves within a residential aged-care facility. It's interesting that this government, having known about the constitutional issues addressed in this bill since the ANAO delivered their report in January 2023, has decided to introduce this bill in the final stages of this parliamentary year. It leads to the question of what, again, the government is trying to hide. We are concerned that the government's current aged-care strategy appears to be focused on increasing red and green tape for providers, leading to greater complexity and burdensome compliance. Far too often we hear that these requirements can hinder effective service delivery which is providing quality care to older Australians. This bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, grants the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care the authority to conduct residential care data assurance reviews. These reviews are designed to improve the completeness, accuracy and reliability of residential care data, which can further increase the power of the department and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission in their oversight roles. By implementing these assurance reviews, this legislation aims to mitigate risks associated with data breaches and to support voluntary room transitions within residential aged-care services. However, this raises questions about the implications for smaller and regional providers, who often operate under constraints and may not have the same resources as large organisations. We know that it is the smaller rural, regional and remote aged-care providers who are most impacted by this government. We've seen this already with the government's stringent care minute requirements in the midst of a serious workforce crisis. Although we acknowledge some provisions that this government has recently made for rural, regional and remote Australians, including the provision for 10 per cent of care minutes to be delivered by enrolled nurses and the $300 million aged-care capital assistance round, which we forced the government to deliver during aged-care negotiations, it is still clear that this government makes city-centric policies. As the coalition, we will always stand up for older Australians living in the bush to ensure that they're not forced to move thousands of kilometres away, leaving their loved ones behind, because of this government's rigid regulations. Sadly this is the reality for many older Australians under this government, as we heard over the past month during the Aged Care Bill Senate inquiry. People in the bush are being forced away from home as more and more aged-care homes are forced to close. We don't want to see this continue to happen. That's why we need flexibility in legislation to ensure it's appropriate for aged care right across Australia, not just for those in the inner-city suburbs. But we do know that transparency in data collection and reporting is critical. Reliable data ensures that older Australians can make informed choices about their care options. Reliable data also enhances the integrity of residential care subsidy payments and allows for effective evaluation of how additional funding, provided in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, impacts service delivery. Additionally, the bill proposes stronger foundations for income and asset determinations, which will be administered by Services Australia for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This move further centralises authority and processes, potentially complicating operations for providers who must navigate these changes. Ensuring that care recipients can easily update their financial information and that calculations for aged-care fees are accurate is crucial. The processes must remain flexible to the unique circumstances of different providers. This legislation needs a clear communications campaign, which, again, this government has failed to deliver so far. The government must ensure changes are not stressful for the community and are easily understood by the residents within aged care. It is important we always bring our older Australians into the conversation about any changes to their journey of aging. Given the diverse landscape of the aged-care sector, it's vital that policy decisions reflect the realities faced by all types of providers, particularly those in regional areas that may experience unique challenges. In response to the escalating administrative demands, the coalition will propose an amendment focused on reviewing existing red and green tape. We will move an amendment which aims to ensure that the reporting burdens imposed on providers do not outweigh the necessary information being collected, thereby promoting a more balanced approach to regulation. It is essential that the data collected reflect the diversity of care models and practices across different providers. In summary, while the intention behind the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill may be to improve data integrity and oversight, the implications of increased regulation and centralised power must be carefully considered. There is a pressing need for a regulatory framework that recognises and supports the unique operations of small, individual and regional providers, ensuring they can thrive while maintaining high standards of care. We will be carefully scrutinising this bill to ensure that it does not have any further unintended consequences on an already reform-fatigued sector. Ultimately, the coalition supports a strong aged-care system now and into the future. I now move the amendments circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House notes the Government must ensure that: (1) the reporting burden imposed on providers does not outweigh the necessary information being collected; and (2) all aged care providers are focused on delivering high quality care for our older Australians" Debate adjourned. Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 4

Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 4 12:21 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I rise to speak on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 on behalf of the opposition. In opening, I want to state that the coalition wants to see a more affordable, reliable and competitive aviation sector for all Australians who rely on our aviation sector, the travelling public, small businesses and exporters. The aviation sector plays an integral role in connecting families with loved ones, moving for work, education and health care, and movement of freight. The coalition is the only party consistently standing up for Australian travellers, who have long suffered from high prices, delays and cancellations under the Albanese government. We sought to examine the reasons why the government blocked Qatar Airways from adding additional international services last year at a time of high demand and high prices, noting aviation experts believed the additional flights would have lowered prices on international fares by up to 30 per cent. We prosecuted the government in the Senate over the ministerial decision on behalf of Australians travelling who rightfully questioned why the government was not in favour of lower airfares, particularly after it was revealed the department recommended the minister approve a negotiating mandate for the requested additional flights.  The coalition has also shone a light on high rates of flight cancellation and delays during the post-COVID period, which has undermined public confidence in the reliability of the aviation sector. Under this government, the cost of airfares has increased by 53.1 per cent, according to the department. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 is a response to work commenced under the former coalition government to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of Sydney Airport. The bill's provisions, while moderate, still represent the most significant proposed changes to Sydney Airport's demand management system in 30 years. The bill, therefore, deserves a considered review by parliament. Sydney Airport is Australia's premier aviation gateway. The airport's operations are undertaken within restrictions of a curfew between 11 pm and 6 am, as well as a cap on aircraft movements of no greater than 1,360 movements per day, represented by a cap of 80 movements per hour. The demand management scheme provides for an ordered system of allocating access to Sydney Airport by airlines commonly referred to as 'airline slots'. Slots are granted to airlines and govern the timing of allocated flights. For some years, there have been concerns airlines may be using the slot system to restrict access to and competition at Sydney Airport. There have also long been productivity concerns at Sydney airport, including the flow-on impact on the entire national aviation network of storms and severe weather events that result in the temporary closure of Sydney airport airspace, the grounding and cancellation of flights, and the diversion of flights already en route to Sydney to other locations, including Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane. The former coalition government commissioned former Productivity Commission chairman Peter Harris AO to undertake a review of the Sydney airport demand management system, commonly known as the Harris review. The report of the review was presented to the government in February 2021 and made 17 recommendations to enhance airport operations by amending the demand management scheme. The coalition established a task group of Sydney airport stakeholders to develop practical recommendations to give effect to the Harris review recommendations. This work was undertaken despite the significant impacts on our aviation industry of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Albanese government inherited this work upon its election in May 2022. Over the past two years, the coalition has been encouraging the government to act on this important body of work. It has been argued that these reforms did not need to wait for the Albanese government to go through its aviation green and white paper process before making a decision on the future management of flights and airline slots at Sydney airport. The bill is the Albanese government's attempt to provide a basic response to the Harris report, which has sat on Minister King's desk for more than two years. In February this year the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government issued a media statement promising to address the findings of the Harris review of the Sydney airport demand management scheme, but there were no specifics. Since then we have seen not one but two airlines enter administration. Both airlines delivered regional services, and their very presence lowered prices. Regional travellers now face higher airfares and fewer services as a result. We know from the government's own Treasury modelling that the more carriers that service a route the lower the airfares. Until it entered administration, Regional Express, or Rex, provided additional competition on intercity routes. The government's own data shows that economy airfares have increased by 16.3 per cent in the three months since Rex exited capital city routes. Best discount airfares have increased by 21.9 per cent over the same period. This is data from the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics within the minister's own department. The coalition welcomes the government finally presenting legislation to the parliament, but we have some concerns which we want to examine via the Senate committee inquiry process. It's concerning that the government has waited so late in the parliamentary calendar to bring this measure forward and that the government has sought to limit scrutiny on the bill. As stated, the bill is modest in its aspirations but is underpinned by regulations. The regulations have not yet been drafted and, therefore, the government's full legislative intent is unable to be determined. It would be hoped that the government could provide greater clarity regarding the content of the proposed regulations. The bill seeks to introduce a new recovery framework which is intended to limit the delays, cancellations and redirection of flights that occur during significant weather events in the Sydney airport airspace. Under the framework, there would be capacity to operate an additional five flights above the hourly cap for a limited two-hour recovery period following a declared significant event. The bill also seeks to improve the governance of the Slot Compliance Committee and harmonise the rules underpinning the demand management scheme with the internationally recognised World Airport Slot Guidelines. It provides the minister with the ability to determine the demand management scheme and provide directions to the slot manager. While the detail will be covered in the proposed regulations, it's critical that the improvements to the Sydney airport demand management scheme are effective at addressing longstanding concerns about slot allocation and compliance at Sydney airport to ensure that good performance by airlines is rewarded, that anticompetitive behaviour is prevented and that new entrants are able to get access on fair terms to provide the competition that Australian travellers and businesses deserve and desire. It's also claimed by the government that the regulations will improve access to Sydney airport by regional services. It's noted that the government has not consulted the community on the provisions in this bill nor on the regulations, which have not yet been drafted. Labor sought to prevent the bill being referred to a Senate committee and, when pushed to, restricted the time available to conduct the inquiry. The outcome of this obstruction by the government is that only one public hearing will be held and that that will occur in Canberra, not in Sydney where it should have been held. This is disappointing because the introduction of successful reforms should be underpinned by effective community consultation. Sydney airport is a critical hub for our national and international trade and connectivity. We will look to the Senate inquiry to see to what extent the bill addresses the productivity and competition challenges which the recommendations of the Harris review sought to resolve. The Albanese government's failure to respond to the Harris review in a timely manner has meant more Australians have endured increased rates of cancellations and delays, higher airfares and reduced aviation network reliability for longer than they should have. We know Australians want an aviation industry that simply gets the basics right, and for too long it hasn't. They want planes to take off and land on time, they want their bags to actually arrive at the same place and at the same time that they do and they want to actually be able to afford a ticket. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 was enacted amidst the aviation realities of the 20th century and in response to community concerns. However, the scheme has gradually become less fit for purpose in managing the complex ecosystem of modern air transport demands and competition. The management of slots at a major hub like Sydney airport is a critical factor in determining the competitive landscape of the entire Australian aviation industry. The coalition has spoken to a large number of stakeholders about the legislation, and I thank them for providing their feedback to the opposition. Stakeholders consulted included airlines, airports, travel agents and other travel industry representatives. We've also heard the evidence of competition experts through the Commonwealth bilateral air services agreements Senate inquiry last year. The coalition wants to see a more reliable and competitive aviation sector. As stated earlier, the coalition has concerns and issues in relation to the government's bill, which we believe should be raised and examined through the Senate inquiry process. This inquiry process will inform our final position on the government's bill. Debate adjourned. Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 6

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 6 12:32 The SPEAKER 53517 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Coleman 241067 I second the amendment. Debate adjourned. Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 6

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

Second Reading 6 12:33 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This bill implements two recommendations of the royal commission. Recommendation 2.1 is about imposing a statutory duty on agency heads and departmental secretaries, requiring them to assist the Ombudsman with investigations. Our understanding is that, as a matter of general practice, departmental secretaries and agency heads already do this. This bill would, however, implement the royal commission's recommendation by entrenching the obligation in legislation. Recommendation 21.2 is about giving the Ombudsman another power to obtain information in equivalent terms to that of subsection 33(3) of the Auditor-General Act. In practice, this would confer the power to enter premises of Commonwealth agencies and obtain documents and to be entitled to reasonable facilities while doing so. Again, the coalition understands that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is seen as a respected and senior figure in the Public Service and the kinds of information typically sought under this power are generally provided as a matter of practice. As a rule, departments and agencies across the Public Service engage with the Ombudsman in good faith, recognising the importance of the role that he plays. Nevertheless, this bill entrenches the power in law and implements the recommendations of the royal commission. There are three additional points to note. Firstly, the bill implements analogous changes in respect of the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman. The inspector-general exercises functions equivalent to those of the Commonwealth Ombudsman with respect to the taxation system. It is appropriate that their powers also be equivalent. Secondly, the bill makes changes which go beyond the specific recommendations of the royal commission by conferring a power to obtain documents remotely. While this was not a recommendation of the royal commission, it appears, in principle, to be unproblematic. In many cases it would allow the Ombudsman to access information that he or she would be able to access anyway but without the need to attend the premises in person. Thirdly, the bill also extends the duties and powers in the bill to all the statutory offices that are created under the Ombudsman Act. This means that the obligations imposed on public servants and the investigative powers conferred by this bill also apply in relation to the functions exercised by the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, the Postal Industry Ombudsman and the other statutory offices established by the Ombudsman Act. Again, this does not appear, in principle, to be problematic. Nevertheless, the coalition's position is that it is appropriate to scrutinise the legislation through a brief committee process. On too many recent occasions, the coalition has found that legislation which appears to be straightforward and uncontentious has, on closer examination, either contained errors or not operated as intended. A routine scrutiny process will provide stakeholders with the opportunity to identify issues and potential improvements to the relevant parliamentary committee. It is appropriate that stakeholders have that opportunity. It is worth making one additional comment. This legislation continues a trend, which seems particularly prevalent in the Attorney-General's portfolio, of asking the parliament to pass contingent amendments. An example of this type of contingent legislation is found in division 2 of part 4 of schedule 1 to this bill. Those provisions make amendments that are contingent on the passage of the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, or the ISLA Bill for short. The ISLA Bill has not yet passed the parliament. It has not even passed the House of Representatives. It is currently before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. However, the ISLA Bill, if enacted, will introduce an error into the Ombudsman Act. This is because the ISLA Bill, as introduced, did not properly take account of changes to the Ombudsman Act that took effect when the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation passed this parliament, even though the ISLA Bill was introduced some six months after the National Anti-Corruption Commission became law. Rather than putting forward amendments to the ISLA Bill to fix the error directly, the Attorney-General wishes to fix the error through contingent amendments in this completely separate bill. This is not good practice. It is unnecessarily complex. It introduces uncertainty. It has the potential to leave dead letters in our statute book. What is the status of these contingent amendments if the ISLA Bill does not pass in this term of parliament? Presumably, they simply have no effect, and this will serve only to puzzle future generations of government lawyers. More importantly, this approach speaks volumes about the mismanagement of legislation in the Attorney-General's portfolio. Why did legislation introduced in June 2023 in the same portfolio and by the same minister not take account of changes made in December 2022? Why does the Attorney-General not fix errors in a bill by making amendments to that same bill? Why rely on a second bill to fix the first one? Why does the Attorney-General take the passage of both pieces of legislation for granted? The substance of these contingent changes is inconsequential, but the approach is obtuse, high handed and, sadly, all too characteristic of this Attorney-General's approach to legislation. I conclude my remarks on that sobering point. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 7

Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024

Second Reading 7 12:40 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Today I address the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 and move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) the government has failed to recognise competition risks and sector-specific challenges within the supermarket, hardware, and aviation sectors, and failed to make meaningful progress on the Consumer Data Right, and News Media Bargaining Code; (2) the Coalition support strong competition policy and the principle of an aligning our merger laws with international best practice; and (3) the Coalition has concerns about this legislation, namely: (a) the feasibility of scaled pre-approval and the risk for cost blowouts for the ACCC; (b) the impact on business activity, innovation—particularly for SMEs and start ups; (c) the compliance burden being imposed across the economy, compared to targeted and structural ex-post remedies; and (d) the need to balance regulatory action with market confidence". The coalition will not oppose this bill, but we do have grave concerns about the risks of its implementation if poorly handled. Australians and Australian businesses have good reason to doubt this government's ability to implement complex policy. Under Labor the price of almost everything has gone up. The Prime Minister famously promised that life would be cheaper under Labor, but nothing could be further from the truth. After two years of Labor, inflation is still too high. It has been persistent and stubborn. Indeed we are at the back of the pack in bringing it to heel. Interest rates have increased 12 times, and, unlike other countries, we're not seeing reductions. Families' real disposable incomes have collapsed. We have been in a per capita recession for 18 months. For the majority of the time Labor has been in power, they have seen a household recession, with the economy going backwards on a per person basis. As I said a moment ago, we're at the back of the pack in terms of interest rates coming down. We've seen them come down in the United States, Canada, the UK and New Zealand, but here there is no relief in sight. In a very short while, the Reserve Bank will be making another decision, and it will be important to look at what they have to say. At the same time as mortgage payments have increased, families are paying more for their energy bills, paying more at the check-out and paying more for insurance. They're paying more for just about everything. For many families, going to the supermarket for the weekly shop has been a source of enormous stress. Food banks and charities across the nation have seen demand for their services skyrocket. I make a point of visiting food banks and charities when I go to many electorates, and I have seen this time and time again. When families are struggling with the cost of essential items, it's more important than ever that customers can have faith in the businesses that serve them, including of course the supermarkets. In recent weeks we've seen concerning findings from the ACCC in relation to supermarket conduct. It's clear that the announcement of legal action against Coles and Woolworths by the ACCC should be of concern to all Australian consumers. The allegations in this case relate to practices around discounting. If they are true and if indeed there has been misleading and deceptive conduct in discounting practices by the supermarkets, it's a damning indictment of a market sector that Australian families and farmers rely on for their livelihoods. They need that sector to act in good faith. It's not what we expect, and it's not what families expect, yet this government, we believe, has been way too slow to act on competition policy. That's not just true in our supermarket sector. It's across the economy, whether it's the News Media Bargaining Code; the Consumer Data Right and the support for open banking, which can open up financial services to far more competition; or the serious cartel allegations against the CFMEU. Indeed, this is an area where competition can act as a disinfectant, but there's no interest from those opposite. We've been leading the way on the issues since the start of this term and, indeed, since before that. We've seen examples of this in the package of bills introduced by me and the member for Maranoa yesterday and in the acceleration of the passage of the Consumer Data Right legislation, after Labor let it sit in the Senate for two years. Our approach is about getting the balance right, strengthening the food and grocery code and introducing a targeted divestiture penalty to put businesses in this sector on notice that we expect them to act in the interests of their customers. The best regulator of any industry is a customer—a well-informed customer with genuine competition to provide goods and services to them—and that's what we want to see more of. As shadow Treasurer, I approached this bill with a recognition of the need for, as I said, effective competition policy but also with a commitment to practical reform that enhances the strength of our economy without imposing unnecessary burdens. Australia's current voluntary merger clearance system has provided flexibility, encouraging businesses to innovate and grow while the ACCC addresses anticompetitive conduct through established channels. The bill's shift to a mandatory pre-authorisation framework for mergers and acquisitions aligns with the UK and the US, and it marks a significant departure from our tradition, with its voluntary pre-authorisation framework. Whilst we believe this is well intentioned, we do have real concerns about some of the details of the approach and particularly the risks in implementation, not least because we do believe it imposes a whole-of-economy compliance burden on businesses both large and small. The model may address competition issues in concentrated sectors—and we certainly hope it does—but it does risk, if not carefully implemented, becoming an undue burden on sectors where competition is healthy and thriving. The government must consider whether this blanket approach serves the intended purpose or simply entangles our economy in red tape and implementation. This is why I say the implementation and the way it's done by the ACCC and the government will be absolutely crucial. I'll go into a little bit more detail on the bill. It introduces mandatory notification requirements for mergers and acquisitions, with compliance costs estimated by Treasury to reach between $50,000 and $100,000 per transaction, potentially generating up to $50 million in new annual compliance costs. Whilst it is true that good regulation can make a difference, we don't want a system that simply feeds more lawyers, consultants and the rest, without delivering a better outcome for consumers at the same time. These sorts of costs may seem manageable for large corporations, but, for smaller businesses, startups and innovators, they risk being prohibitive and dampening the entrepreneurial drive that powers our economy. We worry that the compliance burden will weigh heaviest on the businesses least equipped to bear it, and that's particularly small to medium-sized enterprises. As I said, they already face a lot of red tape right now in doing business. These companies need the flexibility to thrive, not a policy framework that treats them as if they're the same as market-dominant giants. Imposing these additional costs and regulatory steps on all businesses rather than targeting specific sectors where there are competition concerns risks damaging the very sectors that drive growth and innovation, and the discretion around that will be left to the ACCC, so it's absolutely essential that the ACCC gets that implementation right. The ACCC's expanded role under this bill will require considerable resources, with phase 2 reviews alone estimated to cost upwards of $500,000 per transaction. Keep in mind that phase 1 is a 30-day process which is designed to clear the vast majority of transactions. Phase 2 is the much more detailed reviews, going up to 90 days. They are estimated to cost upwards of $500,000. With this bill the regulator's capacity will be tested further. There's no doubt about that. Implementation, as I say, will be crucial. With the ACCC already experiencing a significant increase in both budget and headcount there are serious questions about whether the case has been properly worked through for further resourcing. Indeed, in the last five years, we have seen the ACCC grow, with an extra 400 staff and over $200 million in increased funding. While, if that's delivering better competition outcomes, we absolutely support it, we can't create a behemoth where every dollar of public spending is crucial in a time like today. Stakeholders suggest that transaction volumes may well exceed the government's projections, potentially resulting in costs well above $100 billion annually. These additional regulatory expenses must be justified. The coalition questions whether this cost-intensive approach is the most effective use of taxpayers' money. While there is great value in a good regulatory and well-targeted regulatory framework, a balance must be struck that avoids placing excessive burdens on the private sector while ensuring the ACCC's focus is effective and resource efficient. The impact of the bill on SMEs and start-ups, as I mentioned earlier, warrants close scrutiny. The compliance costs involved could stifle growth in the very sectors where we need more of it. Start-ups by their very nature rely on timely marketing, flexibility and often rapid strategic changes in a company's direction. Imposing universal pre-authorisation requirements risks inhibiting these businesses which are critical to the future of our competitiveness as an economy and country. The coalition has long championed competition policy that enables innovation and supports small businesses, which are typically much more agile, adaptable and resilient than larger businesses can ever be. In the end, it will be consumers that lose out if the target is wrong. Our competition challenges aren't evenly distributed across the economy. They're particularly concentrated in some sectors. I have talked already about supermarkets, where the two major players have about two-thirds of the market. In hardware, aviation, energy and the digital economy, in each of those sectors, there is very serious market concentration. The ACCC has rightly highlighted that these are the sectors where competition could be strengthened, and we certainly don't want to see it weakened. We believe that, if the ACCC gets the focus right, those sectors are the ones where they should be showing more scepticism towards transactions that might enhance or increase market power or substantially reduce competition. By focusing on those sectors, I think we stand our best chance of getting the balance right. The coalition stands committed to competition reform that enhances growth, delivers real benefits for Australian consumers and businesses and, most important of all, puts the customer in charge. That's what we believe in. The customer is the best regulator in the industry. There is a simple reason for that. Ultimately, the customer knows what they want. They know in a way no central planner or bureaucrat can ever know what they want. But they can only do that if they have competition and if they have choice. If they have those things, they become the regulator that we need most. In doing so, in making choices, they help every other consumer. The wonderful thing about competition and choice is that consumers help each other. When they decide that a product is too expensive, they are sending a signal which others benefit from, and businesses have to respond. It's a wonderful thing that we can see—competition providing that sort of benefit to all Australians. That's why a robust competition framework is essential, but it can't become sludge and red tape. As I say, this will be a challenge for the ACCC. We praise the fact that there will be a review after one year to see it if it is delivering and is being implemented correctly, and it's incredibly important that that review be done well and get the balance right in assessing whether the costs of this framework are in line with the benefits or, hopefully, whether the benefits will be substantially more. We'll continue to examine this closely through the Senate inquiry and Senate estimates processes, and there's an opportunity there to look at whether this can be made to work better and whether the costs are going to be outweighed by the benefits. But we always stand ready to work towards balanced, targeted solutions that will strengthen competition where it is most needed, supporting growth, innovation and, most of all, the prosperity and choices of all Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Coleman 241067 I second the amendment. Debate adjourned. National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 10

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

Second Reading 10 12:56 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan In 2024, access to the internet should be a universal, basic right—access to the technology and infrastructure that enables every person in Australia to work, to study and to stay connected. But, unfortunately, here in Australia we're falling woefully short of that standard. Decades of government cost-cutting, privatisation and corporatisation of our essential services have degraded our internet infrastructure. In Ryan, my electorate, many people are still dealing with the fallout of the botched NBN upgrades, frustrated that they can't watch a movie with their family, work or study from home or play games with their friends, despite paying some of the highest prices in the world for home internet. What's really frustrating is that it didn't have to be like this. The NBN could have been affordable and accessible for everyone, providing gold-standard internet access right across Australia. So how did we get here, in this almighty mess? It started with previous governments' disastrous decisions that led to the privatisation of Telstra in the nineties. This left us without the basic bones to deliver high-speed broadband. It's such a common and sad story—the government selling off yet another essential public asset and good to a for-profit corporation, setting the stage for cost blowouts, delays and the chaotic rollout we've been stuck with ever since. This was compounded by the government's decision to set up the NBN as a public corporation that had to turn a profit early in the rollout. So what we got was higher consumer prices and poorly prioritised rollout strategies. Then, in 2013, the LNP slashed funding and gave us a multitechnology mix, a kind of Frankenstein's monster, a network of copper wires and outdated hybrid fibre coaxial, or HFC, completely inadequate for meeting modern internet demands. Here we are with unreliable, subpar internet in too many homes in Ryan and in so many places throughout Australia. Take The Gap or Mitchelton. Residents there are still stuck with the HFC, dealing with absolutely abysmal speeds. A recent survey I ran in Ryan showed that over 60 per cent of respondents are unhappy with their internet, with nearly 20 per cent saying it's very, very slow. To make matters worse, 40 per cent of respondents aren't even getting the speeds they're paying for, so they're stuck paying high prices for a subpar service in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. We're stuck relying on outdated technology that simply cannot deliver; half of Ryan is reporting unreliable internet with frequent dropouts. Australia is falling behind while other nations are embracing fibre to the premises, the gold standard we should have had right from the start. It's not just speed and reliability; it's the cost. Over 74 per cent of the respondents to my survey said that their internet is just too expensive. That's a huge number of people in my community being ripped off while—to rub salt in those wounds—corporate executives line their pockets. Telstra CEO Vicki Brady made $5.25 million, Optus CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin made over $5 million and former NBN boss Stephen Rue made $3 million—all of this during a cost-of-living crisis while people in Kenmore and The Gap can't even just hold a simple Zoom call without the internet dropping out on them. Internet access is essential infrastructure, just like roads or public transport. It should be affordable and accessible for everyone. That's why we fought to keep the NBN in public hands. It was the Greens who protected the NBN from being sold off. We secured the amendments to keep it public because we know that internet access is far too important to leave in the hands of for-profit corporate giants. The NBN should serve all Australians and not become a cash cow for a select few. The Greens will consider this bill and move for a Senate inquiry to make sure all Australians have access to an affordable and functioning NBN. 13:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm so pleased to be speaking to the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024, a bill that is all about making sure the NBN stays in public hands. We do not want to repeat the mistakes that were made with Telstra, which have led to my community really having to fight for what should be a right—that is, decent quality communications. It's the same with the NBN. I want to take everybody back—a few decades, actually—to the 1990s and Paul Keating's Creative Nation, because Creative Nation turned out to be my awakening to why we need high-speed broadband. I'll tell you why. Creative Nation had one aspect to it which was all about encouraging people to create digital content. The language might have been slightly different—I think we called it multimedia—but it was all about creating things that would be delivered through the internet at a time when the internet was still a very new beast. There were several multimedia enterprise centres, and one of those was in Eveleigh. I had the privilege of working with IT people for the first time. My business partner and I were the media training content, and we worked with artist and designers to create a multimedia program that would be delivered through the internet. It was a long process, and we all learnt a lot. The culmination of it was that my business was named as the creator of the best multimedia education product in the country, and I'm very proud of that. It was the early 2000s by the time we got to this point, and it was not possible to commercialise the product that we'd spent several years creating because there was no way of delivering it to people through the internet. The speeds were not fast enough. We were still dialling up or had just switched across to ADSL. That was the first time as a businessperson that I hit a wall, which was a failure to have invested in high-speed broadband at that point. That was, for me, a real wake-up. I don't profess to be a savvy IT person, but I do know that when my business is constrained by something, I want to see solutions to it. It took some time before a solution was presented, and when Kevin Rudd announced that there would be this national broadband network of high-speed broadband—with video and audio, where you could have interactivity and animations could be accommodated—and he was talking about it benefiting people, I knew exactly the sort of people who would benefit. They were people with businesses like mine with great IP and no method of delivering it effectively through the internet. So I have been a convert to the NBN from those very early days, and I knew very strongly what it was to be able to turn that NBN on. I was lucky enough that, though I had lost an election, my community was one of the early beneficiaries. I remember with the now Prime Minister pushing the button in Windsor to turn on, metaphorically, the NBN in the Hawkesbury, one of the first places that it was rolled out—to parts of the Hawkesbury. So I have followed really closely the rolling out of the NBN. I have despaired at some of the pace of it. When the Liberal government came to power and they turned a 21st century technology into a historic copper lead technology, I was really concerned about the economic and social impacts that would have on people. I was also horrified to hear the Liberal government declare that the NBN was done. The rollout was done. It was completed. It was finished. To hear it declared complete was to hear them signal, 'Our job is done, and there's no need for us to try and continue to improve the NBN that's available for people.' I know that, in spite of a significant number of people having fibre, many people only had it to the curb, or they only had it to a node, or, even worse, they had satellite or wireless. The Liberal government said that it was complete, but it was certainly not my experience in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury that this thing had been finished. And it's not finished yet. There is still more to do. What that decision by those opposite did was really signal their intent that it was ready to sell off—that this essential infrastructure, sometimes the only infrastructure still standing when natural disasters hit, could be sold off to the highest bidder. Let's just think about how essential the National Broadband Network is. If you didn't realise beforehand how essential it was, you certainly realised during COVID. What we all recognised then was that we needed this, whether we were a child studying with a bunch of 10-year-olds, whether we were a teenager or in our early 20s at university or whether we were adults working from home and trying to keep connected with our colleagues. For every demographic—and that includes people like my mum who really rely on access to data, not just, as Prime Minister Turnbull once said, to watch lots of movies. She certainly doesn't have five movies playing in her house at the one time. We were told that the only reason you'd need high-speed broadband is if that were happening. She needs secure, reliable, trustworthy technology that's not going to go out in a storm. For people in the lower Blue Mountains in particular, we faced the issue of having boxes that, when there was a storm, would just self-combust, essentially. Sometimes they literally left little burn trails; other times they just died. It took a long time for the previous government to acknowledge that this was a problem, partly because the lower Blue Mountains community is one of the most storm prone in the country when you look at the geology that explains it, I'm told. To have systems for people to be told, 'That's good enough. That is all you deserve. That'll do you,' my community very clearly said, 'No, it is not good enough.' From there, we've seen the benefits of high-speed broadband for health and telehealth, and those benefits will continue to be experienced as we go forward. As for small business, I think small business now would wonder how it would survive without a decent broadband service. The gold star is obviously fibre to the home. In the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury and even a lot of other parts of Western Sydney, there are still places where we're having to fix up the mess of fibre to the curb and fibre to the node. I recently was up in Blackheath. It has been a really long, slow wait for Blackheath and other areas. Back in 2017, before we were in government, the then shadow minister for communications was up there with me and we heard why they were felt they were being shortchanged by the Liberals fibre-to-the-node rollout, which relied on old copper to do the connection into your home from a box somewhere down your street. But finally there is a rollout happening that is shifting that fibre to the node to fibre to the curb, and I have never been so delighted to see streets being dug up as I was in Blackheath, watching that rollout happen. What I also noticed, having followed the rollout from its very first days around Bligh Park, is the degree of skill that's involved. We've learnt so much and our operators have learnt so much about how to do this neatly, how to do it effectively and how to do it quickly. That was a real delight to see. We're upgrading the NBN because we believe people should continue to see improvements in their service, if they don't have a gold-plated service. This will mean that around 3,000 people living in homes in the Hawkesbury region—everywhere from McGraths Hill, Kurrajong Heights, North Richmond, Pitt Town, Vineyard to Freemans Reach—will shift from fibre to the node to fibre to the premises. They'll have fibre coming all the way into their homes. In the Blue Mountains about 14,000 more households will have access to what they should have had in the first place—quality fibre. That's everywhere from Hazelbrook right up the mountains to Mount Victoria. But there is still work to be done, and that's why it's so important that the NBN is kept in public hands. There's more to do to make sure it stays affordable for people in the future. The consequence of privatisation, as we know, is that shareholders needs are put ahead of everybody else's, and that has terrible consequences for us as a society, as a community and as an economy. In an electorate like mine—we have areas that are not just peri-urban but the equivalent of regional, the equivalent of rural and even the equivalent of remote—there are ongoing challenges in getting the very best standard of NBN. I've got people on satellite and wireless. My view is that we should continue to be looking to deliver a higher quality of service to those people, and that will only happen if the NBN stays in public hands. From my perspective it is not over for those people. I am never one to shy away from advocating for my community, and I absolutely understand the needs that people have in those areas, particularly where fibre comes down a street but stops halfway down just because someone drew a line on the map in the original design. So there are lots of areas where I will continue fighting and advocating for an expansion of fibre for my community. Labor founded the National Broadband Network. We founded it to provide fast, reliable, affordable broadband to all Australians—not just to some, not just to the lucky ones who live in a densely populated area, but to all Australians. We are delivering our vision for a world-class fibre network, and the difference between a couple of years ago and now is stark in my community. For a start, I get to have fibre to my premises. My entire street, the entire suburb of Winmalee, the entire lower Blue Mountains can now say, 'Yes, I'd like to get that fibre to the curb to come all the way into my home.' It only happens when you have a government that has a commitment to genuinely trying to level the playing field for every Australian business and for every Australian no matter where they live. Only by keeping the NBN in government ownership can we continue to deliver on that vision. That's why this legislation is here. That's why we're here, on our side, arguing that we need to secure, in legislation, the future of the NBN and make sure it remains in public ownership. This is a critical infrastructure. It reaches over 12.4 million premises across Australia. Currently, more than 8.6 million homes and businesses are connected; that is a lot of people whose lives are affected. Keeping NBN in public hands will ensure that the company itself has the certainty necessary for its investment planning and for all that operational decision-making needed to maximise the economic and social benefits of the NBN, and ongoing government ownership of the NBN will help keep the those wholesale broadband prices more affordable for consumers than if the company was in private ownership. What we should have going forward is the opposite of what happened to my business in the early 2000s. We should not have business owners say, 'I cannot do my business because I am constrained by the NBN,' or, 'I am constrained by lack of capacity to be able to send things through this magic thing of the internet.' Every business, every home, every older person, every child should have the same access and the same ability to use this infrastructure. It is crucial public infrastructure and should never be sold off. Just as telephones should never have been sold off, particularly when we did not know how technology was going to evolve—and we ended up with a situation where there is inequity in that system now—nor should the NBN. The NBN should stay in public hands now and forever. 13:16 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. I was in the House for most of the member for Macquarie's speech and, I must say, large parts of her speech I really agree with—the NBN: the importance of it, it is very important for infrastructure, its importance in emergencies, the fact that we need to 'secure reliable technology, particularly in storm-prone communities'. I am really glad the Minister for Communications and the member for Macquarie have been able to get fibre to the premises within the member for Macquarie's electorate. Perhaps the member for Macquarie would be able to explain to me why the Minister for Communications will not assist me in my electorate of Hughes to get fibre to the premises in the suburb of Bundeena. This is a suburb which is far more isolated than the Blue Mountains Ms WARE 300123 I note the interjections over there. Could it be that assistance was given from the minister to those on that side of the chamber but the same assistance has not been provided on this side of the chamber? Ms WARE 300123 As I hear more interjections, I will read directly from a letter the minister wrote back to me refusing my community, but she has obviously been very helpful for communities on your side of the chamber. I will return to the issue of Bundeena. I am appreciating these interjections because I will be very interested to hear whether or not other members on that side have been given the NBN upgrades that have not been afforded to those in my electorate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for Hughes has the call. Ms WARE 300123 The stated purpose from the Minister of Communications when this bill was introduced was that this bill will amend the original Labor legislation to remove conditions enabling a future government to privatise NBN. She said: The bill provides certainty to stakeholders, including broadband consumers, the wider telecommunications industry, broadband retailers, and NBN Co, that the Commonwealth will continue to retain ownership of NBN Co. Unless I have missed something over the last few weeks, there has been no conversation about NBN, about changing the public ownership, except from those on that side of the chamber. Why is this? This is legislation that is, in fact, amending the government's previous legislation. Just by way of background, the Rudd Labor government—we all remember that Labor government—announced the establishment of a new NBN Co to build and operate a new fast national broadband network. When the legislation was introduced, it was anticipated that the government would be the NBN Co's major shareholder but there would also be significant private investment in the company. It was said: The Government will make an initial investment in this company but intends to sell down its interest in the company within 5 years after the network is built and fully operational, consistent with market conditions, and national and identity security considerations. Then we had the introduction of the National Broadband Network Companies Bill 2011. It was passed in March 2011. In the second reading speech, the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport—who is, I believe, the current Prime Minister, Mr Albanese—stated: The first bill in the package, the NBN companies bill … also sets out— and this is important— arrangements for the eventual sale of the Commonwealth's stake in the company once the NBN rollout is complete, including provisions for independent and parliamentary reviews prior to any privatisation, and for the parliament to have the final say on the sale. …   …   … As such, the bill deals with arrangements for both today and into the future. That is a direct quote from the then Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, who now holds the highest political office in the land. Then, if we come to the actual nature of NBN Co, it is an unlisted public company, limited by shares incorporated under the Corporations Act, and is a Commonwealth company for the purposes of various other acts. It was established in 2009 as a government business enterprise by the federal government, which is its sole shareholder. We now come to 2022. As I've said before, this bill is nothing but a sad stunt. This is designed to create confected debate that somehow those on our side or perhaps their friends in the Greens—somewhere, somebody—has some intention to sell off the NBN. There is no intention on our side. Nobody's talking about changing the ownership of the NBN—not the coalition and not anyone else I've heard in this place. This is just a shambolic attempt by a government that is really frightened to address the real issue affecting Australians, which is cost of living. Also, in my electorate, there are plenty of Australians very upset with the NBN service that is being delivered under this communications minister and under this government and even more upset— A government member interjecting— Ms WARE 300123 I would say to the honourable member that you are very welcome to go to Bundeena, as I have done, and see the sort of internet coverage they have down there. I've made representations to the minister. I will quote that in a minute. Labor have done this before. They are the party of 'Mediscare'. Now it is nothing but 'NBN-scare'. This is done to simply distract from the issues that they know about. Those on that side have been back in their electorates for weeks. Their constituents are telling them exactly the same thing that our constituents are telling us. They are not happy with this government. This government is not addressing their cost-of-living issues. They are a party known for making up fake election campaigns. So, when we see a government that is getting hammered on all fronts, what happens? They go, 'Let's quickly do something.' I wonder how this transpired in the party room. Did someone say, 'I have a really good idea today; let's pretend that the coalition are going to sell off the NBN'? And everyone said: 'Oh, yes. That sounds like a really good idea.' At a time when Australians are desperate for help with a cost-of-living crisis, this Labor Party is more focused on political games than fixing the problems facing everyday families. We on our side know it, my electorate knows it and their electorates know it as well. They are now seeing it. They are seeing what we have seen sitting here for 2½ years. It's probably a government that will go down as the worst government in history. My parents, who are old enough to remember Whitlam, always said to me, 'We will never see a government worse than Whitlam's.' Then we had Rudd. They said, 'We will never see a government worse than Rudd's.' But we are now seeing a government far worse than either of those two former failed Labor governments. I want to touch on what has happened with the NBN under this minister and under the watch of this Prime Minister. There's been a major decline in the NBN. They have essentially hammered Australians with massive NBN price increases. We've seen six million families smashed by NBN price increases of up to 14 per cent since October last year. Over the same time period, the NBN's brownfields business, meaning existing homes, has lost almost 100,000 customers. So how on earth can this be lauded as some great success of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications? It's not. This is just a lame stunt from a lame government. Instead, they—the Minister for Communications, particularly, and the Prime Minister—could be talking about an issue that is of concern in the community, which is the need for gambling advertising reform. I asked the question three weeks ago to the Minister for Communications, and she couldn't answer it. My friend the member for Menzies also asked the question. We were the two from this side that were on that inquiry. It was chaired by the former member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy. After Ms Murphy passed away, there were commitments made by a whole lot of us that we would continue with the work that was done on that inquiry. What has happened since? It was presented to the minister in June 2023. Where is it? She still can't answer questions. The minister cannot answer questions in question time as to whether she's going to adopt the recommendations and when. In 1996, John Howard had been admitted for a couple of weeks, and we had the tragic massacre down in Port Arthur. John Howard at the time had to stare down members of his own party—members of his coalition party and a lot of the Liberal Party's base—because he knew in his heart that Australia needed gun reform. That changed the nature of Australia. Why is it then that— Mr Gorman 74519 He got full bipartisan support from Kim Beazley. Ms WARE 300123 Full bipartisan support—thank you, Minister. He had full bipartisan support, and that report that was given to the minister had bipartisan support. It was unanimous. So I would suggest that the Prime Minister could take something from the John Howard playbook and think, 'I'm going to act in the nation's interests here'—act in the nation's interests and not in the interests of some of his friends and allies. He has missed an opportunity to demonstrate strong leadership, moral courage and political conviction on a national, social and health epidemic. Ms Murphy's husband has asked: 'What is going on? Labor, what are you doing about this report?' Reverend Tim Costello has been asking about it. Anna Bardsley contacted the Prime Minister three weeks ago and said, 'I am coming to Canberra this week because I need to speak to the Prime Minister about gambling reform and about gambling harm.' She couldn't get an audience with the Prime Minister, but she got an audience with me, and the stories from her and her colleagues about the devastation of gambling harm on them and on their families were heartbreaking. There are women who have served time in prison for theft simply to feed their gambling habits. Another spoke about first gambling at the age of seven as well as the social impacts online gambling has had on his Asian Australian community. Australians love a punt. Today is Melbourne Cup Day. Most Australians gamble responsibly. They do it with friends. They do it as a social activity. They gamble with money they know that they can afford to lose. That is fine. But, for a number of Australians, gambling harm causes a massive problem for them. I've been asked about Bundeena by somebody over on that side. I went to the minister after April and said: 'Can you please assist this community of mine? They need fibre to the premises or fibre to the curb.' The minister wrote back to me: 'NBN Co has advised that there have never been any plans to provide fibre-to-the-curb services to Bundeena. However, parts of Bundeena have been included in the project to eventually deliver fibre-to-the-premises upgrades.' That was supposed to have occurred in 2023. The minister has now changed the date to 2025. He indicated at the end of the letter, 'Unfortunately, this process is lengthy and has significantly delayed the delivery of upgrades to the Bundeena area.' Nobody on this side is talking about privatising or selling off NBN— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have permission to continue when the debate's resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Sturt Electorate: Infrastructure 15 13:30 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt The consultation process continues on the redevelopment options that the state government in South Australia are considering for the University of South Australia campus in my electorate of Sturt, in the Magill area. I've certainly already made it very clear that this is an enormous opportunity for a significant recreational precinct in the heart of my electorate. We have so many sporting clubs, in particular, that are desperately short of appropriate venues. A recreational precinct would mean they can continue their excellent growth and also have appropriate sporting facilities and recreational facilities—particularly with the excellent increase in female participation in so many sports in my electorate, as is happening across the country—ensuring that we've got proper change room facilities and the like to cater for increased female participation. I take at face value the suggestion from the agency, Renewal SA, that they are genuinely interested in community feedback, but I also put them on notice that we hope this doesn't turn out to be just a case of going through the motions to pretend there's an interest in the view of the community and still flog this land off for the highest amount of dense housing that they possibly can. That would belie the process. It would also turn the merger of the two universities into something that was really driven by a property deal rather than by more reasonable and serious objectives. I hope that we get the outcome we're looking for. Defence Personnel 15 13:31 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Last week I was down in Adelaide for the ADF reserves National Employer Support Awards. The award celebrates civilian employers who go above and beyond in supporting their employees' ADF reserve service. We know there are unique challenges in balancing military service with civilian jobs, study and family commitments. Therefore, support from the civilian employer is crucial. I know a little bit about these challenges, having served in reserve units: the 13th Brigade in Perth, NORFORCE in Darwin and the 1st Commando Regiment in Sydney. With six awards on offer, Territorians took out the award or received an honourable mention in four categories. Keep up the great work NORSTA North, We Fix IT, the Patrol Boat Group headquarters, Alice Springs Hospital's pharmacy department, Lockheed Martin and St Joseph's Catholic College. They are outstanding employers of reservists. It was no surprise when our very own Territory Regional Engagement Manager, Judith Carson, was awarded a silver ADF commendation for her dedication and exemplary efforts supporting Territory reserve employers. Territory reservists have civilian careers, and they will be much better off into the future under the Albanese Labor government's cutting of student debt and making fee-free TAFE courses permanent. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 15 13:33 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I'm pleased to, again, be taking part in the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. The following is a speech written by Ava, a 10-year-old student from Caravonica State School. She says: By 2034, I would like to see in my community of Cairns with more protection of our environmental spaces, more renewable energy and more education of science and technology in schools. The next parliament can support this by investing in protecting our important environmental spaces, our animals, land, sea, waterways and culture. Recycling materials and reusing what we have, by doing this it will limit our need for creating new resources and our pollution into the fragile environment. Investing in technology to make more renewable energy will help the impact we are having on our country with more wind, sea and solar farms. Investing in education and schools to improve science and technology for students like me to create the ideas for the future. Better classrooms and facilities will ensure all children can learn no matter their location. My 2034 goal is important, to look to the future we need to look at what we can address now in 2024. Investing in our environment and our education can help achieve this goal. My mum and dad invest their hopes in me, will you? Werriwa Electorate: St Mark's Anglican Church, Werriwa Electorate: All Saints Catholic Church 16 13:34 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Sixty years ago the electorate of Werriwa was growing exponentially with families moving into the new estates being built by the government to address the lack of housing. Little has changed. We again find ourselves hosting growing suburbs in Austral and Leppington, with the new city of Bradfield also being planned. An integral part of life for many of my constituents is faith. Recently two parishes in my electorate celebrated 60-year milestones. On Sunday I was honoured to join the parishioners and the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Kanishka Raffel, his wife, Cailey, Reverend Dave Morgan and his wife, Priya, at St Mark's in Sadleir. The occasion was to celebrate the issuing of a warrant for St Mark's to become a full parish, and to celebrate 60 years of worship, hope and support of the Sadleir community. Earlier in the month I also attended All Saints Catholic Church in Liverpool. On this occasion, I celebrated, with Archbishop Anthony Fisher and Father Paul Monkerud, 60 years of worship in that building but 200 years of Catholic worship in Liverpool. All Saints has a prominent position in the Liverpool CBD and has been the focal point of thousands of family and community events over the decades. Both occasions were wonderful celebrations, and I extend my thanks to both for their kind welcome and hospitality. Donnet, Mrs Marion 16 13:36 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I wish to draw the attention of this House to the sad, recent passing of World War II veteran Marion Donnet. She was a much-loved and highly respected member of our local community. Marion was born in Borambil, New South Wales, and, when the Second World War broke out, she enlisted in the Australian Women's Army Service, serving for over three years and attaining the rank of corporal before discharging in 1946. Marion was based in Sydney and helped facilitate the logistics of material being delivered to salvage depots at various locations around the city. It was in the army that Marion met the love of her life, Allan. Allan was a highly decorated veteran of the Kokoda Track and New Guinea campaigns, earning his gallantry award for distinguished conduct in leadership during an attack on a Japanese-held village. One of Marion's cherished memories was the victory celebrations in Sydney's CBD. After the war, Marion worked in aged-care nursing. She married Allan, and together they purchased a mixed farm in the Central West of New South Wales, raising four children with 13 grandchildren, 31 great-grandchildren and two great-great-grandchildren. Together they made an enormous contribution to our region and our country. I was honoured to attend Marion's 100th birthday celebrations in 2022. Marion passed away in May, aged 102, having lived a rich and full life. She was part of an extraordinary generation that stood up to defend Australia when our country was threatened during the Second World War. I know I join all members of this House in offering our sincere condolences to Marion's family and friends on the loss of a great Australian. Tertiary Education 16 13:37 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I know how important education is to my wonderful community in Chisholm, and it's important to me too. I've always been an advocate for accessible and affordable pathways to higher and vocational education and the opportunities that they deliver for people, communities and our nation. In fact, I spoke about access and affordability of higher education in my very first speech in this place. Constituents of mine are passionate about reforming higher education and making it more affordable too. I undertook a survey in my community about higher education, and I was absolutely blown away by the response. Hundreds and hundreds of people contacted me and said they thought debts should be lower and that younger people should have better access to education pathways. So I'm really pleased to be part of a government that is taking action to reform higher education. A re-elected Albanese Labor government will cut student debt by 20 per cent for everyone. We'll also reduce the amount graduates have to repay every year, and we'll make fee-free TAFE courses permanent. This is the start of our positive plan for a second term: helping with the cost of living and building Australia's future. We'll cut around $5½ thousand from an average uni student's debt, and we'll make the repayment system fairer. This will boost take-home pay for people repaying student debts. Together we can keep building Australia's future. