﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-11-07</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Thursday, 7 November 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Free TAFE Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7271" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Free TAFE Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today, I introduce the Free TAFE Bill 2024, to establish free TAFE as an enduring feature of the national vocational education and training system.</para>
<para>Over the next decade, nine out of 10 new jobs will require post-secondary qualifications.</para>
<para>And almost half will come through VET pathways.</para>
<para>This underlines our country's reliance on universities and the VET sector.</para>
<para>Our national prosperity relies on the success of both.</para>
<para>And in our first two years in office—we've worked hard to highlight this shared importance.</para>
<para>And we've worked to repair the damage done to the VET sector by the previous government.</para>
<para>The sector we inherited was neglected and fractured.</para>
<para>And it was accompanied by the biggest skills shortage in 50 years.</para>
<para>A high-quality, world-class VET system is vital to responding to the challenges and seizing the opportunities shaping Australia's society, economy and environment.</para>
<para>VET is an enabler of inclusion and economic equality giving people the skills they want and which we need to build Australia's future.</para>
<para>It's central to addressing workforce shortages.</para>
<para>That's why I'm introducing this bill—to ensure that the national VET system is accessible and responsive, to boost productivity and support Australians to get the skills they need to prosper in our economy.</para>
<para>The bill commits the Commonwealth to ongoing support to states and territories for free TAFE, with implementation arrangements to be agreed between the Commonwealth and the states.</para>
<para>It underpins our government's commitment to funding at least 100,000 free TAFE places a year from 2027 to remove barriers to study in priority areas across Australia.</para>
<para>The bill ensures that free TAFE places will be targeted to industries experiencing current and projected workforce shortfalls—priority areas to achieve national ambitions for a future made in Australia, the net zero transformation, construction and housing supply, the care and support economy, defence, digital and tech, manufacturing, and to restore our sovereign capability.</para>
<para>The bill reaffirms the Albanese government's commitment to put TAFE at the heart of the VET sector.</para>
<para>Because you can't have a strong VET sector without strong TAFEs.</para>
<para>TAFEs are valued and trusted public institutions, delivering training in the public interest and working to meet Australia's social and economic goals. TAFEs are governments' trusted partners, driving quality improvements across the sector, innovating teaching and learning practice, supporting students to succeed and assisting industries to develop skilled workforces.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is creating a national network of TAFE centres of excellence with states and territories to work in partnership with industry, public universities and local communities to be at the cutting edge of new and emerging skills. They will drive innovation to meet the needs of the economy and help to shape the jobs of the future.</para>
<para>Our public providers are a key pillar of a high-performing and world class VET system. As well as delivering training across the breadth of VET and across Australia—in cities, regional, rural and remote areas—TAFEs support social infrastructure, promote social equity and inclusion, build community cohesion and set out pathways for lifelong learning.</para>
<para>Free TAFE will support a prosperous and equitable Australia. It removes financial barriers to education and training. It delivers a coordinated national response to workforce shortages in industries and occupations of local and national priority.</para>
<para>Free TAFE will give Australians the confidence to take on study without the extra pressure that paying for courses can bring.</para>
<para>The bill locks in cost-of-living relief while supporting the pipeline of skilled workers needed to secure Australia's position in the global economy.</para>
<para>This builds on the success of the current fee-free TAFE program, that we have delivered in partnership with state and territory governments. In the first 18 months of fee-free TAFE there have been over 508,000 enrolments. This is providing a pipeline of workers to critical industries, with over 130,000 enrolments in the care sector, over 35,000 in early childhood education and care and almost 35,000 enrolments in construction.</para>
<para>Priority cohorts have particularly benefitted from the program. I am proud that over 170,000 young Australians have enrolled in fee-free TAFE, and over 124,000 job seekers. More than 60 per cent of the places are being taken up by women and one in three places are in regional Australia. It is helping Australians get the skills and education that will set them up for fulfilling careers.</para>
<para>The bill provides that free TAFE places will continue to be prioritised to groups who will most benefit from equitable access to education and training—cohorts such as First Nations people, women, youth, people out of work or receiving income support, unpaid carers and people with disability.</para>
<para>A Labor government will never consider free TAFE to be wasteful spending.</para>
<para>Free TAFE changes lives and shapes our future.</para>
<para>It is clear in every TAFE I visit.</para>
<para>At Lidcombe TAFE I spoke with Hamish who is studying a Certificate III in Disability Care. The course has been something Hamish has been thinking about doing for a while and the impact of fee-free TAFE has been "huge" especially with a young family.</para>
<para>Certificate III aged-care students at the same TAFE spoke about how their fee-free TAFE course is helping them "to better empathise and better understand the conditions [of aged care residents] so that [we] can better help them". They can't wait to "start taking care of people".</para>
<para>And Certificate III horticulture students at TAFE Chisholm in Cranbourne said they couldn't have done the course if it wasn't free. They reported that so far, "the course has been really good and we're learning a lot".</para>
<para>These TAFE students are getting the skills they want and which we need to build Australia's future.</para>
<para>TAFE Directors Australia, representing CEOs across our public VET providers have welcomed this bill saying:</para>