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 17 13:39 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I rise to read a speech from my local student representatives as part of the Raise Our Voice campaign. Lisa, Tina, Kathy and Mary are from Canley Vale High School, and they're in the gallery today. They spoke about the quality of our education system. These young people are the future generation of our community in Fowler. They said: As the future generation, we want our community in the city and country to thrive. And to do this, people need a good education. While we commend Australian education, it has fallen short on quality. We've been heavily impacted by the lack of resources, staff, and inadequate educational facilities. This has caused limitations and pauses in our education and potential, which then translates into socioeconomic disadvantage, as the quality of our education is a large determining factor of the quality of our futures. With this, only the wealthy can afford a boost while the rest of the public system are left behind, underfunded, limiting their potential to the little resources they have. To help public schools like the one we and so many attend, more funds need to be contributed to our education. Resources like further support for teachers and other staff members, assistance programs and better-quality infrastructure can make all the difference between a high- or low-quality education. We need to ensure the disadvantaged receive the attention they need—not perfomativity but real action to be followed through. To speak out, to our nation, to our country to raise our voices is to be one step closer to change. Thank you to the students and teacher who travelled all the way from Canley Vale to come here and listen to their Raise Your Voice campaign message. Robertson Electorate: Avoca Beach Public School 17 13:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Avoca Beach Public School in my electorate of Robertson celebrated its biennial school fair on 8 September 2024. This year's theme was Australiana, with year 6 student Cater Rodgers' artwork selected to promote the event. Carter is a budding creative who took inspiration from all around Australia to create his winning design, which includes two hands in the shape of a love heart symbolising unity and representing all Australians, especially our First Nations Australians. In the centre of the love heart sits Uluru, the very heart of our nation. Carter's overarching message is one of shared community and love for this big beautiful country, Australia. Carter is rightfully proud of his design and its messages and is very excited to be representing Avoca Beach Public School through his love of art. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Carter Rodgers on his brilliant design and wish him all the very best in high school next year and beyond. Keep up your marvellous interest in the arts and keep making your community proud. I give a special commendation to Avoca Beach Public School P&C on its work putting together another tremendous fair and for cultivating an inclusive and caring community. Can I make a quick mention that a re-elected Labor government will be wiping 20 per cent off all student debt—that is, everyone in Australia—and, on top of that, we are also reducing the amount you need to repay from your student debt each year. That will mean more money in the pockets of more Australians. Mitchell Electorate: Youth Leadership Forum 17 13:42 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell It was a privilege to host 150 student leaders from across the 16 public and private high schools in my electorate at the 23rd Mitchell youth leadership forum. The forum was held from 17 to 19 October at the YMCA Yarramundi and was an incredible success. The forum was a 2½-day live program for new year 11 students based on the values of integrity, service and courage. The energy and enthusiasm of the students this year was truly remarkable. I look forward to seeing their growth reflected in the new friendships they have made across the schools and in our local community. I want to express my gratitude to our dedicated volunteers, the 65 former students who attended the program in the past, whose tireless efforts made this forum possible again this year. I commend and thank: our committee members Tristan Smith—our CEO, Ronie Quinn, Jan Cox, Ged Lewis, Thomas Kelly, Jessie Peake, Ken Shaw, Daniel Ridley, Marcus Cannon, Veneta Webster, Jane Doherty, Lauren Nowacka, Simon Teh and Renee Salecich. I extend my thanks to all of the principals for their ongoing participation in the Mitchell youth leadership forum, which I have run each year since becoming member and, indeed, to the principal's attending the workshop with their students, who were delighted to see them over the 2½ day program. During the forum students agreed engaged in team-building activities, small group discussions, and the community service projects were well received this year at Aminya Aged care Village, McCall Gardens and Riding for the Disabled at the Tall Timbers Centre. They painted fences, they washed cars and they did community service. They had a thoroughly great time getting to know new friends across their school community. I want to acknowledge our major sponsors and thank them for their support. (Time expired) Higher Education 18 13:44 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Boosting higher education and training and tackling the cost of living are critical issues for the people of Bean. I welcome the announcements by the Prime Minister on the weekend that a re-elected Labor government will cut $5,500 from an average university student debt and lock in free TAFE permanently. This plan will benefit the residents of Bean and Australia and will help to make ends meet and get ahead. It will put money back in the pockets of residents, who are often facing a host of financial pressures when starting out in their working lives, and it will increase the attractiveness of pursuing higher education and training, which is essential not just for the future of the ACT but for our nation. We know that education is the most powerful weapon we have against disadvantage, and it's the best investment we can make in building Australia's future. With the new Canberra Institute of Technology being built by the ACT government in the heart of Bean and the Prime Minister's plan to cut the costs faced by those pursuing higher education and training, Labor governments at state, territory and federal levels are, rightly, putting students and trainees centrestage in a future built in Australia. I'll continue to advocate for them in this parliament and in the next. Queensland State Election 18 13:45 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I want to congratulate David Crisafulli, the new Premier in Queensland, and the Liberal National Party on a successful state election on 26 October. With a majority LNP government, the future looks brighter for Queensland. I want to highlight to the Australian people what was occurring throughout the election campaign. Verbal abuse, name-calling and mocking are what Ariana Doolan, the 22-year-old LNP candidate that won the seat of Pumicestone, experienced. She had to deal with this for two weeks on prepoll from the former Labor MP Ali King. She stated to this 22-year-old woman daily: 'You are nothing. You stand for nothing and have no values. You should be ashamed of yourself'—this is what this 22-year-old woman experienced from a so-called leader and Labor MP—'You're selling women's bodies by joining the LNP. You're too inexperienced and young.' Terry Young MP, the member for Longman, witnessed this pack mentality of the Labor MP and her supporters, who said, 'You don't deserve to be here.' This is what the former state Labor member Ali King said to Ariana, and it was a disgrace. Personal, nasty abuse in life or politics is unacceptable and shows what hypocrites some Labor MPs are when it comes to the treatment of young women and other candidates. I'm deeply sorry that Ariana had to experience this. However, she has won the seat of Pumicestone and will be the youngest woman ever elected in Queensland. Education 18 13:46 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor To build Australia's future there's nothing more important than education and nothing more important than a Labor government to deliver equity and access to that education. That's what Labor governments are about, and that's what the Albanese Labor government is about. Post-school education is critically important, and we're going to need our young people to commit to post-school education more and more as we move across the next decade. That's why a re-elected Labor government's commitment to reduce HECS debt by 20 per cent and lock in fee-free TAFE for 100,000 places a year is so important. This will build Australia. This will give our young people the opportunity to build their capacity to take up the positions we need them to take up. It will also help, undoubtedly, with the cost of living. It will help young people reduce their debt to allow them to get into that rental market or to buy a home. These are important things. It will allow young people the opportunity to access fee-free TAFE so that they can get the jobs of the future and join other people in aged care, in child care, in building and construction and in an apprenticeship. These are important initiatives, and only a re-elected Labor government will deliver them. Labor Government 18 13:48 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I listened to it the other day. The winged monkeys are fed, the green goggles are on, and we're off to an election. I listened to the Prime Minister. It was like an alternate universe. He said, 'The inflation crisis is fixed!' Has he spoken to anybody trying to pay for fuel? Has he spoken to anybody trying to pay for their groceries? Has he had a yarn to anybody trying to pay their power bill? Has he talked to someone who's trying to pay their rent or buy a house? It is the most distracted, disconnected statement I have heard in a long while, from a person who must have a dartboard with those sucky darts with all the Labor Party members on it, because, with everything he's done in the last month, it has been completely within his control to try and remove his colleagues from office. It's been an absolute cartwheeling disaster. Then the Labor Party comes up and says, 'Well, what's your plan?' We have one of the biggest plans for Australia: the nuclear plan. We're looking to all the countries using nuclear power—the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and countries throughout Europe. If we're lucky, we might catch up to Ghana and Bangladesh, who are also going down the path of developing nuclear power. But, no, we're going to hang around instead. There are two notable countries who don't want nuclear power—Australia and New Zealand. Cybersafety 19 13:50 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Our children are growing up in a digital world full of incredible opportunities, with virtual places to learn, to make friends and to explore new interests. But, just as in the real world, children face risks. As a former teacher, I know just how important it is to guide children safely through these virtual platforms, helping them to build confidence and act responsibly online. That's why, together with the Minister for Communications, I held a forum on child online safety at Clifton Springs Primary School. It was a valuable discussion about the challenges and dangers children face online and the skills children need to protect themselves. The forum also gave parents useful tools to help guide children through the ever-changing digital landscape. We also launched Australia's first free digital literacy program at St Aloysius Catholic Primary School in Queenscliff. This program, designed by the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, includes the groundbreaking eSmart Digital Licence, a kind of pen licence for the online world. Just as children learn and gain the right to use a pen in school, this licence equips children with the knowledge to safely navigate the internet. Thanks to the Albanese government, children as young as four will now learn to recognise online risks, protect their safety and communicate respectfully. Cook Electorate: Gymea Village Festival, Cook Electorate: Gymea Bay Baths 19 13:51 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook Last Sunday, my community celebrated the 41st Gymea Village Festival. My family and I walked along Gymea Village with around 50,000 others from my community. There were around 200 quality stores from local vendors like Taylor Made Tea. There were lots of rides for the kids, show bags and perfect weather. Many great local businesses are permanently in Gymea, such as the Gymea Lily, Nina's Chocolates, OMG Decadent Donuts Sutherland Shire, C3 Training Gymea and Chapman Lane, just to name a few. I'd like to recognise the organisers and sponsors: the Cambridge Markets, Gymea Village and Gymea Chamber of Commerce, Tynan Hyundai, Stone Real Estate, Gymea Hotel and the Sutherland Shire Council. I would also like to recognise and thank our local councillors, Councillor Melanie Gibbons and Councillor Joanne Nicholls, for their support of this great community. I also spoke with the community members about the dismal state of Gymea Bay Baths. I've raised a petition that has attracted hundreds of signatures to clean up this asset and clean out that water. This petition can be found on my website. Locals are pitching in. Baycare Gymea Bay exemplifies what's great about our local community. Locals are pitching in every week. Families are down there cleaning up rubbish and working to keep the water clean. It's time for government to do its part too. Labor Government 19 13:52 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Today is Melbourne Cup day, the third running of the cup since we took the reins of government. Two and a half years ago, when the Albanese Labor government entered this race, we knew those opposite had left Australia in a tough spot. A quick look at the form guide revealed a Liberal track record of rising inflation, a crumbling Medicare, a decade of deliberate wage suppression and a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. However, despite the heavy handicap left by the coalition, the Albanese Labor government did not stumble out of the gates, instead setting a clear path to deliver for Australians doing it tough. From the very start, our government has kept a strong pace by delivering cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, energy bill relief and a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. As inflation falls and real wages rise, we're gaining ground, proving that careful planning and a strong stride forward can achieve what the Liberals could not. The race is not over yet, though. Looking ahead, the Albanese Labor government is committed to giving every Australian a fair start out of the gates. Our promise of permanent fee-free TAFE will open up clear pathways for young people and those looking to reskill, ensuring they're saddled with skills and not debt. For those already burdened by student debt, we're easing the load, letting them ride with confidence into the future. While the Melbourne Cup is the race that stops the nation, the Albanese Labor government is powering ahead without pause. We're committed to building Australia's future. (Time expired) Capricornia Electorate: Emu Park Jetty 20 13:54 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia On Saturday 26 October, the Emu Park community came together to celebrate an extraordinary milestone. Their Emu Park Jetty, a cherished landmark, reached its 100th anniversary—a century of memories and stories woven into the heart of this seaside town. Over 1,800 locals gathered to honour the jetty, which has become so much more than a structure; it's an enduring symbol of Emu Park's spirit and heritage. The story behind the jetty's inception is truly inspiring. Without any government support at the time, the determined women of the Emu Park Ladies Improvement Guild raised the funds to bring the jetty to life. Incredibly, the jetty was built in just three months, using sand, oyster shells and concrete, and it was officially opened by Prime Minister Stanley Bruce. Throughout the years, it has withstood the pounding of south-easterly swells. While many modern constructions might struggle to last even a decade, this jetty has stood strong for a century. However, the relentless waves have taken their toll, and now it's in need of restoration. Once again, the Emu Park community has rallied to raise funds to restore this beloved landmark to its former glory. It was an honour to join the community in celebrating the centenary and to support these fundraising efforts. I wholeheartedly wish the committee every success and look forward to continuing to work alongside them in preserving this iconic piece of Emu Park's heritage. Young Australians 20 13:55 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong When it comes to supporting young people, there is daylight between the approach of the government and that of the Liberals. In their nine long years in government, the Liberals dropped the ball on the housing crisis. They did nothing to address housing supply and wasted billions on HomeBuilder, and their grand plan today is to allow young people to empty their super for housing. On this side, we reject that approach. We want the cities and the regions to be places where young people can afford to live and thrive. The government's Homes for Australia plan allocates $32 billion to housing supply and will deliver a better deal for renters and get more market and non-market housing built to address demand. Unlike those opposite, we support young people who study, because we know that education is a springboard to better wages and a better life. It is a Labor government that will legislate to make fee-free TAFE permanent, it is a Labor government that will slash 20 per cent off student debt, and it is only a Labor government that will reform HECS to make student debts fairer and more affordable, because we know that, for young people, renting or buying a house or studying at university is harder than it has ever been. I want Bennelong to be a place where young people study, where young people can rent and where young people can buy their first home, and it's only a Labor government that will have the plans to make that vision a reality. The SPEAKER 53517 With some anticipation, I give the call to the honourable member for Riverina. Melbourne Cup 20 13:57 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Starters are locked away for the 2024 Melbourne Cup of politics! Election promises—scratched! The Greens are fractious in the stalls and appear unwilling to race! The field is now settled. The gates crash back, and they're off! The Greens head sharp left and burst through the fence and right off the course! The teals, still awaiting collective instructions from stable owner Simon Holmes a Court, have not left the barriers! Punters had faith in Labor, but, in the early stages, it's living up to the name of the former cup winner Windbag! The punters' former favourite, the Prime Minister, is losing ground, with the cost of living 'rising fast'! The Treasurer, who only thinks of his 'might and power', is proving 'what a nuisance' he can be! He's all over the track! Anyone can win from here! It's a real 'media puzzle'! Australians are starting to 'vow and declare' that Labor is giving up 'without a fight'—'shocking'! Around the home turn, it's the coalition making 'just a dash'! Labor's gone for the whip, but to no avail! In the straight, we see flight upgrades now being called upon! You can't rely on interest rates! New homes—nowhere to be seen! Immigration is making a mighty rush! High energy costs—charging ahead! Grocery prices can't continue! Economic confidence has fallen! And just listen to the crowd! The coalition now has its nose in front! How 'Tawrrific' is that? Labor has given up in the shadows of the post! The Speaker looms down the outside, and here comes question time! Neck and neck, stride for stride—the fast-finishing coalition and question time! Speaker, what a finish! The Speaker! Tertiary Education 20 13:59 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Usually people relish spot No. 10 on this side of the House, but I do say it's a bit hard after the member for Riverina's contribution. Nevertheless, what I have to say is important. Those opposite love to bring up rhetoric about cost of living, but that's where it ends—rhetoric. On this side of the House, we actually have a plan on how we're going to tackle the cost-of-living pressures that so many in Australia are facing right now, particularly those with a HECS or HELP debt. That's about three million Australians who will benefit from Labor's plan to cut HECS debts by 20 per cent, wiping $16 billion off the national bill for HECS debt. That's about $5,000 per person with a HECS debt. These three million Australians live in all of our electorates. That's about 20,000 in each of our electorates. That's 20,000 people in seats like Menzies and Deakin. It's 20,000 people in seats like Longman. It's 20,000 people in seats like Bowman. These are electorates where people care about their HECS debts and want to see action. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 21 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's reckless spending means Australian families face higher prices, higher taxes and higher mortgage repayments for longer. Despite three budgets, Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis worsens for families by the day. Prime Minister, our country is off track and this Labor government is damaging the economy and, in so doing, hurting everyday Australians. Why are Australian families paying the price for the Albanese Labor government's reckless spending, and when will this reckless spending stop? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I am asked a question about spending by the Leader of the Opposition, who was a cabinet minister and, before that, was Assistant Treasurer. In the entire time they were in office they didn't deliver a single surplus. They promised one in the first year and didn't deliver one for the next nine years. We turned a $78 billion deficit into a $22 billion surplus. I am asked about spending, so I will give some examples of the reckless spending of those opposite. There was $4 billion to cancel the French submarine deal, $1.8 billion paid out to victims of robodebt, $444 million went to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation without a tender process or even consulting the foundation and $660 million was for commuter car parks where there were no train stations. There was $423 million for an offshore processing contract awarded to a firm registered to a shack on Kangaroo Island. There was $100 million of sports rorts, with funding based on a colour-coded spreadsheet. There was $70 million on a COVIDSafe app that found only two unique positive COVID cases. Speaking of COVID, do you remember the $10 million on a new 'Australian made' logo that looked like a COVID molecule? They spent $10 million on it for it never to be seen again. Then there was the land at Western Sydney for the airport—the Leppington land scandal. Ten times its value they paid. That's before you get to the $20 billion of JobKeeper paid to companies that were increasing their profits. That's before you get to the $29 billion in NBN cost blowouts and the $31 million cost blowout in one project—Inland Rail. It takes some gumption to come in here and ask about spending. What we're doing is investing in education and training. We're investing in Australia's future while we are delivering responsible economic management, which is why we've cut inflation in half. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister for infrastructure and the member for New England were continually interjecting during that answer. They are now both warned. If you wish to have a conversation, I can make that happen and you can do it outside. Tertiary Education 21 14:04 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Prime Minister. How will cutting student debt and making free TAFE permanent impact the lives of young Australians? 14:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hasluck for her question and for her passionate advocacy of the rights of young people in her electorate to get access to education, which is the most powerful weapon that we have against disadvantage. We know that education is one of the best investments that we can make. It's an investment in individuals, an investment so that they can get a job that they love and build the life that they deserve. But, for our nation as well, it's an investment in the creativity and innovation that Australia needs to grow and thrive. That's why on Sunday we announced a three-stage policy—one to cut student debt by 20 per cent. A typical university graduate will benefit to the tune of $5½ thousand. We're also reforming the student debt repayment system, increasing the first payment threshold from $54,000 to $67,000 and lowering the repayment rate. If you're earning $70,000, you will save $1,300 a year in repayments. But we understand that it's not just about university education; it's also about vocational education and it's also about TAFE, which is why we will make free TAFE for 100,000 students each and every year—people doing apprenticeships for the jobs that we need and the skills that we need to fill. Under this Labor government, free TAFE is here to stay. I met students yesterday who told me about the real, meaningful difference that this will make in their lives. I met an ANU student who said: 'As someone who's looking at close to $60,000 of debt by the time I finish my degree, having this wiped from it will make such a big difference in the future—buying a house. I'm also a really big fan of making the repayment salary later. It's really, really helpful.' This is structural reform not only to boost take-home pay of young Australians but also to support those Australians who are retraining as the economy shifts to make sure that they're not left behind. This is a positive initiative. Of course, those opposite declared their opposition to this policy before it had even been announced. Sound familiar? It's a bit like tax cuts. I'm amazed that Senator Sarah Henderson actually said this: 'It's a tax cut targeted to the big end of town.' Those opposite, who wanted to exclude low-income earners from any tax cut at all, are now calling a policy that will help the motor mechanic apprentices who I met yesterday with the debt that they owe. Vocational Education and Training 22 14:07 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. We now know that just 13 per cent of fee-free TAFE enrolments have resulted in a qualification being completed at a cost of $1.5 billion, all of which has been paid for by tax cuts. The SPEAKER 53517 No, the Minister for Environment and Water is warned. I don't know how many times I have to remind members, but we'll keep reminding people until we get it right. When members on any side of the chamber have the supremacy, they have earnt the respect to ask their question in silence. After that, the House is in control of its own destiny. The deputy leader is going to begin her question again, and, if there are any interjections on this side of the chamber, people will be removed. I don't care how many people I remove. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will begin her question again. Ms LEY 00AMN My question as to the Prime Minister. We now know that just 13 per cent of fee-free TAFE enrolments have resulted in a qualification being completed at a cost of $1.5 billion, all of which has to be paid for by taxpayers. Can the Prime Minister confirm how much of the $1.5 billion spent has gone to courses that will never be completed? Why is this Prime Minister addicted to reckless spending? 14:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank not just the Deputy Leader of the Opposition but their entire tactics committee for that question! We have been asked, 'Why is it that four-year or three-year apprenticeships haven't been completed?' We have three-year terms in this country. I support four-year terms, but we have three-year terms in this country. Therefore fee-free TAFE didn't begin years and years ago. It began when we came in last year. As a direct result, more than half a million Australians have benefited from fee-free TAFE. There have been 35,000 construction sector enrolments, 36,000 early childhood education enrolments, 49,000 technology and digital sector enrolments and 131,000 care sector enrolments. Thirty-five per cent of the enrolments have been in regional Australia. We're making sure that they get access. Those opposite, who never did anything for TAFE whatsoever, indeed call fee-free TAFE 'wasteful spending'. I'll tell you what's a waste: the waste of potential when people are held back from a job because they can't get the qualification that they need, the waste of experience when an older worker loses their job— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is talking and being directly relevant around the numbers and about fee-free TAFE so, in any objection, he would say that he is being directly relevant. If he wasn't talking about TAFE, he was talking about other topics. I'm going to listen to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, just with that caveat that I have guided the House with. She will have the call, of course. Ms Ley 00AMN The point of order is on relevance, Mr Speaker. My question included, 'How much of the $1.5 billion has gone to courses that will never be completed?' The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister was asked a question about spending, and there was a specific figure that obviously the deputy leader is after. I understand that, and I respect that, but, whilst he's talking about fee-free TAFE and the numbers, he is being directly relevant to the question. If he strays off the topic, I'll make sure he returns to the question. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. I was interrupted when I was speaking about older workers retraining. When people lose their jobs, you can either leave them behind or you can give them a helping hand to retrain for jobs as our economy changes. That's why this is so important. It is a waste to waste the experience of those workers when, for example, the car industry was shut down, because those opposite told them to leave from this dispatch box. We think those people should not be left behind. I'll tell you what's a waste as well. It's a waste when housing projects can't get off the ground because there aren't the skilled workers to deal with them. It's a waste when businesses have to look overseas. A number of business leaders have lobbied to have imported labour because we can't provide the skilled workers here. What we're about is matching up the jobs of the future with the skills and training of today and the future. That's the right thing to do, and it is astonishing that those opposite don't get it. Universities 23 14:13 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to take the pressure off young Australians, and what has been the response? 14:14 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the cracking member for Corangamite for her question. On the weekend the Prime Minister announced that, if we win the next election, the first piece of legislation that we'll introduce will cut all student debts by 20 per cent. If you're somebody who today is earning about $75,000 a year, with an average student debt of about 27 grand, this is what it means for you. It means we're going to cut your debt by more than $5,000, and we're going to cut the amount of repayments you have to make every year by more than $1,000. I spoke to some uni students yesterday about what this really means for them. This is what Sam said: 'This makes a big difference to how quickly I pay it off. But also not having to pay as much week in, week out—it's going to really make a difference when I'm trying to get on my feet straight out of uni.' This is what Giorgia said: 'When I want to buy a house, having the amount of money that I'm going to have taken off by 20 per cent is going to be huge.' And this is what Adam said: 'It's going to make me able to buy a house sooner and to do all of the things I want to do.' That's what it means for so many young Australians right across the country. The Liberal Party want them to burn through their superannuation to buy a house. They want them to have to cut into their retirement savings. We want to cut their debt. Remember, Mr Speaker, when most of us were at university back in the last century, university was a lot cheaper than it is today. Even in the early 2000s, it was cheaper. Back then, students contributed on average about 30 per cent to the cost of a degree. Now students contribute more than 40 per cent, and this fixes this for a generation of Australians who got a uni degree in the last decade or so—three million Australians. That includes 18,000 people in the electorate of Corangamite, 20,000 in the member for Lindsay's electorate, 20,000 in the electorate of Deakin, 20,000 in the member for Bradfield's electorate, 22,000 in the electorate of Blair, 23,000 in Fadden, more than 23,000 in the electorate of Chifley and more than 26,000 in Werriwa. They all now know that, if Labor wins, they win, and, if the Liberals win, they won't. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Canley Vale High School 23 14:16 The 53517 SPEAKER (): I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of members of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, led by Grand Master Fra' John Dunlap. I'm also pleased to advise that we have students here from Canley Vale High School, from the electorate of the member for Fowler. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change 23 14:17 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. The State of the climate report identifies that climate risk is escalating, extreme weather events are intensifying and gross emissions remain far too high to keep to the temperatures of the Paris Agreement. What is missing is political will to reduce gross emissions. We've seen, in Spain, communities are paying the price with their lives. Voters are entitled to know the government's position before the next election. Will you announce and commit to an ambitious 2035 emissions reduction target? 14:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Warringah for her question and acknowledge her genuine commitment to acting on climate change and the fact that she has been such a strong advocate on these issues. I share the concern that is identified by the work that the CSIRO have done. The science has told us for some time that Australia is vulnerable to increased temperatures, not only because we are part of the globe. Actually, the science is telling us the temperature rise here is higher than the international one—higher because we are particularly vulnerable. This report also says that there will be a decrease in rain, but it will be more intense. So, if you have drier areas and then you have an extreme rain event, then you will have more flooding. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 I don't know why this is funny. For those people who deal with natural disasters in this country, and I've been in a range of electorates dealing with that— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! No. The Prime Minister is going to pause. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Mitchell is not helping the situation and is now warned. We're just going to reduce the level. It's far too high. I just want to hear what the Prime Minister is saying. The member for Warringah has asked her question. She deserves a response, as every member who asks a question does. So, for the remainder of this answer, we'll just listen—hopefully, in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 In the relatively short time that I've had the privilege of being Prime Minister of this country, I've been to Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia looking at the devastation that was there when that whole region was cut off because of the bridge being washed away. I've been to the Riverland in South Australia looking at the devastating impacts that have occurred there. I've been with the member for Riverina and the member for Calare, having a look at the damage in western New South Wales and the area just to the north of us here in Canberra. I've been to Far North Queensland, including with the member for Leichardt, to see the devastating impact that it's had in places like Wujal Wujal as well as in the northern beach areas of Cairns in particular. I've been to the Gold Coast hinterland and had a look at the impact there. What that tells us is that we are particularly vulnerable to these extreme weather events. We have a very strong target that is legislated. For the first time we legislated net zero by 2050. We legislated for a 43 per cent reduction by 2030, and I thank the member for Warringah and others who supported that decision. We will of course take advice based upon the science, but we remain absolutely committed to acting on climate change. We're not just listening to the science but also being a part of global action on this issue because it is correct that no country in isolation can solve this. We need to work as part of the global community to make a difference for this generation, but, more importantly, for the generations to come. Cost of Living 24 14:21 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping young people with the cost of living? What obstacles need to be overcome? 14:21 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I want to acknowledge that the member for Canberra is a powerful and persistent advocate for students and young people, not just here in the capital but right around our country. On this side of the House we take the intergenerational issues in our economy very seriously. We know that people are under pressure right around our communities, but often that pressure is felt disproportionately by young people and by people who are carrying a lot of student debt. These are some of the motivations for the changes we made to the tax cuts, to make sure that more young people actually got a tax cut. This is on top of what we're doing on wages, rent assistance and building more homes. We are all about making sure that more Australians, including young Australians, can earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's what our changes to student debt are all about, keeping more now to help with the cost of living and paying less back. We're trying to ease the burden where we can do that in a responsible way. I want to confess I was a bit surprised when those opposite came out against it. I shouldn't have been, because they've got form when it comes to the cost of living. Every time we've tried to help people doing it tough, those opposite have opposed our efforts. There is always room in Liberal budgets for waste and rorts, but never room to help people who are doing it tough. This goes to a big defining difference here in this parliament. We want to slash inflation and student debt. They want to slash Medicare and funding for housing in our communities. When in government, they gave us much more public debt and now, in opposition, they want much more student debt for people to contend with. On their watch, gross debt more than tripled. Even before COVID, it had more than doubled. We've been doing what we can to clean up the mess that we inherited by banking revenue, finding savings, delivering two surpluses for the first time in almost two decades—$172 billion turnaround in two years, $150 billion less debt and $80 billion less interest on that debt. That's because responsible economic management is not anathema to helping people doing it tough, it's central to it. It's about making room for the things that really matter in our economy and in our society. This side of the House under this Prime Minister has found a way to repair the budget and deliver cost-of-living relief. Those opposite found excuses to do neither of those things. They want students to pay more debt. They want people doing it tough because they think it will serve their political purposes. That's why the opposition leader's reckless arrogance poses such a risk and comes at such a cost to Australians who are doing it tough, and especially young people in this instance. Vocational Education and Training 25 14:24 Ms 00AMN Farrer LEY (—) (): My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's own question time brief says that the most enrolled fee-free TAFE courses include early childhood, cybersecurity and individual care and support—courses that take at most six to 12 months to complete. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the completion rate for these courses is as low as 13 per cent? 14:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank, again, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I'm not sure whether it's the idea of giving people the opportunity to achieve their aspirations to get a better life which is so offensive or the fact that TAFE often comes with a word in front of it that they find offensive—'public'—and that it's part of the public system and that it opens up opportunities for everyone. We know it's a triggering word for those opposite. We've had a range of criticisms put. The fact is 35,000 of these places are construction sector. There are 131,000 in the care sector. Forty-nine thousand are technology and digital enrolments. Fee-free TAFE has been operating for less than two years. We know that that is the case. To give the big tip—because many courses, 89 per cent of fee-free TAFE courses, are certificate III and above—certificate III and above require courses up to three years with full-time study—something that's beyond those opposite. Fee-free TAFE was introduced in Victoria in 2019. The four-year completion rate for free TAFE in Victoria is higher than the four-year national average for university students in the same time period. That's a fact. Those opposite not only want to stop students getting less debt; they now want to denigrate them on the way through. We know why. It's incredible that Senator Sarah Henderson said, 'It's a tax cut targeted to the big end of town'. She also said, 'Labor's policy reeks of unfairness and elitism.' The Leader of the Nats said, 'There's a lot of nice to haves, but we're in a cost-of-living crisis, where we can't just look after three million people.' This is the same bloke who said that we can't change the tax cuts to look after every taxpayer. That was a disaster. They're all over the shop. Free TAFE is here to stay, and it's a good thing. I encourage you to continue to oppose it. (Time expired) Defence Personnel 25 14:28 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question's to the Deputy Prime Minister. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to turn around recruitment and retention of our Australian Defence Force personnel after a lost decade? 14:29 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I acknowledge and thank the member for his question and acknowledge his distinguished service in the Australian Army. When this government came to power, we inherited a defence force that was shrinking. Indeed, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Defence, the ADF shrunk by 1,400 personnel. Over the last 2½ years, we've taken some really important steps to start to turn this around. We've improved the offering around Defence housing for Defence families, we've increased their access to Defence health, we have widened the number of courses that our Defence Force personnel can study, and we've increased Defence wages. Because of all of this, we've now seen the separation rates in Defence drop from 11 per cent down to the long-term average of nine per cent, and, for the first time in three years, the Defence Force is now growing. There's a theme here: housing, health, education and wages. Just as in the wider community, these are the issues which matter to our Defence Force personnel. In each of these areas, not only in Defence but really across the country, the Albanese government is making a difference. Today the government released its 2024 Defence Workforce Plan, and it includes an expansion of the continuation bonus such that we will be offering a second bonus to those in the seven-to-nine-year service band, which will bolster our middle ranks, which is where we need people the most. We are improving retention, we are increasing recruitment and we are now growing the Defence Force of the future. When those opposite were in power, they talked a big game about growing the Defence Force. They promised to increase it by 18½ thousand Defence Force personnel. But, in truth, there was nothing behind that. They didn't remotely properly fund that. It really was just a couple of press releases, and the fact is that, when they governed, the Defence Force shrank. The gap between their promises and their reality could not have been more stark. The Liberals have no credibility when it comes to Defence or the welfare of our Defence Force personnel. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Herbert will cease interjecting. Mr MARLES HWQ But, on this side of the House, the Albanese government is making the difficult decisions and, most importantly, we are funding them to build the Defence Force of our future to keep Australians safe. Economy 26 14:32 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government is writing off $16 billion of taxpayers' money on HECS policy. Respected economist Chris Richardson has called this 'dumb' and 'a fairness fail'. Prime Minister, our country is off track and this Labor government is damaging the economy and hurting everyday Australians. Why are Australian families paying the price for the Albanese Labor government's reckless spending? 14:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Those opposite gave Australia much higher public debt and much higher student debt, and this side of the House is giving Australia much lower public debt and much lower student debt. We think lower public debt and lower student debt are good things. We know now from the reaction to our announcement on the weekend that you think that lower student debt is a bad thing. So let every young person and everyone in Australia with student debt understand: this side of the House is trying to cut your student debt, and that side of the House wants you to have more student debt. He wants millions of Australians to have more student debt. I can hardly believe my luck in being asked by the shadow Treasurer about public debt, because since we've come to office there has been $150 billion less public debt because of our responsible economic management. Because of that $150 billion reduction in debt, Australians will pay $80 billion less interest on that debt. If those opposite were still sitting over here, Australians would still be copping it in the neck when it comes to those higher debt interest repayments. Because we've been able to deliver two surpluses—not an outcome that those opposite are familiar with—and because we've been able to improve the underlying cash balance by $172 billion in two years, the biggest nominal improvement in history, we've been able to see much less debt than was forecast by those opposite. What that has meant, as I said a moment ago, is that, when you manage the budget and the economy responsibly, you can make room to support people who genuinely need our help and our support. On this side of the House, our Labor values tell us that responsible economic management is important—it is the bedrock of a good government like this one that this Prime Minister leads—but it's not an end in itself. Responsible economic management is not anathema to helping people who are doing it tough; it is central to it. It is crucial to it. By cleaning up the mess that those opposite left behind, we have been able to give a tax cut to every taxpayer, energy bill relief to every household, cheaper medicines, cheaper early childhood education, wages growth, rent assistance. We have cracked down on the supermarkets and, most importantly in the context of the last couple of days, made sure Australian young people, particularly students and graduates carrying student debt, can earn more and keep more of what they earn. We know you don't want them to do that. We know that you want Australian students to have more debt and graduates to have more debt. We are getting public debt down. We are getting student debt down—two things that you were either unable or unwilling to do. The SPEAKER 53517 I would remind the Treasurer to direct his remarks through the chair. Economy 26 14:35 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Treasurer. What does the decision taken today by the Reserve Bank mean for Australians? What progress is being made in the fight against inflation and how does this compare to other approaches? 14:35 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Macquarie for her very timely question, because the Reserve Bank has indicated in the last few minutes that they will be leaving rates on hold at 4.35 per cent. Australians would understand that this outcome today is not a surprise; it was an outcome that has been flagged well in advance by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. What this means is rates have not gone up since last Melbourne Cup Day, so it has been a year since rates last went up and that reflects two things: firstly, the impact of rate rises already in the system. Australians are already doing it tough enough when it comes to dealing with these higher interest rates. Secondly, it reflects the progress we are making together in the fight against inflation. We saw that in last week's inflation numbers. Inflation is back in the target band for the first time since 2021. It means the inflation we inherited at 6.1 per cent is now 2.8 per cent. At the same time as underlying inflation is coming down, monthly inflation is coming down in welcome and encouraging ways. When we came to office, inflation was much higher and rising; now it is much lower and falling. But we know people are still doing it tough and that is why our cost-of-living help is so important. The outcome today is not a surprise, but I direct the House to the new forecast released by the independent Reserve Bank today. Because what those forecasts show, whether it is headline inflation or trimmed mean inflation, is that they have lowered their forecasts for inflation over the next little while. If you take inflation overall—headline inflation—they have downgraded it for the end of this year from three per cent to 2.6, for the middle of next year from 2.8 to 2.5—the middle of the band—and they have downgraded inflation to even out in 2026. For those opposite who asked me about trimmed mean inflation, they should recognise that the Reserve Bank have lowered their forecast for trimmed mean inflation across all of the forecast period. What this shows is that we have been able to fight inflation without ignoring risks to growth and without sacrificing the gains we made in the labour market. We have struck the right balance by taking the right economic decisions for the right economic reasons. Because of that, we are confident but not complacent about a soft landing in our economy. We would much prefer a soft landing than to clean up after the hard landing that those opposite would prefer for political reasons. What these new forecasts show is that we continue to make welcome and encouraging progress in the fight against inflation, and the new forecasts released by the independent Reserve Bank in the last few minutes go to that point. Higher Education 27 14:39 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. Of the government funded fee-free TAFE courses that have been commenced since this government was elected with a duration of two years or less, how many have been completed? 14:39 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the deputy leader for her question. We know that when they were in government they cut $3 billion from the TAFE and left our government with cleaning up the mess. It was the worst skills crisis in 50 years and the second worst across the OECD. They've asked a few questions about reckless spending, and the Prime Minister detailed quite a few examples, but— Ms Bell 282981 How many apprenticeships have you lost? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. He's entitled to a preamble. He wasn't asked about previous government. He wasn't asked about— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we're just going to come to order. The minister's been asked a question. It's a fairly direct question regarding current figures, not previous figures. He's entitled to some compare and contrast. I'm just going to draw him back to the question to make sure he is being directly relevant. He's had his preamble. Mr Wood E0F He got Catherine's note! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for La Trobe will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for La Trobe then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 When we're dealing with matters, interjections are highly disorderly. I give the call to the Minister for Skills and Training. Mr 243609 I think that may have been the first contribution by the member for La Trobe in this parliament, just as these have been the first questions from the shadow minister in this portfolio. As the Prime Minister made very clear, fee-free TAFE has been in existence since 2023. Many of the courses—as the shadow minister is well aware—even if taken full time, take a longer period of time than we have been in government. Every single day people are enrolling in fee-free TAFE and getting the opportunity to gain a skill or to retrain. The majority of them are women. Many— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The deputy leader on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN The point of order is on relevance. The question is not about commencements but about completions. It's about two-year or less vocational education courses done through TAFE and the number completed. I understand the minister doesn't have the answer— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 Once a point of order is taken on relevance, it's not an opportunity to simply be able to give further explanations or directions. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister has already been called to order regarding his answer. The member has asked and raised a point of order, which she's entitled to do, so the minister is going to be directly relevant to the question. He may not give a figure that the member would like. We've been through this before. If he is not going to be directly relevant and talk about the government policy that he is responsible for, he'll be sat down. The minister has the call. Mr GILES 243609 Just today, at CIT in Bruce, I met two students studying diplomas of nursing who excitedly told me that they were 10 hours away from completing. These are stories that go right across the program. Opposition members interjecting— Mr GILES 243609 And, again, members opposite seem to think it's funny. It is very clear that there's going to be a big choice at the next election between our commitment to fee-free TAFE and the opportunities it is giving more than half a million Australians around the country or a return to 'hamburger university' with $72 million to McDonald's and $30 million to Grill'd. The SPEAKER 53517 There has already been a point of order on relevance, so the Leader of the Opposition will be given some latitude, but I'm asking him not to abuse standing orders. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, there is a tremendous sense of deja vu with this minister, but my question to you is whether, given your direction to the minister and his defiance of it, he can continue with his answer when he's clearly refusing to answer a very simple question. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moreton is warned. The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I have two things on the point of order. First of all, your warning against abuses of a point of order was followed immediately by an abuse of a point of order. Secondly, in terms of direct relevance, the question asks about completions, and the minister is talking about completions. The SPEAKER 53517 If the minister wasn't talking about people completing TAFE, if he wasn't talking about people graduating from TAFE and he was talking about another topic, he wouldn't be directly relevant. Everyone needs to understand when it comes to direct relevance. He has been cautioned. If he strays off that, the Leader of the Opposition is also correct that he won't be given any more chances. He's got one minute remaining to make sure that his answer is being directly relevant to the question he was asked about fee-free TAFE and completion. Mr Dutton 00AKI He has identified two people. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now deliberately disrupting. Everyone needs to understand that, for question time to operate, everyone needs to show some restraint just to ensure that we get through the business and order of the House. With that said, with those directions to the minister, he now has the call. Mr GILES 243609 I was talking about completions. What we have seen over the 20 months that fee-free TAFE has been operating is that more than half a million Australians have enrolled. They are pursuing their courses—some full time, some part time. They are getting skills our economy needs and they want. It is the opposite of the wasteful spending under the BAC and the CAC that was more reckless spending from members opposite. They are continuing to talk down Australians and Australia. It's very clear that they're going to propose a series of cuts when it comes to TAFE and to free TAFE at the next election. If that's the fight they want to have at the next election, I say bring it on! Cybersafety 28 14:46 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australian families to keep young people safer online? 14:46 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway The Albanese government understands that parents and communities are concerned about the harmful impacts of social media on young people, and they want action. That's why we're introducing legislation this year for a minimum age to access social media. This legislation will help parents manage the problems of screen overuse and tackle addictive features like infinite scrolling. I was pleased to represent the Prime Minister at the recent Social Media Summit jointly hosted by New South Wales and South Australia. This is a national problem, and it requires a national approach. At the summit, I heard about the harms that can arise from excessive screen time and from content that encourages self-harm amongst many others. Two-thirds of 14- to 17-year-olds have viewed extremely harmful content online, including drug abuse, suicide or self-harm, as well as violent and gory material. This is unacceptable and must be addressed. Our legislation is intended to support parents in overseeing how and when their children use social media. This is why we will place the onus on the platforms, not on users. Platforms will be required to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to comply with our laws. We are on the side of Australian parents, and we are on the side of Australia's young people. At the summit, I also heard about the importance of online environments for young people to connect and access support or access legitimate children's content. I'm grateful for the feedback and views that have been put forward by young people and mental health advocates. We've been listening to make sure we get this right. And that is why our proposed legislative design includes an exemption framework, which will provide a positive incentive for digital platforms to develop age-appropriate, safe and healthier versions of their services. Exemptions will complement the minimum age, because we know that harmful content doesn't stop when you reach a particular age. We've already seen that platforms can do more, and they should do more. We've had very useful discussions with experts across the country on what age we should legislate and how this should be done. It was instructive to meet with former chief justice French and receive his useful reflections on the government's approach. Indeed, this is an issue that governments and regulators around the world are grappling with. I note that Norway recently announced it would also be setting an age limit for social media. From engaging with parents and youth advocates, it's clear to me that there's an understanding of our nuanced and balanced approach. I note recent research showing an overwhelming majority of Australians support this. Fundamentally, that is what this legislation is about. Cost of Living 29 14:50 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Treasurer, the ABC reported in October that we're officially a vanishing race, with birthrates halving as families struggle to make ends meet and the cost of starting a family simply out of reach. Will you implement your own advocacy with a federal overriding of the states' regulatory impositions—impositions that strangle home building—break up the cold and worthless duopoly, delivering a 30 per cent reduction in food prices, and get real lairy, enforcing Morris Iemma's ethanol initiative and resilient petrol prices—$1.10 a litre? Treasurer, can you join Red Ted and Black Jack on the wall of fame by turning Australia off our current highway to extinction? 14:50 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the honourable member for Kennedy for his question. Birthrates are down. This has been a long-term trend. Australia's total fertility rate fell to 1½ in 2023. It's down from 1.63. It's also been a trend around the world, though our fertility rate is above most advanced countries. The UK is at 1.44. Canada is at 1.26. This is one of the reasons why our population is ageing, and this is one of the big long-term trends identified not just in my intergenerational report but in those handed down by predecessors, including those opposite. We don't tell people what to do or make decisions for people when it comes to their own family circumstances, but we do know that the cost of living is a big factor, as the member for Kennedy rightly points out. It's expensive to have kids, and people make their own decisions for their own reasons, but we're doing what we can to make it easier for people to choose to have more kids if they want to do that. Our investments in early childhood education, health care, extending paid parental leave, paying super on it and lowering student debts are all about making it easier for people to have more kids if they want to. We acknowledge, as the member for Kennedy did, that housing is a big part of the story here. We've got a big ambitious plan, and I think, as the housing minister has herself acknowledged, we do need the states to do their bit as well. The whole cabinet is focused on these cost-of-living challenges, but I particularly wanted to shout out Ministers Rishworth, Gallagher, O'Neil, Clare and Aly for their work. All of our cost-of-living measures are about taking the pressure off people and making it easier for them to make these kinds of decisions: a tax cut for every taxpayer, energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, child care, more rent assistance and real wages moving again. When it comes to supermarkets, we are taking action to ensure a fair go for farmers and for families. I acknowledge the passion that the member for Kennedy has for that as well. Our focus here is on improving competition, stopping anticompetitive mergers and accelerating mergers that help with competition. So we're coming at this cost-of-living challenge from every conceivable and every responsible angle. We don't tell people what to do and we don't tell people how to make their own decisions about their own family circumstances, but the No. 1 focus of this government is to ease the cost of living where we can do that so that people can make their own decisions about whether to have kids and how many kids that they want to have, recognising that the fertility rate in Australia has been dropping, as the member for Kennedy rightly identifies in his question. Vocational Education and Training 30 14:53 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is for the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australians to reach their full potential by removing financial barriers to training, and is there any opposition to this? 14:54 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for Pearce for her question and for being an absolute champion of public TAFE. She knows that, under our government, more than half a million Australians have enrolled in fee-free TAFE courses and that we have put public TAFE back at the heart of training following a decade of neglect under the Liberals. We are committed to rebuilding our vocational education and training centre. Fee-free TAFE is fundamental to that, supporting key industries that are experiencing skill shortages and those areas of emerging growth and opportunity. We are helping jobseekers get a new start, young people get trained for a new career and older workers, too, as the Prime Minister said, to explore new opportunities. One in three places have been people in the regions. Six in 10 enrolments have been women. This is why the Prime Minister announced on Sunday that the Albanese Labor government will be legislating to establish free TAFE as an enduring feature of our skills system—100,000 places every year from 2027. This is attracting great support, such as from the CEO of TAFE SA, who said: 'This commitment to public education and ensuring all Australians have access to quality vocational education means we will deliver the workforce of the future through the TAFE network, building on the investments of the past to create a prosperous future for all Australians.' The students at CIT Canberra, who I visited with the member for Canberra this morning, when they were asked whether our government should make free TAFE an enduring feature said, 'Yes, absolutely.' Fee-free TAFE is changing their lives. I touched upon earlier the students I met doing diplomas of nursing. Two of them are just 10 hours away from completing their studies. One is Caitlin, a veteran and a single mum with an extraordinary story, seizing an extraordinary opportunity. Others are studying a Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care. Two are refugees from Sudan and Afghanistan determined to give something back to this country. Brandon is a young man excited to take on a role in early learning and to be a role model. Those opposite reckon fee-free TAFE is wasteful spending. No Labor government will call it that. The students I met this morning certainly don't. We have opened the door for them to get the skills they need without tuition fees. Now they are on their way to build careers which will help us all build Australia's future. So I am very pleased and proud to say that, as long as there is a Labor government, free TAFE is here to stay. Cost of Living 30 14:57 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Prime Minister, under your government interest rates have gone from 0.35 per cent to 4.35 per cent. Interest rates are staying higher for longer because of your reckless spending. Will you apologise to families who are struggling to pay their mortgage? 14:57 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin If the shadow Treasurer was honest he would say that this side of the House is trying to help people doing it tough and they are opposing us. Every time we try to help— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause and the manager will have the call immediately. Mr Fletcher L6B The Treasurer is a serial offender in using language reflecting adversely on the shadow Treasurer's honesty and he should withdraw that. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer just needs to ensure that he is not reflecting on members by calling someone that term, but it also goes two ways with what's in a question as well in terms of the direction of what you are saying about the person. To assist the House so we can move forward and get back to the answer, can I ask him to withdraw and move forward. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I withdraw. If the shadow Treasurer was being accurate, he would acknowledge in his question that only this side of the House is trying to help people with the cost of living, and every time we try to help people those opposite oppose us. That is a matter now of public parliamentary record. When we wanted to give tax cuts to every taxpayer, they called for an election over it. When we said we wanted to give household energy bill relief, they opposed it. On one occasion in the first round they voted against it. They opposed our efforts for people with student debt to keep more of what they earn. That's a factual point. I don't think it's an especially controversial point to make if I'm being asked about the pressures that people are under. More than acknowledging that Australians are under pressure, this side of the House is doing something about it. We are making sure that we make room in the budget when we clean up the budget left to us by those opposite to provide the kind of cost-of-living help that Australians desperately need and deserve as they deal with this inflation challenge which didn't just show up in May of 2022. In May 2022, inflation was more than double what it is now on our watch. If the shadow Treasurer were accurate, he would acknowledge that point as well, but he's not very good when it comes to accuracy and, to be fair to him, it's something that afflicts a number of those opposite. The shadow finance minister said yesterday that there were 27,000 taxpayers in Australia, when there are 13.5 million taxpayers in Australia. Last month she said inflation hadn't gone down in over two years, when it has more than halved. Yesterday, the shadow Treasurer said that next year was 2015. He was like that Ron Burgundy character in Anchorman, reading out the cue cards that he didn't understand. He either fails to acknowledge, or he fails to understand, that interest rates started rising on their watch, that inflation has come down substantially on our watch and that the budget is in better nick because of our efforts. That has meant a $172 billion turnaround, It has meant $150 billion less debt and $80 billion less in debt interest repayments. It has meant that we are making progress in cleaning up the mess that they left us in the economy and in the budget. We know that the job's not finished yet, and we know that people are still doing it tough. That's why it beggars belief that those opposite don't want to help people who are under pressure. This again goes to the reckless arrogance of this opposition leader and that opposition over there who want to let people who are doing it tough do it that much tougher. (Time expired) Vocational Education and Training 31 15:01 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Why is it important for Australian industry to have access to more skilled workers? How is the government bringing down the cost of training for Australian workers, and what are the alternatives? 15:01 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for McEwen, who, like everyone on the side of House, wants to see Australian manufacturing move forward, in terms of mobilising industry to make more things here and ship them everywhere. Being able to train and grow our industrial workforce is a big part of making that happen. We'll always need the riggers, the metalworkers, the plumbers, the sparkies and the technicians. Increasingly industry is also crying out for the new generation of workers—digital tradies, people who can bring in the latest know-how so our businesses can use the latest technology to make them more competitive and more productive. When we came to government, we set a target of 1.2 million tech workers by 2030, and we are well on the way to meet that target. The 500,000 fee-free TAFE places we've introduced in government are making a massive difference, by bringing down the cost of training. Now we're extending that program to help even more businesses and workers. For example last month I was honoured to attend the beginning of work to construct a massive new state-of-the-art data centre being built by CDC in Western Sydney. This huge project is going to directly employ 7,500 workers in the construction phase of this essential piece of digital infrastructure. They're going to need hundreds of apprentices during construction—apprentices that will be far easier to find and support thanks to the fee-free TAFE places we're providing. I'm asked about alternatives. You'll see a lot of hand-wringing from those opposite about the shortage of tradespeople. Just yesterday in the Federation Chamber, the member for Hughes was name-checking every trade she could think of—boilermakers, fitters, turners, toolmakers, steelworkers and the like—and then asked the question: 'Where is Labor's plan to address the shortage of manufacturing workers?' This is our plan: 500,000 fee-free TAFE places. We are investing in TAFE. We've come a long way from the years of coalition governments refusing to fund national skills agreements, presiding over funding cuts, refusing to back public TAFE—continuing to do all those things. We want to revitalise Australian manufacturing and train up Australian workers to help deliver that. The coalition has spent the bulk of their time this term criticising everything and delivering nothing. They had no costed actual policies. They are quick to chip, slow to think and, while they simply have nothing to offer Australian manufacturing, our government will deliver the skilled workers Australian industry needs. Gambling Advertising 31 15:04 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Prime Minister. As we speak, that big horse race is happening in Melbourne. Many thousands of people, encouraged by advertising, will gamble away millions today. Australia already suffers from the world's highest gambling losses, with $25 billion lost each year, tearing families and communities apart. Why won't your government commit to a total ban on gambling ads? 15:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. I make this point: indeed the Melbourne Cup, I assume, is being run as we speak here, and we are here working. But I'll tell you what I don't do: I don't look down my nose at or begrudge people who, in workplaces around Australia, are watching that race today. I don't do that. They have a right to do that. I'm not sure of all the ancient history, but I reckon that people being on the back of horses and having races has been around a bit longer. It has been around a while, and people have a right to enjoy that activity if that is their choice. As for myself, I'd rather be at a footy game, but people have the right to enjoy it. I hope the member was here to listen to the member for Riverina. Whilst the content could have done some adjustment, the delivery was magnificent, and I give praise to the former Deputy Prime Minister, a former race caller, for that. I'm just surprised he's still here at three o'clock. That is the point that I make. When it comes to gambling, we have done more in our short time in office than any government in previous history, and we will continue to take further action. I've indicated that over a long period of time. But the premise or assumption in the question was, I assume, essentially that today's Melbourne Cup should not have taken place or that people should not be allowed to have a sweep or— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Well, the Prime Minister was talking about the race that the member had raised, and that's obviously being directly relevant. But, out of respect for the member for Ryan, I'll give her the call. Ms Watson-Brown 300127 Point of order: the question was about gambling, not this specific race. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Ryan is entitled to raise her point of order just like any other member. If the member wishes to do so, she is allowed to do so under the standing orders, and everyone should understand that. But mentioning something in part of the question is obviously going to invite some comment, and that's being directly relevant. If you don't wish that to be raised, perhaps in future you might not mention that in part of the question. The Prime Minister has 44 seconds remaining. Mr ALBANESE R36 That was literally what most of the question was. That was the whole context of the member's question, and I've addressed that. I've also said a number of times when I've been asked questions that gambling is a major problem affecting Australian families, and we take it seriously, which is why our responses are considered and thought through, including any unintended consequences which are there. We'll continue to introduce measures to back up the measures that we've already put in place, which have been more extensive than those of any government since Federation. Vocational Education and Training 32 15:09 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure we have the skills needed to reach the ambitious target of 1.2 million new homes, after being left the biggest skill shortage in 50 years? 15:09 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham The member for Bennelong has a really long record in delivering better housing for his constituents. While he served on council, 17,000 new homes were approved for his local area, 11,000 in the five years that he was mayor of his local community. Now he's here in federal parliament making a national impact on this problem, and we are so lucky to have him on our side of the chamber. We are in a housing crisis that's been a generation in the making. Today this problem is affecting the lives of millions of people that we represent around this chamber. For the decade before we came to office the Commonwealth had effectively washed its hands of this problem. In fact, I remind those in the House that for most of the period of the previous government there was no Commonwealth housing minister. That's how tapped out they were on this critical problem for the country. Labor is taking a very different approach to this issue. Big picture, the answer to this problem for our country is that we need to build more homes more quickly because more homes means more affordable housing for all Australians. As the member for Bennelong has said, we've set an ambitious goal with the states to try to build 1.2 million homes over the coming five years. He also mentioned the unfortunate reality that we came to office in the midst of the biggest skills shortage since the Second World War. One of the reasons we are in such strife with housing in our country today is that decade of neglect, not just in housing but in our critical TAFE and training system. Our government introduced fee-free TAFE in 2023. Since then, half a million Australians have taken the opportunity to get a qualification and benefit from this. Half a million people have sought to change their lives through this policy. There is not a single person on this side of the chamber who would describe that as a waste. Something I cannot understand about the attacks that are coming at us today is this fundamental difference about how we perceive education and skills in our country. Education and skills are not just about the individual. We are opening the doors of opportunity to half a million people through this policy. It changes not just their lives but the lives of their families and the lives of our broader community. Who could be against that but the divisive, negative opposition that sits opposite us? Of course, this policy is critical to our desire to build more homes in our country. Thirty-five thousand people have already trained in housing and construction skills through fee-free TAFE. We've added another 20,000 to that in our last budget and, of course, the Prime Minister has just announced this policy is now going to be permanent. This is a really good and important thing for our country and a big contrast. The Liberals want to cut funding to housing, reduce your choices and saddle you with more debt. Labor wants to invest in housing, give you options and make things fairer for the next generation. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 33 15:13 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's failure to deliver the new housing that Australia needs. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:13 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin What an utter embarrassment we are seeing from this government in housing. We've just had the housing minister up talking about the terrible 10 years of the coalition. Yet in those 10 years we built more homes, we had more first home buyers, we had lower rents and we had a migration program that was in touch with the number of houses that were being built. So if the answer is this housing minister, who is not going to come within cooee of their so-called 1.2 million homes promise—Australians don't want that. They are still keeping up this charade, this mistruth, that they are going to get anywhere near 1.2 million homes. Mr Coleman 241067 Does anyone believe that, though? Mr SUKKAR 242515 No-one really believes it, I must say, to take that interjection. The fact that the government is keeping up the charade is quite outrageous. We have the following quotes in relation to their so-called 1.2 million homes promise that even today they continue to perpetuate. The Master Builders Association's chief economist, Shane Garrett, has said, 'If building continues at the current pace of this government, we'll be in for less than 800,000 new homes.' The Business Council of Australia are a little more generous. They think they're only going to miss it by 300,000, so just a bit closer. The UDIA in New South Wales think they're running about 350,000 homes short. The Property Council of Australia have said, 'Just a few months into the national target window of 1.2 million homes by 2029, we know we will fall short by a third.' Again, just another 400,000 homes short. The government should not perpetuate this mistruth in this House again. One-point-two million homes will not happen. They will be lucky to reach 800,000 homes. And let's compare their 800,000 homes to those terrible 10 years of the coalition government, where we built nearly 1.1 million homes. Those terrible years! Those terrible years of the coalition where we built more homes than this government will ever hope to achieve. What else have we heard from this government? We hear about their $32 billion housing pipeline and programs. We're about 2½ years into this government. You can't say it's a brand new government. They're on to their second housing minister—a minister who was shunted out of another portfolio because of her failures. So 2½ years in and a so-called $32 billion housing program, how many homes do you think $32 billion should have delivered for the Australian people? If it's true, if you take them at face value, and that $32 billion has been invested into housing, and we'll take the minister at face value, then $32 billion should get you a few homes. Well 2½ years into this government we have zero homes. Opposition members: Zero? Mr SUKKAR 242515 Zero! Zero homes delivered under a program outlined by this government. You might wonder why that's the case. An opposition member interjecting— Mr SUKKAR 242515 Yes, we saw the skills minister had two people who had completed a course. We also heard the minister in question time. It's quite fortuitous that the housing minister had the last question because the minister was talking about skills training, and the other great thing this minister is known for is her distinguished time in the home affairs portfolio. While we hear about more than a million migrants to this country in two years when we're not building enough homes for the existing Australians who are here, let alone a million new Australians, we also see the fingerprints of the now housing minister on the home affairs portfolio because we hear about the need for more trades to build homes. You would think that the migration program would be directed at the sorts of people who we need to build homes, like bricklayers. Let's use bricklayers as an example. This financial year we've had nine bricklayers brought in. Nine bricklayers! But to everyone who is watching this wondering how they're going to get their home built, I can assure you in the same period of time they brought in 25 fitness instructors. We have a shortage of fitness instructors now. We all need to get a bit fitter, and I will attest to that. However, this idea that we have a shortage of fitness instructors but don't worry about the bricklayers tells you everything you need to know about this government. That's why we're going to deliver fewer homes this year than we have for many years. The latest round had approvals at 158,000. To put it into some context, the government's targets are saying that they will meet 240,000. They are already 80,000 short in the first year alone. We've seen not a single home built under their so-called $32 billion program. And guess what is the only policy this housing minister can proudly talk about? The only policy this housing minister can proudly talk about is the coalition's home guarantee scheme that's now supporting one-in-three first home buyers—a scheme that the government called socialism when we first announced it and that I delivered as housing minister. That scheme is helping one in three first home buyers buy a home with a five per cent deposit. We know the deposit hurdle for young Australians is so difficult at the moment. That's why it's also perplexing that the government opposes the ability of Australians to get a portion of their superannuation to help them get a deposit together to buy a home. The big mistruth from this government is their claim that there is a choice between superannuation and owning a home. Under our policy, you get to use your superannuation when you need it for that deposit to buy a home and then you are required to recontribute it after you have sold that home down the track. So guess what? You enter retirement with retirement savings and owning your own home. We know if you enter retirement without owning your own home, your outcomes on every single form of financial and social measurement are worse. We know why they opposed that. It's because the rivers of gold from the union super funds and the CFMEU are continuing. They don't want that money leaving the system because apparently they know how to control your money better. To go through the greatest hits of the housing minister, in an earlier question we asked the housing minister about the impact of the CFMEU, who are big donors to the Labor Party and presumably big donors to all of their campaigns over there. Why are they supporting the CFMEU, who increased the cost of homes by 30 per cent? For young Australians who are trying to get that deposit together, the contract price is 30 per cent more because of the rorts, rackets, rip-offs and mafia tactics of the CFMEU on our building sites. The housing minister said, 'There are some economists who don't believe that the CFMEU puts up prices in the construction industry.' So we invited the housing minister to provide an example. Who is this mythical economist? Name them. Provide their name. We are yet to hear a response from the housing minister. The housing minister has very studiously avoided answering that question. Well, I hope in this MPI the housing minister can finally demystify for us on this side of the House who this mythical economist or economists are who say that the CFMEU has not driven up costs in the construction and residential building industry in this country. The truth is that the Labor Party have a vision for corporate ownership in this country. They want Blackstone, Vanguard and any other foreign corporate fund that is willing to invest here to put their money into Australia and have corporate landlords owning tens of thousands of homes. Meanwhile, if the housing minister had her way, we would abolish negative gearing and double capital gains tax. But they would only do that for Australian mum-and-dad investors, not foreign corporates. For foreign corporates they want to reduce their tax rates. They want them to have the most competitive tax rate possible, while for mum-and-dad investors, who provide the housing and rental stock for the third of people who rent in this country, they want to drive them out of the market and replace them with large corporate fund holders, presumably people who, just like the CFMEU, will become really trusty friends and trusty donors in future elections. We know that's what is driving policy at the moment. This government on every measure has failed Australians on housing and it should be ashamed. (Time expired) 15:23 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It is a real pleasure to be able to make a contribution to a debate as important as this, because housing is an issue which is affecting the lives of millions of people around our country. What I wish and what I think most Australians wish is that we could come into the chamber from different sides of politics as colleagues and respect each other and have a real debate about the issues here. What I find so regrettable about the issues that the member for Deakin engages with is the sense of nastiness and personalness about every possible policy area he debates. I am not going to fire back at that because I don't want to get down in the gutter because that kind of politics is not taking us anywhere. It is not taking us anywhere on housing. It is not taking us anywhere on the cost of living. Attacking each other personally is not taking the country forward, and so I am not going to engage in it. I'm actually going to take the chance to do something quite radical and talk about housing policy, a very important issue that affects my constituents and the constituents of all of us here in this chamber. If we play politics as usual, where we just beat each other up and try to tear each other's ideas down, we're not going to make a difference to the lives of the people who elected us to this parliament, and I'm just not willing to engage in that. Let me talk to you a little bit about the things that our government is doing. I spoke in question time about the very regrettable fact that we arrived in office to find the cupboard bare on housing policy. That is just a fact. I also spoke to the parliament about the fact that, in the decade before we came to office, for most of that decade there was no Commonwealth housing minister. I'm not making it up. The Commonwealth made a deliberate decision to withdraw itself from this area that is so important to the lives of our constituents. That is why, when we arrived in office, we didn't have a set of policy solutions ready to go that would help us make a difference to this problem. So what have we done? We've rolled up our sleeves, like you would expect a big-thinking Labor government to do, and we set out to make a difference to this. That's where our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan is taking us. This is important to us for many different reasons. It's important to us because we speak to people in our electorates who are profoundly affected by this problem. We talk to young people who describe the sense of despair in the pit of their stomach when they get yet another rejection for a rental application. It might be their 10th or 11th. They are living a life where a lot of young people around this country don't know when they will have secure, affordable housing over their heads. That does not reflect well on the work that's been done in this parliament. We talk to people who have got kids who are having to move their children from one school to another because they're being moved on from a rental property. Families like this, middle-income families with children, a generation ago in our country in all likelihood would have had the opportunity to buy their own home. Today, they are being denied that opportunity, and this is affecting their lives in very profound ways. I'm very lucky to be a homeowner. I've got three kids. I never want to face a situation where I can't say to my kids, 'We're going to get to stay in this house, and you're not going to have to move schools and find a new GP,' and all of the other things that come with that sense of uncertainty of having to shift location, but a lot of people around our country are facing that, and that's why this is so much core business for us. The $32 billion Homes for Australia package is about building more homes. We're trying to build 1.2 million homes, working with the states, and I want to say a little bit about this target. The shadow minister who spoke earlier derided this target, and he talked about quotes from the Property Council and the BCA and the Master Builders Association. What he neglected to say is that these three groups—who, let's be frank, are not always great friends of the Labor Party—are fiercely in favour of the target. What they are saying to this parliament is that nothing is going to be achieved if we don't aspire to achieve something. And yet what we hear from those opposite is that not only will they walk back the Commonwealth from housing just like they did when they were last in government, but they have said they're not going to have a housing target at all. What they're saying is, 'Lower the ambition, lower the strive, lower the drive, and let's see where we get to.' No. The Master Builders Association and the Property Council and the BCA are all saying that the 1.2 million homes is an important and big thing for us to do because it is galvanising action from the states and the Commonwealth to try to help us build more homes. It is bold and ambitious, because boldness and ambition are exactly what we need if we want to make a difference to this problem for the lives of our constituents. How are we getting there? We're working with the states and territories to do the gritty work of unlocking land, improving zoning and building the infrastructure we need to support more homes. We are training more tradies, something we now find the opposition is stridently opposed to for reasons that I cannot possibly imagine. Of course, we are building more social and affordable housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is a $10 billion investment in social and affordable housing. We announced the first round of HAFF funding, 13,700 social and affordable homes. That will be more social and affordable homes than the coalition built in their entire almost decade in office. That's what aspiration and boldness and ambition get you—it gets you results. We're also looking after renters, because we absolutely recognise that building more homes takes time, and our constituents can't wait for too long before getting that assistance. We are using that national cabinet process to make sure that we work with the states to improve renters' rights. We are helping renters pay the rent. We have delivered the biggest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years and we are providing more Australians with assistance to own their own homes through an expanded Home Guarantee Scheme. Speaker, I want to speak to you about some of the facts because we heard—frankly—blatant lies be told by the shadow minister when he raised some matters before. I talked about $32 billion for our ambitious housing agenda; those opposite have said they will cut $19 billion of that spending. I mean, what sort of person would cut housing funding in the middle of an acute housing crisis? We have helped 128,000 individuals with lower mortgage deposits. In our 2½ years in office, that is twice as many people as were assisted than in the decade the coalition were in office. We have invested in 55,000 social and affordable homes—again, more than the entirety of the coalition government combined. We have helped 35,000 tradies with fee-free TAFE; they have called fee-free TAFE 'wasteful spending'. We have granted more than 10,000 visas to construction workers, more than any other year those opposite were in office. We are trying to legislate to build 100,000 rental homes through a build-to-rent scheme and helped 40,000 Australians get into home ownership. The barrier to those things happening is those opposite, who stand in the path of almost everything our government tries to do about housing. We have helped more than a million households, who have received 45 per cent more Commonwealth rent assistance because of the work of our government; they never increased Commonwealth rent assistance above CPI not one year that they were in office. We have a housing minister—what a revelation; for most of the time they were in office, they didn't have one. We have convened nine ministerial councils with state and territory housing ministers; they didn't meet with state housing ministers in the last five years they were in office. Can you believe that? When the states control so much about this problem, they could not even be bothered organising a meeting so they could sit down and talk about it. Alan Kohler has said that Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund is 'one of the best policies he has ever seen'. Saul Eslake says the coalition's super for housing policy would be 'one of the worst policy decisions of the 21st century'—wow! Labor is taking a very different approach for this issue. We recognise this issue is absolutely critical to the lives of our constituents. In the time we have been in office, we have pushed through a lot of really important things on housing. We have pushed through a lot of really important things on the cost of living. But as we come into the election straight, I really want Australians to see that they have a really clear choice between two approaches. We have a party that sits opposite me that has opposed virtually everything that we have tried to do to relieve pressure on Australians. Almost all the time, we have been able to battle through and deliver that support to the people we were elected to represent against their opposition, and the same goes for housing. I want Australians to understand what is at risk here. We have a reckless, aggressive opposition that knows one word—no—that says no to everything that matters to our constituents and certainly no to everything that matters on housing. These things that we have built up as a government, these big bold ideas about how we're going to help Australians with what is, for many people, the most important problem in their lives, will go away if you elect Peter Dutton as your prime minister. 15:33 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the government's failure to deliver the new housing that Australia needs. I think it's unfortunate now that the Minister for Housing is leaving the chamber and will not be around to hear what we have to say about her failed housing policy. What we have heard from the minister are the same things we have heard for 2½ years from the former minister for housing: 1.2 million new homes over five years, $10 billion invested in housing. They said, 'We have a bold and ambitious housing agenda. We have a bold and ambitious plan on housing.' Well, I would say that, rather than being called the 'Minister for Housing', perhaps the minister should be called the 'minister for housing announcements but the minister that cannot deliver housing'. The latest Bureau of Statistics numbers show that building activity has confirmed there is no end in sight to Labor's housing crisis. They know it on that side. They are saying the same things in those electorates. They are saying the same things in Eden-Monaro that they are saying and Hughes: this government has failed on housing, whether it is mortgages or whether it is rent— Ms McBain 281988 You did nothing, though, for nine years. You did nothing on housing, which is why there's a crisis. Ms WARE 300123 I'm really glad to be getting these interjections from the member for Eden-Monaro, because I bet that down there in Eden-Monaro they are worried, and they know you have not delivered. Your government has not delivered. What the Minister for Housing failed— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 There have been a number of interjections, and I don't want to hear them anymore. Ms WARE 300123 Labor's promise is, 'We're going to build 1.2 million homes over five years.' I ask this: who is going to build those homes? Trade apprenticeship numbers have declined over the past 2½ years. They've declined at alarming rates. I think it's important that the Minister for Housing understands that it is tradespeople that build homes. It is electricians. It's builders. It's plumbers. It's roofers. It's tilers. What is this government doing for those apprenticeships? We've heard of the 100,000 fee-free TAFE positions from the minister today that are apparently going to the construction industry. I would really hope that the minister has the numbers as to how many of those places are going to builders, how many are going to plumbers and how many are going to electricians. This morning I spoke to NECA, the National Electrical and Communications Association. At the moment, on those figures of 1.2 million homes, a new home has to be built every 2.2 minutes to keep up with Labor's promises. Let's start, first of all, with electrical trades. NECA has around 500 to 600 apprentices at their Chullora RTO, registered training organisation, campus. This is a campus that teaches the apprentices. It's a not-for-profit led charity. It has received nothing from the federal government's supposed 100,000 free TAFE spaces because this government is committed to TAFE only. It is not committed to any sort of private education for our trades sector. Under TAFE, around 50 per cent of electrical apprentices complete their training. Under NECA, the number is closer to 90 per cent. Then we turn to plumbers. I'm really proud because my son, James—he's going to love the shout out; 18-year-olds love that!—has just received a plumbing apprenticeship to start next year. I'm really, really proud of him. The Master Plumbers association has run a similar program. This provides apprenticeships with skills and training as well as pastoral care. This is, similarly, something that the Labor government does not want to fund because of their commitment only to TAFE products. I want to mention briefly that the Labor government has made a bit of noise about trying to clean up the CFMEU. Let's look at the relationship of the Labor government in my home state of New South Wales with the USU, another prized union organisation. I'm reading from a media release by the NSW shadow minister for skills, TAFE and tertiary education: In the last three months, NSW has experienced a worrying 21% decline in apprenticeship and traineeship commencements. Now more than ever is not the time to restrict the partnerships that make apprenticeship programs accessible … What that is the relationship between the USU and local government, which I look forward to speaking on at a different time. 15:38 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I've often talked about my experience running homelessness services and as the co-chair of the internationally renowned Adelaide Zero Project. I've seen homelessness and housing policy across the world, and I've sat and listened to the experiences of people experiencing homelessness and housing stress. Unfortunately, I also saw firsthand the impact of the South Australian state Liberal government, which cost shifted administrative burden out of the department and into the homelessness sector, resulting in a system that is more expensive and has worse outcomes for clients. It turns out that shuffling costs around the system doesn't work. Here we have the federal Liberal and Nationals parties in opposition, which did nothing positive for housing in the past decade, trying to pretend the housing crisis has miraculously occurred in the last two years. This housing shortage—and it is a shortage in all parts of the sector, including crisis accommodation, social housing, affordable rent, affordable to buy, family homes and retirement living—has been about 40 years coming. We often talk about Finland as the shining example for housing and homelessness policy. When the rest of the world, Australia included, stopped building social housing and instead started selling it off, Finland kept building. That's why they are in such a good position and other Western countries are facing a homelessness and housing crisis. We have a housing shortage, and the solution to the housing shortage is to build more housing, so that's what we're doing. The best time to build more housing was any time in the last decade. It didn't happen, so the next best time is now, and that's what we're doing, with $32 billion worth of housing and housing infrastructure. After inheriting record-low rates of building approvals and new builds at a near-decade low from those opposite, under Labor nearly 400,000 homes have already been built across Australia, and there are more in the pipeline thanks to the HAFF, the Social Housing Accelerator program, Safe Places, the expanded Home Guarantee Scheme and more. They can't be built fast enough, at least in part because of another area neglected by those opposite. We need skilled labour, tradies, to build the homes—brickies, sparkies, chippies, plumbers, tilers, roofers—and we can't get enough of them fast enough. Those opposite and their state counterparts undermined and neglected TAFEs. They cut $3 billion from TAFE, and now they oppose our fee-free TAFE policies that are attracting more people to train to fill the skilled labour shortages. Forty-five thousand Australians have already taken up construction courses in fee-free TAFE. But that's not the only thing they've tried to oppose to stop us addressing the housing shortage. A coalition of the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens political party held up the Housing Australia Future Fund. My colleagues in the community housing sector said that they specifically told the Greens that the sector does not back their position of delaying housing measures. They told them that any benefits they gain are more than swallowed up by the impact of the delay. That delay is time in which they could have started building, but instead we're sitting watching cynical political operatives play games with people's lives for campaign opportunities. Now they're doing the same with the shared-equity legislation stuck in the Senate. While Australians are waiting to get their hands on secure housing thanks to a shared-equity mortgage, they are held captive by cynical political games being played by those opposite and their Greens coalition partners. The fact that shared equity was a Greens policy platform at the last election doesn't seem to hold them back from their hypocritical strategy of delaying, wherever they can, meaningful strategies to assist Australians in housing stress. All the while they're telling Australians they care about the housing crisis and its impact on young Australians, while also campaigning against developments in their own electorates and providing advice to others on how to block developments. Given the topic of today's MPI proposed by those opposite, that cynicism clearly shows no bounds. As someone who has worked up close with people experiencing homelessness, as a mother of three adult sons trying to get into the housing market and as somebody who has worked closely with the community housing sector that is trying its hardest to build, build, build, this MPI leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and a few sour words: hypocritical, cynical, political opportunists. They're not working for Australia, not working for Australians and only working for themselves and their political gain. Do better. 15:43 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Once upon a time, Australia was the place of the great Australian dream—that is, to own your own home. I've been involved in the construction sector all of my adult life, apart from the time since I came into this place eight years ago, whether as a chippy, a carpenter, a builder or a construction lawyer. Australians want to be able to own their own home, but under this government that dream has become a nightmare. I was reading this morning in the paper that CoreLogic data has revealed—listen to this—that, if you want to buy a house in Sydney, you need to have an average income of $238,000. If you want to own a home in Brisbane, you need to have an average income of $175,000. That's under this government. Mortgages, rents—everything has gone sky high under this government for so many people. Homelessness used to be a thing that, thankfully, was virtually unheard of on the Sunshine Coast. Now, sadly, we have many people living in their cars. It is heartbreaking. Let's have a look at some of the promises that Labor have made. Labor have promised to build 1.2 million homes in just five years. We've heard that the Property Council of Australia, MBA—Master Builders Australia—and the HIA have all said that, on current trends, this government is going to fall short by somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 homes. That's falling short by at least a quarter of what they said they were going to manage. Under this government's signature housing policy, the so-called Housing Australia Future Fund, how many homes have been built? I'll give you a hint: it's zero. I've built more homes than this federal government has built. Isn't that hard to believe? A small regional builder has built more homes than has this federal government, and it wants to spend billions—$32 billion. Zero, crickets, doughnuts—that's what this government is all about. It's all about the promises and never about the delivery. Home starts for detached homes over the last 12 months have plummeted by 10 per cent. Labor also promised to build up our skilled workforce, and that was the subject of much of the discussion in question time this afternoon. But, under this government, the number of commencements for apprenticeships has fallen by 12 per cent. The number of completions of apprenticeships has fallen by eight per cent. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that, if you want more homes to be built in the future, you need to be training more apprentices today, yet, under this government, we're seeing fewer young people being attracted to the trades and we're certainly seeing fewer young people complete their trade apprenticeships. Why? Because this government and former Labor governments have had a fascination with ensuring that all young people go to university. If you want to go to uni, great. Knock your socks off. But this government and its predecessor Labor governments have made doing a trade almost a crime. This is the Labor Party. This is the party of the working people, yet they have set up this idea that you're a second-class citizen if you do a trade. I know, because I've been in the industry all of my working life, and the hypocrisy that drips from this Labor government about the importance of trades is disgraceful. If you look at why Australians are paying so much for housing today, it's supply, it's supply and it's supply. Under us, under the coalition, if we're elected, we'll invest $5 billion to build another 500,000 homes by investing— (Time expired) 15:48 Dr REID 300126 Robertson We know that housing is a key and core focus of this Albanese Labor government, but it has not been without obstacle or obstruction, because what we can see here—gather around, folks—is that there's a new love story being forged in this chamber today—one forged in denying hardworking Australian people the dignity and the right to live in and own their own homes. But, pray tell, who could I be referring to? I ask the members here, there and everywhere: who could I be talking about? Who could forge such a bond—a bond built on misery and despair? Well, we know that it is the Liberal Party of Australia and the Greens political party. I'm a fan of rom-coms. Ask the mentor for Hunter. I really am. But this one is a little bit more like a horror movie. It is absolutely deplorable. The activities of the Liberal Party and the Greens political party in this chamber and in the other place are putting Australia behind. I think it's an absolute disgrace, particularly when it comes to housing. But it's not only limited to housing. It's health, education, wages—you name it. But, despite the games, the deception and the betrayal of those opposite, including the Greens political party, this government is deploying housing policy that is fit for the Australian context. There are deliberate and targeted measures to ensure more homes are built and more people can get into their own home. This includes more than 10,000 homes built through Labor's housing programs like the Social Housing Accelerator program and new builds under Labor's expanded Home Guarantee Scheme. We have more than 20,000 homes in the pipeline through direct Commonwealth investment, including the 13,700 under round 1 of the HAFF. This is all on top of the more than one million households we have helped with a more than 40 per cent increase to Commonwealth rent assistance and the 120,000 homeowners we have supported into homeownership through the government's expanded Home Guarantee Scheme. All I want to share with the chamber today is what Labor governments do and how that has an impact on families, working people, low-income earners, women and everyone in our society. On the Central Coast in Lower Hunter, we had multiple dwellings in East Gosford and Telarah that were in danger of being lost, sold off and gone forever, leaving many without a home or a place to stay. This would have been a huge blow not only to those people living in these homes but for our region. Multiple representations were made by me, the federal member, but also the state member for Gosford, Liesl Tesch, in order to save these dwellings. In came the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator fund. Over $600 million of that fund was allocated to the great state of New South Wales. With $8 million from the federal government's Social Housing Accelerator fund, via the New South Wales government, our tier 1 community housing provider, Pacific Link Housing, was able to acquire these dwellings. Housing was saved. People have been able to continue to live their lives with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is what housing provides. This is the power of good policy, and it is only possible under the federal Labor government that we have here today. What we have witnessed today from the member for Deakin and others is a spray of tommyrot, peppered with incomprehensible, disconnected and inarticulate ramble. What we have come to know and expect from those opposite is for the Liberal Party to fail to understand the importance of housing and to fail to understand providing assistance to those that need it. 15:53 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook Right now Middle Australia is breaking under a housing crisis. Rents are up 23 per cent. Home prices around my electorate are up 20 per cent also. Yet all the while Labor are in here filibustering about housing they're yet to deliver a single home from their housing package. After 2½ years in government, they're behaving like they're in opposition. Their promise to build 1.2 million homes over five years has ground to a halt. Industry leaders now confirm the coalition's earlier prediction that they would fall short of up to 400,000 homes. The number of loans provided for the purchase or construction of new homes remains at a 15-year low, almost going back to before the time the coalition was last in government. In 2023-24 we saw the lowest home-building commencements in over a decade. In this last year we have had the lowest number of starts in over a decade. There has been a lot of talk, with $32 billion being promised as a package—a lot of announcements, a lot of media and a lot of fanfare—but there have been the lowest home-building commencements in over a decade in the middle of a housing crisis. I would invite the next government speaker to address that. How can you preside over a government in the middle of a housing crisis and have the lowest home-building commencements in over a decade? Do you know what wasn't the lowest in over a decade? Net migration. Net migration was at 463,000 people last year, with only 158,000 new housing commencements. This massive imbalance between immigration and housing has seen prices soar. Home prices are soaring. They're unaffordable. Rent prices are soaring. They're unaffordable. This government is overseeing a reckless immigration boom directly at the time they've made housing unaffordable. And, yes, we are not bringing in, amongst this immigration boom, migrants who can actually help with this construction crisis. Nine bricklayers—there have been well over a million immigrants, but there have been nine bricklayers. We're bringing in more than a Canberra, the city we're talking in here now, every single year, but there are only 158,000 more dwellings. While Labor is fuelling housing demand with runaway migration, they are not addressing housing supply at all. The Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion funding mechanism, sounds good, doesn't it? There is $10 billion providing availability payments over a 25-year period, but it has still failed to construct a single dwelling. We're gearing up for the next election, and a signature announcement— Ms Miller-Frost 296272 It's just not true. Mr KENNEDY 267506 Well, if it's not true, I'd invite the next member to address that directly and tell me how many homes you've built in the last 2½ years on this. Over this same time, net immigration has increased by 1.15 million people. There is the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator Fund—a fund for states to expand housing stock. Well, even the largest recipient of money from that, the New South Wales state government, are less than impressed, with their official social housing implementation report stating that the impact of the 1,500 additional homes from this program is small given the level of unmet need for the 57,000 people on the social housing waiting list. Again, there have been more than a total of 1.1 million immigrants over this time but no houses built as a factor of their $32 billion of announcements. It's important to contextualise this number. I read an industry expert estimate that maybe they'll complete 40,000 by the end of their time in government. Actually, there were granny flat reforms in New South Wales in 2019 that actually led to a bigger improvement than that. That created 49,000 extra dwellings from granny fat reforms that cost the taxpayer zero—not $32 billion but zero. What would the Liberal Party do differently? Firstly, we'd ensure that infrastructure funding was prioritised, meaning that state governments, councils and local communities aren't left footing the bill of a runaway migration program and population growth. Further, our plan will look to reduce housing pressures by freezing red tape, reducing migration and banning foreign investment. (Time expired) 15:58 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley The Albanese Labor government knows that Australians are having a tough time at the moment with housing, whether it be in trying to buy or trying to rent. That's why we are getting on with the job of building more homes for Australians. Since I've been in this role, I've heard on the doors while I've been out in the community and on the phones that housing is a big issue for our people, from single mothers to families of four to those in low-paid work. There is a devastating feeling that comes with yet another rent increase or losing out on another rental application. There is a chronic housing shortage in Australia which has been decades in the making. The core of the problem is that Australia has not been building enough houses for far too long. Those opposite, when they were in government for nearly 10 years, did absolutely nothing to help this crisis. A growing number of young adults and families with a dream of owning their own home are having to come to terms with the fact that it will take much longer to buy than it did for their parents. That's why our government is just getting on with the job of building, instead of blocking like those opposite. Our Homes for Australia plan will build more homes, more quickly, in more parts of the country, fulfilling an ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. Nearly 400,000 homes have already been built across Australia since Labor took office. Mr Repacholi 298840 Did you hear that? Four hundred thousand. Ms BELYEA 309484 Four hundred thousand, Dan. This is a massive number, assisted by our fee-free TAFE program, which has supported nearly one million people to study and address the failure of the opposition. These homes have been built through programs like our $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator or the Housing Australia Future Fund. This has resulted in more than 20,000 homes in the pipeline through direct Commonwealth investment. On top of this is our $2.7 billion increase in Commonwealth rent assistance, which has given more than one million households more than a 40 per cent increase, providing much-needed rent relief. This government has invested more in building homes than the opposition did in almost an entire decade in office. The opposition have accused the Labor government of failure, but, as the opposition well know, homes cannot be built in a day. Nine years in office is more than enough time to build the homes Australians need, and they have failed. Even now, they raise MPIs like this yet continue to block 40,000 people from owning a home by teaming up with the Greens to block Help to Buy in the Senate and through their choice to delay the Housing Australia Future Fund. There are so many other important housing reforms on the go, including the $9.3 billion five-year National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness, which will combat homelessness, provide crisis support and build and repair social housing. Over the past few months, I have met with the Mornington Peninsula Shire, SWAN and a range of local community organisations that support people who are homeless, and I understand the acute need for social and affordable housing in the electorate of Dunkley. With 59.9 per cent of Dunkley on low or very low incomes and homelessness at an all-time high, we need more homes and we need more construction workers, which is how our investment in fee-free TAFE works hand in glove to achieve our goals of ensuring more homes can be built. I am committed to supporting the building and construction of more housing, particularly social and affordable homes, in our community so that all locals, no matter what their financial or personal circumstances, have a roof over their heads. 16:03 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise to speak in support of this very important subject raised by the member for Deakin: 'This government's failure to deliver the new housing that Australia needs'. Housing is a basic human right, and, in a country like Australia, the only way anyone should be homeless is by choice. I note that there are people who, for various reasons, choose to be homeless, and in this democratic nation that is their right. But this cohort is very much in the minority. The majority of homeless people would much rather not be in this situation. Homelessness takes many forms. We have those who live in tents. Some live in cars. Some go from refuge to refuge. Others couch-surf with friends and family. The bottom line is that anyone who doesn't have a permanent address is homeless. The electorate of Longman, which I serve, is part of the City of Moreton Bay. The latest data shows that around 2½ thousand people in this one LGA alone are homeless. Many of these people have full- or part-time jobs. Some have families, including small children. There are many reasons why people are homeless, but it all stems back to one core issue, and that is the law of supply and demand. There is simply not enough supply to meet the demand. A quick look at the facts paints a bleak picture. The year 2023-24 recorded the lowest number of new home-building commencements in over a decade, despite record demand for housing. All three levels of government have a part to play in solving the issue of supply and demand. The local government's role is around more streamlined, faster and more affordable approvals processes on land releases and infrastructure processes. State governments also play a part in the approval processes and the overall planning schemes, but they have the responsibility of ensuring that government or social and community housing is part of the solution to supply. Sadly, in my home state of Queensland, this has been neglected with very few dwellings being built or acquired by the previous state Labor government, despite record funding provided by the former coalition federal government to the states. What about the federal government's role in this? Federally the impact is more around the demand issue. Our housing stock increases each year by enough to house around 280,000 people. Our population grows within our country by about 100,000 each year, which is why the immigration level has been traditionally around 165,000. In the last financial year alone, our population has grown by 656,000. Since Labor came to government, the population has increased by a bewildering 1,426,000 in just 2½ years. Everyone can see that this reckless policy has disadvantaged Australians, particularly those low-income workers who simply can't compete with those who have more income. The federal government can and should restrict, or ban altogether, foreign ownership while we are in this crisis. Our first responsibility is to the Australian people, and every home that is purchased by a foreigner is one that an Australian misses out on either to rent to another Australian or to purchase for themselves. This would decrease demand and, therefore, see an easing of the overheated housing market that we are currently experiencing. Another problem we have is this Labor government's obsession with everyone getting a university degree. If a student's best pathway is university, I'll always fully support that. However, when I speak to students, many tell me they are being encouraged to get, and almost embarrassed into getting, a university degree when they have simply no interest in this pathway. These are the people who want to work with their hands or who simply don't learn best in a structured classroom setting. They're not wired this way. But, so that this Labor government can brag that they have increased university enrolment rates, they practically force these young people into a pathway that will ultimately depress them when, in most cases, they will fail. Honourable members interjecting— Mr YOUNG 201906 No, we need to ensure these people are encouraged to take up vocations like trades because, even if we get the funding, the land release settings and the infrastructure settings right and even if the result is plenty of affordable land ready to build on, there won't be much point if we don't have the tradespeople to build houses. We need incentives for employers and prospective apprentices to encourage an uptake in these vital trade vocations, but the results show, in the past two years, a decline of 11.8 per cent in people taking up apprenticeships, even though demand has never been higher. That is because this government's fee-free TAFE policy has failed, and they have been focused on the wrong priorities, like the failed Voice referendum. It's time for a change and to get Australia back on track because the Australian people and our future generations deserve it. 16:08 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt While the Greens and Liberals try to block progress, Labor is getting on with the job of building new housing. It's fascinating to hear the Liberals lecture us on housing, considering their history on this issue. Let's take a look back at that. Australia has seen 20 ministers for housing since Federation. The first was appointed by the Chifley government in 1945, but just six years later the Menzies government abolished the role. This back and forth continued, with Prime Minister Fraser abolishing the position in 1980. Labor then reinstated it under Bob Hawke in 1983, only for the Howard government to cut it once more in 1996. When Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister, he reappointed the role. Under Liberal leader Tony Abbott, once again, it was abolished. I don't know if anyone else sees the pattern here, but it is clear to me that, every time the Liberal Party takes power, they abandon the federal government's role in housing, just as they did during their last nine years in government. Labor has a plan for housing, and it's a plan we're putting into action. We are set to deliver 1.2 million homes over the next five years, and the impact is already visible in my electorate. The city of Casey, which Holt covers, has the highest number of new housing approvals in this country. Our $1.5 billion partnership with state and territory governments has fast-tracked infrastructure projects to support new housing by clearing bottlenecks in infrastructure. While building sewers may not be glamorous, it is essential for places like Clyde and Cranbourne West, where infrastructure has lagged behind. This plan is effective—so effective, in fact, that the member for Deakin has decided to copy it. But our plan doesn't stop there. Labor is investing $10 billion to build 30,000 new social homes and affordable homes. We're addressing the labour shortage with funding to train 20,000 new construction workers, and our commitment to 100,000 fee-free TAFE places per year means we're preparing a skilled workforce, despite the Liberals dismissing all these initiatives as a waste. Through our Home Guarantee Scheme, we've helped 100,000 people buy a home with a five per cent deposit, without needing lenders mortgage insurance. Our $32 billion housing plan addresses every part of the housing pipeline, from infrastructure to affordable ownership. We also want to help Australians to buy homes through our shared-equity scheme, reducing costs for 40,000 Australians. Why, then, is the frankenstein coalition of the Liberals and the Greens trying to block this plan? Well, the Liberals claimed they have their own plan. What is the first part? It's to copy ours and fund local infrastructure bottlenecks. What is the second part? It's to drain Australians' retirement funds and push up house prices by allowing people to withdraw $50,000 from their superannuation, at a huge cost to their own future. A 35-year-old drawing $50,000 could lose $400,000 in retirement savings. The Super Members Council estimates that the coalition's plan would create a budget black hole costing billions of dollars and be economically reckless. So, before listening to the coalition's plan for housing, ask the member for Deakin who will fill the $400,000 hole in your retirement and who will foot the bill to support you in old age. I guess the member for Deakin and the coalition do not care. The coalition always wanted to destroy the superannuation system—one of the best retirement schemes in the world—and this is their plan to do it. The Liberals are focused on building homes. We are helping young Australians to buy their own homes. We are building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade, and we will do this without asking you to drain your retirement savings. This is our commitment to the Australian people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 42 Report 42 16:13 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Flood failure to future fairness:report on the inquiry into insurers’ responses to 2022 major floods claims, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr MULINO 132880 by leave—In 2022 floods devastated communities right across Australia. The floods in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania led to more than 300,000 claims being lodged—more than for any other natural disasters in Australia's history. These floods affected my own community, with over 500 houses inundated above the floorboards. Hundreds of families were rendered homeless and many more had their lives turned upside down. To this day many are yet to move home, and many remain in dispute with their insurer. This was a national issue and is a report focused on national dimensions, but I'm very conscious of the human impacts of this issue at a local level in my own electorate. In response to this series of disasters, the House passed a resolution tasking the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics with undertaking an inquiry into the insurers' responses to the 2022 floods. The terms of reference included claims-handling issues but also broader issues relating to insurance affordability and accessibility as well as land use planning. This report outlines the findings and recommendations arising from a year of investigation by the committee. In addition to hearing from insurance CEOs, regulators and leading consumer advocates, the committee travelled to affected communities and heard directly from individuals, small businesses and community leaders about the response by insurers and the impacts of the floods on their lives and livelihoods. The report contains 86 recommendations, most of which were supported by all committee members. The implementation of these recommendations will lead to better claims management, more transparent reporting of insurer performance, lower premiums for households exposed to a high risk of flooding and improved long-term strategies for flood preparation and resilience. This report examines the three Ps of flood insurance: policyholders, pooling and preparation. Policyholders need to be treated better, pooling mechanisms need to be strengthened and preparation needs to be given more priority. Policyholders have a right to expect the timely and fair consideration of their claims. While many cases arising from the 2022 floods were handled well, too many were badly mishandled by insurers. Direct witness testimony heard by the committee as well as case studies referenced in submissions detailed many instances of poor treatment and a range of systemic problems. Inconsistent decision-making, long delays due to poor communication and disputes over causation resulted in emotional, mental health and financial strains for many families. More than two years on from the floods, many people still have not been able to move back into their homes. The committee heard heartbreaking stories of families moving from hotel to hotel at short notice for months, only to end up camping in sheds and backyards after their allowance had expired after six or 12 months. A number of recommendations adopted by the committee relate to the General Insurance Code of Practice. The code needs to be strengthened as a priority. The committee recommended that the ICA register the code with ASIC for approval and, further, that the code become a contractually enforceable element of the policyholder's insurance contract. In addition, the committee recommended a number of areas where regulation of claims handling should be strengthened, including: legislation standardising key terms across all insurance contracts; clear guidance material being provided to consumers at emergency hubs; the code setting out meaningful timelines in relation to communication; clearer regulatory guidance in relation to the preparation of expert reports; a requirement that, if insurers fail to make a decision after 12 months, they must automatically pay out the claim in full; stronger regulatory guardrails in relation to final cash settlements; fairer dispute resolution processes; and key data in relation to claims management performance being provided to ASIC—and ASIC publishing this data. Pooling is the second P in my own schematic. Pooling underpins both private and social insurance. It generally works well. However, flooding is one of the most challenging forms of natural disaster to insure. Floods can impact the same towns, the same suburbs and the same regions time and time again. This report identifies a number of areas where pooling should be strengthened. At present, insurance policies have varying lengths for the provision of temporary accommodation and often have a maximum guaranteed length that falls far short of the time taken to complete a rebuild. This places a significant and very difficult to manage set of risks on households. In some policies, the cost of temporary accommodation comes out of the sum insured. The committee believes that it would be better for insurers, rather than households, to manage and bear the cost of temporary accommodation. Another area where policyholders face considerable risk is where the pre-existing condition of a material aspect of the building is unobservable. A good example of this is stumps. Policyholders often pay premiums for decades when neither the insurer nor the insured knows the state of the stumps. It is understandably frustrating when, after a flood, the floorboards are taken up and an insured person or family is told they will not be paid out due to the condition of the stumps. This aspect of coverage almost becomes a lottery, and that isn't fair. For the insurer to take on more risk in relation to this would have very little impact in terms of their total cost under the pool as a whole and is an important improvement in risk allocation. Finally, increasingly granular high-quality data that insurers generate and rely upon is leading to, in some ways, more actuarially fair prices, but it is also undermining pooling, particularly at the higher risk end of the market. It is increasingly possible to accurately identify individual properties at very high risk of flooding. This results in extremely high premiums for flood insurance for these households. Given that insurers are increasingly moving away from opt-out policies, this creates a risk that a large number of properties will not be insurable at all. Some form of government intervention will be required. This is reflected in the fact that governments intervene in flood markets in most advanced economies. This topic warrants urgent consideration and modelling by government. Our report doesn't settle on a particular model but rather sets up a set of principles which we believe would govern sensible consideration of possible intervention. The third P is preparation. The best way to reduce premiums in the long run is to reduce the underlying risk. In 2014, the PC found that 97 per cent of natural disaster funding went towards recovery and rebuilding, and a mere three per cent went to invest in mitigation and resilience. Since 2022, the Australian government has committed to $200 million per year to the Disaster Ready Fund, and it has also partnered with the Queensland and New South Wales governments on resilience authorities. As a result, that ratio has materially improved. However, more is needed, and we need to maintain that over the long term. Property-level mitigation is also important. For high-risk properties, this includes house buybacks and investments in resilience, such as house raisings. Lower-cost measures, such as more resilient flooring and construction materials, can also reduce risk. But there must also be an obligation on insurers to reduce premiums where households reasonably prove that mitigation works have been completed, and this needs to be monitored appropriately. In addition to more mitigation at the community and household level, we need to stop the building of more homes and businesses in high-risk areas. It simply isn't fair on households to be purchasing in an area which is already at a one-in-100-year risk or more and which moreover may often increase in risk over time. The Australian government should publish property-level risk data for developments in newly zoned land. In addition, the government needs to consider cooperating with banks to limit or somehow constrain borrowing to housing developments on newly approved land at a one-in-100-year risk or more. This report contains 86 recommendations that will result in better outcomes for consumers—in particular, for vulnerable consumers and households at very high risk of flood. This is partly a question of better claims management and partly a question of better long-term settings for reducing the nation's underlying risk of flood. Only if we move forward on both fronts can we truly make progress for Australians at risk of future flood events. In conclusion, I would like to thank a few people. Firstly, I would like to thank the hardworking secretariat. Their commitment to the completion of this inquiry was truly well above and beyond the call of duty. That included travelling to regional areas, often for days at a time, right across the country; processing hundreds of survey responses, often with very complex statements and attachments; processing complex submissions; and drafting a report that cast a wide net—I might say a 453-page net—in a coherent and cogent manner. To Jeff, to Dee, who was on secondment from Treasury, to Tessa, to Laura, to Nicolette and to Jasmine, I say a great big thank you from all of the members of the committee. I thank my fellow committee members, particularly the four members who were added to the House economics committee for the purposes of this inquiry: the member for Calare, who indeed seconded the motion by the House for this inquiry to be undertaken; the member for Macquarie; the member for Blair; and the member for Page. All four of these members attended public hearings in regional areas, and, very importantly, they provided the committee with deep and thoughtful insights into their communities that had been devastated by the 2022 floods. The report is much richer for their having participated in this report. To the deputy chair, who is in the chamber at the moment, and to all of the other members of the committee, thank you for your diligent, thoughtful and collegiate approach. With 14 members on the committee of this inquiry, it required a lot of give and take to achieve as much consensus as we did. Finally, as chair, I thank those who shared their experiences of the floods and their aftermath for this report. For many people, it was difficult to participate in this process, particularly by giving evidence at public hearings. We acknowledge that many people are still recovering from the financial and mental health toll, and we are extremely grateful that so many people found the time and were so generous as to give their valuable insights. They gave their insights so that many will benefit from a fairer system in the future. 