<para>"All TAFEs have welcomed the federal and state/territory governments' focus on equity and providing access to vocational education and training through fee-free TAFE. Enshrining this policy in legislation, alongside continuing examples of innovation to meet industry skills needs, such as TAFE centres of excellence, shows the holistic thinking that is now in place. These policies are ensuring both industry and individuals are central to the importance of skills development that is needed for success."</para>
<para>I now turn to the measures in the bill.</para>
<para>Firstly, this bill commits the Commonwealth to make a grant of financial assistance to states and territories for the delivery of free TAFE places, with states and territories required to enter into a free TAFE agreement with the Commonwealth which sets out the terms and conditions of financial assistance.</para>
<para>This ensures a genuine joined-up approach with states and territories, and that the implementation of free TAFE responds to our national priorities.</para>
<para>Secondly, the bill sets out key matters that are to be dealt with in a free TAFE agreement, including the number of free TAFE places, the areas of study, the groups prioritised for access, reporting requirements and financial arrangements.</para>
<para>This establishes minimum terms and conditions for a state or territory to receive Commonwealth support, while providing the flexibility to accommodate local conditions.</para>
<para>Thirdly, the bill will require the Skills and Workforce Ministerial Council to be consulted on any proposed changes to the act.</para>
<para>This recognises the critical role of states and territories and our joint commitment to genuinely collaborative and share stewardship of the national VET system.</para>
<para>The measures in the bill demonstrate the government's commitment to a high-quality and accessible VET that is responsive to local, national and global economic conditions.</para>
<para>Fee-free TAFE has been an outstanding success. It is changing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across Australia by improving access to education and training, leading to greater economic participation and building social equity.</para>
<para>The bill will embed free TAFE as the cornerstone of our national VET system.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7267" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (the bill) makes trade under the existing Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (the agreement) simpler. The amendments in this bill will establish improved rules-of-origin requirements to make it easier and less costly for businesses to access this free trade agreement's benefits.</para>
<para>Even 14 years after its initial entry into force in 2010, this agreement retains its status as one of Australia's highest quality outcomes in market access for goods trade, having eliminated tariffs on 96 per cent of Australian exports to South-East Asian markets.</para>
<para>On 21 August 2023 the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Tim Watts MP, signed the second protocol to amend the agreement in Semarang, Indonesia alongside ministers from the ASEAN member states and New Zealand.</para>
<para>The second protocol modernises the agreement to ensure it keeps pace with Australia's evolving trade policy interests in areas such as electronic commerce, trade and sustainable development, and supporting small businesses. It maintains its status as ASEAN's highest quality free trade agreement, while underscoring the importance of ASEAN to the region's prosperity, stability and security.</para>
<para>While this bill makes necessary improvements to the Customs Act 1901to incorporate amendments madeto the agreement's rules of origin, the second protocol includes additional commitments on services and investment that will benefit Australian traders and investors. It also includes measures that will strengthen supply chain resilience and digital technology adoption.</para>
<para>New commitments on sustainable and inclusive trade will facilitate enhanced cooperation on environmental protection, green economy, labour issues, and women's economic empowerment.</para>
<para>The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties completed an inquiry into the agreement in May 2024 and recommended that binding treaty action be taken. The amendments made by the second protocol will enter into force 60 days after Australia, New Zealand and at least four ASEAN member states have notified completion of their domestic processes.</para>
<para>Entry into force of the agreement as soon as possible is desirable so that traders can benefit from the improvements made under the second protocol, and so that Australia can celebrate an important milestone in our partnership with ASEAN to support our businesses and expand regional economic integration.</para>
<para>The second protocol will establish new accumulation rules to give traders more flexibility in sourcing from across the region and to strengthen critical global and domestic supply chains. In addition, a standalone consignment provision will support transhipment and offer clearer and broader scope for goods to retain their originating status when transiting through countries outside the free trade agreement region. These rules will support modern and increasingly prevalent hubbing practices.</para>
<para>The second protocol will reduce the regulatory burden faced by Australian exporters through the introduction of an opt-in approved exporters scheme. Qualifying exporters will be able to complete their own declarations of origin, reducing costs and streamlining processes that enable their trading partners to claim preferential rates of customs duties.</para>
<para>The second protocol also maintains existing certificates of origin arrangements familiar to Australian businesses trading with ASEAN.</para>
<para>The amendments in schedule 1 to the bill will commence on the later of the day the Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 receives the royal assent and the day the second protocol comes into effect. The amendments in schedule 2 to the bill will commence on a single day to be fixed by proclamation.</para>
<para>The amendments in the bill will implement new document requirements for claims for preferential tariff treatment. Unlike the existing requirements, where importers are required to provide documentation certified by an authorised body, the new requirements of the second protocol allow approved exporters to provide self-certified documentation. The bill will also establish verification and record-keeping requirements for the exportation of goods to the parties of the agreement.</para>