16:24 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom by leave—I'd like to start by thanking the chair for his stewardship of this very difficult report. This was a Standing Committee on Economics inquiry that went right into emotional statements from people, something we don't often do, and I think the way that you handled that was absolutely excellent. The truth of the matter is the secretariat did an outstanding job. This inquiry spanned a broad area of Australia, so I thank them for their hard work. I join with the chair in thanking everyone who gave evidence or spoke before the committee. I do want to thank the engagement of the ICA and the insurers, who were very aware of how important this inquiry was, particularly to those affected. I would note that in some cases there are actions they have already taken towards the recommendations because they engaged so fully. I think that speaks volumes, Chair, to your leadership throughout the management of that process. It is important also to echo the chair's comments. We have to talk in statistics when we are talking about an event as big as this but it was so crucial that we did hear the voices of those impacted directly. The work that was done was excellent. The most important issue that I came across and wanted to prosecute throughout this inquiry was planning and the role it played in putting at times very vulnerable people into housing that was completely unacceptable. I remember very clearly the testimony of the CEO of the Moreton Bay Shire Council, who told us that he had to increase the area's population by 12,000 people per year. When we asked: how many of the houses that you are building are on floodplains? He said 'quite a lot'. It was this devastating thought—that the problem we are talking about is only going to get worse, and he very well knew it. I commend him for his honesty. The reality is this will probably get worse in these areas, so particularly recommendations 71 and 72 on planning speak to the heart of the issue. If we want to resolve the responses of the insurers, one of the best things we could do is reduce the number of people being impacted right at the start. There are two recommendations that I flagged, which speaks to the report. In the whole of the 86 recommendations, there are only two that I have strong concerns about. One was recommendation No. 3. While we're looking at the response of the insurers, it's also important to take a look at the broader context of insurance. We have seen increases in insurance costs that have gone through the roof. I have genuine concerns about any actions a government may take that would good push that affordability higher, because the last thing I would want is vulnerable people to be unable to afford insurance, and this could make the problem was. I think that is a step where we have to be very careful about how we manage that process so that any changes don't result in people choosing to self-insure and drop out of that cycle. That would be the worst possible outcome. Recommendation 70 speaks to government intervention. I have spoken briefly on the issues around affordability and how they can make things worse. I would hate to see a situation where we have an issue around the availability of insurance in Australia similar to what we saw in California. I refer to the study tour that was undertaken. I thank American chamber and ICA for putting that together. It was insightful to see a region that is often described as being similar to ours in terms of the events, the climate, the spacial distribution of houses. The private insurers have walked out of California. We heard the National Flood Insurance Plan provides only four per cent of Americans with insurance up to a maximum of $350,000. That includes the $100,000 top up from FEMA and it is just a cheque that is given to people. There is no management or mitigation, no improvement of the situation. I would hate for us to be in that situation, I really would. That was one thing that really terrified me—the thought that, while that is an extreme outcome, it is within the realms of possibility—and is one that we must avoid at all costs. I raised that concern. I note that the insurance industry has already come together to put together responses to all of these recommendations. I commend them for that. I think they need to do that for the sake of everyone who gave their testimony. They need to see the insurers responding fully themselves. But I think it would be important for any government, before they took any steps to proceed with any policy, to get those responses from industry. Again I thank the chair and all the committee members, particularly those who joined the committee, for their inclusion. 16:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare by leave—I rise to make remarks in relation to this issue and this report on behalf of constituents in the electorate of Calare in central western New South Wales. The storms and floods that hit central western New South Wales in November 2022 were catastrophic and devastating for our region and its residents. Two lives were tragically lost in Eugowra, which was the scene of the largest helicopter rescue in Australia's history. Across the communities of our region, including Eugowra, Molong, Cudal, Canowindra, Manildra and Wellington, infrastructure, homes and businesses were destroyed. The stress, fear and anxiety amongst our local residents from not only having survived the ordeal of their lives but also facing an uncertain future were palpable. When disaster struck, our residents naturally turned to their insurers for help, and issues arose almost immediately. For example, NRMA had been the insurer of choice for many local residents in Eugowra, yet in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, many residents reported problems in being able to talk to claims personnel. It took the company 10 long days after the disaster to arrive at the Eugowra showground with their mobile claims unit to assist homeless residents. This was a source of anger amongst residents, which grew stronger as the response to the disaster unfolded. As the exhausting days of recovery wore on, problems with insurers just grew and grew. I held public meetings in our electorate of Calare where residents were able to tell and share their stories. It was empowering. Residents noted striking similarities in the way in which insurers were treating their policyholders. These included policyholders not having key provisions in their insurance contracts explained to them, claims processing being unnecessarily dragged out, substandard and inconsistent expert reports, shoddy treatment by contractors and insurance company representatives, claims being unnecessarily knocked back, and policyholders being offered, and accepting, lowball cash settlements because they were too exhausted to fight anymore. It was clear that the rebuilding and recovery process was being made much harder and the tragedy much worse by the cold-hearted and shocking response of insurers to policyholders. There were so many issues being raised about insurers that local residents and I began calling for a parliamentary inquiry. To its credit, the government called for an inquiry. The Assistant Treasurer and I announced the inquiry in Eugowra in July 2023. This committee then took evidence in Eugowra, Molong and all over eastern Australia and, for the first time, a real spotlight has been put on the industry. What it has revealed is unconscionable and systemic industry failures that exist at every step of the insurance process. The evidence taken by this inquiry amounts to a damning indictment of the insurance industry. While some in the industry may be ashamed of it, I suspect many are not. Eugowra is a long way from the boardrooms of capital cities. While not every insurance company did the wrong thing, the living hell that a number of these large insurers have put policyholders through should not be sugar-coated. Words should not be varnished when describing it. The narrative put forward to this inquiry by the Insurance Council of Australia and a number of insurers was, in effect, that the floods of 2022 were unprecedented. This and other excuses, such as poor planning decisions since the time of Governor Macquarie and European settlement, COVID, labour shortages and the war in Ukraine, all resulted in some customers having poor experiences. Examples of this attitude and these excuses are littered throughout the written submissions and oral testimonies of insurance industry and company representatives. But, as we know, major natural disasters are not new to Australia or insurance companies. There is simply no excuse for what a number of these corporations did to their policyholders, and the Australian public should not let these insurers get away with this arrogant spin. When insurance company representatives came to give evidence before this inquiry, there appeared to be a complete lack of insight on the part of some of them as to the pain and suffering they had inflicted upon their own customers, notwithstanding that an army of public relations consultants had no doubt prepared many insurance company representatives for their appearances before our inquiry. In some cases, getting apologies and acknowledgements for the hell they had put their customers through was like pulling teeth. As I've said, some insurers did do the right thing. Some did genuinely try and assist residents in our area, but the fact remains that the industry giants clearly don't like the spotlight being put on industry practices or the healthy profits that they continue to enjoy. This profitability has come at a high cost to many of their fellow Australians. The reality is that the Australian insurance industry has had a good thing going for a very long time. It has donated to both sides of politics. It's a strategy that has served it well. In the midst of healthy profits, it's been left to largely self-regulate. Insurance companies don't just answer to shareholders; they also answer to the nation. They don't just have insurance contracts with our residents and businesses; they also operate with a social licence. The Australian public needs to be vigilant and not be afraid to revoke these licences to operate when egregious behaviour comes to light. This inquiry has exposed plenty of that. As I've said, profits have been made by these corporations at the expense of customers all around our country. The committee heard evidence from policyholders about their treatment by insurers that was deeply disturbing and disgusting. This callous treatment was truly shocking. The debilitating effects this has had on traumatised policyholders is tragic, and it must be stopped. The report makes recommendations across a range of issues plaguing the industry. I believe that they can make an important contribution towards fixing the massive power imbalance that currently exists between insurance companies and their customers. I just don't think they go far enough. These insurers need to be held to account. More recommendations are needed, and I was disappointed that more weren't included in the main report and given the consideration I believe they were due. That's why I filed additional comments and a dissenting report to supplement the main report. It contains a further 38 recommendations that can make a real difference to insurance policyholders such as forcing experts and claim assessors to sign up to a code of conduct; funding building expert reports for policyholders when complaints reach the Australian Financial Complaints Authority; forcing all insurers to sign up to the General Insurance Code of Practice; properly funding community legal organisations to help disaster-hit residents; and stopping the uncontrolled strip-outs of policyholders' homes after natural disasters, which has been described as legalised looting. All of these recommendations are the first steps to fixing a broken industry. The government and insurers now need to step up and implement the recommendations. Policyholders shouldn't be made to wait for long-overdue reforms. The government now needs to act on the recommendations and ensure that any necessary legislation can be passed during this term of government. The insurance industry also needs to get cracking because the eyes of the nation are upon it. I wish to thank the very hardworking chair and the secretariat staff for their hard work and diligence throughout the course of this inquiry. The committee has worked in a productive and collegiate way. I wish to also thank all who gave evidence to this inquiry. For many, having to relive the trauma they suffered has been very difficult. It is my hope that by telling their stories, collectively, they can be a catalyst for long-overdue change and reform to this industry. I extend a heartfelt thank you to the countless unsung heroes around our nation who risked their own lives to save others during these devastating disasters. I also thank those who've worked with such care and compassion to help so many to rebuild their lives and recover from such tragic loss, including those who've attempted to help policyholders get through the deeply traumatic process of dealing with insurers. In that respect, in our area, I make mention of the team from Legal Aid who were there from the first hours of this disaster. There were also many others including lawyers like Kirsty Evans from Cheney Suthers lawyers in Orange who gave up so much time to make submissions to this committee and help our devastated residents right throughout our region. Their work continues to this day. 16:39 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next sitting day. Reference to Federation Chamber 46 16:39 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 47 BILLS Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 47

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

Second Reading 47 16:40 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence In continuation of my earlier remarks, where I touched on the complexity of departmental processes for veterans and the significant disdain towards them from veterans' communities. A consequence of that overarching sentiment had led to many veterans' distrust in government upon their transition back toward civilian life regardless of their politics, and to an even greater extent this mistrust deepens in reference to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Many veterans have come to feel abandoned by the very country they have spent years of their lives in the service of. Reading through a number of the submissions and the feedback provided by veterans and ex-service organisations across the process leading up to the introduction of this bill, I absolutely understand why this is the case. Walking through the doors of any local RSL or when conversing with any of its members, there will be a good chance you will encounter someone who will tell you a story or two—or 10—about a poor interaction that either they or someone close to them has experienced at the hands of DVA. This is especially apparent within my electorate of Spence, where the pressure of an inadequate system can make usually tough conditions worse for families in our community. According to the most recent statistics, my electorate is home to 1,316 current serving ADF members and 284 reservists. This is in addition to a veteran population of close to 4½ thousand. Of that population, almost 3½ thousand people are receiving some form of support from DVA. This is in addition to the 600 eligible dependents receiving a number of different payments, allowances or supports issued through DVA. As such, it is an electorate which is home to one of the largest Defence and veteran populations in Australia, the highest in my state of South Australia. The sheer size of the community in the north is in large part why I'm proud to have advocated for the Albanese Labor government to fund a veterans and families hub within my electorate of Spence. It is extremely heartening that these hubs have received further endorsement from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide as part of one of its recommendations in the final report. It is also heartening to see a significant degree of bipartisanship during this parliament in implementing reforms to assist veterans. This degree of bipartisanship is something I am now used to from all sides of this chamber, and this is no surprise because we all have, collectively, 350,000 reasons to make sure we get this reform right, and those reasons are the 350,000 veterans and eligible dependents that receive payments, allowances or supports through the three acts which are being reformed as part of this bill. And that number of recipients is projected to rise steadily over the next decade. These people are depending on decisions made in this parliament. It's through this reform that we will fix our system in the present and ensure veterans services are adequate going forward. Back in September we sat in this place to witness the Deputy Prime Minister table the final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide—a report of more than 3,000 pages and weighing in at roughly 12 kilos across seven volumes. But that pales in comparison to the weight of its findings, and the weight of the task at hand in addressing the issues raised. I became a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans along with the member for Menzies, who has himself contributed significantly to the veteran space in this parliament. I was proud to have hosted in this place the three commissioners—Nick Kaldas APM, the Hon. James Douglas KC and Dr Peggy Brown AO—in September last year to share their insights while the inquiry was being conducted. Their engagement with the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans was extremely rewarding, as was the attendance of those in the audience. These included Vice-Admiral Mark Hammond, Chief of Navy; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart AO DSC, Chief of Army; and Air Marshal Robert Chipman AO, CSC, who at the time was Chief of the Royal Australian Air Force prior to becoming Vice-Chief of the Defence Force earlier this year. They were attending alongside ESOs, departmental officials and, most importantly, our veterans. We saw widespread engagement across the veteran space and determination to bring about a solution to the systemic issues at hand—a solution that many veterans and their families have felt that it has been a battle in and of itself to bring about. In fact, many veterans have expressed that they feel like they are fighting a losing battle against DVA to access entitlements and supports, fighting once again after they have left military service. This war is fought on a battlefield consisting of distressing phone calls and being inundated by a forest worth of complex paperwork and legal documents. This bill aims to end that battle decisively, cutting through the confusion and delays that have plagued veterans for far too long. We owe them that, as a government. We owe them more than this convoluted system. We owe them clarity, dignity and fairness. I say this because the current system is broken. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide confirmed that beyond any doubt, and the sheer complexity of navigating these three different acts is causing veterans untold stress and tragedy. In some instances these systems have contributed to devastating losses of life, as veterans unable to cope with these processes have committed suicide. For those veterans, who gave part of their lifetime to serve their country and keep us safe, it is absolutely unfathomable that they've lost their lives altogether soon after—lost their lives trying to transition back into civilian life and lost their lives trying to receive crucial support they were already entitled to. This is a national tragedy. Reform is needed, and this bill is an important step towards that. This bill consolidates the main acts forming part of the legislative framework around veterans entitlements, comprising: the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the VEA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, which is commonly known in the veteran space as DRCA; and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, or MRCA. This framework has evolved since the introduction of the War Pensions Act in 1914, the first of its kind in Australia that legislated military compensation, and has become increasingly complicated. Between the three main acts that form this framework today—MRCA, DRCA and the VEA—there are over 2,000 pages of legislation alone. This is without factoring in any other instruments, SOPs or other documents that must be considered in conjunction with them. This state of affairs burdens veterans who might already be recovering in their physical and mental health after service even more, already dependent on government assistance to support themselves and their families. So there's an urgent need to address the unwieldy present state of this framework. This is a need the Albanese Labor government has listened to, and rightly so. This bill has been fundamentally shaped by listening, not just to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide but also to veterans and their families, along with ex-service organisations like the RSL and Legacy, who have given broad support to these reforms. This bill is also informed by listening to many components of the reviews and reports, from the 2017 report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee titled The constant battle: suicide by veterans through to the 2019 report by the Productivity Commission entitled A better way to support veterans. That wealth of expert knowledge and lived experience informs this bill, grounding it in the day-to-day lives of veterans across the country. That process started back in October 2022, when the Albanese government started the first of what would be three phases of consultation. They commenced not long after the first recommendation of the royal commission's interim report, calling on government to simplify and harmonise the veterans legislative framework, which this bill will achieve. There were two additional rounds of consultation after the initial stage, beginning back in February last year—the first one that was open to the public. This included a number of webinars and in-person consultation sessions in the community, which saw 246 submissions be received by the DVA. These submissions were considered in the lead-up to the final consultation phase, upon the release of the exposure draft of this bill earlier this year. This final stage of the consultation saw the DVA receive over 300 submissions on the exposure draft, many from veterans and ESOs. These submissions would lead to further amendments ahead of the bill that is before the parliament today. This feedback was extremely important. It goes without saying that the most important and informative sources of knowledge are derived from the experience of the system itself, and those sources are the veterans who have navigated its complexities—the Australians that the government will always have a duty to support. Advocates and ex-service organisations who have fought for reform over many years also contributed significantly, and I acknowledge their important role in shaping the bill. This is genuine reform from the ground up, with veterans at the heart of it, and rightfully so. In my role as the member for Spence, I was in constant contact with veterans across my community regarding this process of reform, and the message throughout that consultation with veterans and stakeholders organisations, both in my community and across the country, has been received loud and clear: simplify the system. That is the principle at the very heart of this bill, because, from 1 July 2026, all veterans' rehabilitation and compensation claims will be considered under a single piece of legislation, which is MRCA. This will make the system not only simpler but also fairer and more responsive to the needs of veterans. The bill also goes beyond just consolidating the legislation, as it grandfathers past claims in order to ensure a seamless transmission to the new framework. Furthermore, the bill introduces a range of additional enhancements. This includes the introduction of the additional disablement amount, which provides a new benefit for veterans over pension age who suffer from significant service related impairments. This new measure will offer additional financial support to those most in need, ensuring that they receive the care and assistance they deserve as they age. This bill also includes a number of provisions aimed at streamlining the claims process through the new MRCA, helping to reduce the time it takes for veterans to receive their entitlements, removing the complexity of the current tri-act framework, and working to stop the delays of months, if not years, due to bureaucratic congestion, hurdles and denials before claims are even processed. This is what the veteran community wants our government to do, and that's what we are doing. Looking forward, our government is committed to maintaining that ongoing dialogue with veterans and their families. We will continue to listen, to learn and to adapt our approach based on their feedback, with the bill opening the door to the further reforms that this engagement will underpin—reforms that will address remaining gaps and ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We do this because we have report after report—reports coming from committees and inquiries, from the media and from within our communities and our homes—showing clearly what the tragic consequences of inaction and inertia in the veteran space can be and have been. We can all take some ownership, as the elected representatives of this country, of the issues this legislation is determined to fix, just as we all have a role to play in ensuring that our parliament prioritises the wellbeing of our veterans both now and in the future. I say this because taking ownership of the problem in the space is how we as a nation will arrive at a solution. I commend this bill to the House. 16:53 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi The decision to serve your country is a momentous one. Whether in peacetime or in war, our servicemen and servicewomen put the safety, security and prosperity of our nation before their own. Whether on the front lines or not, Defence service is dangerous. The wounds go far beyond the physical, and we know the significant mental toll our veterans and their families face. So, when men and women make that decision to serve, it's fair that their government in turn takes care of them. But, as a nation, we are not doing enough to deliver on our end of this bargain. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is a watershed moment in our nation's history. The stories we've heard are harrowing, and the release of the final report is a sombre moment for all Australians. The findings and recommendations of the royal commission are a powerful call to action, and we cannot let this moment go to waste. This must be the moment where we say, 'Enough is enough,' and commit, as a country and as a parliament, to do better by our veterans, their families and the wider community. That's why the bill before us is so sorely needed. It responds to the first recommendation of the royal commission's interim report—to fix a veterans' entitlement system that is comprehensively broken. The royal commission concluded that the entitlement system is so complex, so convoluted and so prone to delays that it contributes to the distress and suicidality of veterans. How can it have come to this, where the very system designed to support veterans and to help them, is contributing to their anguish, their pain and, in some cases, their death? As one veteran in my electorate asked me, 'How hard can it be to get this right?' I agree. While it may be hard, we must find a way to make the entitlement system work better for veterans, because the stories I hear from veterans in my electorate are distressing. They're veterans who feel abandoned within the complex and confusing entitlement system. Connor is a veteran in my electorate living with total and permanent incapacitation. After months of searching, he finally secured the services of a cleaner in his small regional town to help him. But after only three visits, the cleaner said they could not continue working for him because of the department's failure to provide payment for invoices that were submitted. Connor says most contractors simply won't work with DVA clients because of protracted and ongoing payment delays. For veterans in regional and rural areas, this often means they simply don't get the care they need and the care that they're entitled to. For service providers like Bluebell Services, a veteran owned business in my electorate, the impacts are extending to their employees. Bluebell's directors, Matt and Sarah, say that delays are impacting their contractor's credit scores and contributing to mortgage stress at a time when the cost of living is already making things so tough. They asked my office why veterans and their service providers are forced to beg for money from their government. We need this bill because stories like Connor's and Matt and Sarah's simply cannot continue. Report after report shows that one of the key reasons the Department of Veterans' Affairs is failing is because of the complex and byzantine entitlement system. That's why I support the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. This bill will simplify the veterans' entitlement system by ensuring that there is only one act dealing with all veterans' entitlements not three, which is currently the case. This bill would amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, MRCA, to ensure it is the only ongoing act from 2026. The bill would close the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to new claims. Where there are currently three different systems, all overlapping and contributing to the distress of veterans, soon there will be only one. This bill would also make several other changes that should be commended. The bill will introduce a presumptive liability mechanism for conditions known to be associated with ADF or other service. The new clause 27A will enable the minister to approve a list of injuries and diseases known to be service related. That means veterans won't be required to prove time and time again that their condition is service related; it will be automatic. While we don't know what conditions may be included on this list, it could mean that conditions such as PTSD are included. This will make it easier and quicker for veterans to receive support and care and will remove a source of distress and secondary trauma for veterans forced to prove, often on multiple occasions, that their condition is service related. It's also encouraging that more veterans and their families currently receiving benefits under DRCA will be eligible for gold cards. For many in my community, gold cards are a crucial, indispensable source of support for things like medical treatment and counselling. I support their expansion to more veterans with high levels of impairment. However, RSL Australia raise an important concern about the hurdles veterans may have to jump to access a gold card under the new arrangements. I share their concerns that the current drafting of the legislation may result in a perverse situation where the higher the level of impairment, the more difficult it will be for veterans to access a gold card when transitioning from the DRCA to the MRCA. I hope the government will address these concerns as the bill moves through the parliament. The bill will also streamline certain administrative processes by merging the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission into the Repatriation Commission. The bill will also make it easier for veterans to appeal adverse decisions to the Veterans' Review Board, and this will help to create the single review pathway that was recommended by the interim report of the royal commission. The bill also harmonises entitlements such as funeral allowances and travel allowances. The introduction of an additional disability amount will ensure consistent compensation is available to all veterans who are age pension age or older with a high degree of incapacity. Changes to the way travel allowances are paid will be particularly important for veterans in my electorate of Indi and across regional, rural and remote Australia. Workforce shortages and the tyranny of distance make it so hard for veterans in my communities to access appropriate services, and ensuring travel allowances are consistently and fairly paid will reduce stress for many in my electorate. This bill is an important step, and it will help veterans in my electorate who are being failed by the status quo. However, while this bill will improve the situation, any change will be slow. Implementation of these reforms is delayed until the second half of 2026, two years after the royal commission recommended. Veterans will still be forced to deal with a broken system for a few years yet. So, while I support this bill, it must be improved. The defining feature of this bill is the government's promise that no veterans will be worse off because of the changes. We must hold the government to account on this, and the government must listen to community concerns and amend this bill where necessary. Having met with and listened to veterans and heard the concerns arising from the inquiry into the bill, I've identified several parts of this bill that could and should be improved. Firstly, the existing definition of a 'wholly dependent partner' needs to be revised. I share the concerns of stakeholders such as Legacy, RSL Australia and Australian War Widows that the term 'wholly dependent partner' is outdated, fails to reflect the reality of modern relationships and does not reflect the care and support dynamic that exists between a veteran and their partner. Secondly, I support a no-detriment clause being included in the bill for claims between the passing of the bill and the start of the new single act system on 1 July 2026. While the department has recommended veterans delay their claims until 2026 where possible, this is unreasonable for so many veterans, widows or widowers. A no-detriment clause would ensure the government lives up to its commitment that no veterans will be worse off and would ensure that the more beneficial provisions apply when the old and new systems come into conflict. I hope to see these issues addressed in amendments in the Senate. I support this bill because it will make a difference for veterans living in my electorate. I hear too often from veterans at breaking point, forced to deal with a broken system, and, while I support the intent of this bill, it alone is not enough and certainly not soon enough. This government and any future government must be prepared to respond to the final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide with more action and more funding to help veterans. This bill is just the start. Doing better by veterans cannot happen in two years time and not after the next election. It needs to happen now. The way we failed to support veterans in this country is to our shame. It's not good enough. If the minister is right and this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the system right for veterans and their families, then they should be willing to work with the community to improve this bill further. I want to take this chance to speak directly to veterans in Indi and to those still in service. Indi has many defence connections, most notably Gaza Ridge Barracks and Wadsworth Barracks in Bandiana and Latchford Barracks in Bonegilla, on the outskirts of Wodonga. We also have defence manufacturing, which employs many people in Indi. In the 2021 census, more than 5,000 people in Indi said they had previously served or were currently serving in our defence forces. Knowing these deep links to the Defence Force, when I became the member for Indi, I made a concerted effort to grow my knowledge of what it means to be a serving member of the Defence Force and the issues facing veterans. This includes taking part in the Defence Force Parliamentary Program, joining Operation Resolute with the Australian Border Force last year. Throughout my time as the member for Indi, I have worked closely with our veterans' organisations, including the RSL, through the Tim Fischer AC Veterans and Families Hub at Wodonga, and the Goorambat Veterans Retreat, just to name a few. I especially want to acknowledge the partners and families of those who serve. The husbands, wives and partners face significant challenges of their own, not just in supporting their partners. The children of ADF members also deserve recognition. Many move schools and towns often as they follow their parents' work. I've attended schools taking part in the Defence School Mentor Program, which is a vital support. Indi is home to two units of Army cadets in Wodonga and Wangaratta, and 420 Squadron of the Air Force cadets in Wangaratta, and these young people give me great optimism about the future of our nation. In just the last few months, I held an event marking 25 years since Australians served in peacekeeping forces in Timor Leste, and the stories of those veterans and their families, particularly the mother of two of the men who were sent, taught me so much. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Solomon here in the House today in making this event happen. He too served in Timor Leste and he continues to advocate on behalf of veterans in the parliament, and I appreciate and applaud his service. I also recently met with members of the Wodonga and Rutherglen RSLs to speak about the findings of the royal commission. They asked me to tell them about the findings but, as always, I feel like I learned so much more from them. It feels pertinent to give this speech as we approach Remembrance Day. It is a vital role of our RSLs to host ceremonies on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, managing dozens of volunteers, maintaining local cenotaphs and keeping the memories alive. The work that goes into these days is so valued by our veterans and by the wider community. I thank them and I respect them. As a nation, Australia pays respect to those who served, rightly. We pay that respect with dignity and solemnity. But truly understanding the experiences of servicemen and women is the work of many conversations, of listening deeply, and, even then, I am not sure if we do truly understand what we have not experienced ourselves. I would like to say thank you to Indi's serving and veteran community, both for your services and for the experiences and stories you have so generously shared with me from Vietnam, from Timor Leste, from Afghanistan, from Iraq, from across the world. I know sharing these stories is not easy and I want you to know that my office and I are here to help you. We will always do everything we can at our disposal to give you the support you so rightly deserve and we must give so fulsomely. 17:07 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 aims to simplify and harmonise the existing legislative framework governing veterans' entitlements and support. This is in response to the first recommendation from the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Currently, veterans' entitlements are determined under one or more of three primary compensation acts. These acts depend on when the veterans served, which period of service caused or contributed to the condition being claimed. Over the years it has become increasingly complex to access support through these acts with their overlapping provisions and inconsistent criteria. This bill represents the most significant commitment towards simplifying veterans' legislation since the introduction of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 20 years ago. Imagine a veteran who has dedicated their life to serving our nation trying to access support and benefits only to be met with a confusing web our rules and regulations. This difficulty can lead to frustration, delays in receiving vital support and, in some cases, veterans not receiving the assistance they desperately need and deserve. In handing down its report, the royal commission observed that the current system of veterans' entitlements is so complicated, it adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and their families. In the last decade, there has been a significant shift in the mental health space. Previously, mental health issues were often stigmatised, misunderstood and overlooked. Many people struggled in silence due to a lack of awareness and a fear of judgement. Traditionally, society has created this stereotype that veterans should be resilient, emotionally strong and self-reliant. This stigma has often discouraged them from expressing vulnerability or seeking help for mental health issues, as they may be perceived as weak. As a result, many service men and women have struggled with their mental health in silence, leading to untreated conditions and adverse outcomes. However, this narrative is slowly changing, as awareness of the importance of veterans' mental health continues to grow. This is something that I spoke about with my good friend Lachlan Stevens when we walked the Kokoda Track in April this year. I'm really fortunate to have Lachlan and his parents, Kevin and Annette, up in the gallery today. In my electorate, one charity that has been a huge advocate for veterans and mental health is the Barstool Brothers and Raising the Bar Foundation. Lachlan Stevens and Daniel Chin created the Barstool Brothers in 2019 in Wollongong's best burger bar, His Boy Elroy, which I have spoken about in this place many times before. I have watched Lachlan and Daniel build the Barstool Brothers and Raising the Bar Foundation. They have created a partnership between the Raising the Bar Foundation and RSL New South Wales to establish the Walk With Us Kokoda program. The program is funded by the RSL NSW Veteran Support Fund, receiving $70,000 every year for the next five years. This program sponsors eight veterans each year for four years from across New South Wales to complete the Kokoda Track alongside civilian members of the public. Hearing about their work and wanting to see firsthand what our diggers had to endure in order to protect our country in World War II, and after a lot of lobbying from Lachie, who was pretty convincing, I signed up to walk the Kokoda Track. But, first, I'll tell you a little bit about Lachie. Lachlan Stevens was a member of the ADF for more than six years, where he served as a combat engineer or sapper. A sapper is one of the most hazardous roles in the ADF, often working around live explosives and improvised explosive devices. It is a vital job that protects other Australians from potentially deadly situations. Lachlan was deployed to Afghanistan in 2010 and again in 2012, and, while deployed, his job was to detect IEDs. This role places extreme levels of stress, danger and uncertainty on the sapper and claimed the lives of multiple heroic Australians over the duration of the conflict. Their service shall not be forgotten, and we will remember them. Upon leaving the Army, Lachlan realised that many veterans needed support, and he diverted his passion and savvy entrepreneurship to his mental health support group, the Barstool Brothers. This group aims to promote conversations around mental health to men in a safe environment at free, accessible events. The second aspect of this group is that it provides education initiatives for the purposes of providing a mental health training program for people within the hospitality industry. Lachlan continues to support his country as a veteran, a pioneer in mental health services and an innovative and highly motivated small-business operator. Lachie signed me up to walk Kokoda with him and 100% Kokoda—organised by Cam James and Katrina Johnson—and our group of trekkers, who were awesome, and our amazing team of porters. I will acknowledge all of them first. Larry Aitcheson was our trek leader from 100% Kokoda, and our amazing trekkers were Lachlan Stevens, Marija Murray, Shay Macpherson, Tina Buecher and Kristy Stroop. Our team of amazing porters, all of whom were descendants of the 'fuzzy wuzzy angels' who helped our soldiers during the war, were Acko Bobogi, our trek master; Limi Boe, the lead man who started each morning with a joke and a war cry to psych us all up; my amazing porter, Eddie Pipi; as well as Caleb, Nelvin Wala, Ben Lalabe, Andy, Junior, Matthew, James Stanley, Olosi, Ben Gai, Jay Kei, Kei Yoki, David Gai, Alex Maulu, Garrison; and also Matthew John, our amazing cook, who made our favourite spam and two-minute noodle filo pastry rolls and cut up the beautiful pineapple that we bought along the track. I have to give a special shout-out to Marija Murray, who joined me in fundraising for Lachlan's foundation during the trek. We raised $14,000. Marija raised most of this, and she is an absolute superstar. One of the best things about this trip was meeting this impressive young woman, who became a partner at Kelly+Partners chartered accountants at the young age of 30. I'll start by saying that walking the Kokoda Track is, without a doubt, the single hardest thing I have ever done in my life. Firstly, I'm not really a happy camper, and, secondly, massive, steep, narrow, dangerous five-hour hills are definitely not my favourite thing—a fact my amazing porter, Eddie, will attest to, as he had to suffer many hours of me expressing my displeasure at yet another hill and asking how big the hill was, how hard the hill was, how long the hill would take and whether this was the last false summit. I would ask Eddie, 'Is this a big hill?' and he would often say, 'No, not for me; for you, yes.' He would often tell me that there was five minutes to go or three hours to go, and neither of these would be right. But he did keep me guessing. Thirdly, I did the track with three bulging discs and two pinched nerves in my back, and it hurt a lot—but this just proves that anyone can do it. Lastly, I wasn't entirely sure that I would make it, and I spent almost every minute of every day counting how much time I actually had to make it through, how many nights I had to camp and how many hills we had left. Marija and I had a running commentary around the map on her phone, trying to work this out. I also spent a bit of time wondering how I might explain a substantial helicopter cost to my husband if I could not make it. It was really hard, but it was nowhere near as hard as our diggers had it back in 1942 and 1943. I still can't quite get my head around thousands of men being on that narrow, rough track—and it would have been much rougher back then. Our porters played games. They would hide in the jungle a couple of feet away, and we couldn't see them. This must have been terrifying for our diggers—not ever knowing how close the enemy were and when they might attack. The dysentery, the malaria, injuries, wounds, the mosquitoes—these are the things that our diggers had to endure during their fight to protect our nation. Before I left, I read Peter FitzSimons's book Kokoda, and he outlines in detail some of the horrific conditions that our diggers endured on the track. Everyone should read that. When I returned, I read Reg Chard's biography, The Digger of Kokoda. The book talks about the challenges he faced on the track and his love for Betty, who later became his wife, and just how much he missed her while he was away. Reg also wrote about his dad, who fought and was gravely wounded in the 1917 Battle of Passchendaele during World War I. He came back with terrible mental health and substance abuse issues that just weren't talked about then, let alone addressed, resulting in a very tough family life for Reg, his mum and his siblings. Soldiers like Reg also didn't have the luxuries that we have today to help us with the tough conditions. Our group had the luxury of great tape for our feet and good-quality walking boots, which resulted in absolutely no blisters for me. We had strapping tape, deep heat, physio cream and Nurofen Plus for all of our aches and pains. Our diggers had none of that. Lachy, Larry, Marija and I often spoke about the four pillars that really sum up the Kokoda Track and are enshrined in a beautiful memorial at Isurava, where we had our second dawn service towards the end of the track: courage, endurance, mateship and sacrifice. Lachy talks of how these values or attributes have guided him in his business and his charity work. As we walked the track, Lachlan talked about how our service men and women can often feel a lack of purpose when they leave our armed forces. They feel they no longer have a purpose in life. For years, their life has revolved around the service of their country, moving their homes around our nation and oceans, or being deployed overseas, away from their family and friends. We also spoke about the difficulties that veterans face in accessing the services that they need to help them through their transition from the Army, Air Force or Navy to civilian life. For veterans with physical or mental injuries, this transition is even harder. Today, mental health is increasingly recognised as an essential component of overall wellbeing. There is a growing awareness of how common mental health conditions are, and we have made massive strides in reducing the stigma associated with seeking help. After seeing the conditions firsthand, I had a new appreciation for all who walked the gruelling trail during World War II and for all the men and women who sign up to serve our country and to protect our democratic society and the life that we love here in Australia. My experience in Kokoda made me even more passionate about fighting for our veterans and ensuring that they receive the support that they need. Through this bill, we are ensuring that, for veterans and their families who are seeking services and support, the system will be more streamlined and easier to access. The bill also introduces a range of enhancements to the MRCA that will help make access to entitlements easier and fairer for veterans and that have been shaped by feedback provided by the veteran community across 2023 and 2024. One significant change is the consolidation of funeral expense compensation under the MRCA. This change allows dependants and legal representatives of deceased veterans to lodge claims regardless of which act the veteran was previously covered by. Another key aspect is that several benefits will be moved to the MRCA, including the Acute Support Package, household services and attendant care, the Victoria Cross allowance, ex gratia payments and recognition supplements for former prisoners of war. Additionally, a new payment called the additional disablement amount, or ADA, will be introduced. Similar to the extreme disablement adjustment, or the EDA, this payment will support veterans over pension age with significant service related impairments. Dependants of deceased ADA veterans will also have access to the gold card and other benefits in the event of a veteran's death, ensuring continued support for families. The 2024-25 budget included $222 million in additional funding for veteran and family entitlements and supports to be made available through this new simplified legislation. This will ensure veterans and their families can better understand and access the support that they are entitled to faster. As we move forward, let us continue to listen to our veterans and work collaboratively to address their needs. Together we can build a system that reflects our nation's values of fairness, respect and compassion. This bill is a step forward in providing the support for all of our veterans and their families. We owe it to those who have served our country to provide a strong support system that promotes healing, resilience, wellbeing and a meaningful future post service to our country that gives them a purpose in life. 17:21 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on this very, very important bill, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. I think it's really important that as a House and as a parliament we can come together to make sure that we're doing everything we can in an ongoing manner to be able to look after our veterans. This bill deals with one of the trickiest issues that has been facing governments for decades now, and that is that there are three different bills that deal in three different ways with the entitlements for veterans. It seeks to harmonise those bills in a way which doesn't disadvantage veterans. This is something that I think both sides of the parliament have been looking to achieve for some time, because it has always been a source of angst in the veterans community. Following the royal commission, the fact that we are here now, working through this in a way which is showing bipartisanship, is really important. If we can't do these types of reforms together, then it always makes it very difficult to do very, very important reform. Currently, there are three separate acts that operate to provide entitlements, compensation, rehabilitation and support to veterans. There's the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986, or VEA, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, which is called the DRCA. Don't ask me why, but it's called the DRCA. Then there is the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, which is called MRCA. The three acts are over 2,000 pages long and include more than 850 legislative instruments. As a former veterans' affairs minister, can I tell you that these three pieces of legislation are extraordinarily complex. The act that applies to a veteran is primarily determined by the period of service which is related to the claimed injury, disease or death, as well as the nature of that service. The three acts provide different types of compensation, including pensions, lump sums and periodic compensation payments, health care and rehabilitation. In some cases, veterans can have claims under all three acts. This bill will amend the MRCA to be a single act for veterans rehabilitation and compensation from 1 July 2026, so there will be a period of time for implementation. While we all would have preferred it if this had been done quicker, I think the most important thing is that we get it right. The DRCA and the VEA will be closed to new liability and compensation claims from 1 July 2026. The MRCA will be open to claims arising from service which would previously have been determined under either the DRCA or the VEA. The bill does not deliver true harmonisation due to the preservation of disparities between the VEA, the DRCA and the MRCA. The bill simply harmonises entitlements for new claims from 1 July 2026. This is an important point, because it would have been incredibly complex to try and do that. In a way, what is being done is a grandfathering process to make sure that we're looking after those who are under these existing acts and, in some instances, are getting compensation under existing acts. This is quite a sophisticated way to harmonise the entitlements going forward, by making sure that those who are already on existing acts aren't disadvantaged. Veterans receiving benefits immediately prior to the commencement of the new arrangements will continue to do so under the grandfathering arrangement without any reductions in their payments, because it would have been simply intolerable for that to have occurred. This bill also proposes a range of enhancements for various entitlements, including the introduction of a new additional disablement amount similar to the extreme disablement adjustment available under the VEA. We're seeing some of the benefits and entitlements from the various acts, especially those benefits which are working well for our veterans, being shifted over to make sure that they continue. The introduction of presumptive liability, consolidation of household and attendant care, an increase to $3,000 for funeral allowances and the availability of reimbursement for funeral expenses of up to $14,062 for all service related deaths, higher reimbursement amounts for travel when a private vehicle is used to travel for treatment, standardisation of allowances and other payments, and the introduction of an instrument enabling the Repatriation Commission to determine circumstances where a veteran must receive financial advice before receiving a lump sum payment—these are all things which, for a long period of time, veterans have sought in one form or another. It depends on which act or acts they've been getting their compensation from, but often there have been discrepancies as to why one veteran is getting a payment and another veteran is missing out. So harmonising all this and bringing it together is something which is definitely a significant step forward. Where did this bill come from? The bill addresses recommendation 1 from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's interim report, and the recommendation was 'simplify and harmonise veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislation'. The royal commission recommended: The Australian Government should develop and implement legislation to simplify and harmonise the framework for veterans' compensation, rehabilitation and other entitlements. …   …   … (3) By no later than early 2024, the Australian Government should present to the Parliament, and seek passage of, its Bill for the proposed framework. (4) If the legislation is passed, the Australian Government should, by no later than 1 July 2024, begin the process of implementing and transitioning to the new legislative framework. (5) If the legislation is passed, the Australian Government should ensure that, by no later than 1 July 2025, the new legislation has fully commenced and is fully operational. We have slipped on that timeframe, but, as I've said before, making sure we get these things right is of critical importance. While we all had hoped that this would have been done by 1 July 2024, the fact that we're here is something that I welcome. What we also need to ensure is that we not only implement these changes but also continue to review the changes that are being made to make sure that they continue to deliver what we all want from this parliament and from this House, and that is that our veterans get the support and the care that they need once they exit the military or if, sadly, there is a fatality, that their families get the support that they need. As a previous veterans' affairs minister, the issue in particular of veteran suicide is something that is very dear to my heart, because when I became minister it became very apparent to me that we had no idea as to the extent of veteran suicide. We put in place the first register to try and get a sense of what was occurring, and by providing the facts we were able to say, 'Yes, this is a significant issue that we do need to address.' There were measures that were taken to try and address this issue and make sure that the support and services that our veterans need was provided. There was a wide variety of changes which were made to the department. One of the big challenges was ensuring that that support was there in a very holistic way. We started veteran-centric support and saw a significant investment of hundreds of millions of dollars into the Department of Veterans' Affairs to try and ensure that that support was there for our veterans. One of the real challenges—and this became very apparent in the royal commission—was making sure that both Defence and Veterans' Affairs were talking to each other in the right way, that there was proper exiting taking place and that proper coordination was taking place. It has taken the royal commission to bring all this together in a, largely, very coherent manner—in particular, bringing these three acts together and moving forward in a way which hasn't disadvantaged our veterans. But this doesn't mean that we can think that the job is done. This is going to take all of us, working together, to make sure we continue to monitor and make sure that the royal commission recommendations are implemented and that every 12 months we ensure that we're checking on the progress that is made. One of the challenges that any government or any parliament faces is making sure that, once you pass legislation, once you take action, there is continual follow-up. When I was minister, we put in place changes. We put in place monitoring. We put in place yearly reviews to try and ensure that this would continue to happen. We have to make sure that continues to be the process that we follow, because we have to ensure that those who are prepared to serve on our behalf, those who are prepared to put their lives on the line so that we can live in a safe and secure country, in the best country in the world because our freedoms have been preserved because people are willing to sacrifice on our behalf, then we have to make sure as a parliament we are there for those people. There is no more important test for any parliament than to do that on behalf of those who serve us. There are many ways we can do it. We can make sure there are very good employment pathways for our veterans when they exit. We can make sure there is consistency in the support and the payments our veterans receive once they exit. We can make sure that as a nation we support everything that those who serve on our behalf are doing on our behalf. We can have great pride in our Armed Forces and make sure we are there for them so that they know this nation has their backs and is supporting them the whole way. These are all the things we need to be doing to make sure that we are looking after those who serve us, because there is no more important job for us as a parliament than looking after our veterans. 17:36 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I thank the member for Wannon for the spirit in which he gave that speech, the bipartisan nature of it was very important. And I would like to thank the member Cunningham, who has left us with a terrific speech telling us about her trip on the Kokoda Trail, likening that of course to the fact the diggers and the veterans who walked that trail would have been doing it in very different circumstances. It was a wonderful contribution from her and I would like to thank her; it was a delight to listen to. That is probably the closest I will get to the Kokoda Trail, by the way—listening to the member for Cunningham. As it currently stands, a veteran wanting to understand their entitlements must navigate and correctly interpret the following compensation acts: The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and then, depending on when the veteran served and if it caused a specific condition, the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988. That's a mouthful. It's complicated. You pretty much need to be a military lawyer to understand it and that is not good enough for our veterans. Our veterans and their advocates have been calling for the entitlement process to be streamlined for years, and I am pleased to be speaking in support of a bill that does just that. This bill is the Albanese Labor government delivering the most comprehensive and significant improvement to veteran entitlements in more than 20 years. The Productivity Commission recommended slimming compensation legislation to two acts rather than three. Well, we have gone one better and are simplifying it to just one. This legislation means all new claims for compensation and rehabilitation will be untangled and determined through a single act, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, MRCA, the first one I mentioned. Under this change it will be easier than ever for veterans to understand and receive their entitlements. The bill does more than just slim down the process. It also builds on key areas as communicated to us by veterans when we reached out to consult with them. Under this bill, the MRCA gives greater benefits to veterans under a simpler package. All dependents and legal representatives of a deceased veteran can claim for the funeral costs under the MRCA irrespective of the act under which they formerly had coverage. Not only this but we have raised the cap for funeral costs by 50 per cent. The MRCA now regulates support packages, household services and attendant care, allowances for heroic recipients of the Victoria Cross, ex-gratia payments and supplements for former prisoners of war. Finally, the Albanese Labor government will introduce a whole new payment scheme under the MRCA. The additional disablement amount, or ADA, payment builds on pensions received by veterans if they received some kind of impairment during the service. It recognises the sorts of difficulty specific to an injured veteran in their old age and provides much-needed relief. Further, any dependant of a recipient of the ADA will have automatic access to a gold card and benefits when the veteran dies. The ADA provides assurance to our veterans that their loved ones will continue to be supported after they're gone, and that's a really big consideration and a matter of security for our veterans. It's important to note that not a single veteran is worse off under this bill. There are no losers. No-one has any benefit reduced. All changes are positive. The intentions of this bill to simplify claims and reporting are an acknowledgement of the royal commission's findings that the labyrinthine entitlement process is a significant contributor to poor mental health among veterans. It is both astonishing and unacceptable that a male veteran is 42 per cent more likely to commit suicide than a male who did not serve. If a male veteran was discharged on medical grounds, it becomes almost three times as likely. If you're a woman who served, you are twice as likely to commit suicide. A female veteran discharged on medical grounds is more than five times as likely to take their own life. Between 1997 and 2021, Australia recorded 1,677 suicides of people who had served this nation in uniform. Wearing a uniform in defence of this country and having the commitment to serve and the willingness to take up arms and put your life on the line for your fellow Australians and in defence of the values of Australia should not result in damage to your mental health so profound that it is potentially lethal. In 2019, I spoke up in this place in support of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill, which was put to the parliament by the former government and again had bipartisan support. I talked about Eric, a Vietnam veteran living in Bridgewater in my electorate. Eric had complained about the way politicians are very happy to shake veterans' hands on commemorative days and on the campaign trail but we seem to soon forget about them once the cameras are off. I know that we in this place all have a genuine commitment to our veterans, but I try to look at it through his eyes. Through his eyes, he was seeing that we were there for the pomp and the ceremony but, when it came to dealing with the department and trying to cut through and navigate all those issues, we weren't there in the same way. That was an important point to me. He was angry about how difficult it was to access basic entitlements like medical care, services and benefits and how hard it was to deal with the department. I ended that speech by saying: … we need to do better … Our veterans need the ongoing support of government and their community. Those words remain just as true today, five years later, under a new government. That's what the bill aims to do—make it easier for veterans to access their entitlements. It shouldn't be hard. That's not all this government is doing, I'm proud to say. The Albanese government has allocated more than $290,000, through the Veteran Wellbeing Grants One-Off Program, for Vietnam veterans in Tasmania. This funding fitted out a multipurpose education and training centre in Lake Sorell in my electorate to support 4,000 veterans, I was proud to be invited to open the Veteran Multipurpose Education and Training Facility recently, representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel. I'd like to thank Terry Roe, the Tasmanian branch president of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, for the association's advocacy and hard work in making this facility a reality. It's part of a terrific complex that will provide terrific healing and respite for veterans and their families. If you know the Lake Sorell area at all, you know it's quite isolated. It is a beautiful part of the bush in the Central Highlands. It's just a really nice place to get away and collect your thoughts. Earlier this year, the minister also approved a third round of grants for the Saluting Their Service program. This grant means veterans groups in every corner of Lyons get the chance to commemorate service and sacrifice. Saluting Their Service is already funding flagpoles for Molesworth Primary School, murals in Sheffield, plaques in Melton Mowbray and an entirely new cenotaph in the Meander Valley. The RSLs of Sheffield and the Northern Midlands will see existing commemorative structures rejuvenated and ready to serve as focal points of remembrance in the future. In June, in this place, I spoke about the Swansea RSL and the flag in their possession. The flag had been kept hidden by Tasmanian Fred Pegg during his captivity in the notorious Changi Prison during World War II. That flag bears the signatures of 89 British and Australian servicemen who had been imprisoned there. It bears bullet holes and what looks to be dried human blood. Its very existence in that camp was an act of defiance in the face of extreme adversity, and it has now been gifted by the Pegg family to the RSL. Funding from the Saluting Their Service program will preserve this flag and associated memorabilia in custom-made housing at the Swansea RSL, where it will take pride of place. It's difficult for me to express how moved I was when visiting the RSL and seeing that flag in front of me. As I mentioned in my speech in June, I remember the feeling of seeing this artefact that had been in Changi and written on by men in all sorts of conditions of emaciation and suffering. They'd put their names on this flag—an act of defiance and resilience that said, 'I'm here, and I matter.' It was really incredible. I felt like I wanted to touch this flag and, though I'm not a religious person, I felt reverence. I knew this was a national treasure. I believe it had been offered to the War Memorial, and they turned it down, but I thought, 'This is a magnificent piece of history.' It will now take pride of place in the Swansea RSL, on the east coast of my electorate. It will be behind a mounted frame, in deoxygenated air; it's quite a set-up. I'm sure that, for the families and descendants of the many men who served and were imprisoned in Changi, this will become part of their journey. I recommend that every member go and have a look once it's up. I think it goes up sometime later this year,. The bill before the House offers the biggest improvement, as I said, to veterans' entitlements in 20 years. I'm very proud to represent a government that continuously demonstrates its commitment to veterans. I acknowledge that this is a bipartisan issue, but the simple fact is that, when we came into government three years ago, we inherited 42,000 claims from veterans that had not yet been assessed. We got to work quickly. In the 2022-23 October budget, the Albanese government invested $233.9 million in order to hire 500 frontline staff to deal with the backlog. In February this year, Minister Keogh confirmed that the number of unassessed claims had plummeted from 42,000 to around 1,700 and that the timeframe from submission to claim assessment was down to two weeks. I'm sure every member will be pleased to hear that. But we didn't stop there. We've unlocked $186 million towards hiring an additional 141 staff to keep the applications flowing and to keep that backlog down. In our most recent budget, we have boosted veterans' home-care and community nursing programs with $48 million. It's important to note that, of course, increasing housing for veterans is part of our overall housing package. We know there's still plenty to be done, and we're getting on with the job. There'll always be more to do to improve this area. But, as Eric told me in Bridgewater five years ago, veterans deserve so much more than a handshake and a platitude. This government is demonstrating, by the actions it's taking and the practical improvements it's implementing, that Australia's veterans can count on this Albanese Labor government to make the meaningful decisions that will make a difference. Lest we forget. 17:49 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt As all speakers have commenced their remarks by doing, can I begin by saying that we all inherently come to debates regarding supporting our veterans hoping to have unanimity and complete bipartisanship in always looking for ways to better provide the support that those who have served our nation are so very much entitled to. They should expect of their government the highest of standards to look after them, not only specific to any issues that come from their service but also more generally. I acknowledge members of this chamber who have served our nation. The member for Spence and the member for Solomon are here with us at the moment, and obviously there are other members who are not in the chamber. Thank you for your service and thank you for serving in this parliament. Having veterans in this parliament from all sides makes sure we are fulfilling what we're meant to as representatives, which is bringing together so many different perspectives from the community to develop solutions to the challenges facing this country. By having veterans who have been elected to this chamber, and to the other place, that holds us in good stead to ensure we're always taking every opportunity to reform and to do better by people who deserve such great support from their government in acknowledgement of their service to our nation. I also note that we are but days away from 11 November, a time that we pause as a nation, as so many nations do around the world, at 11 am in whatever time zone you're in. It commenced as an acknowledgement of the Armistice, when the guns fell silent on the Western Front at 11 am on 11 November in 1918. It's something that led to the peace of 1919 and the end of such a dark and terrible chapter for so many young men of this nation and young men of many other nations. It was one of the most awful and horrendous periods of complete butchery. It's something that was called the Great War and was hopefully going to be the last-ever conflict of that scale. Regrettably, it was a mere two decades later that the Second World War commenced. Nonetheless, the lessons of history are there for us to continue to learn to this day. On 11 November we will pause—happily, the parliament's not sitting, although at times we do, on 11 November. No offence to the importance of this chamber meeting as regularly as possible, but it's so important to be in our communities on days like 11 November, particularly to be with those who have served who are coming to the various ceremonies at the various RSLs. It's a particularly emotional day for people who have served this nation, and we all look forward to the important commemoration that will occur at 11 am on 11 November. In my own electorate, I reflect on the many RSL clubs that we all engage with in our own electorates. I'd like to acknowledge Mr Don Looker, who I believe is the oldest veteran who lives in my electorate of Sturt. He was in the RAF Bomber Command. He's Australian; he's one of that small cohort that joined up and was sent to the United Kingdom to be part of the RAF efforts in the Battle of Britain. He continued to serve in the air force through the Second World War. Don also happens to be a friend of my family. I've known him for my entire life. We're very lucky that he's still with us. It's times like 11 November and Anzac Day that we reflect on people like Don—we all have people like Don in our electorates—and we think about the great service they gave to our nation. The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 gives us the opportunity to harmonise and improve the way in which we serve our veterans like Don Looker and our newer and emerging generations of veterans who have served this nation and who deserve the highest standards of support from our government. Regrettably, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide laid bare that for a long time we haven't been treating our veterans to the standard they should expect. The worst manifestation of that is suicide, and the horrendous reality that was borne out through the royal commission process was that more service personnel of our nation have died from suicide than have died in combat. It's just awful to reflect on the fact that people have returned from serving their nation and that support hasn't been there at times. That was definitely brought out in the findings of the royal commission. There are examples of the welfare issues, which come from the lack of appropriate support, that stop short of suicide. In the worst-case examples—and they are all so terrible—manifestation of the lack of appropriate support to veterans is suicide. The royal commission looked at the bracket of time between 1997 and 2021 and identified nearly 2,000 deaths that they believed could be very clearly attributed to veterans taking their own lives, but probably that figure is more towards 3,000. That's absolutely heartbreaking. I was in the last parliament when we had a debate about how we could best address the issue of service personnel suicide and veteran suicide. As I said in my opening remarks, it's great to have people that have served our nation in the parliament. I remember the member for Herbert, in particular, was very significantly engaged in that debate, working with then Prime Minister Morrison. Despite the fact that the then government had a model that was talking about more of a permanent commission structure, we landed on the change of heart that saw the royal commission engaged. The first recommendation of the royal commission is to pass this bill and harmonise the way in which supports to veterans are provided. Other speakers have reflected on the fact that we could have moved a little quicker to bring this bill into the parliament, but I don't cast that as a criticism against the government whatsoever. I'm sure everyone would agree that the most important thing, whenever we look at changes to the way in which we support our veterans, is that we get it right. As members of parliament—I'm sure everyone has similar experiences to me—the sorts of matters that we deal with tend to be about getting it wrong, when the bureaucracy isn't servicing our veterans to the standards that our veterans deserve and should expect. A lot of that is driven by the complexity around the applications process and the very complex set of supports that are in place. At times I find it quite heartbreaking, what we put some people through—unnecessarily, I think—to access the support that they're absolutely entitled to. They should not have so many challenging issues with the labyrinthine way in which we construct access to that support. All the previous speakers have highlighted that the purpose of this legislation is to bring about that harmonisation, to bring about that very important first recommendation from the royal commission to streamline and simplify the process for accessing support. We need to spend as much money as needs to be spent to support veterans and to give them the entitlements that they absolutely deserve in exchange for the unbelievably significant service that they have given to our nation. This is a demand driven scheme and we should always look for opportunities to improve and enhance access to those that are entitled to the supports that they deserve for the service that they have given to our nation. So we approach this with a great deal of bipartisanship and a great deal of goodwill towards working with the government and supporting the government to do everything that we can, not just to pass this legislation and implement this particular recommendation. Of course, there are lots of other things that still need to be addressed from the royal commission. This is something that we stand very ready to work with the government on. We will support the government to do whatever can be done to implement those recommendations and, in an ongoing way, look for more opportunities wherever we find them to support our veterans in any way, shape or form. I thank the government for getting this bill into this chamber. I'm assuming that it's the intention to pass it pretty rapidly and to certainly get it through this House this week. With Remembrance Day next week, it's quite timely for us to be doing something that is improving and enhancing the way in which we service those who have given such spectacular service to our nation. With those words, I commend the bill to the House. 18:00 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to thank speakers before me for the genuinely bipartisan way in which this has been approached. I think Australians want to see that from us on this issue of looking after those who have served our nation. Australians generally understand the service and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces over the history of our nation. I'm a fourth-generation veteran and I have the honour of having been appointed by the Prime Minister as the Special Envoy for Veterans' Affairs. That means working with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who I met with today, and people like my good friend the member for Spence, who, with the member for Menzies, co-chairs the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans. They are doing a great job for veterans in that role and making sure that veterans have different points of contact within the parliament. I want to pay great tribute to our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, who responded to the concerns of the veterans community—including, obviously, their families—and fought for a royal commission to be announced. I also lobbied hard for that Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and I want to thank the Prime Minister for his support of me. Every day I talk with veterans, as many members in this place do, to share in their achievements; to celebrate, recognise and commemorate them and their families; and to assist them with any issues and difficulties they have along the way. I note that the final report of this very powerful and much-needed inquiry was handed to the government on 9 September. We'll respond to the full report by the end of the year. For too long, the veterans entitlement claim systems have caused unnecessary hardship and worry for veterans and their families. One only has to view the powerful winning entry by Kat Rae in the Napier Waller Art Prize for veteran art, named Deathmin, to understand that in stark relief. It is on display in this building, and I encourage members to check it out. It is a stack of post-death admin the artist inherited after her veteran husband, Andrew, suicided in 2017. As Ms Rae said in her artist statement: … Deathmin embodies the burden placed on veterans and their families. It asks bureaucratic institutions to care for the people they say they will. The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 is the Albanese government's response to the first recommendation from the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which was released a couple of years ago, in 2022. As it says in the title, the aim is to simplify and harmonise veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislation. The royal commission said the current system 'is so complicated that it adversely affects the mental health of some veterans' and their families. Veterans and their families have been calling for change to the system for years. This bill is the most significant commitment from any government toward simplifying veterans legislation since the introduction of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation act 20 years ago—full one score years ago. Currently, veterans' entitlements are determined under one or more of three primary compensation acts: the MRCA, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004; the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, or the VEA; and/or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act 1988, or the DRCA. This has been further complicated by the extra layer of when the veteran served and the period of service that caused or contributed to the condition being claimed. To say the system is overly complex and difficult is an understatement. It has also been a frustration of mine when I've tried to assist veterans—in fact, former soldiers of mine—who served under multiple acts of this place. In 2019, the Productivity Commission recommended that these three acts, the MRCA the DRCA and the VEA, be streamlined into two. But our government has taken this a step further. The bill before us streamlines the number from three acts into one. The bill would result in a single ongoing act from 1 July 2026. This will considerably simplify claims processing and give veterans and their families the support that they need faster. All new compensation claims would be dealt with under a single compensation act, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, or MRCA, regardless of when the veteran served or when they were injured or became ill. Honourable members in this place, if you have had any veterans come to you with frustrations you will know how this simplification is going to greatly assist particularly older veterans where they have served under several acts. But it's important to note that there'll be no reductions in entitlements determined under pre-existing arrangements—that is, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act or the DRCA. Under revised arrangements, the VEA and the DRCA will continue in a grandparented form but will be closed to new claims for compensation and rehabilitation from 1 July 2026, as mentioned. This bill also introduces a range of enhancements to the MRCA that will make access to entitlements easier and fairer for veterans. Many of the enhancements have been shaped by feedback provided from the veteran community across two separate consultation periods in 2023 and 2024. These enhancements include compensation for funeral expenses. They will be consolidated into the MRCA. Legal and personal representatives of deceased veterans will be able to lodge a claim under the MRCA irrespective of the act that the member previously had coverage from. The cap on funeral compensation formerly under the VEA will be moved to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and will be increased from $2,000 to $3,000. All those who have worked through funeral expenses for loved ones, friends and family, know that that will be a welcome increase. The legislative basis for benefits like the acute support package, household services and attendant care, the Victoria Cross allowance, ex gratia payments and recognition supplements for former prisoners of war will all move to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Some aspects of veteran treatment arrangements will move from the VEA to the MRCA, including the legislative basis for non-liability health care and the commission's powers to determine specific treatment programs and classes of eligible persons. These moves will result in no changes to coverage. A legislative basis for the Repatriation Commission to accept liability based on a presumption that the person's defence service caused their injury or disease will operate by providing the commission with an instrument-making power to specify the relevant injuries or diseases. A new payment, called the additional disablement amount, or ADA, will also be introduced into the MRCA. Like the extreme disablement adjustment, or EDA, this new payment will benefit veterans over the pension age with significant service related impairments. Knowing a few of those who are affected by that, I can say that is again very welcome. Like with the EDA, dependants of deceased ADA veterans will also have access to the gold card and other benefits in the event of the veteran's death. Importantly no individual veteran will suffer a reduction to their existing payments. As such, compensation previously awarded under the DRCA or VEA will not be disrupted. Again they will be grandparented. Funding for the enhancements delivered through these changes was included in the May budget this year. A commencement date of 1 July 2026 ensures the veteran community is well informed on what these important changes mean for them and provides enough time for individuals to consider their circumstances. This date also allows for adequate training for advocates and DVA staff ahead of commencement. With that mention of advocates, I just want to give a shout-out to all the advocates in my electorate and in fact across the Territory and across the country. As veterans they do such awesome work to help their fellow veterans. I had a coffee catch-up with George Koulakis up in Darwin last week. He really cares. He's one of those many advocates around the country who give up heaps of their own time to help their fellow veterans. We owe them a great debt. The 2024-25 budget included $222 million of additional funding for veteran and family entitlements and supports to be made available through this new simplified legislation, ensuring veterans and their families can better understand and access the support they are entitled to but faster. Again faster is the imperative word. It is worth noting another part of the response to the royal commission that complements this bill. Our government has delivered additional staff to process the claims backlog. DVA is processing claims at record levels because of the significant additional funding provided to DVA by the government and the dedication of the DVA staff. I give those staff a huge shout-out. It is important that you do your work briskly, professionally and with empathy. The backlog of initial liability, incapacity and permanent impairment unallocated claims identified by the royal commission has been cleared, and DVA is now managing 'business as usual' levels of these types of claims. It's business as usual but the new usual where we move with a sense of purpose to look after those who have served our nation. DVA aims to allocate all new claims within two weeks for processing by an officer. As at 30 June this year, 93.9 per cent of the claims backlog of almost 42,000 noted in the interim report of 2022 had been finalised, and the remainder were being processed. The 2024-25 budget provides additional funding and staffing to ensure DVA can continue to meet the needs of veterans and their families for high-quality services and faster. Again, the onus is on getting through the backlog. The only way you can do that is if you've got more resources, and this harmonisation will lead to quicker processing in the future. A range of measures and initiatives continue to be implemented to improve the claims process to support the veteran community. MyService enhancements are making it easier, for example, for veterans to submit claims. The compensation medical form review project has now been completed and has resulted in a reduction of 210 medical forms to 84. That is a significant decrease in the amount of paperwork, which was reflected on by Ms Rae in that powerful work. This has also realised a reduction in the amount that needs to be read and filled out, down from 658 pages to 183. A common complaint of veterans is that it is just too much—too much to comprehend, too much to work through. This simplification is definitely going to help. DVA has also updated its claims processing webpage to make it easier for veterans to know how to make a claim and view key data. Our government welcomes the findings from the final report of the royal commission, tabled on 9 September, and will respond to the new recommendations by the end of the year. I want to recognise all those who have served our nation, including those in the chamber, as well as those members on both sides of parliament who've worked in a bipartisan way to do what the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant says that we will do, and that is to honour those who have served our great nation. 18:15 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'm pleased to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, and I would first like to acknowledge all our veterans. Thank you for your service and for the freedoms we enjoy today. To the member for Braddon, who is at the table next to me, and the member for Solomon: thank you both for your service to our country and for your contribution to this debate. These types of bills should be above politics. Across the board, the submissions and contributions that have been made have been very bipartisan, and so they should be. My electorate of Cowper has 9,000 veterans, and, if you want to add their families, you could easily triple the number of people that would require support. We know that not all veterans, when they come back, are in need of support. Some transition very well into civilian lifestyle; many don't. This is much like what happens in the police force or any other paramilitary type organisation. I've seen many of my friends who didn't transition well from the police, so I understand how difficult it can be for some veterans to find their feet and their place in the world. In Cowper, we have 9,000 veterans, and one thing that really hurt after the last election was that I and a number of advocates—a dozen or so of us—had fought for funding for a hub-and-spoke model. The funding for a veterans' hub was $5 million for one hub, but we put forward a proposition for a hub-and-spoke model so that there would be four centres, from just north of Coffs Harbour down to Taree. That money was put aside, we made the announcement and there was pure joy from these veterans and advocates that there were now going to be places for veterans to go to without having to travel north for three hours or down to Newcastle. Sadly, that $5 million, despite the announcement, was reallocated to a seat further north that had half the number of veterans. I'm not going to say what the colour of the seat was, but the numbers didn't make sense. My veterans and my advocates were absolutely shattered, to the point of tears, because they'd thought they were going to have those support networks that they were promised by our government and by our people when they went off to serve. Since that time, $1 million has been allocated to veterans' advocates down in Taree. If you know Cowper, you'd know that, if you're a veteran in Coffs Harbour, you are three hours away from Taree. If you're a veteran in Port Macquarie, you're an hour away. Some of these veterans can't get out the front door. They're not going to travel for three hours. A million dollars was allocated to the advocate Geoff Harrison—thank you for your work, Geoff. Geoff went and found a partner, and that was One Life Church. One Life Church said: 'Here's our building. Let's transform it into a veterans' hub.' It works, but the locals, the builders and some of the veterans had to put their own money into that build. That is not right; that is not a support service. We have to be above politics. It has to work on the numbers, and the treatment and the support have to be equal for our veterans regardless of what seat they live in. Having said that, I do support this bill. It is the No. 1 recommendation from the royal commission. On the royal commission, I know there were three commissioners, but Commissioner Nick Kaldas is a personal friend of mine. If you're wondering out there as to whether these commissioners did not give their all, I can tell you he gave everything. His petrol tank was empty when he handed down the findings not long ago. So I personally would like to thank not only Nick but the other two commissioners as well. You listened to our veterans and you listened to the veterans' families and that is what they wanted. You have made those recommendations, this is the first one to roll out and it makes complete sense. As to the nature of the bill, the current system and the complexity of the provision of entitlements for veterans are almost impossible. There are three acts covering 2,000 pages—so a phone book—and 850 legislative instruments and it could be described as nothing but dysfunctional, which is why we had to transform it. There is so much miscommunication, frustration. I have spoken to veterans and advocates about the difficulties and the confusion. Some fall under more than one act, so it is made almost completely impossible, which is why the implementation of this bill is not only important but absolutely necessary. The enhancements that have been proposed under this bill to a number of entitlements will be greatly appreciated and are desperately needed. I completely agree that each is very valuable. Firstly, there is the introduction of a new additional disablement amount similar to the extreme disablement adjustment available under the EA. There will be an introduction of presumptive liability, a consolidation of household and attendant care, an increase to $3,000 for funeral allowance and the availability of reimbursement of funeral expenses up to $14,000 for all service related deaths, higher reimbursement for travel when a private vehicle is used for treatment—as I said, the nearest veterans' hub for my veterans is in Coffs Harbour, three hours away, so that will be well received—standardisation of allowances and other payments, and the introduction of an instrument enabling the Repatriation Commission to determine circumstances where a veteran must receive financial advice before receiving a lump sum payment. An interim report was handed down in 2022 and this was flagged. While it is good that it is finally in this House today, there was no reason this could not have been done over the last two years. So while we might be patting ourselves on the back that this bill is coming through today, it should have been done earlier. That was the point of the royal commission—that government and the department have dragged their heels for too long. We need to make that change. This bill should go through this week and it will have the support of the coalition. But I do wish to make a comment about the findings of the royal commission. In the recommendations there are only two that use the words 'partner support'. There are some wonderful veterans in Kempsey, and I spoke to two of them over the weekend. Carly Batty, who served, is the carer for her husband, who did tours of Afghanistan as well as other areas. I also spoke to another lady who was a nurse in the Army. They both said to me, 'Pat, the reason why we had the royal commission was that it was being pushed by not only veterans but also families and partners.' Whilst the ADF might say, 'Thank you so much for your service,' they then turn to the carers or the partners and say, 'They're yours; they are now yours.' Both of these ladies were saying, 'There's no support for us.' It's been recognised, but one of the recommendations is that we collect data. How much more data do we need? We've had the people give the evidence. What we need to do, together, is put the money where our mouths are and provide the funding for those support networks. I'll loop all the way back around to where I started. Those support networks are those hubs, and we should be prioritising them. Five million dollars is a drop in the budget. We shouldn't be fighting over where they go. We should be saying, 'If you have veterans in your electorate, here's the money and here are the support networks; here's help for you, your family and your partner.' Many of these veterans don't want to go outside and talk to professionals. It's an old-school thing. In the cops, a debrief was going for a drink. People don't want to go and talk to professionals. But they take it out on their partners. When I say 'take it out', that could be unloading; it could be something else. That partner needs someone they are able to talk to—somebody who will listen and somebody who can say, 'This is where you need to go; this is what you need to do; this is the help that we will provide for you.' I look forward to the implementation of all 121 recommendations. I thank those people who gave evidence at the royal commission. I thank the parliament for getting this in here today and, no doubt, pushing it through. Once again, finally, I thank all of our veterans for the service that they gave and the freedom that we enjoy today. 18:28 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa In 1914 Laurence Binyon penned his famous poem 'For the Fallen'. The poem is familiar to us all, even if we don't know all seven verses. The fourth stanza of the poem is recited around the world, especially in Australia and New Zealand, at every remembrance ceremony, on every Anzac Day and also at every RSL and service club at 7 pm. It reads: They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them. They are powerful words. Indeed, I don't think there's ever been a better elegy written. The final words of verse 4 are a powerful instruction and, indeed, a command for future generations. We will remember them and can never forget their sacrifice. In remembering those who've fallen, we are also charged with ensuring that those who did come home are cared for. According to the 2021 census, there are around 85,000 currently serving ADF personnel and over 496,000 ex-serving personnel. Each deserves the very highest level of support from a grateful nation. The welfare of veterans is a very real issue in the electorate of Werriwa. My electorate is home to the now decommissioned Ingleburn Army base, while, on my other boundary, there is the former Moorebank Army base and the currently-in-use Holsworthy Barracks. The presence of these facilities means the welfare of veterans, past and present, and their families feature large in my community and in my community engagement. Hence, I'm delighted to speak on the bill before us today, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. In August 2022, the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was released. It was difficult reading and highlighted way too many shortcomings in the way our nation delivers services to its veteran community. The report noted, sadly, that the current system of veterans entitlement was too complex, which tragically adversely impacts on the mental health of some veterans and their families. This bill seeks to address this matter, which was the first recommendation of the commission's report. Under the current model, veterans entitlements are determined under one or more of three primary compensation acts. This has created an overly cumbersome and complex system that can be extremely difficult to navigate. The bill addresses this situation by streamlining the number of acts the department administers from three to one. The end result will be a hugely simplified claims processing system for veterans and their families. To support the single-act model, two of the current acts, the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, will continue in a limited form until 1 July 2026. At that time, the new provisions of this bill will commence. This timeframe ensures that the veteran community will be well informed about the changes and what they mean for them. The bill also introduces a range of enhancements to the veterans entitlement, which means that no veteran—not one—will be worse off under this legislation. These enhancements include: increasing a cap on the funeral expenses from $2,000 to $3,000; introducing a new payment called the additional disablement amount, which will benefit veterans who are over pension age with significant service related impairments; forming a legislative base for the Repatriation Commission to accept liability based on the presumption that the person's defence service caused their injury and that will operate by providing the commission with an instrument-making power to specify the relevant injuries or diseases; and providing a higher travel reimbursement amount, regardless of the kilometres, when a private vehicle is being used for treatment. The funding for these and other enhancements were included in the May 2024 budget. The royal commission in September delivered its final report. The government welcomes the report and will respond to the new recommendations as appropriate. In the meantime, we need to do all we can to support those who have done so much for our country. Every day, at 4.30 pm, the Australian War Memorial holds a last post ceremony. The national anthem is played, followed by the piper's lament, and then wreaths are laid. This is then followed by the sharing of the story of one of the names on the Roll of Honour. The ode is recited, and then, finally, the ceremony ends with the sounding of the last post. It's a beautiful ceremony—solemn and poignant. It reminds us all, young and old, that the freedoms we enjoy come at a great cost. The ceremony also reminds us of our obligation to care for those who returned, to care for those who continue to serve and to care for their families. An anonymous writer once noted, 'Anzac Day is not just a remembrance of the past; it is a call to action to uphold the values and principles that the Anzacs fought for.' A grateful nation owes our veteran community nothing less than the very best support we can offer. Further, it needs to heed the call to action by ensuring those who have served and do serve now know that the government has their back every step of the way. This bill does that and starts an important step in the journey of addressing the royal commission's recommendations. I commend the bill to the House. 18:34 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon It's an honour today to speak in relation to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. In doing so, I want to outline some of the scope of the bill, but I also want to detail some of the other issues and some of the other implications that I see that we could possibly include as we approach our service to our veterans. The objective of the VETS Bill is to simplify and to harmonise the legislation governing the rehabilitation and compensation for veterans. Currently, there are three separate acts for this. They all operate to provide entitlements, compensation and rehabilitation support to our veterans. I enlisted in the Australian Army in 1985, and I discharged at the end of 2004. I am covered by all three of these acts. Let me tell you that it's confusing at best. Currently, as I said, there are three separate acts. Let's go through them in more detail. Firstly, we have the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the VEA. Secondly, we have the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, the DRCA. Finally, we have the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, MRCA. These three acts are over 2,000 pages. They are complex and they include more than 850 legislative instruments. They are confusing at best. I take my hat off to all our advocates, out there in veterans' worlds today, all across the country doing great work with our veterans, not only supporting them and guiding them through this legislation but also providing that helping hand and providing that mateship that takes that veteran through that process. I want to acknowledge that, and I want to thank them today on behalf of a grateful nation. Our advocates do a great job. This bill that we're dealing with today applies all of these three to try and simplify the process to make it simpler for our veterans. I'm not going into the detail; I think it's already been detailed enough. Instead, I want to run through some of the issues that I see that could have been included. They are possibly missed opportunities or future opportunities, if you like, that we could consider. I consider the bill, even in its revised state, to be dealing with illness rather than wellness. I think that if we are to deal with and tackle the issue of getting our veterans to make the transition from the big family that is the military into a new family which is civilian life and maybe a job or another worthwhile vocation, then we need to have that wellness focus. Secondly, the military, whether it be in Navy, the Army or the Air Force, is a big family. I don't have the words to explain the bond that we have in the service of arms. That mateship that everyone talks about—I can tell you now that it's a real thing. Many ask me what I miss from my 20 years of service in the Army. I don't miss the Army, and I don't think the Army misses me, but I do miss the certain look that a digger gives you. What I mean by that is that there's a look of absolute trust. It can't be replicated. It can't be forged. It's a very genuine look, when you know damn well that they've placed their life in your hands. They get that look when you put them in danger, and the stronger the danger the more acute that is and the stronger this look is. It's that look that I miss. It's that trust that I miss. It's that bond that I miss. I was a senior soldier in my unit, as a warrant officer. My job was to make sure that they did the right thing. I was the enforcer of the military discipline system. If they did the wrong thing, I kicked them in the backside—I really did. I was hard on them. I made sure that they followed their mission. I made sure that they cleaned their rifle, that they followed their SAPs and all the rest of it. But I was also the bloke that stood in front of them when someone was picking on and when someone was trying to take advantage of them. I stood in front of them and I protected them. That's what diggers do. Honestly, in this place, I can pride myself today in saying that I always stuck up for my diggers. I will continue to stick up for them for the rest of my life. I mean that very sincerely. When it comes to the delineation and the difference between an illness and wellness, I think no better example could be given than a project that we've got up in the north-west coast of Tasmania. It's called the north-west Veterans' and Families' Centre. It encompasses all those words, and it really underpins the very viability of this organisation. It's headed up by a bloke I served with—a guy who's a former major, ammunition technician, bomb expert, called Andrew Clarke. When he exited from Defence, they said, 'What do you want to do, Major Clarke, as you exit and go into civilian life?' He said: 'I want to be a GP. I want to continue to help people but in a different vein.' He's now one of the best general practitioners that we have on the north-west coast. He heads up that north-west Veterans' and Families' Centre. He and a lady called Jo Lovell, who's a former Navy officer, are doing a fantastic job. The focus at the north-west Veterans' and Families' Centre isn't on illness. Yes; he's a doctor. He treats that. He supports that. He guides the veteran through that. But, more so, it's on wellness. It's on prevention. At the centre of this is family. I talked earlier, if you recall, about the Defence Force being a big family and the bond that exists. I gave you an example of that. When a veteran is discharged from the Defence Force, be it of their own fruition or, like in my case, through medical discharge, then you feel as if, in your heart and soul, that you are excluded from that tribe—from that family. You have no tribe, and some wander aimlessly. Some wander for the rest of their lives if they don't find a new tribe. Our job, Defence's job, parliament's job, Australia's job is to reconnect them to a new family. The only way that we can do that—the best and the most effective way that we can do that—is through their family, their immediate family. We can bang on about veterans all we like; I get that. But if we don't include the family, then that's all they've got. To that end—and I'll give you an example of this—there's also another doctor that helps me out. He's a clinical psychiatrist in Hobart. His name is Dr Jon Lane. He is, as far as I'm concerned—I'm pretty sure I'm right when I say this—the only clinical psychiatrist in Australia that has served in combat as a doctor in Afghanistan. He knows what he's talking about. He's been through the ringer. He's been shot at, and he's helping others. We are developing a program down there. Currently our veterans have to leave the great state of Tasmania in order to receive acute care for PTSD. Patients need to go to Greensborough hospital in ward 17. They dread that. They go there without their families. They do a six-week program. They are given drugs to make them sleep. Some of them haven't slept for years. When they exit that, they're back into their family life again. The family doesn't necessarily know where they've been or what they've been subjected to. What we want to do is to build a facility, a home—imagine something like a Ronald McDonald house—where the families can go. Jon Lane has developed a program which deals with the families as well. Those kids need to know why mum or dad feels the way that they do. That intergenerational trauma that's subjected down into the children needs to be dealt with. They take the family through that program. At the end of it, that family is the one that reinforces the skills, the knowledge and the attitude that's learnt on this treatment program. It's a beautiful system. That family focus is something that isn't talked about often, but I believe it's the key that will unlock the future for veterans. Along with that, they need a purpose. We have a very clear, succinct mission focus in the Army, in the Navy and in the Air Force. The mission focus isn't necessarily there once we exit. We need to reconnect them to a new purpose, to a new way of life and to a new goal. We need to maintain their self-confidence and their pride. Employment will do that. I think there's not enough focus being put on not only employment for the veteran and the acknowledgment of the unique set of skills, knowledge and attitude that they've developed over their careers in the military and how they can integrate and cross over into civilian life but also the spouse and whether they are happy and employed and have a purpose. So we need to also look at employment for the spouse and schooling for the children. They may have special needs and all the rest of it, but the family is at the centre of this. I wish, I pray and I make the point strongly today that families are at the centre of that integration, in going from being military families to new civilian families. I want to acknowledge today all those veterans that are doing it tough—support is out there. One of the things that gets under my skin is when people often feel sorry for our veterans. They pity them. Let me tell everybody today: please, do not pity our veterans. They don't deserve our pity; they deserve our respect. The pity parties have got to stop. Life on the couch has got to end. That individual, be it whoever, needs to get off that couch. There is always support there and there is always someone that will help you, but you need to take that first step yourself. That support will never go away. It will always remain—a bit like what I said at the very start, when I first stood up here. I said I will never forget them and I'll never stop supporting them. So we need to also remember that—that support will always be there. That takes much of the load away. Finally, as I close, there's not only one thing that gets under my skin; there are several. The other issue that I want to raise today is that not always do veterans know the path that they need to take. That needs to be subtly put across. They need to be guided and they need to be treated with respect. Pity and respect are two things that should never be mixed. We wouldn't do it in the military, so why would we do it anywhere else? I want to thank all our young Australians. I've had the unique privilege of working with literally some of Australia's most gifted, motivated, professional, smart and driven young Australians. I've worked for some of the best military leaders anywhere in the world. I'm not going to name them, but that experience changes you and changes your life. There's not a day, particularly in this place—even as I stand here—when I'm not using skills that I picked up during my 20 years of service. Finally, not every veteran does it tough either, so I don't want the business world out there in Australia, across the country, to think that employing a veteran will cause trouble or give grief. Employing a veteran is good for your business. Employing a veteran will help your business, and it will help those around them. So I think we should tell more good stories as well, because there are far more good stories than bad. A young bloke knocked on my door not long ago. I hadn't seen him since I served. He was one of my electronic warfare corporals. I said, 'Stretty, what are you doing?' He said, 'I've invented a thing called an electromagnetic pulse countermeasure technology for geo-orbital satellite technology, and I've got a Defence contract.' They're the stories that we need to tell. That transferable knowledge and those skills are helping that bloke, and he's had some help along the way. This bill will help them. This bill will simplify the process. We, as a collective, as a parliament, can make that happen seamlessly, but I want to remember and I want to raise those other points that I raised about family, about wellness and about looking forward. As far as I'm concerned, we can't be looking down, because, if you look down, you'll fall over. 18:49 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I rise to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. We owe a great deal to our current serving men and women and the some 496,000 veterans. Just as they have had our collective national back, both in peacetime operations and in combat, we need to demonstrate through our actions that we have theirs. This starts with the government showing that the care and support that they were promised can be accessed with a minimum of difficulty. Certainly the service men and women and veterans alike that I meet in Hasluck expect government to take action. I have active RSL sub-branches in Bellevue, Chidlow, Ellenbrook, Kalamunda, Mundaring and, after the redistribution, Eastern Regional in Bassendean. These sub-branches advocate strongly for the interests of their members and expect to see action. I spoke about it in my first speech, and I'm happy and pleased to be speaking about it today because our government has acted. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel has undertaken many measures over the past two years, but I have to say that this legislation is the most important change in veteran affairs in a generation. Australians, of course, all have rights, and knowing what these rights are and being able to access them without the stress or strain of difficulty is fundamental to our citizenship. Our veterans have made their commitment to Australia clear, and we need to make our commitment to them clear. Finding out what you're entitled to receive and what you need to get should not be tedious or complicated. It shouldn't be couched in language that is unclear except to the people who wrote it. It shouldn't produce so much as a sigh or a mutter. When a system of explaining entitlements, treatment and support is so complex that it's having an adverse effect on the mental health of veterans and their families, something is seriously wrong. Indeed, too many veterans have paid a heavy price for the failures on the part of government. Explaining entitlements and the availability of treatment and support must not present a test of any sort to the reader. It should be providing comfort and relief. Certainly it's a relief to me as a citizen and as a former member of the Army Reserve that we now have a bill before us that will streamline the number of acts currently administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs from three to one. Simplifying claims processing is always a good idea. People need to know precisely what they have to do so that they can make their claim quickly, have it processed in a timely manner and receive the support that they and their family need and are entitled to receive. We acknowledge the unique nature of military service and the special nature of the commitment to defend Australia. We promise that we will embrace and support all military veterans as respected and valued members of our community. This bill is a part of the fulfilment of that promise. I'm proud to belong to a government that takes its promises seriously. In October 2022, in our first year of government, Minister Keogh called for consultations and public submissions. He invited the Australian people to a discussion with the launch of the veterans legislation reform consultation pathway. Then, between 28 February and 28 April this year, the government conducted the national consultation on the draft of the bill that came as a consequence of the first round of consultations. These consultations were held in every capital city and in Townsville, and, over the course of the two months of this year, hundreds of pieces of feedback were received. This bill is a result of all that consultation and discussion. It's not here to save money; it's here to do the right thing and, in some cases, to right wrongs. It's here to harmonise and consolidate processes, funeral allowances, education payments, attendant and household services and vehicle assistance. It's here to make them fit together smoothly, rather than being scattered in confusing bits and pieces all over the place. There will be a single review pathway and timelines that give people the real prospect of hope and resolution. Interim compensation will have to be finalised after two years. There's also practical reassurance—no individual veteran will suffer a reduction to their existing payments. Nobody will be worse off. Nobody will receive lower benefits. Funding for the enhancements to be delivered was included in the May 2024 budget, so when will all this begin? The commencement date of 1 July 2026 has been chosen to ensure that the people affected are well informed on precisely what the changes will mean to them. It will also give time for their advocates and Department of Veterans' Affairs staff to be properly informed and ready to assist with the smooth running of the new arrangements. We are confident that advocates will find it easier to assist veterans and families and that the DVA staff will be able to process veteran and family claims more simply and quickly. There will be a new payment, the additional disablement allowance, or ADA, and a higher travel reimbursement when a private vehicle is used to travel for treatment. All this means there will need to be amendments to legislation in other portfolios, like Social Services, Treasury and Health, and the bill covers that too. A major review of medical assessment forms has been made to make them easier to understand and quicker to be completed by medical professionals. Any project that can reduce form filling to the necessary minimum is very welcome for everybody. Tackling the problems of homeless veterans is also a priority for the Albanese government. Veterans are three times more likely to experience homelessness than the general population. That is a shocking reality ignored by our predecessors. The Albanese government has launched a $30 million Veterans' Acute Housing Program to help veterans and their families who have lost their home or are at risk of losing it to get back on their feet. Our veterans and families hub program provides health and wellness support, with general practitioners on site and mobile outreach clinics for veterans living in regional areas. We listened, and we have acted. We were listening and paying attention as the transition was made from the royal commission interim report to the final report. People who wish to serve should be able to do so with confidence that their rights will be protected while they are in service and that issues or problems which arise as a result of their service will be responded to with respect and compassion. As in so many other portfolio areas, in the field of veterans' affairs the Albanese government had to deal with almost a decade of appalling Liberal and National Party neglect and mismanagement, resulting in a royal commission no less. Successive Liberal and National Party governments were uninterested in solving the issues of the day and complacent in approaching the challenges of Australia's future. By contrast, we are absolutely committed to addressing the backlog of problems that were ignored or brushed aside in every area of our national life. The primary reassurance is this: the Albanese government believes in action, not sitting around hoping that things sort themselves out eventually. Where processes need to be simplified, we simplify them. Where services need to be provided, we provide them. Where training is needed, we offer it. When problems are identified, we work the problem. We work the problem in consultation with the Australian people and, with them, we find the solutions. I commend the bill to the House. 18:57 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth The introduction of this bill, the Veterans Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, comes at a pivotal moment, particularly in light of the royal commission report into veteran suicide. Since 1985, we have lost at least 2,000 veterans to suicide, a tragic reflection of profound gaps in our support systems for veterans in Australia. These losses aren't just statistics. Each veteran lost to suicide leaves behind grieving families, friends and a community struggling with the weight of that loss. The burden of this crisis spans for generations and, as it stands, much of the heavy lifting is being done by the community, filling the void where government systems have failed. I remember very vividly going to the front of Parliament House earlier this year when the report into veteran suicide was released and speaking to family members and standing outside a shrine to those who had passed away through suicide, those veterans who proudly served Australia. It was heartbreaking. What their family members asked was for this parliament and our community to do better. We have seen extreme examples of the harm caused by our current system. Some of these stories were shared with us in the parliament in September, but they were not isolated incidents. They highlighted how deeply inadequate the support structure is for veterans. Administrative issues may appear small in the scheme of things but can further compound difficulties in accessing support or discourage seeking help at all. I'm pleased to see that this bill seeks to simplify legislation governing veterans' entitlements. For too long veterans have been navigating a confusing and inequitable system of overlapping legislation. The existing system comprises three different acts that determine veteran entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation arrangements, often creating confusion and leading to different levels of and eligibility for supports for individuals based on factors like age or where an injury occurred. It is a labyrinth. At least three public reports, including the Productivity Commission review in 2019, as well as the more recent Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide highlighted how this structure is contributing to delays, inequity and a lack of clarity for those seeking help. This bill will consolidate acts into the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, MRCA, which should reduce some of that complexity. While this bill streamlines some of the inconsistency, it won't fix all the complexity. Many of the Senate inquiry submissions have pointed out that, although consolidating legislation is a good first step, it doesn't address the issues of complexity that exist within an amalgamated MRCA. The message to us is this is a good first step but not the end of the road. I'd like to talk about veterans' families because this bill will affect veterans' families, and veterans families are such an important part of our veterans' community. They are integral to the conversation yet the support system often fails to adequately recognise the roles that they play. I sat through and helped organise a workshop with veterans' families as well as current serving members families, and the feedback that I got loud and clear was that we are neither serving veterans nor current veteran members' families adequately, and the lack of service is inhibiting our ability to hold on to members of the defence forces. As one young woman said to me, 'If you can't make it work for me and my family then, ultimately, it won't work for my husband,' who, in this case, was a member of the defence forces. We do not and have not had enough focus on the needs of families of our defence personnel and families of veterans. I think this bill to a degree addresses this but there is much further to go. I have been contacted specifically in relation to this bill by veterans' families, as well as by advocacy groups representing veterans' families, who saw the bill is a rare opportunity to update language they felt was no longer aligned with the modern values and realities of caregiving in many of these families. After all, the MRCA was initially drafted more than 20 years ago, in 2004. The Australian War Widows and the Families of Veterans Guild pointed out in their Senate submissions the term 'wholly dependent partner' used to describe the partner of a deceased veteran is outdated. It fails to capture the complex, often interdependent, relationships that exist in veterans' families, and devalues the role that families play. Australian War Widows notes that is no longer appropriate since most partners and widows work during their marriages on top of fulfilling roles that include home duties. In fact, according to the 2019 census, 79 per cent of partners of ADF personnel are working. These organisations wrote to the minister to outline their concerns with this terminology and to propose alternative language such as 'bereaved partner' where this clause applies. It was suggested to have no impact on the definition or eligibility but better reflected the reality of families today. Legacy Australia noted similar concerns in their submission. I understand that updates to language can have broad implications and cannot be considered lightly but this is more than semantics; this is about updating terminology to better reflect and include the nuanced and complex roles that families play in supporting veterans. This is about moving away from language that stereotypes the partners of veterans, 80 per cent of whom are women. I am aware of procedures in place within the veteran community to discuss this language and I am pleased that these conversations have been tabled for discussion. While the debate on this bill may not be the time to press the matter, I would urge the minister to make these changes central to the next stage of amendments to this legislation. I'd now like to turn to a constituent issue which relates to this, because it really talks about another issue—language that is out of step. I have a constituent, Major Caitlin Pedel, who has proudly served Australia for 17 years. In 2022, Major Pedel was posted to the United States, during which time she gave birth. As a direct result of her overseas posting, Major Pedel understood that she would fail the residency test for parental leave, as she had been outside of Australia for more than 56 weeks. Major Pedel was wrongfully under the impression that she would protected under section 46(4) of the Paid Parental Leave Act that allows the 56-week period to be extended in circumstances where a member of the defence forces is deployed outside Australia. Services Australia rejected her claim, noting that she was 'posted' and not 'deployed', even though Major Pedel points out pregnant women are prohibited from being deployed on operational deployments. The way I see it is that either Services Australia's interpretation of the law is incorrect or this exemption is, in practice, only available to men. To add insult to injury, Major Pedel successfully appealed this decision at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Yet, as it stands, Services Australia is seeking to have this appeal overturned. I find it frankly outrageous that Services Australia would waste public resources in the pointless pursuit of a stringent interpretation of a ridiculous law that does not reflect the reality of families. If this government is serious about equal opportunity and protections for women in the Defence Force, it will stop the legal proceedings immediately and update this legislation to remove all ambiguity surrounding this case. This bill is an important step, but, as I've outlined today, there are at least three reasons why there need to be strong, urgent and systemic changes across not only the veteran support system but the broader defence sector. One of the most crucial recommendations from the royal commission is recommendation 122, which calls for the establishment of a new statutory entity to oversee reform across the entire defence ecosystem. The new statutory entity is needed to provide independent oversight and evidence based advice to drive system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members and their families. It is absolutely critical. While I understand the reviewing and consulting on all 122 recommendations of the royal commission will be involved, I believe there is a strong case for expediting this recommendation in particular, because, when I speak to veterans and their families in my electorate of Wentworth, what they're asking for is not more delays or half measures. They're asking for urgent systemic change. I believe external oversight and accountability are essential if we are to deliver the kind of reform that will truly make a difference. 19:07 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise today to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. This bill is a significant step in addressing the challenges faced by our veteran community, ensuring they receive the care, support and recognition they deserve. The men and women who have served in our defence forces have made immense sacrifices to protect our nation's values, securities and freedoms. It's our duty as Australians and as their representatives here in this chamber to ensure that they receive the support they need and deserve in return. However, the existing framework for veterans' entitlements, treatment and support has become overly complex, fragmented and, at times, difficult for veterans and their families to navigate. The current system, while established with the best of intentions, has evolved into a maze of legislation, regulations and policies that differ depending on when and where an individual served and which act applies to their circumstances. Currently, veterans' entitlements are determined under one or more of three primary compensation acts—the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the MRCA; the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the VEA; and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, the SRCA. Which piece of legislation applies to a claim is determined by when the veteran served and which period or periods of service caused or contributed to the condition subject of the claim. This lack of consistency has caused confusion, delays in delivering services, unnecessary stress and even inequities in how our veterans are treated. This bill seeks to simplify and harmonise the veteran support system, streamlining the three pieces of legislation down to one. This will make it easier for veterans and their families to access the benefits they're entitled to without having to wade through confusing bureaucracy. First the bill consolidates entitlements under one simplified framework, removing the confusion caused by multiple overlapping schemes. This means that veterans of different conflicts and eras will no longer be subject to differing rules and processes based purely on their time of service. Instead there will be a uniform set of entitlements based on need and circumstance, ensuring fairness and equity across the board. Second this bill introduces a streamlined claims process. Prior to the last election, I was surprised to hear from veterans and families about the delays they were experiencing. It was not unusual to be told that they had put their TPI claim in 18 months earlier and had heard nothing from the department. Of course they had waited until things were really desperate before they had put their claim in, so an 18-month delay for someone already in crisis was disastrous for them and their loved ones. RSL advocates told me of veterans who had died waiting for a claim to be assessed, never having received the services they needed and deserved. When the minister was appointed and met with the department, he found that, like so many critical services, it had been hollowed out. Close to 50 per cent of staff were on short-term labour hire contracts, so there was no continuity or corporate knowledge. That resulted in around 42,000 claims that had been received and had not even been allocated to someone to assess. So to all those veterans who told me that they'd been waiting 18 months and had not heard anything and couldn't get to speak to anyone in the department about their claim: this was why. Those 42,000 claims and the claims that have come in since then have now all been allocated and are in the process of being assessed or have been finalised. That is because Labor values the service of veterans and doesn't think they should be put through the wringer to get the services they need. But to get back to this bill, we are proposing new measures that will further reduce waiting times and improve access to treatment and services even more. This is crucial for veterans suffering from physical or psychological trauma for whom timely intervention can be life-changing. By cutting through red tape and simplifying the claims process, we aim to ensure that veterans can focus on their recovery, not on fighting bureaucracy. Third we've listened to the voices of veterans and their families in the crafting of this legislation. The harmonisation of services between the Department of Veterans' Affairs, healthcare providers and other support networks will foster a more holistic approach to veterans care. We want our veterans to have seamless access to the services they need, whether it be medical treatment, mental health care, rehabilitation or housing assistance. The bill encourages cross-agency collaboration and data sharing to deliver faster and more efficient outcomes for those who have served. Fourth we are increasing transparency and accountability. Veterans and their families have often found the process opaque, with limited visibility into how claims are assessed and decisions made. This bill introduces measures to improve communication, provide regular updates on claims progress and ensure decisions are explained clearly. While this bill focuses on simplification, it does not compromise the quality or scope of support available to our veterans. In fact, by making the system easier to navigate, we are freeing up resources that can be reinvested into frontline services and direct support. The result will be better care, less frustration and a system that honours the sacrifices of those who've served. Under the revised arrangements, existing claims already submitted under the VEA and the DRCA will be grandparented, but any new claims from 1 July 2026 will be assessed under the MRCA. The bill also introduces a range of enhancements that will make access to entitlements easier and fairer for veterans. These enhancements have been informed by consultation and feedback from the veteran community over the last two years. The enhancements include compensation for funeral expenses to be consolidated under the MRCA, with the cap to be increased from $2,000 to $3,000. The legislative basis for benefits like the acute support package, household services and attendant care, the Victoria Cross allowance, ex gratia payments and recognition supplements for former prisoners of war will also move to the MRCA. Some aspects of veteran treatment arrangements will move from VEA to the MRCA, including the legislative basis for non-liability health care and the commission's powers to determine specific treatment programs and classes of eligible persons. This will result in no changes to the coverage. A legislative basis for the repatriation commission to accept liability based on a presumption that the person's defence service caused their injury or disease will operate by providing the commission with an instrument-making power to specify relevant injuries and diseases. A new payment called the additional disablement amount will also be introduced into the MRCA. Similar to the extreme disablement adjustment, this new payment will benefit veterans over pension age with significant service related impairment. Dependants will also have access to the gold card and other benefits in the event of the veteran's death. Importantly, no veterans will suffer a reduction to their existing payments. Compensation previously awarded under the DRCA or VEA will not be disrupted. A commencement date of 1 July 2026 ensures we have time to make sure the veteran community are well informed on what the changes will mean for them, and provides enough time to ensure advocates and DVA staff have had adequate training prior to the commencement. This legislation reflects the fundamental principles of fairness, equity and respect for the dignity of our veterans. It's about more than just legislative reform; it's about fulfilling our national obligation to those who have given so much in service to Australia. It's about acknowledging the unique challenges faced by veterans and responding to them with a system that is compassionate, efficient and fit for purpose in the 21st century. I urge all members to support this important bill to ensure no veteran is left behind. Together we can build a support system that honours their service and provides the help they need to live fulfilling lives post service. 