<para>Additionally, the bill will make minor legislative amendments to procedures to implement free trade agreements already in force more effectively. This includes the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, or PACER Plus; the Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement, or MAFTA; and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, or RCEP.</para>
<para>In particular, it will amend the definition of 'harmonized system' and related provisions to ensure that the Customs Act 1901 allows for the adoption of technical transposition of the product-specific rules of origin as provided for under PACER Plus and MAFTA. Timely adoption of the product-specific rules of origin makes trade simpler by allowing traders to use the current trade nomenclature when completing the relevant proof of origin instead of the trade classification systems of five, 10 or even 15 years ago.</para>
<para>The bill will also enable the creation of the approved exporter scheme under the second protocol and RCEP as previously described. The scheme will be established within regulations and will streamline the documentation requirements of participating exporters.</para>
<para>The changes delivered through the bill will support the government's commitment to open trade and contribute to Australia being an indispensable link in global supply chains. It will deepen and diversify Australia's trading relationships by building resilient and diversified regional and global supply chains in alignment with the Future Made in Australia National Interest Framework.</para>
<para>The bill is the only necessary legislative change required to implement the second protocol. Timely passage of this bill is important to ensure that broader trade facilitative benefits of the second protocol can be realised.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7269" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024 amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the measures in two customs tariff proposals moved in the House of Representatives in July this year. The bill also makes certain minor technical amendments to the Customs Tariff Act.</para>
<para>The first set of amendments in the bill are consistent with the alterations made by the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2024, moved in the House of Representatives on 3 July 2024. These amendments repeal the general rates of duty for over 450 tariff classifications and replace the rates with 'free'.</para>
<para>These tariff classifications were selected because most importers were applying relevant tariff concessions or free trade agreement preferential rates, which effectively reduced the five per cent duty rate to a 'free' rate of duty. Eliminating customs duty for these classifications will reduce business compliance costs and make it easier to import a range of goods, including toothbrushes, electric blankets, washing machines and a range of clothing and footwear. This is the largest unilateral tariff reform in two decades. The 'free' rate of duty for these tariff classifications applied from 1 July 2024.</para>
<para>Amendments will also be made to the corresponding free trade agreement preferential rates to ensure that they are not higher than the general rate of duty. This ensures that importers utilising free trade agreements are not disadvantaged by the unilateral reduction of the general rate.</para>
<para>The second set of amendments are consistent with the alterations made by the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2024, also moved in the House of Representatives on 3 July 2024.</para>
<para>These amendments extend the 'free' rate of customs duty applied to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine. As a result, goods from Ukraine will continue to benefit from a 'free' rate of duty until 3 July 2026. This 'free' rate of duty applies to all Ukrainian goods, except for excise-equivalent goods (being petroleum, fuel, tobacco and alcohol products).</para>
<para>The extension of the concessional treatment supports Ukraine's continued participation in international trade. The tariff concession is one part of Australia's package of defence, economic and humanitarian support and a sign of our ongoing and steadfast support for Ukraine and its people.</para>
<para>The third set of amendments are technical amendments which repeal spent phasing rates and associated provisions. Phasing rates are customs duty rates that incrementally reduce to 'free' over a specified period of time.</para>
<para>A number of the phasing rates in schedules 3, 10 and 11 to the Customs Tariff Act have been incrementally reduced to 'free'. The increments are now redundant and no longer required in the text of the Customs Tariff Act. The repeal of these provisions will simplify the text without altering the operation of the act or the duty rates applied to any goods. I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>5</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7275" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>5</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>5</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>International crime organisations are targeting Australia. There is a scam pandemic, and it is costing billions. The previous government left Australians to fight this on their own. This is about to change. The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 establishes a world-leading, whole-of-ecosystem approach to combat scams in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.</para>
<para>This bill will lift obligations on industry, enable enforcement action by regulators and deliver strong protections for consumers.</para>
<para>It will make Australia one of the toughest places in the world for scammers to operate.</para>
<para>The human impact of scams</para>
<para>Over the last two years, I have talked to literally thousands of Australians across the country, from Cairns in the north to Hobart in the South, from Melbourne to Perth and all the places in between.</para>
<para>In every room, so many people have been touched by the scourge of scams.</para>
<para>Allow me to share just a few of these stories:</para>
<para>Investment scams</para>
<para>Mark received advice from what he thought was a legitimate financial advice advertisement which encouraged him to invest in cryptocurrency.</para>
<para>Mark was encouraged to set up multiple accounts to transfer his investment into. After three payments, he started to get concerned that nothing was appearing in his cryptocurrency account.</para>
<para>He was told that he had insufficient funds in the account so needed to make another payment for the crypto to appear.</para>
<para>It was only then that he realised that he'd had over $5,000 stolen by criminal scammers.</para>