19:16 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to speak in support of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, before the House. Our veterans have given their all in service of our country. They have faced extraordinary challenges and risks, and it is our duty to ensure their transition back to civilian life is supported by a robust and uncomplicated system. The Albanese Labor government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's Interim report, and this bill will do just that. The royal commission was established to investigate the systemic issues and risk factors relevant to suicide and suicide behaviours of serving and ex-serving Defence members, and received more than 5,800 submissions. The royal commission's reports made one thing abundantly clear: for too long the veterans entitlements system has been too complicated, resulting in too many veterans experiencing adverse effects of mental health. The Australian government recognises that the current veterans entitlements system is overly complicated, difficult to understand, stressful to navigate and complex to administer. This bill is aimed at addressing the first recommendation from the royal commission—that veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislation should be simplified and harmonised. The Albanese government is working towards this by merging three pieces of legislation into a single ongoing act. For too long, our veterans have navigated a complex maze of entitlements and support systems, each program and each process often adding layers of confusion and frustration to an already challenging experience. Under the current legislative model, veterans entitlements are determined under one or more of three primary compensation acts depending on where the veteran served and which period of service caused or contributed to the condition being claimed. The Albanese Labor government has budgeted for $222 million in additional veteran funding—funding for veterans and family entitlements and supports—to be made available through this new simplified legislation. It ensures veterans and their families can better understand and access faster the support they are entitled to. If passed, the new legislation will commence on 1 July 2026, allowing for ample time to ensure the veteran community are well informed of the changes and have a greater understanding of what they mean to them. Importantly, no individual veteran will suffer a reduction to their existing payments. As such, compensation previously awarded under the former acts will not be disrupted. They will be grandparented. Those receiving benefits immediately prior to the commencement of the new arrangements will continue to do so under the grandparenting arrangements without any reduction in payments. This will provide financial certainty to veterans and their families. Critical safeguards will be in place, ensuring that there is no change in compensation payments currently being received by veterans and that the current payment rates are maintained and indexed as they would be under the current system. So all of those assurances have been provided. Since coming to government, we have been hearing again and again that the veterans' compensation system is overly complex, difficult to understand and stressful to navigate. The neglect of the former government meant that Labor inherited a chronically understaffed and underresourced Department of Veterans' Affairs and an extensive backlog of claims. We understand the devastating impact this has had on veterans and their families. Those opposite presided over a persistent gap between the needs of veterans and the resources allocated to support them. This underfunding impacted the availability and quality of services. Thankfully, the Albanese Labor government has cleared that backlog of claims since it came to office just two years ago. We have properly resourced the Department of Veterans' Affairs to ensure its viability into the future. We are building on that work, and we are now turning our focus to simplifying the existing veterans' compensation and rehabilitation legislation. In essence, the bill before the House will streamline three separate and hard-to-navigate acts into a single, ongoing piece of legislation and, in turn, ease the stress and anxiety veterans are experiencing under the current model. Funding for the enhancements set to be delivered was announced as part of the May budget. I hope those opposite will join us in this once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the system right for veterans and their families. This is the biggest improvement of veterans' compensation and rehabilitation laws for more than a century, and it is important that our veterans and their families help guide the decisions that impact them. The government also welcomed the findings from the final report on the royal commission, which was tabled in August this year in this House, and will provide a full response by the end of the year. Our veterans deserve the best, and this important reform will help us deliver on our promise to transform the current system. Finally, I would like to take this moment to note the strong advocacy from the ex-service men and women in my community of Newcastle, who have been raising this issue with me for many years. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of all our ex-service organisations in Newcastle. In particular I want to pay tribute to the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association in Wallsend, the Newcastle and Hunter region Vietnam veterans and the RSL sub-branches of the City of Newcastle, Merewether-Hamilton-Adamstown, Lambton-New Lambton, Wallsend and District, Shortland and Stockton. I know the work you do each and every day to honour those who you have lost and to care for those who remain. It is exceptional work. I would also like to acknowledge Hunter Anzac Memorial Limited, the RSL Coffee Pot Day Club in Merewether, the Gallipoli Legion Club preservation group, the Newcastle War Widows Guild club, the Gulf War Veterans Association, the Families of Veterans Guild social clubs for war widows, the Wallsend Diggers, the RAAF Association, the City of Newcastle's ANZAC committee, Newcastle Legacy, the Naval Association of Australia, Newcastle N16, Open Arms Veterans and Families Counselling, the Partners of Veterans Association of Australia, the Young Veterans Australia, the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, Newcastle and Hunter regions Vietnam veterans and the Defence and Veterans Legal Service. You can tell from that exhaustive list just what an engaged ex-service community I have in Newcastle. This is legislation that's going to mean a lot to those veterans and their families. The support, throughout my community, is very much appreciated, so it's terrific that we have a legislative measure now, a demonstration of the government's deep and ongoing commitment to those who served and sacrificed so much for our country. Let us embrace this opportunity to make meaningful changes that will enhance the lives of veterans and reflect our enduring respect for their service. I want to end by saying that, as the daughter of a Vietnam veteran and life member of the RSL, I want to assure Australian veterans and their families that the Labor government have them very much at the centre of our thinking, and we are very much on their side. I am pleased that this legislation is before the House. I call on all members of parliament to support it and to do so without delay. 19:26 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Veterans in my electorate of Gilmore are very much loved and play a big part in our communities. Gilmore is home to over 7,000 serving defence members, veterans and their families. Gilmore has the highest number of defence members and veterans in New South Wales, so it's fair to say that veterans and support for veterans are very important topics in Gilmore. One of the many things I have really cherished in my role has been building good relationships with all our local RSL clubs, Vietnam veterans associations and local veterans groups. This has taken time, but it is so important. I have got to know ESOs and have heard many of the challenges around veterans' claims. I vividly remember one RSL sub-branch meeting and hearing about the very real impacts of the high number of veterans claims that the ESO had been supporting and that had been ongoing for a very long period. Our ESOs play a vital role, but I remember thinking they needed more support. That was at a time when, under the previous government, veterans' claims processing times had blown right out, and veterans, their families and people supporting them all felt intolerable pain. Deputy Speaker, Nowra is a proud Navy and defence town. We are home to HMAS Albatross, the Royal Australian Navy's largest base and the only naval air station in Australia. We are home to HMAS Creswell, the Royal Australian Navy's officer training college. We also have many lodger units at HMAS Albatross, including the Army's Special Operations Command ADF Parachuting School. We are truly lucky to have such diversity in defence in the Shoalhaven, including the most amazing defence industry businesses. It is natural that, when serving defence members retire or conclude their time with defence locally, they stay in our beautiful area that has been home for their families for some time. So the question becomes: how can we better support our veterans and their families? Deputy Speaker, I was proud to advocate for and deliver one of the first veterans wellbeing hubs at Nowra, the Shoalhaven Veteran and Family Hub. I have visited often and witnessed the many different veterans groups and veterans participating in wellbeing activities and accessing support. It is a wonderful centre, funded and supported by the federal government. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, I joined Invictus South Coast and Bowls Gr8 for Brains at Worrigee Sports club to bowl with veterans and their families. This is just one of the many wellbeing activities on offer in my area from dedicated workers and volunteers supporting veterans and families. But one thing that had always stayed with me from before we came to government was the issue of the massive backlog of veterans' DVA claims and the impact it was having on veterans and their family members. I'm pleased to say that the backlog is an issue we have been tackling, with an additional 500 DVA staff employed to work through it. I'm also pleased to say that, because of the Albanese government's work in this regard—it has taken time, and full credit to the minister and his department—DVA claims are now back to within normal processing times. However, adding to the complexity of the claims process is that under the current legislative model veterans' entitlements are determined by either one or more of three primary compensation acts: the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, MCRA; the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, VEA; and/or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, DRCA. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Mental Health 72 19:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I recently had the privilege of meeting Elizabeth and Peter Young, the mother and brother of Jade Young, who tragically lost her life during the Bondi Junction tragedy in April. As Elizabeth and Peter shared their deeply painful experience, I was struck by their strength, determination and humanity. In their grief, Elizabeth, a retired English teacher, and Peter, an engineer, told me of their family's very personal and traumatic experience but all the while emphasising the need for a nationally coordinated mental health system, a system that would meet the needs of people seeking help and support be they victims of violent crimes or those who present a risk to themselves and others. While I was heartened to hear that the victim's family living in New South Wales were supported by mental health crisis services, I was shocked to hear that Peter, who lives in Tasmania with his young family, was not. Instead, he was left to navigate a multitude of system challenges to receive the support he needed. For instance, Peter explained how he must pay for his family's trauma support and care. If they were in New South Wales, such services would be free. In other words, Peter's experience highlights that while the mental health challenges are not dissimilar between jurisdictions, the gap between the funding and the services available between the states reflects the inequity and inefficiency of Australia's mental health system. It is an unfortunate reality that mental ill-health will continue to feature in our communities. Indeed, 42.9 per cent of Australians aged 16 to 85 have experienced a mental health issue at some point in their lives. And the situation is particularly dire for young people, with 38.8 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds reporting they experienced mental ill-health within the last year. And these statistics are not merely abstract figures; they represent the struggles of millions among us. But in response, the mental health system is thinly stretched and demand is rising. Our hospital system is simply not resourced to address demand and there is a lack of accessible community based experience. Further, as Peter's experience highlights, there is a lack of coordination between jurisdictions. Obviously this is a recipe for disaster if left unaddressed. To be fair, this is not the fault of our healthcare professionals. I also do understand that the joint health ministers and mental health ministers session recently met to examine reform and the ministers have reaffirmed their commitment to improving access to mental health services through the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement. But, frankly, we need more than vague commitments. We need tangible and timely outcomes and we need a nationally coordinated mental health system underpinned by well-resourced services that are both accessible and responsive regardless of postcode. An example of a coordinated system would be one where a proactive and responsive service following the horrific events at Bondi Junction would have linked in with Tasmanian services to ensure that Peter and his family had support locally. Moreover, and I've been advocating for this for years, we need to improve information sharing between jurisdictions and specifically regarding mental health orders. The fact Australia does not have a national scheme for the mutual recognition of civil mental health orders clearly isn't good enough. I'll leave the chamber with some words Elizabeth shared with me: While my family and I will never forgive my sister's murderer, the myriad failures of our mental health system are also unforgivable. Without change, events of this manner will likely happen again. Indeed barely a week passes without a story that makes it clear how utterly broken our mental health system is. She put this question to me: What actions are you willing to take with the power, authority and duty of care you are charged with as a parliamentarian? I reflect on this question with great anguish, frankly. Clearly, we in this place must speak out and amplify the voices of Peter, Elizabeth and others who seek to draw attention to the need for a nationally coordinated mental health system. We must support the members of our communities who require assistance, and we must push for change to reform the mental health system to ensure equity and accessibility. In other words, this must be a collective effort, one led by the federal government working with the states and territories to support those affected to finally design and deliver the coordinated mental health system that this country needs, that this country can afford and that this country has the wherewithal to deliver. Northern Territory Government: First Nations Australians, Queensland Government: First Nations Australians 73 19:35 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise tonight to express my alarm. The first acts of the new Country Liberal government in the Northern Territory and the Liberal-National government in Queensland have been to take many steps backward and drive First Nations people into more disadvantage. In October the Northern Territory government legislated to criminalise children as young as 10. This was barely a year after the previous Labor government deemed 12 as the age of criminal responsibility. Tough-on-crime policies can be electorally popular, but most Australians would be surprised at how far those kinds of policies can go. Yesterday researchers at Edith Cowan University released a study that found that 94 per cent of Western Australians did not know that children as young as 10 can be incarcerated. Many were shocked. A child is just that: a child. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are one of the most incarcerated people on earth. Prison sentences without rehabilitation won't stop reoffending. Locking children up sets them up for a life in the justice system. The Chief Minister is also promising to drop alcohol policies that are working. We know minimum unit pricing and trading restrictions are changing lives. In Darwin there has been a 14 per cent drop in alcohol related assaults and a 21 per cent reduction in domestic and family violence assaults involving alcohol. In Tennant Creek, purchase limits and reduced trading hours have resulted in a 92 per cent drop in alcohol fuelled family violence and domestic assaults—92 per cent! Instead of improving something that's working, the Country Liberals plan to criminalise public drunkenness, to lock people up and not tackle the root problem. I am proud of opposition leader Selena Uibo and our Labor colleagues in the territory for standing up to bad laws. We must call out the harm these policies will do. Abandonment of the truth-telling and treaty process in Queensland by the new Liberal-National premier, David Crisafulli, is disheartening and has caused much distress. Just over a year ago he voted to support the process. These aren't just symbolic processes. They are practical ways to address the pain of history and find solutions to prevent harm in the future. Participants in both the Queensland truth-telling process and the Victorian Yoorrook Justice Commission say that it is cathartic to have their experiences on the public record. Many are members of the stolen generations, people who have faced injustice. There is nothing divisive about recognising what has come before. We can't make practical decisions without knowing what brought us to this point. We don't have to choose between so-called practical and symbolic reconciliation. Instead, the Premier and the Chief Minister have chosen to present this false choice to Queensland and the Northern Territory. The claim is that truth-telling and treaty divide the community. What is divisive is dismissing those calling our harm as 'southern do-gooders', ignoring history because it's hard to hear and backing away from treaty processes that are committing to seeing justice done. But this won't stop Indigenous Australians from speaking up, and I raise my voice here tonight. Defence, Interest Rates 73 19:39 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Having a strong Defence Force is the most important thing for Australia. It is really important that we have a strong Australian Defence Force. It's one of the core responsibilities of the Australian government and of our Prime Minister. Australians need to understand that having a strong Defence Force brings peace. No-one wants war. No-one wants to see people involved in war. We want to see peace and prosperity, just like we have today here in Australia. We're very blessed to live in Australia. It's one of the greatest countries in the world. Australia has been an advocate for stability, security and sovereignty not just in our region but right around the world under many governments in my lifetime. The Albanese government, though, is failing the country when it comes to defence, particularly in relation to defence industry. From cutting funding to recruitment blunders to union disputes, our defence industry is plummeting. At this time, can you believe that there is only one operational Collins class submarine that's currently able to go to sea? We have six. Just a couple of years ago, under the coalition government, there were at least three at sea and there were always three in the docks, but right now we've got one operational submarine. Five out of six are out of action. We have to ask ourselves: are we prepared, and is our Defence Force the best it can be under this government? I believe the answer is no. We have seen just today that they cancelled a $7 billion military-grade satellite communication system that the defence minister gave the green light to only 18 months ago. Eighteen months ago, he said, 'Yep, let's proceed,' and now we're cancelling that $7 billion program. The reality is that this government is saving funding on Defence. They talk a big game in question time and say, 'We're spending a lot,' but what they're actually doing is putting it all in the forward estimates or way down the track. They might be spending a lot in year 4, 5 or 6 if they get a second or third term or whatever it may be, but today, right now, we're not prepared. The government will blame the cancellation of this system on rising costs and advances in technology, but right now this system had been ordered. It was good to go. As a country, we need to do better. We cannot just rely on our security partners—the United States, the United Kingdom and others. We've seen that in the US Donald Trump has said that he expects allies to pull their weight. We can't just get a free ride off the US when it comes to defence. He expects allies—and other Americans as well, by the way—to invest a percentage of their income each year in defence industry and making sure that we have the best defence personnel and equipment. I know that right now there are literally thousands of people who apply for the Defence Force, and it doesn't take one month, two months, three months, six months or 12 months to get accepted; it drags on and on and on. Every single person that sits in this country, enjoying the freedom that we have, needs to rest assured that the ADF are there for us, but right now we have fewer than 60,000 full-time people in uniform, along with others who are in the reserves—and we thank them for it. The reality is that the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery and the Minister for Defence Personnel need to set KPIs and do better in this space. Today the Reserve Bank decided to leave interest rates at 4.35 per cent, which is good news. We don't want them going up any further. I want to say to people in my electorate: you can own your own home. You can get ahead. I know that cost of living is tough at the moment, but there is hope. You will be able to get there and, as your federal member, I want to do everything I can to help you. The reality is that in my time in government, under the coalition, there was one interest rate rise in nine years, and we saw 12 in the first 18 months of the Albanese government. The reality is that, if you have a mortgage of about $750,000, that's $30,000 a year extra in interest repayments. That means that you pretty well have to earn $45,000 extra a year gross just to pay the interest. No wonder rents and mortgages are increasing. We can do better, and the coalition has a strong plan. King David School, Self Help Addiction Resource Centre, Raise Our Voice Australia 74 19:44 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Education imbued with cultural intelligence links tradition to modernity. This is what King David School, with its progressive Jewish approach, provides for children from their early years to year 12. Judaism is celebrated in a multitude of ways, teaching children there are many faces to faith and the Jewish way of life, and that it can be fun. Families and carers are partners, helping students in their journey of inquiry and helping them understand their place in worlds both physical and spiritual. Watching over them are their teachers—social engineers, helping children discover their talents and delivering an education that is a springboard for independence and independent thinking. In the aftermath of October 7, the school, under the leadership of principal Marc Light, has navigated grief, trauma and fear, actively bringing our community together in solidarity. It was an honour to open the Gan Chitah room at the early learning centre. Named after the seven species of food, Chitah represents wheat—again, a visible link to antiquity, with these foods historically and today sustaining the Jewish people in the land of Israel. The wonder in the eyes of preschoolers is infectious. It rubs off on you like gold dust. I watched tiny hands shaping clay into hamantaschen as they excitedly prepared for the Purim festival. Under the tuition of King David, these tiny hands will grow into strong hands that shape the world for the better. The Self Help Addiction Resource Centre, or SHARC, located in Carnegie, has for over 25 years been a much-needed go-to place for those impacted by alcohol, drugs and gambling. SHARC operates on a powerful belief that people are experts in their own recovery. Addiction is widespread, hidden behind the shadows of stigma, touching families, carers and workplaces. SHARC believes that, with the right information, education and support, recovery is always possible. The lived experience of those affected by addiction is at the heart of SHARC's programs. This peer based approach ensures that every program is inclusive, effective and authentic. There is nothing like being heard and seen by people who have conquered their demons and come out the other side. SHARC offers four vital programs: family drug and gambling help; peer projects; a residential program; and membership of the peak Victorian body. Thank you, SHARC, for your quality service delivery. I was pleased to see their garden refurbishment, thanks to a $4,000 Higgins volunteer grant. SHARC's work continues to make a profound difference to lives affected by addiction, putting our fellow Australians back on the road to recovery. Chloe, a year 12 student from Melbourne Girls College, says: I want the community to not only look, but be united. I've just turned 18 and realise the massive influence politicians can have on myself and my fellow Aussies. Politicians not only create policy but also set the standard for how we should treat each other. I have much hope that the next Parliament will during debate remember respect, and show us how we, even as a nation made up of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, can unite as one. I live in a multicultural family with clashing cultures and ideologies. In the face of the conflicts that may ensue, we always remember that we are a family, and band together for the greater good. We don't have to agree on something, but we can respect the other person and work together to achieve the best outcome for all. Issues that dominate our lives often split us Aussies up into separate groups, but no matter what, our representatives must serve all Australians. No Aussie should be left behind. That's why I wish to see the next Parliament collaborate, and unite together for the interest of each and every one of us. That's the future I see for our community. These are the words spoken by Chloe as part of the Raise Our Voice campaign. She reaches down into the fundamentals of social cohesion in this speech. She talks keenly about inclusive, respectful leadership. She touches upon the need for mutual respect—something that is sorely lacking in our community—and how we can all learn and must disagree respectfully. She also touches upon the need for finding common ground—that shared humanity we are seeking to reach again. Almost like an island in a stormy sea, we need a lifeboat to get us there. Sadly, that ground is uncommon at present, but with emerging leaders like Chloe we have hope that we can get there and actually bring our communities together. Casey Electorate: Community Leaders Forum 75 19:49 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Earlier this year, I held my community leaders forum with local leaders to discuss our vision for Casey. This conversation highlighted important issues for our region, including access to more affordable housing, the need to build stronger communities, increased mental health support and better disaster planning and preparedness. These are important challenges facing our region, and I've been working with our community to face them together. As I talked to many young people, I listened to them share how the great Australian dream of homeownership has never felt further out of reach. Locally, I'm proud to be working with David and the Warburton Advancement League on a community led solution to develop a social and affordable housing village in Warburton. Recently, Peter Dutton and the coalition announced a strong plan to boost housing supply. One of the major impediments to new housing projects is the lack of funding for critical enabling infrastructure. Our plan will unlock the essential infrastructure needed that's delaying them, including in Casey. Local leaders also raised the need for increased social connection and cohesion amongst our community, and I'll continue to promote ways for people to get involved locally. In September, I put out a call for volunteers to help knit poppies for a local Anzac display. We had over 100 offers to help from locals across the community. My office has become a wool collection point, where people can come and collect their supplies and patterns to help knit over 4½ thousand poppies for next year's display. This has provided locals with an opportunity to get involved, including for those that may find traditional volunteering opportunities unsuitable. The poppy project has blossomed into a large community led project, and it's fantastic that I've been able to use my platform as our local MP to connect our community. Improving mental health support was also a key issue discussed. Young people, in particular, talked about the need for better services closer to home. Recently, I met with headspace Lilydale, EACH and Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network representatives, along with the shadow minister for health, to discuss the need for improved youth mental health services. With headspace Lilydale open for limited hours and the Lilydale Youth Hub now closed, our community has become a mental health desert. Our young people deserve support, and I'll continue advocating for improved local services. I've also met with local mental health advocates to discuss the coalition's commitment to increase Medicare funded mental health sessions from 10 back to 20. This increased access will support people in Casey, young and old, to get the help they need without the added financial stress. I'm committed to this increase, and I will keep working to deliver this for Casey. Our region is surrounded by natural beauty from the spectacular Dandenong Ranges to the scenic Yarra Valley; however, we know all too well that with this beauty comes the need to prepare and plan for natural disasters. The former Liberal government invested $10 million to implement Resilient Yarra Ranges to help our communities be better prepared for future bushfires and severe storms. The Liberals listened and acted to deliver a plan for safer, more resilient communities. We all know that a reliable phone service is essential for emergency services and everyday life. The former Liberal government funded mobile towers to improve connectivity. Since becoming our MP, I've spent the past 2½ years advocating for improved telecommunications in our community, and I worked collaboratively across the political aisle with the Minister for Communications to make sure Casey was not overlooked. It is fantastic that Lilydale and the surrounds will benefit from improved telecommunications coverage. However, it's disappointing that the hills and Upper Yarra have, once again, missed out, and I'll keep working to improve our local telecommunications connectivity. I'm proud to be working with locals to build an even stronger Casey, and it's only by listening that I can do this. I'm proud to be our community MP, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with locals so that I can keep delivering for Casey. I thank those community leaders who volunteered their time for the community leaders forum and also for the ongoing support and volunteer hours they put in to make sure that our community is stronger, is connected and continues to flourish now and into the future. Calwell Electorate: Schools, His Holiness Mar Awa 76 19:54 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell In recent weeks I visited three excellent schools in my electorate to help open new facilities made possible with the support of the Australian government's Capital Grants Program. Hume Anglican Grammar is an independent co-ed multicampus school, with campuses located in Kalkallo, Mickleham—Mount Ridley—and Donnybrook. I was pleased to officially open the Kalkallo campus's new years 3 and 4 learning neighbourhood. The Australian government's contribution of $1.8 million under the Capital Grants Program meant that this new learning neighbourhood, which comprises six general learning areas and seven flexible learning areas as well as offices, amenities and a covered outdoor area, is an excellent addition to the school's growing population. To the Holy Cross Catholic Primary School in Mickleham the Australian government contributed $5 million—again, under the Capital Grants Program—to build a two-storey junior learning facility—a beautiful, modern new space that will enhance the learning environment for both students and teachers. Finally, I was pleased to take part in the turning of the sod ceremony for a new campus of Kolbe Catholic College, also in Mickleham. This important new campus is being supported by the Victorian government, which is also committed to ensuring excellent facilities for all students across the state in all sectors. The Capital Grants Program provides funding for non-government school communities to improve capital infrastructure, particularly for the most educationally disadvantaged students and, particularly, to make provision for needs arising from new demographic and enrolment trends. Like other growth corridors around the country, my electorate of Calwell is growing very rapidly, with new communities springing up and the demand for new schools constantly growing as well. Many of my newer constituents—young families who've recently arrived from overseas or who are moving to new, more affordable homes—are seeking to enrol their children in independent and, especially, Catholic schools. That is not to say that the excellent government schools being built in the growth areas are not meeting educational and other needs; they certainly are, and they all have a very valued place in our diverse and thriving community. This government is committed to providing all schools with appropriate funding so that all students get the best possible choice of education. These facilities will provide an environment that will help teachers nurture and inspire students to do the very best they can. This is an important investment for our young people now and into the future. Over the next four years, the government will be investing around $959 million on facilities such as these, including over $61.1 million in Victoria this year. We want every child, no matter where they live or which education system they and their parents choose, to have the best schooling possible. The government provides recurrent funding for every student enrolled at a school and is committed to providing fair funding for all schools across Australia. In 2024 recurrent funding for schools is estimated to total some $29.2 billion. We know that at the end of the day it's not the buildings alone that deliver a great education; it's also passionate and well supported teachers and the wider learning community. But great facilities can certainly help, and the schools in Calwell are very proud of their facilities and of their teachers. Finally, I also had the opportunity to meet with His Holiness Mar Awa III, the 22nd Catholicos patriarch of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, who is currently in Australia visiting his parishioners. His Holiness began his visit in Melbourne, where my local Assyrian community were able to rejoice in his presence and share many wonderful moments, as I did when I attended a dinner in his honour hosted by the Assyrian Church of the East—Diocese of Victoria and New Zealand. The Assyrian Christian community has a significant presence in Calwell. It is an established community, one of deep faith, and is well integrated in our broader multicultural community. With the strong leadership of Bishop His Grace Mar Benyamin Elya, the community has built the St Abdisho's Assyrian Church of the East, in Coolaroo, whose grand opening and consecration I attended in May 2014. Since then a Sunday school and church hall were also built on the remaining site, and the community now has plans to build St Joseph's Christian College on land it has purchased in Mickleham. In his address at the dinner, His Holiness strongly endorsed these plans and stated that he looked forward to returning to Australia for the opening of the school. I want to wish His Holiness all the very best, and I wish him a safe journey back to Iraq. House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 77 NOTICES Presentation 77

Tuesday, 5 November 2024

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Mental Health, Taxation, Climate Change 80 16:00 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I bet a lot of people wouldn't know that we could make access to mental health care free and unlimited. It's true, and it would cost a hell of a lot less than a fleet of nuclear submarines to do it. You'd expect that, in a wealthy country like Australia, everyone could access the mental health support that they need, but that's not the case. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, almost one in four people have put off getting help because they can't afford it. But, right as rents, interest rates and grocery prices skyrocketed and the pressure on people intensified, what did the Labor government do? They cut access to Medicare-subsidised psychologist sessions from 20 to 10. Suicide Prevention Australia warned that the changes would prevent people seeking help, and they were right. The following year, almost a quarter of a million fewer appointments were accessed by people who needed them. But it doesn't have to be this way. Here's how we fix it. First, we scrap Labor's cap, and we make it unlimited under Medicare, as it should be. There's no one-size-fits-all limit approach with mental health. Everyone should be able to get the help that they need. If we're given antibiotics, we don't take a quarter of the dose; we finish the prescription. And why would we treat mental health care any differently? Next, we build a thousand new free clinics across the country, so that you can see a psychologist for free. Your bank balance should never be a barrier to getting the help that you need. Do you know how much we'd raise if we taxed the coal, gas and mining corporations and the profits—the excess profits—of big corporations? Five hundred and fourteen billion dollars. It would cost $42 billion to make Medicare-subsidised psychology appointments unlimited and to build a thousand free clinics across the country. So don't let anyone try to convince you that a better system isn't possible. It is. And, if we take on the big corporations, you won't have to put a price on your mental health. If you saw the images of hundreds of cars stacked up on top of each other like Matchbox toys on the streets of Valencia, you know what the climate crisis looks like. There was a year's worth of rain in just over four hours, with over 200 dead across Spain—a disaster movie come to life. How many times will we describe climate catastrophes as 'the storm of the century' before we start naming them after the companies fuelling them: Exxon, Chevron, Woodside and Santos? How many more coal and gas mines will Labor open after already approving 28 new coal and gas projects since taking office? Pollution is now higher under this Prime Minister than it was under Scott Morrison, when science, the United Nations and the Pacific islands are all demanding that they stop opening new coal and gas mines. How many millions in donations will the major parties take from coal and gas corporations to do their bidding? So much depends on the choices that we make right now. This election, turn fear into action. Turn the tide on the political gridlock on climate action and the vested interests fuelling it. Vote for action. Vote for the Greens. (Time expired) Ballarat High School: Treasurer's Visit, Diwali, Medicare 80 16:03 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat It's not every day that you have the Treasurer come to your year 12 commerce and economics class, but that's exactly what the kids at Ballarat High School were treated to last month when the Treasurer came to town. It was a highlight of the Treasurer's visit to see the engagement of the students and the questions that they asked, whether on issues around the cost of living, economic reform, the state of the nation, global politics more generally or issues around leadership. It was a really amazing thing to watch that interaction. I'm very proud to be part of a government that is working so hard to reduce pressures on Australian families, including through our energy relief, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, cracking down on unfair credit-card charges and unfair debit-card charges, and our TAFE and university reforms just announced over the weekend: cutting student debt by 20 per cent and making fee-free TAFE a permanent feature of the system. For those year 12 students, as they're contemplating what they are going to do, that is an absolute game changer. We know that there is always more to do. But can I thank very much the students and teachers at Ballarat High School who helped to make the Treasurer's visit such a worthwhile one for all of us. Of course, this Saturday, 9 November, the Ballarat Indian community will be coming together to celebrate Diwali, the Festival of Lights. This will be the 15th time that the Ballarat Indian Association have organised Diwali, and every year they go from strength to strength. Last year, around 750 members of our local community joined in the festivities, celebrating the victory of light over darkness, good over evil and the wonderful diversity that makes up so much of our modern Ballarat. Events like Diwali show Ballarat at our best, with people from all across the region celebrating together, sharing a meal, sharing their cultures and sharing their experiences. I want to say well done to the Ballarat Indian Association for the great work you do bringing us together, and I hope it will be a successful event on the weekend. This week in parliament we celebrated a very important occasion, the Stronger Medicare Awards. This year marks the 40th anniversary of Medicare, and these awards exist to pay tribute to the people and the practices that have made a significant contribution to Australia's primary care sector. At the awards, I was particularly happy to see some familiar faces, the hardworking staff from the Springs Medical Centre in Daylesford, who shortlisted as finalists for their dedicated, important work serving their local community. Medicare is a proud Labor legacy. I'm delighted to be here as part of the Albanese Labor government, which is working so hard to strengthen Medicare, to get bulk-billing back on track, to make our healthcare system more universal and more affordable to all Australians. Congratulations to all the hardworking doctors, nurses and staff at the clinics and hospitals across the nation. And I thank very much the Springs Medical Centre for coming to Canberra. Barney Barselaar Cup, Cowper Public School, Woolgoolga Rural Fire Brigade 81 16:06 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to a knowledge Cowper Public School, which is celebrating 150 years this year. They held an event on 19 October with many past staff and students turning out to mark the occasion. I want to thank and congratulate the school staff, who put many hours into organising the day and collating lots of photos and memorabilia, including the principal, Sue Magarry; Tiarne Martin; Natalie Ensbey; Abby Nudd and James Wellard, along with Kelly Harrison and Chris Bale from the P&C; and Scott Hall, who organised for the old school bell to be restored for the event. An interesting story comes from one of the former students who attended the school in the early 1900s. The student left the school at a young age to go and work, before defending our country in World War I. He returned from war and went to Sydney to raise his family. The student's name was Lyall Howard, the father of the Hon. John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia. That is a very interesting part of the school's history. It was wonderful to see a small school like Cowper celebrate such a milestone. Congratulations to the community. I'd like to recognise the Woolgoolga Rural Fire Brigade, who this year are celebrating 75 years of service to our community. They were established in 1949 and held an event to celebrate the brigade's rich history and acknowledge the remarkable contributions of members both past and present. I'd like to acknowledge Captain Scott Hodgkinson; Senior Deputy Samuel Fifita; brigade captains Carl Mower, Jacob Sutherland and Mark Osborn; and also Noel Bultitude OAM, who has been there for the entire 75 years of the brigade. By recognising you all, I recognise the current 35 members, who are longstanding contributors to the team. I'd like to congratulate Woolgoolga Public School, who won the 14th annual Barney Barselaar Cup last month. They played Corindi Public School in the grand final, where they won 2-1. Other schools who played in the comp were Mullaway Public School, Sandy Beach Public and St Francis Xavier Primary School from Woolgoolga. Woolgoolga High School also provided all the referees for the day. The games were played in the memory of Barney, a student from St Francis Xavier who sadly passed away 16 years ago, aged nine. Barney's parents, Rob and Lainie, presented the winning trophy and said it was lovely to see the smiles, laughter and banter among the students. Congratulations to everyone involved. Robson, Professor Alan, AO 81 16:08 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise to acknowledge Emeritus Professor Alan Robson AO, a citizen of Western Australia, who passed away in Perth last week. It is difficult to underestimate the influence Alan Robson had on agriculture, on science, on UWA and, indeed, on all of Western Australia. He was a great Australian. He was a pioneer in soil science. He did his PhD at UWA. His research into plant nutrition was internationally recognised and applied widely. In 1993, Alan was appointed Deputy Vice-Chancellor of UWA and then vice-chancellor in 2004, the first and only UWA graduate to achieve this position. As a university leader, he drove UWA into the top 100 universities in the world. Alan initiated the UWA In The Zone conferences that started in 2009 and sought to drive a greater understanding, on this side of the country, of the geographic gift that Perth is. Located on the western verandah of our great continent, facing the Indian Ocean, Perth is in the same time zone as 60 per cent of the world's population, in the region promising the greatest economic growth of the 21st century. His support of the In the Zone conference and those of us who worked on it led to the creation of the highly regarded Perth USAsia Centre. He had an integral role in weaving the tapestry that tells the story of Perth and Western Australia today: modern, outward looking and a geostrategic pivot point of the Indo-Pacific. I was fortunate enough to meet Alan in 1994, when I was a young law student and elected to the Senate of the university. I was even more fortunate to work for him as his chief of staff for a few years. His leadership continues to be an inspiration to me personally and, I'm sure, to many others as well. There is no doubt in my mind that I would not have had the opportunity to become a minister in the federal government without the learning opportunities Alan Robson provided to me in those years we worked together. He changed my life, and I thank Alan for that. As anyone who worked at UWA when Alan was around knows, he knew everyone. He remembered the name of every person he met and would say hello to each and every one of them on any walk through the magnificent UWA Crawley campus that he loved. It might take you, on a slow walk, 20 minutes to walk across that campus from the office of the vice-chancellor to his beloved Institute of Agriculture. With Alan it would take 45 minutes. He spoke to everyone. He knew everyone and he adored them all. My thoughts are with his wonderful wife, Gwenda; his children, Suzanne, Andrew and Nicole; his whole family; and his many, many friends across the university community and the Western Australian business community and in government. I know they're very proud of Alan Robson and the legacy he leaves the University of Western Australia, our great state of Western Australia and, of course, the nation. He was a great Australian. Vale, Alan Robson. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mental Health 82 16:11 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise today to speak on mental health. More than 42 per cent of Australians each year struggle with mental health issues. When you think about that for a moment, it's a remarkably high number. There should be no stigma around it. Around the year there are multiple days that celebrate and promote mental health and the importance of speaking openly about it. Years ago, when I was younger, it wasn't spoken about, but today, to our credit, right around Australia people are more prepared to speak about it and people are much more understanding of mental health issues. I recently received a message about mental health from Nicole Kilmartin of Bracken Ridge, and she asked if I could read it. Nicole said: I'm writing in response to James Packer's recent interview broadcast on Channel 7 a few weeks ago. First and foremost, I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to James for speaking so openly about his experiences with bipolar disorder. As someone who shares the same condition, I know how difficult it can be, especially given the manic episodes we sometimes face. The media can be an overwhelming place for people like us, and for James to appear on television and talk so candidly is truly deserving of recognition. James discussed the challenges of navigating the complex world of medications, something I know firsthand can be as taxing as the condition itself. While medication can help, it often feels like three steps forward and five steps back. I'm especially grateful to the Coalition government— the former coalition government— for approving the medication lurasidone, which, though primarily for schizophrenia, has significantly improved my bipolar depression and mental clarity. I pay just $5.60 for this life-changing drug, while in the United States, it costs around $1,800 per month—a stark reminder of how fortunate we are in Australia. I want to send James a personal message of thanks. What you did, James, sharing your mental health journey and encouraging others, is not only an act of bravery but also a testament to the classic Australian tradition of helping one another. It embodies the community spirit that we hold so dear here in Australia. Mental health issues are becoming more common in our country—and around the world, for that matter. I encourage us all to become more educated about mental health issues and check up on our family, friends and co-workers regularly to break the ice around mental health. Isaacs Electorate: School Leavers 83 16:14 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Today I'd like to talk about and talk to the extraordinary group of young people in my electorate of Isaacs who are sitting their year 12 exams. I was lucky enough to meet with some of them recently. They told me about their challenges; the support they've received from their teachers, families and friends; and their hopes for the future. This time in life is a precious but often tricky one, leaving an old life behind and entering a new phase that you don't quite know the shape of yet. I want to reassure these young adults that, no matter what happens in the next few months, you will find your own path, whether it leads to further studies, entering the workforce or pursuing personal passions. Your resilience and determination will serve you well in whatever you choose to do. I also say to these students make sure you look after yourselves and seek help if you need it. Take time for self-care and reflection because your mental and emotional wellbeing is equally as important as your academic achievements. Life is not just about the milestones you reach but also about the path you take to get there. Never hesitate to reach out when you need guidance or a listening ear. Use your support networks and surround yourself with people who inspire and care for you. Take pride in the countless hours you have devoted to your studies, the challenges you've overcome and the growth you have experienced. This year may have tested you in ways you might never have imagined, pushing you to new heights of resilience and determination, and revealing strengths you did not know you had. I want to acknowledge the hard work of all year 12 students in my electorate—all of the hard work that you've done this year ahead of your exams. Every one of you has been delivered my certificate of encouragement and a 20-page school leavers guide packed with information to help you on the next stage of your journey. The certificates should also serve as a reminder to those students that your community is thinking of you. Through your life, the skills and strengths you've developed during this time will stay with you. Embrace with confidence and a positive mindset the opportunities and challenges that come your way. I wish all year 12 students in my electorate of Isaacs and the nation the best of luck in the coming months. We are all cheering you on every step of the way. Albanese Government 83 16:17 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Before the last election, the then opposition leader now Prime Minister Albanese promised Australians that life would be easier, cheaper and better under him. What I'm hearing from my constituency is that this Prime Minister has failed them dismally. He has failed them on almost every promise that he put forward to the nation, but the biggest one that my constituents live with every day is about the cost of living. Two years after his taking government, our country is in a household and consumer confidence recession. The prices of everyday cost-of-living items—groceries, electricity—have all skyrocketed. We've seen an 18 per cent increase in the cost of living since the Albanese government took the reins. The cost of food has gone up 11 per cent. Just to feed yourself is 11 per cent more expensive now, under this Prime Minister. Housing and rental costs have gone up 15 per cent. Electricity has gone up 22 per cent. Gas is up 25 per cent. Core inflation peaked at 3.9 per cent, consistently higher than in the other major advanced economies around the world. The thing about inflation is that it compounds when it comes to the price of things that you rely on every day. It compounds, and that is why it is so urgent that you get it back under control as quickly as you can. And that is what this government has failed to do. We are lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to reining in inflation, which means people are paying more and more and will continue to pay more because of this government's economic settings. It's an absolute disgrace. Australians are worse off in terms of disposable income per capita, which has collapsed 8.7 per cent. We had six quarters of negative per capita growth. That's the longest in 50 years. Productivity—one of the most important metrics that we have in the economy—has collapsed; it's down 6.3 per cent. Savings have collapsed by 10.2 per cent. Personal income taxes are up 25.3 per cent, so people are paying more tax. It's an absolute disgrace. Mortgage payments have nearly tripled. This Prime Minister came into office promising a cheaper, better Australia. He has absolutely deceived them and is delivering the absolute opposite. Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games, Eden-Monaro Electorate: Sport, Eden-Monaro Electorate: Small Business 83 16:20 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro Anyone who knows me knows I'm a bit of a sports nut, and during the recent Olympics and Paralympics there were many sleepless nights. I'm incredibly proud of all of our Australian athletes but even more proud of those that hail from the mighty Eden-Monaro. In particular, I want to acknowledge Nikki Ayers and Reece Langdon. Hailing from Dalmeny, Nikki and her rowing partner, Jed Altschwager, clinched Australia's first-ever gold medal in Paralympic rowing in Paris. They triumphed in the PR3 mixed double sculls—an event which was held on the Paralympic stage for the first time and features one male and one female who have arms, trunk and leg function and row with two oars. Nikki turned to rowing after she suffered some lifechanging injuries during a Rugby Union match in 2016, undergoing 16 surgeries. Nikki, you are an inspiration and a role model and you have made us all incredibly proud. Reece Langdon is another incredible athlete dominating the world stage. Reece from Goulburn took out bronze in the men's 1,500-metre T38 final at the Paralympics. When he was six years old, he contracted a debilitating virus and had to learn how to walk again. From that struggle came an amazing athlete. Congratulations, Reece, on your determination and success. I want to give a shout out to another Eden-Monaro local doing something spectacular: 23-year-old David Chidgey, who is one of Australia's top bull riders. For those who don't know much about bull riding, you need to get to a country show or a local rodeo. The sport involves attempting to hang onto a bucking bull for eight seconds with one hand. David grew up on a farm between Bungendore and Braidwood and earlier this year was selected for a scholarship to Odessa College in Texas. He'll move back to the States to pursue his dreams next year. Well done, David. You've clearly got the guts and the talent, and I look forward to seeing you succeed on the world stage. A huge congratulations to Queanbeyan City Football Club, who have achieved their long-awaited goal of promotion to the National Premier League. The club took out this year's grand final a few weeks ago, capping off an amazing year. I look forward to seeing both Queanbeyan teams in NPL next year. Good luck to the Monaro Panthers and Queanbeyan City. It will be one for the local calendar, so get down and support both of the teams. The thing I love most about the Eden-Monaro is its people. I'm constantly blown away by the clever, kind, hardworking and creative things they do. One of those is business owner Rachel Whittaker, who owns a business selling accessible bras for people with a disability. She started Bra Easy after her daughter Jamie-Lee McNamara developed a brain tumour and experienced strokes at the age of nine. She later struggled to put on a bra, so Rachel set about to design one which she could put on herself—one with velcro on each side instead of a wire clasp at the back, which can be put on with one hand. Bra Easy has sold thousands of accessible bras to people with disabilities and those with limited mobility since opening an NDIS-registered online store four years ago. Her sister-in-law, Julie, is now in charge, but thank you, Rachel, for all you've done to make it easier for people with a disability to put on a bra. Raise Our Voice Australia 84 16:23 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to share some of the wise words of my young constituents who submitted speeches this year for the Raise Our Voices competition. First, 12-year-old Sam from Woodleigh, Penbank, wrote: I would like to see in the next 10 years around the area I live in to have more shops because there are not many shops in Fingal. Most of Fingal is nature and no space for anything like Woollies, Coles and more. My closest Woolworths and Coles is in Rosebud, I know it's not that far, but it's not walking distance and it's a 20-minute drive. Secondly, I know this one can be hard but sporting arenas. I play basketball and more sports but there is no basketball courts or stadiums around Fingal, and it is a lot harder to play sports for a team if there are no stadiums around. Deep down I would love to see more stadiums like the civic centre in Mornington that has multiple sports grounds. I would enjoy that so much. Isla, aged 11, from the same school, wrote: My goal is to have the Mt Martha beach and Marina Cove clean because there is no point of having beaches if they are full of litter. In ten years, we need our beaches to be clean and beautiful. We should be able to swim in the bay and relax at the beach. Lots of families that go to the beach and prefer them to be clean. Some ideas that might help this problem are signs, bins, a pair of tongs and bucket for people to take and pick up rubbish, or even boat and jet ski free beaches. We need to protect our wild and marine life. Birds and sea animals could eat rubbish get sick, and maybe even die. Wildlife can become tangled in litter or mistake rubbish for food and eat it, resulting in serious injury or death. We can't achieve this by ourselves. We need your help. Finally, Milania, who's aged 11, wrote in her addition to the competition: I love playing volleyball and I think it is a great sport for small groups of young people. There is not a lot of volleyball clubs which makes it harder for kids to try and reach their dreams of doing volleyball and when I looked at volleyball clubs near me, I found only 2! If we start having more clubs and more areas where you can play, I think more kids would want to join and their dreams of doing volleyball can come true. I think that the government should make volleyball more popular and put more money into making it happen in schools and in sporting clubs. If we did this, we might have a chance of seeing our country play better in volleyball competitions. We had a men's and women's team in the Olympics. Neither made it to the finals. If there was more volleyball teams around Australia, especially for kids, we might do much better in the Olympics. I love volleyball and if you do this, many more young kids and young adults might have dreams of playing volleyball that can come true. My dream would come true, cause I love volleyball. City of Wanneroo Business Awards 85 16:26 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to acknowledge the remarkable achievements of my local Pearce businesses at the 2024 City of Wanneroo Business Awards, wonderfully emceed by Christina Morrissey. Congratulations to the Wanneroo Business Association President, Andy Kahle, for hosting this fabulous event. I'd like to congratulate the stars of the night, the award winners. Each of them has demonstrated exceptional dedication, innovation and resilience in their respective fields. Their hard work not only elevates their small businesses but also enriches our entire community. The Best Business: Owner/Operator award was claimed by The Glasses Lady, highlighting Tracy's exceptional solo service and commitments to her clients. The Best Business: 1-5, 6-14 and 15+ Employees awards went to The Flower Boutique, QPC and Nationwide Diesel Services respectively. The Best Start-Up award went to Lighthouse Vets, acknowledging their innovative contributions to the community as a new business. The Customer Service award was given to Choice Home Help, recognising their efforts in community service and engagement. The honour of Innovation was awarded to the continuously improving Perth Diesel Performance Pty Ltd. The fabulous Paws for Wildlife won the Community Engagement award for their work native animals. The Tourism award was given to the wonderful Mindarie Marina, highlighting their role in promoting tourism. Belinda Philippi from Class Professionals was presented with the Employee of the Year award. The Business Leader of the Year award was Steve Greenwood from Wesbeam Pty Ltd, and Robbie Kauka from Wesbeam was awarded the Trainee/Apprentice of the Year. Wesbeam is a wonderful business that Minister Ed Husic and I visited in May this year. The prestigious Business of the Year award went to QPC Group, recognising their outstanding achievements across all facets of their business operations. It is also important to recognise and congratulate not just the winners but all the other 115 nominees and finalists who are committed to excellence in their field. The Albanese Labor government understands the critical contribution that small businesses make across the country, by offering genuine support with the recent budget provision of more than $640 million in targeted funding. Our fee-free TAFE is also a fantastic initiative that benefits small businesses, designed to provide accessible vocational education and training. It also significantly benefits our small businesses by addressing skill shortages, reducing training costs and fostering long-term economic growth. Once again, a huge congratulations to all of my 2024 business award winners in Pearce, and thank you to the Wanneroo Business Association for the event. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 85 BILLS Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 85

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024

Second Reading 85 16:29 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm pleased to speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024. The Albanese Labor government is committed to fixing Australia's broken migration system and continuing to clean up the shocking mess left by the former coalition government in this space. We inherited a migration system that was broken, exposed to exploitation and not prepared for the reopening of the borders post COVID-19. Dr Martin Parkinson, who led the first independent review of migration in a generation, found that it was a deliberate decision to neglect the system, and that it was so badly broken that it required a 10-year rebuild. The government's migration strategy, released last year in response to Dr Parkinson's review, builds a system that Australians can trust, helping us to get the skills we need while halving the migration intake. The strategy is a set of commitments to address a decade of neglect in Australia's visa system and support a more prosperous, fair and secure Australian labour market. If you are a worker, whether a local or a migrant, the migration strategy means stronger protections not only in terms of your wages and conditions but in the workplace as well. For businesses, it means getting the workers and skills you need to grow and be more productive. This bill implements key commitments from the migration strategy. It amends the Migration Act 1958 to establish a legislative framework and a new approach to temporary skill migration in Australia in the form of a new skills in demand visa, which targets the skills Australia needs and promotes greater worker mobility. This is an important step in delivering a better-planned migration system, meeting Australia's skills needs and laying a strong foundation for the future. The legislation creates the income thresholds in indexation for the proposed streams of that visa. As well as streamlining labour market testing requirements. The bill will help secure the integrity of the skilled migration program by setting minimum income thresholds for temporary skilled migrants in the act and by legislating annual indexation of these income thresholds. It establishes a legislative basis to create a public register of approved sponsors, and provides that labour market testing be completed within six months—increased from four months—prior to the sponsor of a skilled migrant worker lodging a nomination. I will go through these measures in detail. First, a key recommendation in the migration strategy was to develop a new skills in demand visa with full mobility and clear pathways to permanent residence. The new skills in demand visa is due to be implemented in December 2024. There are three pathways. First, there is a specialist skills pathway that will attract high-skilled specialists to ensure Australia can quickly and easily recruit top talent. This will be open to migrants who earn more than $135,000 in any occupation per annum. The specialist skills stream will recognise these workers meet a national need that is beyond filling a narrowly defined gap in the labour market. Highly skilled migrants bring significant economic benefits. They are more likely to bring productivity-enhancing knowledge and ideas, and to create jobs for locals. Second, a core skills pathway will help meet Australia's skills needs, and most temporary skilled migrants will come through that stream. This stream is designed to bring in skilled employees Australia needs now and in the future, to ensure we are able to provide ourselves with the goods and services we need to support our way of life. Applicants will need to have an occupation on the occupation list compiled by Jobs and Skills Australia and earn more than the current temporary skilled migration income threshold—commonly known as TSMIT—which was set at $73,150 as of 1 July this year. In addition to this, TSMIT will be renamed 'core skills income threshold'. Third, there'll be an essential skills pathway which will support the migration of low-pay—that is, below TSMIT—workers with essential skills. The policy settings for this stream are still to be developed, and further announcements will be made in due course. On the indexation of thresholds, the bill legislates the income thresholds for the specialist skills and core skills streams of the Skills in Demand visa and legislates that they're indexed annually in line with local Australian wages. Indexing these income thresholds is an important part of maintaining the integrity of the Migration Program over time, ensuring the temporary skills program remains targeted towards more highly skilled migrants and supporting the wages of migrants and Australians. The provision of legislated minimum income thresholds for the streams in the Skills in Demand visa will ensure that people working on those visas are less vulnerable to exploitation. This will guarantee that migrant wages will increase alongside Australian wages and ensure Australian workers, and workers generally, receive fair remuneration through indexed salary thresholds. Indexing these thresholds is critical to protecting wages and conditions for local workers, something that the coalition was never capable of doing nor had the policy intent to do. This is good for all workers, regardless of where they're from. This is about making sure the skilled migration system does what it says it does and helps us to maintain a social licence for our skilled migration program. It will put some downward pressure on net overseas migration. Currently, indexation of the TSMIT needs to be done by amending regulations every year, something the coalition refused to do. Legislating the indexation in this way will mean the income thresholds always remain in line with Australian wages, and placing such a threshold in the act and making it subject to annual indexation, instead of continuing to specify it in a legislative instrument made by the minister, will provide greater certainty both for sponsors and for workers going forward while providing greater strength to restore integrity in the migration system. For a long time, Labor called for indexation of these important salary thresholds. For too long, under the coalition these salaries were not indexed, and the TSMIT remained at $53,900 per annum from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2023. Get that, Mr Deputy Speaker Young—for nearly 10 years the TSMIT remained the same. That has had the impact of driving down wages. Should I say that the former finance minister Mathias Cormann said that driving down wages was a deliberate design feature of the coalitions coalition's industrial policy? It is a key measure that they undertook to drive down wages in the workplaces of Australians. When I was a shadow minister for immigration and border protection, we called for indexation of these important salary thresholds in the lead-up to the 2019 election. Again, in 2022, Labor had a commitment to raise the TSMIT, the minimum amount a migrant must be paid to be eligible for temporary skilled migration. At neither election did the LNP government, federally, support that. Given the opportunity, knowing Labor was prepared to do that, on neither occasion did they take the opportunity to be bipartisan and to lift the wages and conditions of Australians. On 1 July 2023, we delivered on our promise, with the TSMIT increasing from $53,900 to $70,000, and it will be indexed to $73,150 from 1 July 2024 this year. Contrast that with those opposite. It was stagnant for nearly a decade, despite the fact that the now Leader of the Opposition commissioned a review into this income threshold before those two elections in 2019 and 2022 that I referred to. In 2017 the Leader of the Opposition commissioned a review of the TSMIT—two years before the 2019 election, when he was the Minister for Home Affairs, which recommended that review. It recommended it be indexed annually. But in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 they did not do it—at no stage, given the opportunity. They went from 2013 to 2017 without a review—nothing. Even though they were told to do it, they didn't do it. They completely ignored the recommendation. They had absolutely no interest in getting wages moving and no interest in managing the migration system properly by listening to that review, which they commissioned themselves. In terms of streamlining labour market testing, the bill will make amendments to the Migration Act to make labour market testing valid for six months, up from four months, providing flexibility to businesses to meet their skills needs and labour market testing requirements while still being required to attempt to fill a position locally—local workers given a chance before a migrant worker is sponsored. Finally, the bill supports greater transparency in the skilled migration system and supports the government's attempt to enable mobility for migrant workers. To enhance worker mobility and tackle temporary skilled migrant worker exploitation, in the Migration Strategy there was a commitment to establish a legislative framework to underpin a public register of approved worker sponsors. This is a list of businesses approved by the Department of Home Affairs to sponsor migrant workers. The public register will include the names of approved sponsors, the postcode associated with the approved sponsor's ABN, and the number of sponsored workers and their occupations. The register will assist with mobility by helping temporary skilled migrant workers to find a new sponsor if they wish to change jobs. That register will encourage transparency and is a resource for temporary skilled migrant workers to check that their sponsoring employer is legitimate and doing the right thing. Again and again, whether it was in Ipswich, the Lockyer Valley or any part of South-East Queensland, or in regional Victoria, regional New South Wales or WA, when I was the shadow minister I recall meeting workers who were exploited during this time. Those opposite could have done this, they should have done this, but they failed to do this. It has taken a Labor government to do it. There was a report by a parliamentary committee that looked at abuses in the migration area. There were strong recommendations in this area. It didn't take a report commissioned by the minister. There were ample reports about exploitation in this area, with recommendations which those opposite refused to take up. They refused to act on the exploitation of workers in the agricultural sector, in the mining sector, in retail and hospitality, in aged care and in child care. They refused to do it. They never acted on it. If we include a postcode in the register of approved sponsors, it will enable migrants searching for mobility to identify employers nearby and it will increase the practicality of the register. This will provide greater protections and oversight transparency. It will help tackle migrant worker exploitation and the misuse of the visa system. The register will provide a resource to check that a sponsoring employer is legitimate, and allow for greater transparency, monitoring and oversight. It's worth noting that the Skills in Demand visa and the broader Migration Strategy were subject to broad consultation across government, unions, business, civil society, the international education sector and the wider Australian community. This bill draws on the key findings of the migration review and the 483 public submissions it received. The most egregious exploitation of workers—physical, financial, sexual—happened on the watch of those opposite. Review after review—some commissioned by them; others parliamentary—they did not act. This bill implements actions and commitments outlined in the Migration Strategy, after tripartite consultations with businesses and unions, including the Business Council of Australia and the ACTU. I am confident the reforms in this bill will have a benefit for outer suburban and regional electorates like mine. This is a challenge for good employers as well as for those workers who work in the sector—migrants and Australians. We want a fair go in the workplace, we want a fair go for family run businesses, we want a fair go for businesses who do the right thing and we want our migration system to have integrity. 16:44 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Before I begin a discussion of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024, I want to talk about a panel I was invited to join for the e61 Institute with the members for Wentworth and Fraser this morning in order to discuss the report of the e61 Institute which they launched today, The lucky country or the lucky city? I was proud as the member for Mallee and a member of the Nationals to fly the flag for regional Australia. The e61 report confirms that, while there is a wage premium for people living in the inner city, the lower income of workers in regional Australia may actually go further, depending, for instance, on the housing situation in that locality. The report makes that point for industrial and care and service workers, who it says 'have for some time experienced higher wages net of housing costs in regional areas than in the city'. The report goes on to say, 'For these workers, the incentive to stay in or move to the city has been weakening.' However I'm sorry to add that, in some parts of Mallee, under the Albanese Labor government, the cost of housing—buying a home or renting—has gone through the roof also, just like the cost of living, which combines to make it harder to secure the workforce that we desperately need in the health sector, in agriculture and across the board. A recent Suburbtrends report called the Rental pain index showed five of the 12 councils from my electorate in the top 20 for the worst rental pain, with Northern Grampians Shire sadly in second place and Swan Hill in fourth place. With the trend of formerly city based workers heading to the regions, e61's report notes: … it will be important that regional housing supply can adjust, to accommodate the additional demand without upward pressure on housing costs that could create inequality within regions. That is what we're already seeing in Mallee. I note Master Builders Australia have said in their submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill: Master Builders has long advocated for migration settings that ensure Australia is attracting the right skills. Unfortunately, the Federal Government's policy framework and immigration mechanisms are not kind to migrants who are skilled in building and construction trades. Visas are difficult to secure, costly and come with long processing times. The skills recognition process is cumbersome, costly, slow and in some cases completely unnecessary. The exclusion of trades occupations from skilled migration is a sure-fire way to exacerbate the housing shortage across the country. With an aging workforce and booming demand for housing and infrastructure, Master Builders anticipates that at least half a million people must enter the industry by 2029. No fewer than two-thirds of these new entrants will need to be skilled tradespeople, just to maintain business as usual. However, securing visas for these critical workers is already a herculean task. They are difficult to secure, costly and plagued by long processing times. We are in a national housing crisis, with 1.2 million new homes needed to be built between now and June 2029. In the September quarter of 2024 alone, 90,000 new workers are needed to build 60,000 new homes nationwide. The Master Builders' sentiments are similar to those my constituents express to me with increasing frequency. Mallee farmers and small- to medium-sized-business owners rely heavily on skilled migrants to fill critical gaps. Whether it's tradespeople, doctors, nurses, teachers or agricultural workers, migrants are the ones who keep the engine running. But this bill treats these essential workers like spare parts that can be swapped out at will, rather than the vital cogs that keep the machine of regional Australia turning. Last year in October I spoke briefly in the House as deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration on the tabling of our two-year report Migration, pathway to nationbuilding, which I must say we were doing and in the process of when the Labor government also announced a review by Martin Parkinson. I'm proud to say a significant number of the recommendations from our report are specific to regional Australia, starting at recommendation 56, calling for greater uniformity in migration laws and regulations concerning regional Australia. As shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health, I particularly emphasise recommendation 60, which urges the government to scale incentives to foster the long-term settlement of healthcare professionals in outer regional and remote areas. One of the most pressing concerns in Mallee and in regional Australia is the shortage of healthcare professionals. Regional healthcare is crucial to the survival and economic growth of regional communities. Working families do not want to move to a country area where they cannot receive adequate health care, it's no surprise. In the short to medium term, international medical professionals are essential to regional healthcare services, bringing not only their skills and expertise but also a deep commitment to serving communities that are often underserviced. Yet, as one South African couple, both medical doctors, told the Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, and me during a visit in the south of my electorate in Mallee, it cost them $280,000 to come and practise in Australia. Regional Australia's dire health workforce needs have been exacerbated by Labor's misguided changes to the distribution priority areas, adding Modified Monash Model 2 areas, like the outer suburban areas of capital cities. This policy shift robbed genuine rural and remote regions of the doctors they desperately need, leading to a 56 per cent increase in doctors leaving the regions within the first six months. International medical professionals face hurdles in the registration process with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, AHPRA. In Mallee, I've assisted healthcare providers, advocating to expedite the inordinate processing delays for these professionals. In some communities, patients rely on one doctor. Denying medical care to hundreds of thousands of regional Australians due to bureaucratic red tape is dangerous to people's health and frustrating for the doctors whose ability to practise is jeopardised. This bill could make the situation worse by creating additional compliance requirements for sponsors, potentially leading to even longer delays in bringing skilled medical professionals to our regions. AHPRA must be held accountable for these delays, and the government must take immediate action to address inefficiencies in the system. Australia also faces a critical shortage of at least 110,000 direct aged-care workers within the next decade, with an annual shortfall of 30,000 to 35,000 according to the Centre for Economic Development of Australia. If these shortages persist, we won't have enough workers to meet the basic care standards recommended by the royal commission. With low-skilled migration levels and a sector attrition rate of around 65,000 people per year, the situation is dire. Regional areas, like my electorate, are hit hardest by these shortages. What's bleak in the city is even more severe in regional Australia. The nation building report noted on sponsorship: … the Law Council highlighted inflexibility and opacity in the employer sponsored visa program that impedes the ability of businesses to attract and retain workers to service their needs. They called for: … better communication and assistance to sponsoring employers to help navigate the complexity, ensure the lodging of 'decision ready applications', and ultimately contribute to a more streamlined process. As I said at the tabling of the nation building report, the Master Builders also queried whether regional sponsors ought to be exempt from paying for the Skilling Australians Fund, and I repeat what I said then: there is some force to this submission. For agriculture, the nation building report noted: … the National Farmers' Federation drew attention to the 'significant costs' associated with skills shortage visas, encompassing visa fees, assistance from migration agents or other experts, and the requirement for sponsoring employers to contribute to the Skilling Australians Fund. While acknowledging some of the costs were 'understandable', others, they believed, could be minimised through simplification and streamlining and, in so doing, reduce visa processing cost and the need to engage migration experts. Recruiting farm labour has always been a challenge, with 57 per cent of farms struggling to find adequate workers. Skilled workers have been instrumental in filling these gaps. Farmers face significant challenges in securing enough workers during peak seasons. The potential penalties for non-compliance are deterring some farmers from participating in sponsorship schemes altogether. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee concluded its review of this bill in September, and I'll highlight Senator Scarr's additional comments to that report. The Albanese Labor government significantly hiked the TSMIT, the temporary skilled migration income threshold, from $53,900 to $70,000, and again this July to $73,150. Small businesses in the Mallee electorate are shocked at what they must now pay to secure workers. Senator Scarr noted that this bill proposes changing the TSMIT to three other thresholds: the specialist, core and essential skills income thresholds, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of a skilled migrant displacing an Australian worker. That reads like something written by the unions. And here we are, in a relatively full-employment economy, where regional Victoria has the nation's lowest unemployment rate of 3.9 per cent. The Victorian Labor government has been celebrating regional Victoria's low unemployment rate—for instance, welcomed it with fanfare when it was as low as 2.4 per cent in September 2023. According to the Victorian government's three-month average figures, regional unemployment is as low as 1.2 per cent in Warrnambool and south-west Victoria and 1.3 per cent in Shepparton. However, I have to emphasise that it's actually 5.4 per cent in my electorate of Mallee and the same in Gippsland. Regional Australia is the backbone of our nation, contributing the farmers, the builders and the engineers of our prosperity, feeding and clothing the nation and the world. I made these very points recently, in marking the centenary celebrations at Robinvale, where I had also taken the migration committee during our two-year report deliberations. Migrants of Italian and Greek origin, in particular, have underpinned Robinvale's economic success as an irrigation powerhouse. Instead of adding more layers of bureaucracy, we should be looking at ways to streamline the process for bringing skilled migrants to regional areas. This could include faster processing times for regional sponsorships, reduced compliance burdens for regional employers and greater support for organisations that sponsor skilled migrants. When you consider the migrant workforce in my region, and the inordinate percentage of my electorate office's work spent in progressing migration matters, the government should consider a dedicated migration navigator in Mildura to streamline processing. It's not good enough to outsource expediting of visas to the offices of members of parliament, where we have no jurisdiction. There has been a significant increase in Mallee small business constituents coming to me, wanting me to help them to navigate the visa system. Some have been priced out of being able to afford workers due to the TSMIT changes. Others can't afford migration agents or lawyers, and the department is not in a position to provide guidance. It feels as though Labor, by design, are trying to crush small business into submission or into insolvency in record numbers, so that unionised big business and government-run agencies can theoretically step in to run the country. However, we, on this side of the House, pay attention to history and outcomes. We know that Labor's controlled economies do not benefit the regions but, rather, capital cities, and, therefore, rob from regions to buy votes in the inner cities. I urge the government to reconsider the provisions of this bill and to work with regional communities to develop policies that support their growth and development. After all, we've seen this movie before. Labor comes in with rushed immigration legislation, leaving loopholes that need to be fixed later on. Our regional communities deserve better resources and better outcomes. 16:59 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton This continent has a long history of migration. The first black feet were placed on the continent around 60,000 to 100,000 years ago in Queensland. The first white feet belonged to the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who, on 26 February 1606, set foot on land at Pennefather River on the western side of Cape York. That was 164 years before Lieutenant Cook raised his flag at Possession Island in the Torres Strait. Interestingly, Torres sailed through but do not actually stop in Australia, but he still has the Torres Strait named after him. Willem Janszoon wanted to call the place where he set foot New Zealand, but the name never actually took off. Just for the record, I want to say that Queensland had the name first, so we even had 'New Zealand' before New Zealand, as I am sure some people might be interested to hear. The place across the ditch should be called the 'second-best New Zealand', as I'm sure everyone in this chamber would testify. We have a long history of migration, and it's good to see that Queensland was involved right from the start. Migration has always been central to the Australian story. Although, in the 1960s and 1970s, Queensland had a lower-than-normal intake of migrants, even through the great wave of migration that occurred after World War II; not as many came to Queensland. There have been many iterations of migration schemes and policies, some of which we can be proud and some of which were downright shameful. In Queensland, we have a major city named after Townsville, a guy who was a slave trader in terms of blackbirding, which was the slave trade in Queensland. Sadly, it is still sometimes necessary these days to counter despicable anti-immigration rhetoric when it is used by those seeking to encourage fear and division in our society, especially some of those extremist parties, those fringe protest parties, who are even in the federal parliament. Migration policies are shaped by the prevailing social, cultural and political norms and economic imperatives of different eras. I think it was Menzies, particularly, who saw the 4.2 million people arrive in the 40 years after the end of World War II. Those people brought with them cultures, languages, arts and food, and they bolstered the Australian workforce with their skills, expertise and labour. This was part of the 'populate or perish' drive for migration. It was a key component of the nation-building plan, and it led to a booming economy. The numerous different approaches to migration through the years speak to the need to revise and update policy on a regular basis to both meet changing Australian requirements and benefit the nation—and to look at what is going on around the world. This did not happen under that conga line of Abbot, Turnbull, Morrison governments. At the end of the nine years of conservative chaos, the migration system was in such a mess that the independent reviewer, the very well-respected Dr Martin Parkinson, described it as 'badly broken' after years of 'deliberate neglect'. With a lack of direction during these years, migration did little to provide economic benefit, and it did not boost labour productivity. Whereas, it is actually the lowest hanging fruit. People arrive educated, fed and trained, and they're here on our shores ready to work. The migration system the Labor government inherited was exposed to exploitation. It was not working for business, workers or the Australia public, and it was in no way ready for the reopening of borders in early 2022. In December 2023, the Albanese Labor government launched the Migration Strategy, a fresh and fit-for-purpose approach to migration. It's the cornerstone of this Labor government's commitment to fix the broken migration system, to make it work better for migrants but also, more importantly, dare I say, the Australian economy and the Australian people. The strategy will enable us to get the skills our economy needs, while also halving the migration intake, which is appropriate when we don't have enough houses for the people who are here at the moment. It makes the crucial point that 'ultimately the success of our migration system relies on the backing of the Australian people'. That's why one of its key aims is to rebuild social licence by returning migration levels to normal. It will fix the visa backlog of almost a million that we inherited. It will fix the visa system abuses. It will resolve issues in international student numbers. Crucially, it also focuses on planning and implementing the program to meet the current skills shortage needs—where we need them. This has been welcomed by companies like Transvent, which operates an air conditioning spiral duct manufacturing facility in my electorate of Moreton. When I visited Manager Shane Morris and his team recently, they told me about their considerable but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to hire locally—to the extent where they had signs out on Bradman Street trying to lure people in and ads placed all around the world. Shane indicated that the skills shortage in this area has stymied growth for a number of welding and manufacturing businesses. He said: Skilled labour is a major issue for manufacturers these days. I know of companies now going offshore for supply or setting up their own manufacturing facilities overseas due to labour shortages in Australia. He agrees that the skills shortage needs to be addressed urgently. The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 addresses the damaging skills shortage and implements the key commitments of the strategy. It amends the Migration Act 1958 to put in place a new skills in demand visa, a new approach to temporary skilled migration from December this year. You can trust a Labor government to protect workers, and that is what this bill will do. This is the land of the fair go, after all, and it's only just that those who move to Australia to work receive the same fair go. Annual indexation of the thresholds is a requirement to protect wages and conditions for both local workers and migrant workers. We don't want our migrant workers to be vulnerable and exploited, and ensuring that migrant wages increase alongside other wages protects against that. Indexation of income thresholds was recommended as far back as 2017, when the Leader of the Opposition commissioned a review. It will come as no surprise that the former government failed to act on this recommendation. The temporary skilled migration income threshold was $53,900 on 1 July 2013 and it was exactly the same amount on 30 June 2023. Unbelievable! It's more proof that the former government wasn't interested in getting wages moving. I always remember Minister Mathias Cormann belling the coalition cat when he said low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economy. The coalition definitely weren't interested in the efficient management of the migration system. This bill addresses the problems left to us by the coalition by implementing three streams. The first is the specialist skills pathway, designed to attract highly skilled specialist workers. The income threshold for them will be $135,000, and it's open to migrants in any occupation who earn more than that. The second stream is called the core skills pathway. To meet the needs of Australian employers, applicants need to meet the occupations listed on the Jobs and Skills Australia list. They also need to earn more than the current skilled migration income, which has been indexed to $73,150. The bill will rename this the core skills income threshold. The occupations included on the core skills occupation list are not prioritised and there are no limits on how many occupations can be listed. There is also no limit on the number of visas that can be granted for any given occupation. The number of visas will be driven by the level of demand from employer sponsors, meaning that business need is the driving force. The third stream, the essential skills pathway, will promote the migration of workers with essential skills. The parameters of this pathway are still under development and will be announced soon. Another key facet of this bill is the development of a public register of sponsors. This will have the benefit of increasing transparency in the system and engendering public trust. The public register will contain a list of businesses approved by the Department of Home Affairs to sponsor migrant workers. The register will make it easier for temporary skilled migrant workers to change jobs, as they'll be able to consult the list to find a new sponsor if things aren't working out in their workplace. The register will contain information such as the business number of sponsored workers and their occupations. It will also include business location information, to make worker mobility easier and more efficient while still ensuring that workers are directed towards high-needs areas in the economy. It will give migrant workers the confidence that their employer is legitimate and therefore decrease the possibility of exploitation—something no-one would like. The bill also implements changes to labour market testing, making it valid for six months rather than four. This will benefit businesses, who will have increased flexibility to meet the testing requirements and resolve their skills shortage needs. This bill is focused on responsibly continuing Australia's commitment to migration, our multicultural community and our worldwide connections. It will develop and maintain a more prosperous, more fair and more secure labour market in Australia. It will work for businesses by securing the workers they need when they need them and promoting business growth and prosperity. Crucially it will benefit workers by securing protections for wages and conditions through indexed salary thresholds. This bill will ensure sustainable migration levels and ensure we get the skills that are in demand to boost productivity. Labor's plan for migration sets us up for the future, and I commend this bill to the House. 17:10 Ms LE 295676 Fowler In early July this year, an Australian family owned business of over 55 years, BE Campbell, reached out to me to share their struggle to recruit skilled meatworkers despite their efforts to attract and train local workers. This industry is labour intensive, and the reality is that skilled meatworkers are notoriously difficult to recruit. Unfortunately this critical challenge to its business has compelled BE Campbell to source some of its skilled workers from overseas to remain viable. The current Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold is set at a level relevant to industries such as nursing, IT and engineering. Skilled meatworkers earn significantly less than these professions. Essentially, BE Campbell is faced with three major hurdles in recruiting skilled meatworkers: (1) attracting local skilled meatworkers to meet their business needs, (2) local workers are not entering the meat processing industry, as they can earn the same or more in other less laborious industries and (3) the TSMIT is set well above the rate of pay for locally recruited skilled workers in the meat industry, creating a major barrier to recruiting overseas skilled workers. As a consequence of these major hurdles, BE Campbell is now considering the possibility of downsizing the business in order to survive. They are one of the largest meat processors in Australia, and scaling back their operations due to a lack of workers can only be bad for our economy and bad for consumers. Skilled migration has long been a cornerstone of Australia's economic growth, contributing to our diverse and dynamic workforce. Over the years, our migration policies have evolved to meet the changing needs of our economy. However, the significant shift in our skilled workforce landscape is a matter of concern, and, as the federal representative of an electorate that includes businesses struggling with a shortage of skilled workers, I'm deeply concerned about the implications of these changes. To be clear, I welcome the long overdue reform of our migration system, and I welcome the government's effort to create a more equitable balance for both employers and migrant workers. However, it is crucial that we carefully consider the impact of these reforms on all stakeholders involved. BE Campbell is only one example within the meat processing industry facing challenges in hiring skilled migrant workers. However, this pressure is felt across many other industries. I opened this speech by sharing this case because it shows where the migration system is not working and redress is urgently needed. Under this bill the TSMIT will be replaced with the core skills income threshold of $73,150 and the specialist skills income threshold of $135,000. The government's rationale of a legislated minimum income threshold is to ensure that migrants coming to Australia to work are not vulnerable to exploitation and that there is fair remuneration through indexed salary thresholds. This sounds like a great intention. The majority of skilled migrant workers fall under the core skills stream, earning a minimum of $73,150 per year. This threshold is significantly higher than the award rates for skilled meatworkers under the meat industry award. I'm fully in agreement that the new scheme may offer greater protection for migrant workers, but my question is: is the government also taking into consideration the struggles SME employers are currently experiencing in attracting skilled workers? In a manufacturing roundtable with many local SMEs that I held in Fowler recently in Western Sydney, the majority expressed the challenges their businesses are facing in finding local workers while facing the escalating costs of rent, wages, materials, compliance, freight and goods. Businesses like BE Campbell have made it clear to me that they are concerned that increased thresholds would cause inequity between overseas and local migrant workers and that they need to bring in this specific meat-processing skilled workforce to meet customer demand and create job opportunities, otherwise they will be forced to scale back their operations. Each industry has unique market remuneration standards. It's not a one-size-fits-all legislated threshold. If the government had engaged extensively with our SMEs—the likes of BE Campbell and Primo Foods—they would surely have understood that this one-size-fits-all approach wouldn't work. I asked the government to conduct further consultation on whether a simplistic legislative income threshold is the optimal solution or whether there is a fairer way to set remuneration that balances the needs of skilled migrant workers and employers. With regard to legislating a publicly available sponsor register under proposed section 140GE as a mechanism to prevent migrant worker exploitation, I am concerned about the unintended consequences. My husband often says that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand that this instrument would provide for the Department of Home Affairs to create a register of approved sponsors, including the sponsor's business name, the ABN and the number of people that they have sponsored, among other information. This measure came from the 2023 review of the migration system to address worker exploitation and allow migrant workers to check the legitimacy of their employer. This provision is a double-edged sword. A public register would allow for greater transparency and confidence in sponsorships. However, this would place a greater administrative burden on businesses to access skilled migrant workers to supplement their workforces. If anyone in government has operated a small business, they would surely be aware of the regulatory burden on SMEs, such as environmental regulations, diversity compliance, changes to industrial relations and welding regulations, for example, which all contribute towards the operating cost of a business that has to bear the burden of increased energy, wages, materials, rent, transport, insurance and logistic costs, just to name a few. I'm also concerned that a public register may deter businesses from seeking to sponsor overseas workers, as they may be required to disclose commercially sensitive information that would be accessible to their competitors. This may also open a can of worms to other potential privacy concerns and misuse of data. Sole traders, especially those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, may not engage in an overly bureaucratic process that is difficult to navigate. The proposed section 140GBA proposes extension of the labour market testing, the LMT, from four to six months. I appreciate that LMT is an important process to ensure that an overseas worker is only engaged if there are no Australians qualified and available to do the job. However, there are industries that cannot afford the time to undergo labour market testing and require overseas workers urgently to support their business. I asked the government to consider the concessions that we can give to businesses regarding the LMT, including potential exemptions to LMT for certain industries, like BE Campbell, that are experiencing chronic workforce shortages. In our round table, many of the local small manufacturing companies have 50 job vacancies and other vacancies that they cannot fill, so this is going to be a challenge for many of those SMEs. Therefore any reform in the migration system should include provisions to specifically address the needs and challenges faced by SMEs. This could include a streamlined process for sponsorship, reduced administrative burdens and financial concessions. Overall, I welcome the reform of the migration system to strengthen the sponsorship and nomination process and to more greatly protect vulnerable migrant workers. However, I ask the government to ensure that the needs of businesses, particularly SMEs, are given equal consideration, as they are the backbone of our economy. Businesses like BE Campbell need our support or our economy and local consumers will be impacted. A balanced approach that protects migrant workers while also addressing the needs and challenges of businesses is essential for the success of these reforms. I call on the government to engage in further consultation with all stakeholders, including businesses, industry bodies and migrant worker advocacy groups to ensure the legislation is fair, effective and sustainable. 17:19 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide We know that Australia has had a long history—a long and proud history and in some cases a not-so-proud history—on migration. The first migrants were the ancestors of our Aboriginal Australians, first arriving in Australia around 80,000 years ago. We then had the first European settlements in 1788: the British established a colony of New South Wales—a penal colony, in fact—marking the beginning of a permanent European settlement. We then had periods like the gold rush: the discovery of gold in 1851 triggered a massive flow of migrants into Australia. Nearly 600,000 people came into Australia over that period, and most came from the UK, Britain, et cetera but many also came from Asia—China and around that area—and from the US and other countries. We had Afghans that we encouraged to migrate to Australia in the 1800s as cavaliers to go to the centre of Australia. We can see that Australia's migration policies have always morphed into what Australia needed, whether that be its economic situation, its workforce or just to populate Australia. A blemish—a big blemish—on our migration policy was the White Australia policy. From 1901 Australia maintained the White Australia policy, which required migrants to pass a dictation test in a European language to be able to come here. This policy was abolished after World War II—we had an intake of migrants from all over Europe from 1948 onwards and that was the postwar era. After World War II Australia promoted immigration to the nation with the slogan 'populate or perish', which was very famous. We brought in the Assisted Passage Migration scheme for many thousands of Brits, and then opened up to southern Europeans, who were seen as not quite Europeans up until 1948 but passed the mark because they were a bit whiter in colour et cetera. These are some of the blemishes and some of the positives of our migration acts over the years. I am a product of southern European migrants who migrated to Australia after World War II. We've heard other speakers speak about migrants from all over the world, from every single corner of the world, who have made their homes here in Australia and have become great Australians. We know that Australia has had to tinker with its immigration policies, whether in a big way or a small way, to assist our particular needs of the time, and this piece of legislation is part of that history that we've had in migration for years, trying to ensure that we adjust our migration policies to assist what we require today from migrants and the future of Australia. Back in 1948 there was a really interesting debate prior to bringing in Arthur Calwell's Assisted Passage Migration scheme to Australia for southern Europeans. There was a really interesting debate that took place in this House. There was one side of politics that debated and wanted to ensure that these migrants that were coming in would be paid at lesser wages—that was the wish of the conservative side of politics. On the Labor side, in those days very dominated by unions, they knew that would be the spiralling effect to the bottom when it came to equity and wages, and they argued strongly against any difference in wages. Thank God, this side of the House prevailed, and we've always had a very equitable wage system regardless of who you are and regardless of where you come from. Could you imagine the type of nation we would be today had the other side of politics prevailed? Could you imagine where we would be today? Some of the things in this particular bill want to ensure that we don't have what I just spoke about creep in, and that's why we have brought many of these points in this particular bill. We want to ensure fairness of wages for everyone in Australia regardless of where you come from, why you're here et cetera. We also know that this will help businesses who are looking at migrants to fill positions. It will also ensure that we fix the bits and pieces that we see are broken in our migration system. The bill legislates the indexation of the minimum income thresholds for migrants in the government's new skills in demand visa in line with the wages of local workers. Again that is ensuring that equity in wages will remain into the future regardless of where you've come from and why you're here. Indexing these income thresholds is important to maintain system integrity over time and to ensure the temporary skilled migration program remains targeted towards the skilled workers Australia needs. This is about making sure the skilled migration system does what it says on the label. This will help us maintain that social licence for our skilled migration program. Indexing these thresholds is absolutely critical to protecting wages and conditions for local workers and ensuring that migrant workers are not vulnerable to exploitation. We want to ensure that that spiralling effect to the bottom doesn't happen. It can easily happen if we don't deal with some of these things and we allow them to creep in naturally, as may have been the case. We want to make sure that wages are equitable for everyone. The bill also supports greater transparency in the skilled migration system and supports the government's commitment to enabling mobility for migrant workers. This is about setting up a public register of sponsors so that migrant workers that have come here on temporary skilled migration visas can apply for another job if there is one which fits their skills and is also registered. It allows that movement of workers in the workforce. The register will assist with mobility, helping temporary skilled migrant workers find a new sponsor if they wish to change jobs and also giving them the ability to choose if they're not happy where they are. All of us here and people anywhere in Australia can pick and choose if we want to leave where we're working and go and apply somewhere else. It's giving that same equity, the same ability, to migrant workers as well. By including postcodes registered with approved sponsors, it will enable migrants searching for mobility to identify employers nearby and increase the practicality of the register. The register will encourage transparency and is also a resource for temporary skilled migrant workers to check that a sponsoring employer is legitimate. We've heard many stories where there have been issues with migrant workers. There are very few overall, but they're pretty horrific when you do hear them. We want to make sure that they have another mechanism which checks the box that the sponsor is a legit sponsor. It will also help to reduce temporary skilled migrant workers' susceptibility to exploitation. Streamlining labour market testing is another big issue in this bill. The bill will also make amendments to the Migration Act that mean labour market testing will be valid for six months, increasing it from four months. This will make it much easier for businesses to meet their skills needs, providing more flexibility for businesses to meet their labour market testing requirements. As I said at the beginning, Australia has a long history of migration. The majority of it has been a successful history, with migrants from every corner of the world coming to this place, including the member for Bennelong, who's here next to me, whose parents migrated here. All you have to do is scratch the surface a bit when you're speaking to anyone, apart from our First Nations people, who have been here for 80,000 years. The rest of us have all come from somewhere, whether it be your parents, your grandparents or relatives five, six, seven or eight generations ago. The idea of migration here in Australia is something that is very special. It is very special to me to think that I live in a country where people come from all over the world and we live in peace and harmony. It is one of the greatest things that we have as an asset. Migration will continue in this nation. It will continue for many years to come. Our job, as members of parliament, as governments, is to ensure that we make it as equitable as possible both for the migrants and the people who are already established here. One of the things that I said earlier is that we had a debate in this place in 1948. Can you imagine, had the conservative side of politics won that debate back then, where we would be as a nation today? That's why it is important to ensure that, when we are dealing with legislation, with migration, that we look at wage fairness and ensure we do everything that we can to protect people's wages—for those that are established already here and those that are coming to our nation. 17:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I want to place a few brief remarks on the record about the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024, about the Greens position on this bill. Further contributions will be taken up by our portfolio holders, when the bill comes to the Senate. We view this bill as a modest but positive step towards protecting some of the most vulnerable workers in Australia. It is something that the Greens have had some concerns about for some time and have made the point very clearly that, when you have the interaction between migration and employment laws that allow huge holes to be opened up in the protections that are meant to apply, it not only hurts vulnerable workers but local workers as well. That's because, if you end up with a race to the bottom on things like wages, then you not only end up with massive exploitation of people who've really just come here seeking a better life, in the way that would happen for many of us, for our families and for so many in this country, as a previous member said, but you also contribute to a driving down of wages and conditions across the board, generally. In a previous parliament, we pushed hard against the former government's approach to that, and in this parliament as well, we have proudly joined in passing legislation that goes some way to restoring a strong floor for everyone who is in this country—because that's it what it needs to be. There can't be gaps in it. If there are gaps in it, we know that everyone suffers. However, there are some aspects of the bill that remain unclear, and we do think more needs to be done to protect people who come to Australia to contribute to the community. We support the passage of this bill in the House and reserve our Senate position, based on some of the matters that I'll outline here and that will be further pursued in the Senate. For too long, as I said, workers from other countries have been subjected to exploitation and denied rights by a visa sponsorship program that provides disproportionate power to employers. This bill goes some of the way to addressing this imbalance. One of our concerns is that, in its proposed form, the specialist skills pathway does not wholly address all the concerns with the sponsorship visa program, raised in the migration review, and it does not deliver a skilled sponsorship program that properly responds to the domestic labour market. That pathway is meant to focus on niche, specialist skills that fall outside of current definitions, but the proposed pathway only has a monetary threshold. The unintended consequence of not having a clear definition for this pathway could mean that the oversight provided by Jobs and Skills Australia over the core skills pathway is circumvented. Clarifying the definition would prevent this and prevent the need for ad hoc carve outs for selected occupations. Furthermore, workers on the essential skills pathway can be making as little as $51,222. By allowing for workers to be paid less than the core skills threshold, this potentially denies them the ability to live full lives here. As the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre, in its submission, noted: Migrants in the Essential Skills Pathway are more vulnerable and liable to workplace exploitation because of these lower pay rates. Allowing workers on the essential skills pathway to apply for secondary employment could correct this and protect workers. Workers cannot be held by their employer in employment that does not give them the tools to live a full life. Finally, the bill would also introduce a public register of approved sponsors. But, as the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the ACTU, noted: The register proposed in this bill is an important step, but must be expanded to require approved employer sponsors to also disclose how many other temporary migrant workers they engage by visa type, and in which occupations and postcodes, to enable improved oversight. The public register must also be expanded to cover employers that engage other temporary migrant workers, requiring them to disclose the same information required of approved employer sponsors, by visa type, as a measure to improve transparency and address worker exploitation. Australia should be a safe place for all workers, and people who come here to contribute to the community should be protected. This bill will strengthen the rights of workers and migrants. However, much more needs to be done to create a fair immigration system. There are many workers in Australia who came here to contribute but have been denied basic rights, so this bill needs to be the start, not the end. I look forward to having discussions with the government about the amendments that we are proposing. 17:36 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It's not often I find myself in furious agreement with the Greens leader, the member for Melbourne, but the points he made towards the end of his contribution were quite correct. People who come to this country to work, under whatever visa arrangements, should be treated every bit as fairly and equally as Australian workers and should be paid their due amount. In that respect I agree with him. I don't think anybody in the parliament would not concur with that. The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 is policy that the coalition generally supports the intent of, but there are some concerns. I appreciate that these will also be flagged when this reaches the Senate. There are concerns about the process to determine if an occupation is on the relevant skilled occupation list. I will digress a little bit. I well remember, when I was the Deputy Prime Minister and we were putting in place new visa arrangements for certain occupations—and the member for Flynn will be interested in this—we had a list of occupations that came under these skilled clauses, and one of the skilled occupations that was not on the list was truck driver. I note that Ron Finemore, who has his own transport company—synonymous with the red-and-green livery—advertises all the time in my local newspaper, the Daily Advertiser, and online for truckies. Finemore has searched all around the world for truck drivers. He, like many other regional truck companies, has B-doubles and other rigs backed up to fences in their yards because they simply can't find workers. And yet it wasn't on that skilled occupations list that we had in place, and I think it was a missed opportunity. I know the member for Gladstone has a heavy vehicle drivers licence. He's the proud owner of a very fine Mac truck semitrailer, and he knows just how important trucks are, particularly in Queensland—a large state with lots of goods, cattle and other stock to be moved around. Truckies keep our country moving. I defy anybody to deny that a truck driver who can reverse a B-double into some of those tight nooks and crannies, particularly around supermarkets, is skilled. If that isn't highly skilled, then I'm badly mistaken. But we didn't do it. It was a missed opportunity at the outset, and I think in any of these skilled migration clauses, acts, bills, lists—call them what you like—truck drivers should be on the list, if not top of the list. How quickly will the skilled occupation list be able to be changed to respond to changes in certain occupations? That is a consideration I raise. How will one list address geographic skills gaps? You would know full well, Deputy Speaker, being the member for Lingiari, that outstanding electorate in the Northern Territory—and I'm very proud of the role I played to continue to have Lingiari as a House of Representatives seat—just how important it is to have those skills gaps filled in our regional electorates. I don't think our city friends get it. I'll just put that. It doesn't matter what side of politics they are on. I just don't think they understand the complexities of regional living, particularly outback living. I admire those members who are in those larger sprawling outback electorates for the job they do advocating here to get more skilled people in their electorates. So thank you, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, for what you do. Another consideration is: how quickly will the list be able to be adjusted to seasonal requirements? I know that, unfortunately, Labor is axing the live sheep trade, and shame on Labor for doing that. You get these city types who get up here with their prepared notes, saying, 'Let's just send the Gulf states chilled boxed sheepmeat.' Well, they don't want it. They want live sheep offloaded off ships—off Australian ships with very high animal welfare standards—to have for their own processing. The city members won't get that, but we get it because we're from the bush and we get it because we have farmers, particularly stock producers, who come to our electorate offices and tell us of the hardships they have to find people. They tell us of the hardships they have to truck their stock. And they tell us of all the other factors that are important considerations in the important work they do—and the important work they do is to feed us and to feed other nations besides. It is more than that. Try finding enough workers to fill the roles required in abattoirs. It's very seasonal work. It's hard enough to find them in Wagga Wagga, where we have the biggest livestock exchange in the Southern Hemisphere, let alone in Forbes, which is also in my electorate for the time being, where we have the second-biggest livestock centre in the Southern Hemisphere. Wagga Wagga has a fine cattle processing plant. Forbes is trying to reopen an abattoir; they have plans to do just that sometime in the future. I know the Cootamundra meat works has reopened and is now doing multispecies, where before, when it was owned by the Manildra Group, it was only doing sheep. But they're in places where there are plenty of workers. Try finding workers, skilled or otherwise, to fill those places, to build the new abattoirs, in outback, remote Australia. Good luck! But you'll get the teals standing up and saying, 'Let's just build more abattoirs.' Yeah, let's build rainbow land while we're at it! It's just nonsense. They don't get it. They don't understand it. They never go beyond the sandstone curtain that is the Blue Mountains to ever find out what's going on in regional Australia, and then they expect to lecture us in their pious, perfectionist way. They're absolutely sanctimonious. I hope, when I come back in my next life, that I can be as perfect and pious as one of them. But let's move on. How well will the skilled occupation list cater for the different employment needs across regional areas? This is simply unknown. I know when I visited the Northern Territory, as I did often when I was the Deputy Prime Minister, how hard it was to find mango pickers. We've got fine mangos up in the Northern Territory, some of the best in Australia, but it's really hard to find people to do that job. Some city types will tell you: 'Well, that's just picking mangoes. How hard can it be?' But it's very hard. It's very tough. It's backbreaking work, and it's also a skill. There's a lot of skill required to do that. There are real concerns, and it is unknown how well Jobs and Skills Australia will function and respond to the needs of the employment market. That's the other consideration that we do need to take into account—how Jobs and Skills Australia will adapt and adopt this particular legislation once the bill has passed. It's unknown as well what influence the unions will have on shaping the jobs on the skilled occupation list. Will we have the CFMEU limiting the number of builders who are allowed to get a visa, so that they can artificially prop up their ridiculous, exorbitant wage demands? This has to be a real consideration. You had the CFMEU there just recently wanting to stop all work on AFL projects simply because they didn't like somebody who was in charge of the AFL umpires. So John Setka and his thug mates tried to bully-boy the AFL into sacking the bloke. This is Australia. It's not Europe decades ago. It's not Britain prior to Maggie Thatcher. We don't get run by the unions. Labor might take a lot of donations from them, but it's this parliament that runs the nation. I'd like to think that we do it in a fair, appropriate way. That is why we have one of the highest minimum wages if not the highest in the world. We do. Just last week, I was in Morocco, and I was amazed whilst I was in Casablanca to see the Hassan II Mosque. This particular mosque was built at a cost of $700 million. I know they don't like to talk about that, because it's not about the dollars; it's about the faith and what it represents—the symbolism it brings. That's fair enough. But it was built because King Mohammed VI wanted to inspire the next line of apprentices. The ground for the mosque was broken on 12 July 1986, and it was completed on 30 August 1993. And you should see it. It is an edifice to be admired. If there were a current Seven Wonders of the World, it would be amongst them. It is one of the largest mosques in all of Africa, if not the world, and they built it with apprentices, on budget and on time. I must say—I looked at this, having been the former infrastructure minister, with a little bit of envy. That's because I thought, 'Imagine if we tried to build something—' I mean, just imagine trying to build anything in Australia! You've got to go through cultural, heritage and environment considerations. That's fair enough, too, but we put everything up against trying to build anything. We sometimes are a banana republic and will build absolutely nothing anywhere or near anything. Sadly, that is often the case. This bill is important. The three proposed income thresholds will replace the current situation. The minimum income thresholds are the specialist skills income threshold, the core skills income threshold and the essential skills income threshold, which I appreciate is continuing to be developed by the sitting government. The bill proposes that the amounts for the SSIT and CSIT will be indexed each year on 1 July. That's fair enough. Submissions have been put forward to the Senate committee. They raised the issue of wage disparity between visa holders being paid the SSIT and the CSIT, which could cause wages disparity to an Australian worker performing an Australian role. We don't want that; of course we don't. I will digress a little bit in the time remaining. I hark back to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme changes that Labor introduced at the behest of their Labor mates. I arked up about it. Thankfully, Labor changed it so that it wouldn't make a minimum number of hours per week, but they spread it over a longer period. And you'd appreciate this, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, because it was about seasonality. Why would you be paying someone who's just going to be sitting around in a part-time capacity a full-time wage, when they can't do anything because of weather or other considerations? Thankfully, the government made changes—sensibly, because farmers were walking away from it, and, dare I say it, the Pacific island nations were walking away from it. Thankfully, some sanity prevailed. But I do worry, because the changes have been put in place for only 12 months. That needs to be rectified about mid next year. This particular bill is important. It is, as it says, strengthening sponsorship and nomination processes—if it lives up to its name. I know Labor are always very clever with the titles that they put over their bills; they make out that the bill's going to be the be-all and catch-all. But if it does what the title of the bill suggests, then well and good. If it does that, that's great. But I do urge and encourage the minister to give every consideration to what regional stakeholders think and need and want and expect, because all too often this government, which is very antirural, forgets those people who put the food on our plates and the fibre on our backs. 