<para>Romance scams</para>
<para>Sam had thousands of dollars stolen in a romance scam. They met online before quickly moving to communicate by text and email. This went on for several months. There wouldn't be an MP in this place who has not had representations from constituents concerning romance scams, and I'm sure we all agree they break our hearts.</para>
<para>In this case, the criminal scammer claimed to have been locked out of his bank account and needed urgent funds as his sister had been rushed to hospital.</para>
<para>It was only after transferring more than $14,000 that Sam realised the scammer had been impersonating somebody else.</para>
<para>The money was stolen with limited hope of getting any of it back.</para>
<para>Online s cams</para>
<para>Then there was Nick, who found a vehicle advertised online and contacted the seller to make arrangements to purchase it.</para>
<para>The criminal scammer sent through an official-looking invoice and payment details and Nick transferred $18,000 to the account to purchase the car.</para>
<para>The car was being shipped from interstate, accordingly, and the arrival date came and went, but no car arrived.</para>
<para>The money was stolen with limited hope of getting any of it back.</para>
<para>These stories, and thousands like it, are the product of a non-existent legal framework which has abandoned consumers and does not require businesses within the scam ecosystem to disrupt and prevent scams.</para>
<para>The s cale and n ature of the p roblem</para>
<para>These stories point to a criminal pandemic with deep economic and social consequences. It's not a new problem. Losses had been increasing every year since 2016. They became supercharged during the pandemic.</para>
<para>In 2021, scam losses increased by a whopping 84 per cent.</para>
<para>In 2022, an extraordinary $3 billion was lost to scammers—a 75 per cent increase on the previous year.</para>
<para>When the Albanese government came to office, scams were out of control and urgent action was needed. A business-as-usual approach could have seen losses approach $6 billion if the previous trends had continued.</para>
<para>We moved quickly to establish the National Anti-Scam Centre, a sender ID registry, and a website take-down capacity within ASIC. We worked with banks to cut transfers to high-risk crypto exchanges.</para>
<para>The early results have been good. In 2023, scam losses did not increase as they had under the previous government. In fact, they decreased for the first time in nearly a decade—one of the only countries in the world where that happened. But—at $2.74 billion—this is still an extraordinary amount of money stolen by scammers.</para>
<para>Some people still think of scammers as con men peddling easy-to-spot schemes and that, if you get scammed, you're a mug; it was your own silly fault. That was the approach that was taken by the former government. It was a private problem. There was no need for a public intervention.</para>
<para>In this framing, it's really easy to blame the victims for falling for an 'obvious' scam.</para>
<para>However, it's an outdated view. Scams have been industrialised by sophisticated, transnational criminal organisations.</para>
<para>I want to give the House a sense of the magnitude and industrialisation of these operations. In May this year, a report prepared by the ASEAN-Australia Counter Trafficking program looked at the relationship between human trafficking, forced labour and the cyberscam industry in one country alone, in Cambodia—just one country. The report found as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As many as 100,000 people from around Asia, and as far away as East Africa, are trapped in cyber-scam compounds around the country. In these guarded compounds, thousands of individuals, many of whom are recent university graduates, are forced to engage in cybercriminal activities, ranging from romance and cryptocurrency scams to online gambling and fraudulent investment scams, for up to 16 hours per day.</para></quote>
<para>This is a business model that must be broken. It must be broken.</para>
<para>The criminals don't discriminate. There are scams targeted to specific demographics: ticket scams for concert goers, investment scams for retirees.</para>
<para>If you have a phone, an email address, a social media account, or a bank account, you're a target. Older Australians are a major target of investment scams, and they are losing the most.</para>
<para>International response</para>
<para>International criminal activity of this scale requires a coordinated international response, and we've prioritised our relationships in this area.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I attended, on behalf of the government, the first international summit convened in the United Kingdom. Signatories to the communique from that summit committed to working together to improve our cooperative efforts, including in the areas of intelligence sharing and money recovery.</para>
<para>I have followed this up in our region, including in a recent visit to Singapore with our colleagues from New Zealand and from the banks where we met with regulators, the Singapore Anti-Scam Centre, digital platform providers and a range of other stakeholders.</para>
<para>We exchanged information and ideas on regulatory and law enforcement responses to the challenge.</para>
<para>These are all important initiatives.</para>
<para>But there are limitations to traditional law enforcement approaches.</para>
<para>The Scams Prevention Framework Bill</para>
<para>This bill sets out what we can and must do here in Australia.</para>
<para>The bill's about prevention—and has the consumer at the centre of our approach. It looks across the scams ecosystem which has a requirement to take the fight up to the scammers. The best approach is to protect the consumer before the scam occurs.</para>
<para>It also provides a clear pathway for redress if a victim is scammed.</para>
<para>The Albanese government believes that the government must play an active role in keeping Australians' money and their information safe.</para>
<para>I've spoken about the first phase of our work—the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre (NASC). It's an investment in consumer protection infrastructure to bring together the expertise and capability of government agencies, law enforcement and the private sector to detect and disrupt and prevent scams. The NASC is a function operated within the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. It will have a key role in the information exchange in the operation of these new laws.</para>
<para>The bill is the next phase. It's phase 2. It establishes the legal framework setting out the legal obligations for business. The Scams Prevention Framework—or SPF, for short—will drive a significant uplift in the obligations and expectations on business to keep the Australian community safe.</para>
<para>Key features of the framework include:</para>
<list>the SPF principles that apply to regulated entities;</list>
<list>provisions to establish sector-specific codes that apply to regulated sectors;</list>
<list>strong, active regulator oversight;</list>
<list>clear dispute resolution procedures for consumers, and the ability to set guidelines for apportioning liability between parties where they have not met their obligations; and</list>
<list>strong enforcement powers and penalties for breaches by regulated entities.</list>
<para>The definition of scams</para>
<para>Preventing scams means understanding the nature of the threat. Scam activity is quickly evolving and becoming increasingly sophisticated and diverse. There are many different methods that scammers use to harm the community.</para>
<para>The bill recognises this in the definition of scams, by setting a broad definition to capture the wide range of activities which may form part of the deceit and manipulation used by scammers. They are deceptive attempts to engage a consumer, which if successful would cause loss or harm, such as by obtaining personal information or a financial benefit, from the consumer or their associate.</para>
<para>The SPF seeks to stop scammers at every step in their deceptive activity, and therefore captures both successful scams which have caused loss or harm, and scam attempts which have yet to result in a loss or a harm.</para>
<para>Who is protected?</para>
<para>The bill is about protecting consumers, broadly defined. We've had representations from small businesses who say they too are victims of scams.</para>
<para>This includes people or small businesses that are provided services by regulated businesses in Australia, as well as people ordinarily residing in Australia that may use a service outside of Australia, where that service is provided by a regulated entity in Australia.</para>
<para>Who are the regulated entities?</para>
<para>On a number of occasions this morning, I have described our prevention approach as whole of ecosystem. This is a really important concept in the preparation and operation of these laws. Our banking system is part of that ecosystem, but there is much more to it.</para>
<para>In December last year the peak international body for consumer organisations issued a statement which called on governments to take this ecosystem approach. In that statement, they said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are calling on governments to ensure adequate protection against the growing risks of scams on technology platforms. Governments should require platforms to take effective action in the prevention, disruption and detection of scams, which should be continually improved. There should be significant consequences if technology platforms fail to meet the following essential requirements …</para></quote>
<para>The essential requirements set out in that statement include measures, disruption strategies and response and support for victims of scams. I note that this statement is endorsed by the Australian consumer organisations Choice and the Consumer Action Law Centre.</para>
<para>The Albanese government wholeheartedly agrees. The SPF will do just this.</para>
<para>Just last month the UK's peak consumer body called on their government to implement a cross-sectoral scams- and fraud-reporting framework, a framework that joins up intelligence from government, telecommunications, banking and social media sources.</para>
<para>Again, the government agrees. This is exactly what the SPF will achieve.</para>
<para>The scam ecosystem looks at the environment in which scams are generated, how they are transmitted, how they reach their intended victim and the location of the money or information which is the end goal of the criminal.</para>
<para>While scam techniques will change over time, they are overwhelmingly distributed through a publication on a social media platform, a call or message sent over the telecommunications network, and a transaction through a bank account—key parts of the ecosystem.</para>
<para>We understand that the vectors and targets of scam activity will change over time. This is why the bill provides the responsible Treasury minister with the power to designate a sector of the economy that will be subject to the obligations of the Scam Prevention Framework.</para>
<para>Once a sector is designated, the minister will be able to make an enforceable SPF code that provides the designated sector with prescriptive obligations tailored to that sector. The obligations are all about keeping their customers safe from scams.</para>
<para>The government will designate telecommunication providers, banks and digital platform services relating to social media, paid search engine advertising and direct messaging initially. We won't stop there.</para>
<para>Each of these sectors represents a significant vector for criminal scam activity.</para>
<para>The SPF is responsive and adaptable, enabling other sectors to be designated in the future. We have put the superannuation, insurance and cryptocurrency industries on notice that they will be fast followers.</para>
<para>They do not have to wait for government designation to start the hard work of improving their consumer protections.</para>
<para>SPF principles</para>
<para>The SPF principles set-out requirements for regulated entities to implement governance arrangements to combat scams and take reasonable steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams.</para>
<para>SPF principle 1: governance<inline font-style="italic">. </inline>Regulated entities must document and implement policies, procedures, metrics and targets for combating scams.</para>
<para>SPF principle 2: prevent.Regulated entities must take reasonable steps to prevent scams. It's on them; they must take reasonable steps to prevent scams within their businesses. This is aimed at stopping scams from reaching or impacting their customers.</para>
<para>For banks, this will mean enhanced verification procedures, such as confirmation of payee for transactions. For digital platforms, this will require strict advertising policies and require them to verify and validate their advertisers. Is the business legitimate? Is the person placing the ad an authorised representative of that business? If this can't be validated—then no ad shall be posted.</para>