17:51 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes Before I commence, I just want to congratulate the member for Lingiari for her promotion to the Speaker's panel. I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024. This bill implements certain measures from the government's Migration Strategy, 'Getting migration working for the nation', related to skilled visas. I want to start by talking about the very proud history that Australia has in the migration space. We are certainly a nation shaped and invigorated by the diverse cultures and talents of millions of our migrants. Of course, we start our migration history approximately 65,000 years ago, when the first of our now Indigenous Australians landed on our shores. This tradition of coming to Australia of course then started again with the British arriving here in 1788. With the arrival of the British, we ended up developing very important Western European institutions, such as the Westminster system of government, democracy and universal adult suffrage. We were, proudly, the second country in the world to give women the vote, and that is something that I think we should be very proud of as Australians. Then our traditional migration culture continued, as we started to welcome others from all around the world. For example, in the 1850s, people from China first started to arrive. They rushed here to work on the gold rushes, for example, and I've got this statistic: in 1855, in Melbourne alone, there were 11,493 arrivals of Chinese people, which I think is quite an amazing stat when we consider how long ago that was. Then, later on, towards the end of the 1800s, we had Afghans arrive here, and with their arrival, of course, they brought the camel, now known as the 'ship of the desert'. We again welcomed and opened our doors to many Afghanis in the 1980s and 1990s, following the war, first of all, against the Soviet Union and then the other wars of the 1990s. In that decade alone, around 7,000 Afghans landed on our shores. We have, at the end of the day, become one of the most successful multicultural nations—I think, the most successful multicultural nation—in the world. It has been built on the nature of people arriving in our country and them having regard to their former heritage but embracing the traditions of Australia and the Australian way of life. Particularly at the end of World War II, we realised that we desperately needed a lot more skilled workers, and we took the opportunity with the dreadful decimation and devastation that had occurred in western and eastern Europe throughout World War II to welcome primarily Europeans to our shores. This tradition continued throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as we then opened our doors to people from Africa, the Americas, Asia, South-East Asia, the South Pacific and essentially all around the world. So we have a very proud history. Our immigrant story is a very proud one that's essential to our story. We landed a position where today more than half of all Australians were either born overseas or have a parent born overseas. In my electorate of Hughes, we have people who have come to Australia from all around the world. For me, I don't have the romantic immigrant story that so many of my colleagues can speak about. I am fourth-generation Australian, but my great-grandparents, I'm told, did come here from England, Ireland, Scotland and other places. Our immigration system is important. What we have seen under this government, unfortunately—under this Labor government, which prides itself on being a party friendly to immigration and to immigrants generally—is a failure so far to have addressed the skills shortage problem that we have in Australia. We have this shortage across professions, across trades. I have spoken about the shortage of GPs within my electorate. I have also spoken about the manufacturing sector within my electorate, throughout Moorebank, throughout Ingleburn, which is a new part of the electorate—it will be within the electorate of Hughes. We have manufacturing there, and they cannot get most of the apprentices, they can't get trades, and there is a massive shortage of things, from machinists to fitters and turners—all of those skills that are needed to run our manufacturing sector. Then we turn to the construction and building industry. I have spoken in this place before about the chronic shortage that we have in areas such as building, electrical trades, the plumbing trades, the tiling trades and the roofers. So I ask: why is it that this government is not putting more money into domestic trades and into encouraging those trades that are going to build the supposed 1.2 million homes that we hear the Minister for Housing is going to build? We will wait a long time, I suggest, to see that. There's another big area where there is a massive skills shortage in this country, and that's in aged care. In my electorate over at Hammondville, HammondCare provides residential care and particularly specialises in looking after elderly Australians who are suffering from dementia. I have been over to HammondCare on a number of occasions, and they have said to me over and over again that the shortage is caused not by people who don't want to work in aged care but largely by the lack of housing that is available for workers in aged care, and it's also of course linked to the very low wages that they are paid. So there is a big demand in our country to have to bring in aged-care workers from outside of Australia. This legislation states that it intends to try to address the skills shortage. But, as with anything—and with all of Labor's legislation—we particularly have to look at it. We say that the devil is definitely in the detail. What is the bill providing for? It states that it's for certain settings for a new temporary Skills in Demand visa to replace the current Temporary Skill Shortage visa. The Skills in Demand visa is going to consist largely of three different streams. There's a specialist skills stream. This will be for highly skilled workers earning over $135,000 per year. Interestingly, in that there are no trades. The trades are excluded. There are plenty of tradespeople who earn more than $135,000 a year. Again, I think this shows the lack of education and understanding that Labor has regarding the trades and the sorts of income levels that people in the trades are now earning. The second component is what's called a core skills stream. That is supposedly for workers earning over $73,150 per year in an occupation in shortage. The third category is simply a stream for workers with essential skills. Again, we hear that and think: 'It seems that they're covering all of the bases that we need,' but there is no specific occupation list for the specialist skills pathway that's designed for high-income professionals, for example. There is no occupation list, but it definitely excludes trades workers, machine operators, drivers and labourers. I know plenty of machine operators working in manufacturing within my electorate who earn more than $135,000 per year, so Labor, again, in their usual way, have failed to do their research and have failed to bring some intellectual rigour to this legislation. Then, if we look at that, it includes, for example, a register of approved work sponsors. While we on our side generally support the policy intent of the bill, we certainly need to close the gap. From our immigrants, we need to build the numbers of these skilled workers so that we have a lot more. But there are a number of concerns, and I note, while we are speaking, that the bill has been considered by a Senate committee and there is a Senate committee report. Some of those concerns are about the process to determine if an occupation is on the relevant skilled occupation list. The bill is silent on that. How quickly, for example, will one be able to change the skilled occupation list to respond to changes in certain occupations? For example, how will one address geographical skills gaps? We heard the member for Riverina talk before about his experience when he was Deputy Prime Minister. He noticed that there was a big skills gap for mango pickers up in the Northern Territory. I think that's a very good example to show how quickly something like that would be included on the various lists. Also, how will the skilled occupation list cater for different employment needs across regional areas? This, again, is completely unknown. We also need to understand how well Jobs and Skills Australia will function and respond to the needs of the employment market. That, again, is another gap. It's another silence within this legislation. Of course, importantly, we've been talking about the building and construction sector. What influence will the unions have on shaping the jobs that are listed on the skilled occupation list? For example, will we have the next iteration of the CFMEU limiting the number of builders that are allowed to get a visa so that they can artificially prop up their exorbitant wage demands? Concerns were also raised through the Senate committee process about the minimum income thresholds. I've raised that, particularly with machinists, for example, and the threshold of $137,000. While the intent of this legislation is sound, there are concerns with whether this legislation will in fact result in proper implementation and whether it will in fact address the chronic skills shortage that is in our country. We do need to fix our migration system. We have seen for 2½ years, since Labor has been in power, an extraordinarily high number of immigrants coming into our country. I have taken the time to talk about the wonderful history and diversity that immigrants have brought to our country, but this government has brought in immigrants, a number of them from war-torn countries, without following proper processes. I include people from Pakistan and Gaza in that. They did not follow the proper processes with those people. So it is very important that this legislation is properly scrutinised and that it addresses reforming the Migration Act and particularly addresses the skills shortage we have in Australia. 18:06 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024. Introduced back in July, this bill implements several parts of the government's migration strategy. This includes setting index linked salary thresholds for the skills in demand visa, including the specialist skills pathway for those earning at least $135,000, the core skills pathway for those earning at least $70,000 with an occupation on the core skills occupation list and the essential skills pathway for those earning under $70,000 but who work in essential skills occupations. These are positive changes. They reflect the need for our migration program to focus on bringing the best and the brightest to Australia, to do so in a way that is quicker and simpler for employers and employees alike, to give migrants clearer pathways to permanency and more opportunity to move employers, and to take a risk based approach to preventing exploitation and abuse. These are the kinds of changes that I and many others have called for since before the election, and they will be welcome in Wentworth. I speak to many people in the technology sector and the venture capital sector and I ask them, 'What are some of the greatest barriers to growing your companies as you want to?' They often tell me, 'Just the skills, and the need to bring people with great experience into Australia to help turbocharge our most innovative companies.' So I think this is a great opportunity here. Similarly, I get many constituents who talk about the challenges of their visa processing times and the amount of uncertainty that comes with long processing times and not knowing how long they have to wait. In some cases, they've chosen to go to other countries or other opportunities or have forgone opportunities because of that uncertainty. So I think the government's commitment to this area is really important. I'm particularly supportive of the introduction of the specialist skills pathway, which will help fast-track the arrival of the highest skilled and highest earning migrants to Australia. By ditching our outdated occupation list in favour of a simple salary threshold and introducing a seven-day service standard for processing applications, this specialist skills pathway recognises that Australia is in the global talent race and that allowing businesses to quickly and flexibly recruit the migrants they need is central to bringing the best and brightest to Australia. The new pathway recognises that highly skilled migrants are a key contributor to our economic prosperity, helping to accelerate productivity growth, enhancing the skills of the Australians they work alongside and making a significant contribution to public finances. The visa will help Australia attract the engineers we need to transition to a net zero economy, the cyberspecialists we need to help our banking system stay secure and the data scientists we need to harness the potential of AI. With the average permanent skilled migrant contributing almost $200,000 to government budgets over their lifetime, the fiscal dividend is expected to be significant. However, for the specialist skills pathway to be successful it is critical that this visa stream remain open to all occupations. Whether a migrant works in construction or computing, we want to welcome the best and brightest to our shores when we need them most. That is why I'm so concerned by the government's decision to exclude trade workers, machine operators, drivers and labourers from this visa pathway. The government has not articulated a clear rationale for this decision, and the decision doesn't appear to be aligned with the broader Migration Strategy or the findings of Martin Parkinson's 2023 review. Indeed, there is no clear reason why a sector-agnostic visa pathway based on a high salary threshold is appropriate for every occupation in Australia except those related to construction. I acknowledge that we need to get the balance right in our migration system but I am deeply concerned that this carve-out has more to do with pressure from interest groups and the CFMEU than it has to do with what is best for our construction sector. When an employer is willing to pay a salary of more than $135,000 plus the associated visa and accreditation fees, there is very low risk that the migrant will displace a domestic worker, and there is very low risk of the worker being subject to exploitation. In the design of the specialist skills pathway, this logic has been accepted by the government for every other sector in the economy, but for some reason the government believes this does not apply to tradies. Instead, this carve-out creates additional hurdles for skilled migrants in construction, increasing the complexity of the overall migration program and effectively creating a two-tier system with different rules for so-called blue-collar and white-collar workers. The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar, said: These are distinctions that don't fit into the modern economy. If you clear the salary threshold to enter the high-skilled tier, you should be allowed to apply for the visa. Your occupation should not factor into the equation. The last thing we need is a system where the highly skilled tradespeople Australia desperately needs are being treated like second-class workers. The decision to exclude construction workers from the specialist skills pathway comes at a time when we urgently need to expand the construction workforce. Master Builders anticipate that at least half a million workers need to enter the industry by 2029 to maintain business-as-usual construction levels, and an even higher number is required if we're to meet the Housing Accord target of building 1.2 million homes over the next five years and achieve net zero by 2050. Speak to anybody running a building site and they will tell you they are desperate for staff, particularly in highly skilled roles. But, despite the imperative of expanding our construction workforce, the building industry is struggling. According to Master Builders, the sector recruited only around half of the additional workers it needed in the first half of 2024, and new construction apprenticeships actually fell in 2023. The government has made some welcome commitments to expanding the domestic construction workforce through initiatives such as fee-free TAFE, but we must acknowledge that skilled migrants also have a role to play, just like they have a role to play in building the vibrant economy and society that we enjoy today. This is particularly the case for high-skill, high-earning parts of the building sector. These workers are in short supply in Australia. They are difficult and expensive to recruit and cannot be trained domestically in a short timeframe. Skilled migration is therefore an important tool in making sure Australia has the construction workforce it needs. While I support this bill, it is clear that the carve-out of construction workers from the specialist skills pathway is unjustified. I urge the government to remove the carve-out of tradies from this visa stream and allow construction workers the same access to this new fast-tracked visa that every other occupation has. If the government is not willing to do this, I urge the government to ensure that tradies across the spectrum are given access to the other skills pathways so that we can get the tradespeople we desperately need into the country and at the speed at which we need them. I'd like to make two further comments relating both to the bill and to migration more broadly. One of the reasons that I support this bill is that we do need to restructure our migration system. Some of the most heartbreaking cases I get in Wentworth are those of people who have spent many years in Australia going from temporary visa to temporary visa. These people spend up to a decade in this country with the hope of permanent migration. Currently our migration system, through its complexity but also because it hasn't dealt with issues in relation to temporary visa holders, means that we are selling many of these people a lie—the hope of being able to stay in this country when ultimately they can't. So, while I very much support these new pathways the government is providing and the focus on speed, I think we absolutely need to make sure that we can find ways to support the temporary skilled workers that we already have and find ways to make sure that we don't continue to actually bring in people who have an expectation of being able to stay in Australia but ultimately have no real prospect of doing so, because I think we're letting them down. The second issue I'd like to raise in relation to skills is again the access to these skilled workers, particularly for the hospitality industry. I hear consistently from the hospitality industry that they are really in need of key workers. I know that they have come together in relation to some of these pathways, and I think that is really important because, again, many of these skilled people in the industry have been some of those temporary workers going from temporary visa to temporary visa with no real prospect of permanency despite building deep relationships and making significant contributions to our country. Finally I would like to briefly talk about aged-care workers. We all recognise in this country that we are in desperate need of healthcare workers and particularly aged-care workers. The government has introduced some pathways, in particular for aged-care workers, but the way in which it has done this troubles me and certainly troubles many of the aged-care companies that I have spoken to in my electorate. The current requirement for the companies to be able to access special pathways to bring in aged-care workers is that they have to sign a pretty onerous MOU with one or a number of unions in the sector regarding the obligations that the union will basically impose on this business. I accept that unions play an important role in our economy, but, for workplaces which are not already unionised, I find it really concerning that the visa system is being used as a way to drive unionisation or union activity in workplaces and there's no alternative for a workplace and for workers who say: 'We don't want a union focused memorandum of understanding. We would like one working with, for instance, the Fair Work Commission.' We do need to prevent exploitation in our industries and we do need to make sure that we can bring people in, but we need to do this in a way that is appropriate for our workplaces, and I don't think it is appropriate for the unions to have control over which people and which companies are able to bring workers into this country or not. I believe that should certainly be the role of government, not of unions. 18:17 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I commend the contribution from the member for Wentworth and agree with many of the important points that she made. I approach this from a similar respective. We in the coalition are very open minded to what, at face value, the government is looking to do here. But there are some broader issues with the skilled migration system that this doesn't come close to touching on or addressing, and I hope that the government is looking at further opportunities of reform there. The member for Wentworth made some important points around a lack of flexibility in the system. Of course there are vested interests that exert a great deal of pressure over legislation in this area, particularly when there are Labor governments in power. We know that the union movement have very strict requirements that they put on their wholly owned political subsidiary, the Labor Party. It costs the unions a lot of money to elect Labor governments—ten and tens of millions of dollars. The unions have to make sure that they get full value from putting that money into the Labor Party. On legislation like this, they always make sure that it's 100 per cent in line with what they want or else. Everyone knows that's the business model. Very often reforms that Labor governments bring in this area and in many others are all about the union movement and not about the actual needs of the Australian economy. I heard the brief contribution from the Greens leader. I don't usually pay a lot of attention, but I pricked up on this one. As I usually do, I just always push back. The Greens seem to have this default position that employers are inherently looking to exploit their workers and that any piece of legislation to do with workplaces or migration has to be all about the fact that the evil employer is always looking for an opportunity to exploit their workers. This is complete rubbish. There are obviously instances of bad behaviour that occur in any part of our society, but to all the employers out there, particularly the small businesses and particularly those in areas with substantial skills shortages who are looking to the migration system to fill very important skills gaps: we in the Liberal Party certainly don't have a default attitude towards you that you're all about trying to exploit someone—because you're actually not. I haven't ever had anything to do with a business like that in my electorate, whether I've worked with them on issues like we're debating right now around sponsoring skilled migration, or any other issues that they have with their businesses' needs from a policy point of view, or about what we can be doing here in Canberra to help them more. They value their workforce and they look for every opportunity to do right by their workers. In the employment market that we've got right now, employers aren't exploiting workers; they're desperately trying to retain workers. They're competing with their fellow employers because we have these dramatic skills shortages in so many parts of our economy. We have unemployment in the low fours—it has been dropping down into the high threes. When I studied economics, five per cent was considered full employment as a sort of orthodoxy, and we've been way under five per cent for almost the entirety of my time serving in this parliament. The Greens, as usual, are way off on that, but no-one is surprised. When it comes to our migration system and legislation like this that's talking about creating new ways to deal temporary skilled migration and the three streams, I think it's important, firstly, that we recognise there's a difference between the policies for the migration system and the administration over the migration system. Some people seem to think that policy is the big problem that absolutely has to be focused on and addressed—and there are policy issues with the way in which the detail of the system is run. But it's the administration, in my experience, at a case-by-case level working with businesses in my electorate—before I was a member of parliament, working with the system on the other side of it, being in business and trying to, at times, sponsor skilled workers or use a range of other solutions that you thought would be straightforward and obvious—that is spectacularly complex. The administration of the system is something that we don't spend enough time talking about. Policy settings are going to be set by the government of the day, firstly around the size of the migration program, how that breaks down between skilled migration and the humanitarian program, family reunion, the student visa system and all the rest of it. Those policy settings are very important at the macro level but, equally, the way in which we administer achieving these policies, in my experience at a case-by-case level, rarely fulfils what the hope was of the policies when they were set. We in the coalition have been very clear that we think the overall migrant intake is too high right now. Obviously, there was always going to be a rocky period—rocky around the scale of migration—because of the snap back that was always going to be occur post the border being closed for these few years during COVID pandemic. But we're well beyond re-corrections from that time, and we've had, under this government, extremely high migration settings for enduring period. The opposition leader made it clear in his budget reply this year that a coalition government will reduce the overall migration intake program, and we feel that's extremely necessary, particularly to address serious, acute policy issues that have come up because of that rapid, dramatic, galloping of a population growth rate in the last few years, in areas like housing and many others. But whatever the macro figure for migration might be, the way in which we achieve that and the pathways that are available to people through that and the sorts of people that we prioritise through that, regardless of what the total number is, are just as important, if not more important. I am from South Australia. We've always been underrepresented in our share of migration. If you want to use a per-capita metric, that might be the easiest and the most fair. We have migration sitting in the national space, and that's very difficult. There have been attempts to try and give special treatment to particular regions et cetera, but it has invariably been the case for a long, long time, particularly before COVID, that the vast majority of migration into this country has gone into the three big population centres of Melbourne, Sydney and South-East Queensland, and we seem to be reverting to having these same challenges right now. Before COVID, Melbourne was growing at about 100,000 people a year. It has probably returned to this. That was not entirely migration, obviously, but a huge proportion of that was migrants, and it was creating great distortions in our economy. It is not good for the people of Melbourne for its population to grow too quickly. As much as it's not good for some of the small towns in South Australia to have dramatic shortages in many, many skills, lots of which would not be picked up in the legislation that we're debating right now, ultimately it's quite appealing to move to Melbourne if you come to Australia through the migration program. People from Melbourne will probably nod along with that and say, 'Yes, absolutely.' I don't begrudge Melbourne—or Sydney or South-East Queensland—being a great destination. But when we think of the skilled migration program, it's particularly important that it's achieving something much more important, which is that it's providing the entirety of our economy—every geographic part of our economy—with what the skilled migration stream is meant to provide, which is that it is addressing labour shortages not just in particular skills but in particular geographic parts of our economy. COVID disrupted this greatly. Given my background in South Australia, both with the then Premier and, before that, in the wool textile sector, I'd been hoping to spend a lot of my first term trying to see some reform in that area—a bit like the way the Canadians, in particular, have a more robust structure for providing people with pathways into particular geographic parts of Canada. Rather than letting people who say, 'Yes, I absolutely want to go and work in a regional centre in South Australia. I'd love the South Australian government to put me on their sponsored list and get me into the country. But, equally, once I'm in, I may not fulfil the promise to be in the regional skilled migration scheme that was implicitly made by being sponsored into the country,' come into Australia—perhaps you were sponsored by the South Australia government with an expectation, because you said so when you applied, that you wanted to work in the agricultural sector in the Riverland or in the mining sector in the far north and, instead, at the first opportunity, you went to the magnetic parts of the country like Sydney, Melbourne and South-East Queensland—I still am a strong, firm believer, like so many in the South Australia business community in particular, in looking for a more robust way to bring geography into the skilled migration scheme. This bill, to my understanding, doesn't envisage that. It obviously looks at skills. It looks at the three categories. But we're still not going down the path that I and I think all sides of politics from South Australia and probably other places like Tasmania would like to see us go down, which is that we need to address the challenges that we've got in attracting people coming through the skilled migration program to actually come to our parts of Australia. There is an opportunity to look for reform in that area. We in the coalition are happy to see this bill progress. There's a Senate committee that we want to reflect these submissions through et cetera but we're here to work with the government in constructive ways to address the challenges of the skills crisis, and a more robust framework for the skilled migration scheme will do so. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Sturt will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future date. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 103 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Health Care 104 18:40 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson A lot has changed since the arrival of Lucy Osburn to Sydney Hospital in 1869. She was sent over by Florence Nightingale to improve patient care, train nurses and clean up the crumbling vermin-ridden building. This forever changed standards of health care in this country. To be frank, standards of health care in this country need to be forever changing, constantly improving. The next big leap in this country came in 1975 under the Whitlam Labor government when Medibank was birthed. This too was later refined and reformed, to Medicare, by the Hawke Labor government in 1984. Labor is the party that built Medicare, our universal healthcare system that proves that you should not have to face financial ruin to receive proper health care in a modern economy like ours. I believe we can and should do more to protect universal access to health care, and constant refining and improving of the system is the only way to do that. The Albanese Labor government has made incredible progress in getting Medicare back on track after almost a decade of neglect from those opposite. Now, after only 2½ years of government, the international renowned Commonwealth Fund has ranked Australia as having the highest performing health system in the world, taking into account access, process, administrative efficiency, equity and, all important, health outcomes. We want this to continue. To secure the future of our health care, we're investing in ways that ensure Australia remains a destination for emerging clinical trials, giving Australians early access to life-changing medicine. We are constantly reforming and constantly improving. We also have invested $1 billion into the Medical Research Future Fund, which ensures that Australia continues delivering transformative and sustainable health care that innovates and includes things like new diagnostics. I was delighted to visit ZiP Diagnostics, in Melbourne, just last week and see firsthand the leaps being made in point-of-care diagnostic platforms—and not just for humans but also for animals and our environment. A big congratulations to ZiP Diagnostics. Our government has invested $3.4 billion to list new medicines on the PBS and placed a one-year freeze on the maximum copayment for PBS prescriptions for everyone with a Medicare card and a five-year freeze for pensioners and other concession cardholders. We want to make medicines cheaper for pensioners. That's the bottom line. Last year we tripled the Medicare bulk-billing incentive, and we've seen a 2.1 per cent rise in bulk-billing. I want to thank the doctors that are bulk-billing people who really need it. We extended access to public dental services to those on low incomes, and we broke new ground by providing Australians with 60-day prescriptions, ensuring that they can access double the amount of medications they need on a single prescription. We can't forget the 87 Medicare urgent care clinics that ease the pressure on hospital waiting rooms around the country. I was in a hospital waiting room with my daughter, who had just fallen off a horse. She was on a spinal board. The manager of that emergency department came out and said, 'Unless you're having a diabetic low, unless you suspect you've had a stroke or heart attack, you need to go home, because there'll be no-one to see you for 12 hours.' That happened to me at the John Hunter Hospital. I witnessed it with my own ears and eyes. And I know people in my electorate are waiting longer than they should at Maitland Hospital. Don't get me wrong: it's a brand-new hospital and a terrific facility, but waiting times have blown out. In 2014, the emergency waiting time at Maitland Hospital was two hours and 50 minutes. Over the last 10 years, that amount of time has ballooned to five hours and 34 minutes, with almost one in four patients leaving without receiving treatment. That's a quarter of people who just can't wait. They go home. They're not seen. It is completely unacceptable. Many times, I've heard of parents who have issues with children taking them along to the emergency department only to take them home again and try and get into a doctor the next day. Our emergency departments should be reserved for true emergencies, and that's where urgent care clinics come in. I want to also say thank you to our GPs, who do provide excellent general practice to my community. I know they're under pressure. My community needs its own urgent care clinic. We need that treatment that lies in between going to the GP and going to the emergency room, and that's where urgent care clinics have provided a phenomenal service to communities. I know the Cessnock Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has been terrific. In fact, I had a staff member who had to take a grandchild along. That child was unwell, and they were triaged, sent to Maitland Hospital and given phenomenal care there, which is great. But my people in Paterson also need an urgent care clinic. They provide much-needed middle ground between general practice and the emergency department. I am calling on my government to invest in a bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinic to take the pressure off Maitland Hospital. We just have to have it. Our part of the world is a magnificent part of the world, and we have had the fastest growth year on year for 15 years outside of Western Sydney in New South Wales. People quite frankly have flocked to the Hunter, particularly to my part of the world in Maitland. Every single day, a family is moving to Maitland. That is putting incredible pressure on our healthcare system. Our doctors do an amazing job. Our nurses do a phenomenal job, but they can only do so much with the resourcing that they have. That's why we do need an urgent care clinic. Actually, to be frank with you, I think we need two urgent care clinics in Paterson, but we're not going to be greedy; we'll be happy with just one. But we've got to get that one. I really think it should be servicing and taking pressure off that Maitland Hospital, which is a new hospital and a fantastic facility. I want to also send a big shout out to the after-hours GP clinic, which my colleagues and I from the Hunter managed to save. We secured the funding to keep that going. They do an amazing job as well, seeing people after hours at the GP clinic at the Maitland Hospital. Thank you for the work that you provide in doing that. We know you're under enormous amounts of pressure. We know that you need more assistance, and we've got to provide that for you. It was great last night to have Dr Chris Boyle here in parliament with me to receive a nomination for the Stronger Medicare Award. Chris has provided GP services and has been a beautiful doctor in our area for over 40 years. He has told me that, when he graduated from medical school in the seventies—let's just leave it at that round figure, shall we, Chris!—50 per cent of graduating medicos went to 'GP land', as he affectionately calls it. These days, it's down to about 10 per cent. We know that's an issue as well. We know that we have to encourage more young, brilliant medical minds to want to become general practitioners. There are various suggestions about how we do it. We need to do it. As I referred to earlier, health care in Australia has to be ever improving and ever refined. We have to embrace all of the modern medical technologies and techniques, but we also have to take our brilliant, young medical minds with us. We have to encourage them. We know that more and more pressure is being put on GPs, and that's why I am calling for a Medicare urgent care clinic in my seat. It does need to happen, and we do need to be taking some of that pressure off our doctors and our very hardworking nurses at places like the Maitland Hospital. In my final moments, I also want to send out a big thank you to Heal Specialist Urgent Care. It's a private clinic being run by emergency physicians opposite the new hospital. They too are doing a good job, and I was delighted to take the health minister, Mark Butler, there. I think there are some ideas in my electorate particularly for how we can improve healthcare services, and I look forward to continuing to do that with our government and with Minister Mark Butler so that we can ensure the people of Paterson receive not only the most state-of-the-art health care but the health care that they need and quite frankly deserve. Nuclear Energy 106 18:49 Mr JOYCE e5d New England It's great to get this opportunity to take you for a little wander around the world, which I want to do right here. I want to take you for a wander around the nuclear world and enlighten people about how Australia is now an outlier—a ridiculous outlier. Let's start with who uses nuclear power in North America. Remember, North America has Death Valley; it's got hot areas; it's got sunny areas; it's got windy areas; it's got everything—every asset that they attribute to Australia. Well, Canada uses nuclear power. In fact, even Ontario's power is about half the price of the power that we have. The United States has nuclear power. And Mexico has nuclear power. So we have a clean sweep in America—not in Central America but in America. You might say, 'Well, that's unusual, or not unique,' so let's go for a wander around Europe. Who uses nuclear power? Spain uses it; France uses it; Belgium does. These are the people that actually have nuclear reactors. The ones with nuclear reactors that produce electricity from them are Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland and Sweden. And then you might say, 'Oh, hang on—you've left Germany out.' No; they use nuclear power from France. What France is doing at the moment is: their power is around about our price, and people think, 'What's the trick there?' Well, they are making a bucketload of money out of the Germans, because the Germans are using the French nuclear power, and so they're absolutely creaming it in France. And the Germans are trying to refurbish their coal-fired power plants. But then you might think, 'Maybe it's just a European thing or an American thing.' So this is the one that's interesting. Oh, by the way, going back to Europe: the other countries that are developing it are Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Italy. They're actually in the process of developing it. So you've almost got a clean sweep through Europe. You've almost got clean sweep through North America. And you've virtually got a clean sweep through Europe. There are only a couple of countries that do not use nuclear power. Ireland is one, and possibly Portugal, but they could be using it from Spain. There's Denmark, but maybe they actually pick it up from France as well; they could be picking it up from the Netherlands; and then, when Poland gets going, they could be picking it up from Poland. Let's go to Africa. Now, I think that we've probably got some advantages over Africa. An honourable member: They can't afford it. Mr JOYCE e5d Oh, no; you're dead right! This is the myth: 'You can't afford it, it's so expensive.' Well, there are a few countries that apparently believe they can afford it! South Africa already has it, and these are the countries that are now developing it: Senegal, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia. So I hope the penny is just starting to drop, somewhere, that the world has changed! The world is moving on, and it's leaving us behind with Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola and a couple of other countries that are just like us—Angola is just like us; it's not looking at it either. Oh, and Somalia—we've got a friend in Somalia; they're not looking at it. So this is ludicrous. Let's go to the Middle East. The countries there that use it are Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. Of course Russia uses it. We don't even need to say Russia. But these are the countries that are now developing it: Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and of course the United Arab Emirates. Oh, by the way, the United Arab Emirates have got four plants. It took them eight years to get the first one up and running. It was operational, producing electrons for the grid, within eight years. What's so frustrating about this is that there's a lot of Australian expertise that actually assists in this. From helping them to draw up the legislation to world's best gold-standard practice, Australians are actually in that process—technicians. The one place these Australians can't work is here, because we don't actually have it! But maybe it's just in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and North America. So let's go to South-East Asia. China, of course, in the next 15 years, will be in the process of developing 150 new nuclear reactors. I'll repeat that: in the next 15 years they're looking to go into the production and the planning of another 150 new nuclear reactors. And they're using it as a mechanism, with Russia, to leverage their influence in other countries, where they're saying, 'We'll provide you with the technology to do this.' This is why a lot of those countries in Africa are on board. If we want to have a moral movement of effect in the world, wouldn't we be saying, 'Use our technology,' so that we could put our fingerprints on this? Let's go through South-East Asia. Japan uses it; South Korea uses it; China uses it; India uses it—in fact, they're expanding it. In fact, South Korea and Japan are at the forefront of the technology of developing nuclear reactors that they sell to other countries. But then let's go to the people who are developing it: Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. They're all in the process of development; they're way ahead of us. There are two countries—away from Angola and Somalia—known in the world that have gone nowhere near this: New Zealand and Australia. We are out there. We are really out there. Even Greta Thunberg supports nuclear energy. It is this ridiculous position that we have got ourselves into, in this country, where we are sort of Luddites. We are sitting back decades—we are literally sitting back in the last century—in our view of this technology. And the world has moved on. There's a really simple thing about most of these nuclear reactors. Enrichment for plutonium for atomic weapons—which is very dangerous—is 98 per cent. With these nuclear reactors, we're talking about nothing—most of it is not beyond five per cent. It's a completely different technology that so many people are just unaware of. The people who are most unaware of it—who are the most, basically, nuclear-power illiterate—are us. We have a nuclear reactor bang smack in the middle of Sydney, and incredibly smart people, but as to the production of nuclear power, we're the ones that are illiterate. The reports we rely on to underwrite our ignorance are Australian reports, but Australia doesn't produce nuclear energy. We should be using the Finnish reports, or the French reports, or the Canadian reports, or the American reports, or the Chinese reports, or the Russian reports, or the Estonian reports, or the Spanish reports, or the Brazilian reports, or the Argentinian reports, or the Mexican reports—reports from all these other parts of the world. Our role—we're seeing it right now. Right now, or in a few hours, they're going to start—or they've already started voting in America, actually. They started in New Hampshire— An honourable member interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d All six of them. But what we've got to understand is that Australia has one role. To be quite frank, the rise of totalitarianism in comparison to democracy is vastly more evident and vastly more powerful than it was before the Second World War. There is absolutely no doubt about it. If you look at the totalitarian countries, like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea—who are sending their troops over to Ukraine now, so this is real—they're vastly more powerful than the comparative power of the fascists before the start of the Second World War. What does that mean for us? It means don't panic, but become as powerful as possible, as quickly as possible. Every section of what you do must be at the top. You must be at the top in education. You must be at the top in agriculture. You must be at the top in manufacturing. You must be at the top in nuclear technology and power. You must be at the top. This is one of the areas where we've just got to accept the reality of where the world is, and get on board. I'll give you another little epiphany. Sweden has 14 offshore swindle factories—windfarms, or whatever you want to call them. Anyway, they're closing 13 of them down. They're out of it. It's not working for them. They've got massive environmental concerns about them. They've got massive strategic concerns about them, especially with submariners and strategic issues as to how sonar works and the problems that has caused. I don't want our nation to be up to our throat in an obsolete technology, so that reality can just come and belt us on the head and say, 'Why on earth did you do that?' The answer was right before you. It was right in front of you, but your own a wilful ignorance took your nation to a weaker spot. de Vries, Dr Michael, General Practitioners, Macquarie Electorate: Community Events, Richmond School of Arts 107 19:00 Ms 181810 Macquarie TEMPLEMAN () (): I want to pay tribute to retiring GP Dr Mike de Vries, who has served the Winmalee community, including my family, for pretty much as long as I've lived in Winmalee. I know Mike is looking forward to retirement, but he will be much missed at the Winmalee Medical Centre, which grew out of his original practice, where his wife, Jennifer, was practice manager for many years. I don't know how many patients Mike will have seen in his four decades of caring for the mountains' locals, but last evening when I was speaking to a Canberra local who mentioned he had spent many years in the Blue Mountains, we somehow got onto the topic of GPs and, of course, Mike de Vries was his GP, and held in very high regard. Mike's a past chair of the Blue Mountains division of general practice. He has also had a long commitment to training up new GPs, which was really key in ensuring that we have had sufficient doctors available. Some loved it so much that they stayed. I note that for his efforts, among the many wonderful mountains' GPs who do supervise students, Mike was named supervisor of the year for the Nepean, Western Sydney and Northern Sydney training region back in 2021. I know he plans to continue doing GP training in his retirement. We do need to see more doctors signing up to be GPs and there are some green shoots of promise. In 2024 close to one-in-five medical graduates said they aspired to a career as a GP or rural GP, with 17.5 per cent nominating general practice or rural generalism as their prefer speciality in the annual medical deans' survey. The numbers of junior doctors actually choosing to go into general practice grows each year. In 2024 more than 1,600 doctors accepted a place on a government-funded training program to become a GP or a rural GP—that's a 13 per cent increase on the year before. For 2025 more than 1,750 offers are expected to be made to junior doctors to begin government-funded GP training, leading to an intake that could be up to 10 per cent larger than 2024. It's a start, and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners expects to fill every one of the placements that it has available for the first time in years. Australian GP training is delivered jointly by the two GP colleges that exist—the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine—and is fully funded by the Australian government. We will continue to look to GPs like Dr Mike de Vries to be training up the next cohort of GPs so needed throughout so many of our communities. I haven't always been a Halloween fan, but when I went doorknocking several years ago in Bligh Park in the Hawkesbury part of my electorate, I started to see the fun of it. There were houses decorated with spiderwebs and pumpkins, and such a sense of fun and community. Now it's one of my favourite afternoons, as Bligh Park Community Services has picked up and run with the theme, holding a huge event at the Tiningi centre, bringing volunteers in from local schools and elsewhere to help. There is face-painting, ghoulish games and a very scary-looking haunted house adventure, and babies through to grandparents are there in costumes of all descriptions. The pair dressed up as Beetlejuice and the magnificent Day of the Dead characters were real highlights this year. Congratulations to Bligh Park Community Services and all the volunteers involved. To the Bligh Park residents who decorate their homes and take part in the event, you show an incredible sense of community through those actions. I had the pleasure of celebrating women in small businesses at the ALIBI Awards in Penrith last month. Organised by Kylie King and emceed by the dynamic Olympic gold medallist beach volleyballer Kerri Pottharst, it was an evening where women encouraged and inspired each other. I don't think it was a coincidence that I was asked to present the golden entrepreneur of the year award—that's for someone over 60—and that went to Sue Mitchell. We also send big congratulations to Shelley Cootes from Penrith's Narrow Escape Rooms, Jess Chalk, Lynda MacCallum, Liesl Perryman, Jane Tweedy, Lisa Brownlie, Ebony Lowry, Melanie Cage, Sarah Knight, Teresa Tidball from Tidball Accountancy, Bianca Moore, Anna Simms from The Colour Blue Hairdressing, Monika Rodger, Megan Patterson, Alice Bullivant, Chantal Gerardy, Abbey Shepherd, Amee Dennis, Rach Mac, Fiona Harrison and ALIBI Business Lady of the Year Antoinette Stonham from All About Style. Congratulations to you all. I want to thank the officers, defence personnel and civilians who made the RAAF Base Richmond open day last month such a success. Yes, it was a bit challenging getting in because no-one wanted to miss a minute and everyone turned up at the same time. But if you were one of the 15,000 people who came to that community day, once you were in, there was a wealth of Air Force and Army aircraft and military equipment on display, to explore inside and out and in the air, from Hercs to the F-35A Lightning II. There was the Air Force balloon. There were military working dogs—and I've been in one of those Michelin suits, and it's as scary on the inside as it is watching from the outside. There were people to talk to—our air men and women, civilians and the incredible cadets based at Richmond. I hope that they were inspiration for some of the many young people who came. This was an overdue event. It's been a long time since there was a community open day, and it really gave the community access to something that is much loved and much valued in Hawkesbury. And I can confidently say that RAAF Base Richmond is not going anywhere. The Labor government has committed to the biggest investment in the C-130J fleet that's ever happened. Not only does the $9.8 billion investment replace the 12 ageing planes but it adds eight more Hercs, so we'll have a fleet of 20, all produced by Lockheed Martin, starting from 2027. They'll be allocated to No. 37 Squadron at RAAF Base Richmond. Of course, this means we'll see more investment in the base. There will be additional simulators for training, more personnel will need to be accommodated and it will be busier than ever. This is on top of the expansion of the National Aerial Firefighting Fleet, which has its New South Wales home in Richmond. I recently joined emergency management minister Jenny McAllister to check out the new national large air tanker and a Cessna Citation lead plane. There are two new Blackhawks and a Sikorsky added to the fleet—based in Sydney as well—so the fleet has the capability for fires and floods. This has been a big expansion of the fleet over the last couple of years, as recommended by the royal commission into the 2019-2020 bushfires. So RAAF Richmond has a crucial role for our security in multiple ways, as far as the eye can see, and I reckon a full-on air show next year would be a perfect way to mark the 100th anniversary of the base. I'm going to put on my Special Envoy for the Arts hat for a moment, alongside being the member for Macquarie. I recently had the privilege of officiating at the naming of a room in one of our oldest buildings, the Richmond School of Arts. The school of arts was officially opened by Premier Sir Henry Parkes in 1866, and it has hosted an array of events over the years, including lectures and classes, dinners, plays, concerts, dances and flower shows. It's used today mainly by artists, visual artists, and performers of all types, young and old. The site's managed by a volunteer committee, and Margaret Thorne is one of the longest serving volunteers on the committee. And now, when the nervous performers get ready to go on stage, the green room they're in is called the Margaret Thorne Green Room. Margaret joined the school of arts committee back in 1977, and she was elected the first female president in 1981. She stayed on as president until 2021 and is still involved as a volunteer with the school of arts. Among her many achievements was the incredible refurbishment over many decades of this beautiful facility, and installing a fully equipped kitchen, which the community loves having there, not to mention air conditioning and an audiovisual system. So she has made a huge contribution, and her name will now live on for many generations. I was also privileged to be able to hand over life membership to Katrina Roberts, the treasurer of the Richmond School of Arts committee. That's a position she has held continually for the last 15 years. There have been many changes in that time, including the move from manual accounting systems to computer based systems, electronic banking and all sorts of partnerships, and I know she's the one who does a lot of the hard yards of grant application writing. Congratulations to both Margaret and Katrina and all the volunteers at the Richmond School of Arts. Cook Electorate: Community Services 109 19:10 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook Madam Deputy Speaker, did you know that there were 555 domestic violence incidents reported to Sutherland shire police last year, and over 37,000 reported across all of New South Wales? Also, Homelessness NSW estimates that there are over 1½ thousand people who are homeless right now in the electorate of Cook. On Friday 25 October, Big Sister Foundation brought together seven amazing organisations that tackle both these issues: The Family Co., Project Youth, Kingsway Community Care, Dandelion Support Network, Hopefield, The Kogarah Storehouse and Georges River Life Care. Big Sister Foundation, chaired by Kim Brown, is one of the largest non-government funders of women's programs in my local area, donating over $6½ million over the last 12 years. Firstly, I'd like to recognise The Family Co. The Family Co. are based in Jannali and were founded on the belief that all children and families deserve a safe home, strong connections and opportunities to thrive. The Family Co. work with short- and long-term clients, including women, families, young people and children who have experienced trauma, disadvantage or violence. The Family Co.'s services include domestic violence court advocacy; emotional preparedness and anger management courses; and youth mentorship and support, including casework, music based programs and school outreach programs. They also have Aboriginal support programs, including a playgroup and a homework group. I was particularly impressed by their Building Resilience in Children project, which, through group therapy, workshops and outreach to educators, focuses on early intervention for children who have experienced trauma. Their impact is massive: 6½ thousand people have been supported through their targeted early intervention programs, and they have made 4½ thousand referrals to the local police command and received almost 15,000 referrals from police. They have engaged almost 2,000 young people in social participation and support services. I would like to personally recognise the CEO of The Family Co., Ashleigh Daines; their Operations Manager, Michelle Fairweather; and their staff and volunteers. Thank you for the work you do in my community. Secondly, I'd like to call out Project Youth, a great organisation based in Miranda. They support young people aged 12 to 24 in Sutherland shire, Georges River and Bayside. They help young people who need additional support to fulfil their potential, many of whom are facing homelessness, mental ill health, drug and alcohol dependency, family dysfunction, lack of education, unemployment, involvement in the criminal justice system, abuse, neglect and poverty. Project Youth focus on the prevention of youth homelessness through family intervention, legal help, mental health support, and education, focusing on kids who can't attend school. This year they've had to turn away over 553 referrals because of a lack of capacity—553, which is more than the number of students at some schools in my electorate. Over 40 young people have stayed in crisis accommodation nine months longer than the policy allows them to, as there is simply nowhere for them to go. To the CEO, Jody Darge, and all those who fundraise, partner or volunteer with this organisation: thank you. Next is Kingsway Community Care, based in Caringbah. They are south-eastern Sydney's largest adult temporary and crisis housing provider. Kingsway Community Care have housed and supported 1½ thousand people since 2014. They operate programs such as Platform Nine, a safe and supportive space providing trauma-informed care and housing solutions for vulnerable people in my community; Jac-Pad, temporary crisis accommodation for women aged 18 to 25; and Seechange Op Shop, a thrift shop serving about 250 customers weekly, managed entirely by volunteers and also providing a free pantry for people in crisis. Kingsway Community Care support people with housing. They have eight emergency rooms for women, men and young women. They have crisis accommodation for up to three months, with eight rooms for single women, three rooms for single men and additional rooms for women and young children. They also have transitional housing for up to 18 months in shared homes and tiny homes for single individuals and families. According to Stephanie Allen, who manages Platform Nine's housing: Homelessness services are needed now more than ever with the skyrocketing cost of living disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable in our community. It takes a village as they say, and we are proud to be part of that village. To Brook Stewart, the general manager, and staff, thank you for the work you do. Dandelion Support Network based in Taren Point have made an incredible impact. In 2023 alone, more than 2,500 families were helped—almost 5,000 children—and Dandelion are on track to help the same if not more this year. They've supported over 125 families, and the organisation goes from strength to strength. They provide new and second-hand prams, cots, baby clothes and car seats donated by local families in the Sutherland Shire and St George areas. I'd also like to recognise Hopefield. Hopefield are a great organisation who support vulnerable people. They operate out of Kirrawee and Cronulla and do important work with individuals, families and communities in my electorate. They offer health services such as psychology, counselling and speech pathology. In 2023 alone, Hopefield completed over 2,000 sessions with 250 new clients utilising a pay-as-you-go structure. Most of those services and appointments were subsidised by them. Hopefield also offers support services such as case management for complex housing needs, domestic violence support and meals for vulnerable community members. Hopefield supports over 60 individuals with case management services who face the risk of homelessness, mental health issues and domestic violence. In 2023, 600 food hampers were distributed by Hopefield and over 1,000 hot meals were served in my community. Further, they have community hubs which focus on social connectivity and education groups for those who experience isolation and challenges with parenting and life skills. Their women's social connection groups meet on Tuesday in Cronulla and Friday in Kirrawee. For men, they hold a group meeting on Thursdays in Cronulla. I would like to acknowledge the work they do. They've told me about visiting the national park and the many people from my community who are sleeping rough, camping in the national park, because they can't afford to pay rent or own a house. These often aren't just single people; sometimes they can be couples or even found families. Thank you for the work you do in my community. Lastly, I would like to note we are holding the Cook volunteer awards on 21 February 2025. These awards are to recognise the strong ethos and volunteering culture we have in Cook—not only in Cook but right around Australia. To nominate a volunteer for an award, please go to my website www.simonkennedymp.com.au, where there's a nomination form. The deadline for nominations is 10 January 2025. The Cook Awards is an annual event that recognises the exceptional service provided by volunteers in Cook. Australia and Cook have a strong tradition of volunteering. Cook has four proud surf clubs that punch above their weight in national titles and have literally thousands of people in my community giving up their weekends and their weekdays to keep people safe. There's not a week that goes by without rescues and them saving people from drowning on Bate Bay. They're volunteering across sporting clubs, with one of the largest football associations in the entire southern hemisphere. There is also Surfrider. We have 10 per cent of the Boardriders of Australia. There are community organisations and environmental groups across all ages, including Marine Rescue, which is headland right on the Hacking River, where volunteers dedicate their time to support people who get in trouble in boats or on the water. Volunteering builds communities, and volunteering has built much of our nation. I call on those people in Cook to nominate those people who they think have been exceptional for a Cook Award in 2025. Queensland State Election 110 19:19 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair CJ Cregg in The West Wing said this: 'In democracy, oftentimes other people win.' I could be aggrieved at the outcome of the recent Queensland state election, but I'm pleased that the people of my state could express their democratic right to vote. Democracy is precious and needs to be cherished. There is a tendency towards authoritarianism across the globe, and we need to stand against it. Respect for each other is absolutely critical and important in a democracy. Acceptance of the outcome is absolutely vital to the sustainment of democracy. I want to congratulate all candidates who participated across the various electorates that straddle the electorate of Blair. There are four LNP seats and four Labor seats. A real highlight for me was Wendy Bourne winning back the seat of Ipswich West for Labor, after losing it in the by-election in March this year. Since it was created in the 1960s, Ipswich West has been held by Labor continuously, except on a few occasions when the non-Labor forces have won it and Labor has won it back at the next occasion. Wendy won it back in style. She ran a strong campaign and worked very hard, contacting 95 per cent of her constituents, making thousands of phone calls and knocking on thousands of doors. There were 37,000 doorknocks and phone calls made by her campaign. She's a community champion with a long history of working in the Ipswich and Rosewood communities. She has worked extensively in federal and state government, and she'll bring a huge focus to her care, concern and love for the people of Ipswich West and the attention she gives them. I congratulate her on winning the seat with a margin of close to four per cent. I wish Darren Zanow, the retiring LNP state member for Ipswich West, whom I've known many years, the very best as he grapples with his health issues. I've known Darren through his work in the Ipswich community and as president of the show society. I wish him and his family the very best as Darren deals with really troubling, longstanding and potentially debilitating health issues. During both the by-election and the general election I was pleased to work with Wendy to lock in a number of joint government commitments on road infrastructure and other projects. The federal and Queensland governments committed $277 million in joint funding to fix the Mount Crosby Road interchange, duplicating the crossing with a bridge over the Warrego Highway and service roads down the side to potentially connect to a corridor leading towards the Brisbane River. This will improve the safety and capacity of this vital transport link for Tivoli, North Ipswich, Brassall, Karalee, Mount Crosby and the Karana Downs area. It is absolutely vital. Nearly 60,000 vehicles go through the Mount Crosby interchange each day. The detailed design work on the project is well advanced, with the focus on sustainability and with ecological requirements in line with industry best practice. There's 50 per cent budgeted by the federal government and 50 per cent funded by the state government. I want to make sure that the new Crisafulli LNP government in Queensland continues that budget funding and make sure that that Mount Crosby interchange duplication is completed. It's really vital for the people of Ipswich. The second thing I want to do is make sure that the shared commitment of $85 million that we funded—the fifty-fifty commitment, federal and state—for the Bremer River Bridge improvement and restoration is carried out. There needs to be a strengthening of the westbound segment of the bridge, built just after the 1940s. It needs to be strengthened because of cracks in and underneath the bridge. It's a safety issue. There are design faults and problems there, so there'll need to be a lot of patience borne by the people of Ipswich and surrounds as that bridge is restored to what it needs to be. There's $85 million committed, and we need to make sure that that work's carried out, so I'm calling on the Crisafulli government to honour that budget commitment of the previous Miles Labor government. In addition—this is a real game changer—during the state campaign we announced $20 million of federal and state government funding for detailed planning on the Cunningham Highway. This will be used to undertake business cases for the Amberley interchange, connecting the Ipswich-Rosewood Road to the Cunningham Highway, and for the Ripley Road and Swanbank Road interchanges. This is really important work. It'll futureproof the Cunningham Highway. It will be critical for the nearly 8,000 people who work on RAAF Base Amberley in military and civilian capacities. It's part of a broader Australian government commitment of $170 million to the Cunningham Highway. The congestion cost has been estimated to be $45 million a year. Eight thousand vehicles go through the Ipswich Rosewood Road connecting to the Amberley interchange each day, and 20,000 vehicles are on the Cunningham Highway, with more than 15 per cent of those being heavy vehicles. I recently went to the Amberley consultative committee, and, just after 4 pm, I drove out from the RAFF base at Amberley to get onto the Cunningham Highway to find the traffic backed into the base. This is a common occurrence. This detailed plan, which has been accepted by local people generally and has been welcomed—we've never had a detailed plan—will look at a grade separation, a bypass or duplication of the highway. I want to see the Queensland state government and the federal government come together to basically do what they did on the Blacksoil interchange on the Warrego Highway, which has been so critical to the people of Ipswich, Lockyer Valley and the Somerset region. Safety upgrades are very, very important. We've seen 90 crashes on the Amberley interchange in the last six years, including fatalities. On the Ripley interchange we see the traffic backed for at least half a kilometre every afternoon. Swanbank is almost the same. So there needs to be some safety upgrades there, and I'm calling on the new Queensland government to honour the budgeting commitments that have been made. Those upgrades are really important as Ripley township and Ripley Valley community continue to grow. There will be up to 60,000 people there in the next couple of decades. And Ipswich is growing at a pace that exceeds nearly every other place in South-East Queensland. So those upgrades are very important, and I'm calling on the new government to do what it needs to do to honour those budgeting commitments. During the election campaign, Wendy and Queensland Labor made a commitment of $146 million towards the construction of a second river crossing in the centre of Ipswich. The LNP didn't match that. They put $4 million towards a commitment to develop a business case. They didn't actually put any money towards construction costs. Once that business case is done, I'm asking that the new Queensland government honour the commitment that the former Labor government made to put money towards construction. There are about 45,000 or 46,000 vehicles a day that go over the David Trumpy Bridge, which is not far from Riverlink, where my electorate office is, in Blair. It's really important that that second crossing be built. So I'm urging the new government to work with all stakeholders—federal and state governments and local council—to achieve not just a business case for a new bridge but also the road infrastructure in and around that particular bridge. I know that the new government have said that they will match the $10 million commitment made by the former Queensland government. The Albanese Labor government has put forward $20 million, and the Ipswich City Council has also committed $10 million towards a proposed North Ipswich sports and entertainment precinct. That is stage 1 of the upgrade of the North Ipswich Reserve. I'm calling on the Crisafulli government to honour their pre-election and election commitment to match the money that has been committed, because this is absolutely vital. This will be a marquee project for several years, and, of course, Ipswich is a place where there is a bid for an NRL licence. The Jets are putting a bid in. Ipswich is home to some of the greatest Rugby League players—the Langer brothers, the Walters brothers, Ali Brigginshaw. These are all residents of Ipswich. I'm calling on the LNP government to honour that commitment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:29