<para>SPF principle 3: detection.Regulated entities must take reasonable steps to detect scams both as they are happening and after they've happened. This may include implementing systems and processes to identify suspicious activity, timely investigations of actionable scam intelligence and identifying consumers that may be impacted. Under this principle, a hands-off, 'it's not our responsibility' approach will not be acceptable. That was the previous approach. It is not the approach under this government.</para>
<para>SPF principle 4: report.Regulated entities must share actionable scam intelligence with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), who may then disclose that information to other parties including other regulated entities, regulators, and law enforcement to drive timely disruptive action in response to scam activity. Reporting is a key part of this framework because it involves us collecting that information and enabling real-time intelligence sharing amongst designated sectors.</para>
<para>The bill makes clear that actionable scam intelligence covers information where it is reasonable to suspect that a communication, transaction or other activity is conduct related to a scam. So there is an obligation on regulated entities not only to prevent and not only to detect but to report activity on their network. This is important because a scam communication that is sent throughout one telecommunication provider network might be known within that telecommunication provider's network but might not be known across another network and won't be known within a banking system. So we need to ensure that intelligence is shared on a mandatory basis across all participants within the scam ecosystem.</para>
<para>The bill makes clear that actionable scam intelligence covers the relevant information so that businesses can respond accordingly.</para>
<para>SPF principle 5: disruption.Let me talk about disruption. Again, a hands-off approach is no longer going to be acceptable. Regulated entities must take reasonable steps to disrupt an activity suspected of being a scam and prevent losses to their consumers. They must take action to disrupt activity suspected of being a scam and prevent losses to consumers. When I reflect upon this principle, I'm reminded of the recent HSBC scam that went on for months, and, had these laws been in place, I can guarantee that the losses accrued to Australians and, in fact, citizens elsewhere in the world would've not occurred because there would have been a legal obligation on that bank to take a proactive action to disrupt the scam and take more action to protect their consumers and their customers.</para>
<para>The legislation provides a 28-day protection (a safe harbour, if you like) for regulated entities taking proportionate action to disrupt scams in good faith. The safe harbour protection enables timely and decisive disruption action, whilst setting clear guardrails and parameters to ensure that third parties are protected from ongoing disruptive action where they are not involved in a scam activity.</para>
<para>Detecting and disrupting scams will require investment in advanced monitoring systems and prompt content removal or other relevant disruptive action. It will also involve providing consumers with better education and awareness activities.</para>
<para>SPF principle 6: respond.Regulated entities must have an accessible way for consumers to report scams, to raise a complaint about a scam or about the regulated entities conduct relating to scam activities.</para>
<para>There must be internal dispute resolution processes. These are intended to provide regulated entities with an opportunity to assess their conduct and resolve the consumer's complaint in a timely manner—not optional, mandatory. Banks have them in place at the moment. Most telecommunications companies have them in place at the moment. In social media platforms, try and find a front door to raise your complaints if you suspect that you've been a victim of a scam—almost impossible.</para>
<para>Regulated entities must have regard to processes prescribed by the SPF rules and any guidelines for apportioning liability arising from the complaint.</para>
<para>Regulated entities must also be a member of an external dispute resolution scheme authorised by the Minister which provides consumers a clear pathway to escalate scams related complaints and seek redress.</para>
<para>The government has announced that it intends to authorise the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) as the single external dispute resolution scheme for the three initial sectors to offer an independent, free, impartial and fair mechanism for consumers to escalate their complaints and seek redress. AFCA will be required to report serious and systemic scam issues to regulators, as well as report circumstances where parties fail to give effect to a determination in a complaint case.</para>
<para>This will provide clear reporting channels and support for victims. It will also embed transparency and accountability in the process. No such complaint mechanism exists for most scam victims at the moment. This will change.</para>
<para>Codes</para>
<para>The SPF principles will be supported by SPF codes tailored for each regulated sector.</para>
<para>An SPF code will set out detailed obligations specific to a regulated sector. This recognises that each regulated sector faces unique challenges with respect to scams and enables obligations to reflect those relevant circumstances. I've already reflected upon some of the contents of those codes. They'll be different for banks to telecommunications companies to social media platforms because the vectors are different, the threats are different, but the obligation to ensure that they are keeping their customers safe will be the same.</para>
<para>The obligations in an SPF code are not intended to be an exhaustive list of requirements that an entity must follow to comply with SPF principles.</para>
<para>SPF codes create only minimum standards for that sector, which an entity may be required to go beyond to comply with the SPF principles where it is facing a specific, targeted, and heightened risk of scam activity related to its regulated services.</para>
<para>Regulation and Enforcement</para>
<para>The bill establishes a multiregulator model for regulation and enforcement which recognises existing regulatory relationships and the existing roles and expertise of various regulators which is valuable for the effective administration of tailored sector obligations. Under the laws:</para>
<list>The ACCC will oversee and enforce the SPF principles as well as the digital platforms SPF code.</list>
<list>The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) will oversee and enforce the banking SPF code.</list>
<list>The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will oversee and enforce the telecommunications SPF code.</list>
<para>The bill imposes strong incentives for regulated entities to prevent, detect and deter scams. Maximum civil penalties—which are currently set at over $50 million per breach—may be imposed in regard to obligations where breaches would be the most egregious and have the most significant impact on consumers.</para>
<para>High penalties are intended to be an effective incentive for compliance across all sectors of the economy and provide a deterrent where higher possible gains could be made by regulated entities by breaching the SPF.</para>
<para>Regulators will also be able to use other compliance tools such as infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, injunctions, public warnings and remedial directions. Additionally, regulators could seek redress for harm or damages on behalf of victims where they pursue court action for the breach of an obligation (s58FZC(2)).</para>
<para>Consumers can also bring claims in court to recover loss or damages. Where this occurs courts will be able to consider the role of multiple service providers connected to a scam and apportion liability between them. Courts are required to prioritise payment of redress to the scam victim over payment of penalties for breaches (s58FD).</para>
<para>The SPF is being introduced as part of a broader effort to modernise Australia's laws for the digital age and the consumer protection agenda—and I pay tribute to my other colleagues who are working in this area, including the Minister for Home Affairs, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Communications. This includes reforms to Australia's:</para>
<list>privacy laws;</list>
<list>payment systems modernisation;</list>
<list>money-laundering and cybersecurity settings;</list>
<list>online safety measures;</list>
<list>safe and responsible use of artificial intelligence;</list>
<list>product safety standards;</list>
<list>unfair trading practices; and</list>
<list>the Digital ID system.</list>
<para>The bill will also support the government and industry in international engagement and collaboration by enabling the sharing of scam intelligence across regulated entities, law enforcement and regulators in Australia, and supporting international enforcement action to disrupt illicit scam activities.</para>
<para>Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.</para>
<para>I want to take this opportunity to thank the colleagues from Treasury who are present in the chamber, who have been working hard over the last year and a half on all the policy work and the legislative preparation to ensure that this bill could be brought before the House today. I also want to pay tribute to those bodies that will be regulated entities once this bill passes into law. There has been extensive consultation with the telecommunications sector, the banking sector, social media, peak and individual organisations, and, of course, all of the consumer groups, together with colleagues from across the House.</para>
<para>This is an important piece of law. As it stands today, if trends continue, Australians will lose an average of $7 million a day to criminal scams. That imposes a very high obligation on all of us in this place to ensure that this bill is passed into law. It can be done by the end of the month. If it is done by the end of the month, we can ensure that consumers can go into Christmas with peace of mind, knowing that they live in a country which has the strongest scam prevention laws of anywhere in the world.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7239" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.' So said George Orwell in his novel <inline font-style="italic">Nineteen Eighty-Four</inline>. That was written in 1949, in post World War II Britain, about a dystopian future in 1984. This might be a surprise: I was around in 1984, and it didn't happen then.</para>
<para>Who, in this place and in this country, would have thought that part of that dystopian work of fiction—the 'Ministry of Truth'—would be implemented by the Albanese Labor government? The idea, even the concept, that a public servant in a department would determine what a fact is and whether someone can have an opinion or a reasonable belief is a yawning chasm. It is incredibly dangerous to this country. I, for one, cannot believe this is being put forward; I really can't.</para>
<para>This nation—in fact, Western democracies, for centuries—has been built on freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It also has centuries of law to protect individuals, to ensure they can't be vilified. The better approach would be to find a way for those centuries of law, those centuries of precedent, those centuries of other cases to be utilised in what is now a normal platform, a digital platform. I think that would be completely understandable.</para>
<para>But one must ask the question as to why the urgency for this bill now? In what is clearly the last days of the Albanese government, as they come towards the end of this term, why the urgency to put this bill through? Well, if you look at some of the components, things that could be considered to 'cause serious harm', the material that might be captured in those elements, include, would you believe, misinformation in elections.</para>
<para>If the Labor Party were so concerned about misinformation in elections, perhaps they might have taken action against their own party in Queensland. I want to give some examples as to where this applies. In the last Queensland election we saw what I found to be an absolutely disgraceful campaign around abortion. This is something so sensitive, so personal, and yet we saw the Labor member for Bundaberg utilise campaign slogans which were, firstly, completely untrue; secondly, false; and, thirdly, absolutely disturbing for many of the female voters. The ALP would use lines like, 'Don't let the LNP jail women for having an abortion.' There is no need to implement legislation like this to stop that behaviour. The Labor Party could have done it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's in the US now!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear the interjection, but this is not the United States. This is Australia. It was completely unnecessary; it shouldn't have been done and you don't need legislation like this to prevent it.</para>
<para>But it's not just around what can be utilised in election time. Let's look at things like banks. With this legislation in place, could we have got the banking royal commission, which found so many offences, so many things that needed to be addressed? If the individuals that fought for the banking royal commission had been silenced, as they could be under this legislation, we would never have gotten to the point where those things were addressed, where banks were found to have done absolutely unlawful activities before they got fixed. I come back to the point I made earlier: the oppressed will never know that they've been oppressed if they have nothing to compare it to. Will this end up in the equivalent of digital book-burning, because someone who is not an academic puts forward a view that the government of the day decides is unacceptable and they're removed from digital platforms?</para>
<para>I am 100 per cent supportive of eliminating bullying and fake information from online platforms. The easiest way to do that is to be able to utilise existing laws, and the easiest way to do that is to ensure there are no fake accounts. Your digital, online life is your real life. If you want to make comments, that's fine, but it should be as you, as a verified account. This means everyone knows who it is that makes those comments, that you can be found and prosecuted under existing laws, just as you would if you express those opinions in a newspaper, for example, or you went on to a television station and said something similar.</para>
<para>We also have the issue around referendums. We've just recently been through a referendum. There are those out there who claim that the referendum was defeated because of misinformation. I clearly remember the member for Melbourne having a shot at me on <inline font-style="italic">Q+A</inline> about some of the advertising that I utilised in the referendum, claiming it was misinformation. It wasn't. It was based on actual legislation that was implemented in the Western Australian state government and applied. That was later withdrawn because it was a mistake, but it was factual. The idea that any government would be able to determine what your reasonable belief is, and prevent you from having it, is an incredibly slippery and dangerous slope.</para>
<para>And then we find in the legislation that there's the ability for the minister to exempt digital platforms. Well, here's a couple of proposals. For example, would this Labor government exempt a digital platform for the CFMEU, who we know have been found and convicted for criminal offences? This legislation would allow the government of the day to exempt a CFMEU digital platform. This is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation.</para>
<para>I will use one example of the treatment of academics and scientists which is very well-known—the views of Peter Ridd, for which he was removed from his place at university in Queensland. I don't necessarily agree with all of his views but I agree with his absolute right to have them. If I recall one of his elements correctly, Mr Ridd made the point that an entire flood season for a year in Queensland is the equivalent of one tide into the Great Barrier Reef, one wash-through, and that sounds a pretty commonsense approach to me. How would ACMA, which would have information-gathering powers, go about perhaps getting a warrant? At what level will that apply? Looking at advice and comments from experts in the field, I will go to the New South Wales solicitor-general, Michael Sexton, who said about this legislation, 'It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgement about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgement.'</para>
<para>I will come back to the referendum. The Australian people informed themselves and made a decision and that decision should be respected because it was the majority belief of the people who were able to vote in this country and that is what our democratic system is about. Of course we should protect the minorities but all governments of any stripe should govern for the majority of the people and their views, not tell them what their views are, not prevent them from having a reasonable belief, not prevent them from putting forward that view in whatever platform they wish. As I continue to make the point, I am totally accepting that online platforms are part of your actual life but you should be identified, you should have verified accounts, and, whether or not the big Meta operators like that, to be honest, I really don't care.</para>
<para>This is a very dangerous bill. I think the Australian people, once informed, will oppose it. I come to the question that I asked earlier: Why the urgency on this bill? Why now? Why does it need to be put forward? The sceptic in me that has been in place for 11 years says it is all about the next federal election and whether the government of the day can control the message, the thoughts, the reasonable beliefs of the Australian people. I find that unacceptable and I will oppose this bill. I will continue to oppose it, as I have done from the day that the concept was put forward, because it is not in our nation's interest, it is not in the people of Australia's interest that they cannot have their reasonable belief, that they cannot put forward their view and that they cannot have freedom of speech. We should not support this bill in this place or the other place and, if it is successfully passed, we should fight it and, if we win government next year, we should repeal it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a woeful piece of legislation. It is a woeful piece of legislation from a grossly incompetent government, incompetent on so many fronts that the list is getting so long it would be hard to read out in the time that I have allocated for this speech, which is 15 minutes. We are here debating and discussing this when we should be dealing with cost-of-living crisis, when we should be dealing with an immigration crisis, when we should be dealing with an infrastructure crisis which has seen roads deteriorate across this nation, when we should be dealing with a health crisis where we're not seeing the doctors that we need being put in place and when we should be dealing with issues that go to the heart of what the Australian people are feeling in their day-to-day lives—the fact that their standard of living has just declined at rates that we haven't seen in decades. The fact that we're not dealing with those issues and instead are dealing with an issue where the government wants to try and censor the people is completely and utterly beyond the pale.</para>
<para>The coalition will oppose this bill because the government keeps getting it wrong. The government tried to bring in a first bill and had to withdraw it because it was such a bad piece of legislation. They've now brought in this second bill, and, once again, if they were going to do the right thing by the Australian people, they would pull this bill as well, because there are so many fundamental flaws in it that it's not funny.</para>
<para>Let's start with the process. They put out an exposure draft of this bill. Guess how many days they gave people to comment? Less than a week. It beggars belief that for such an important piece of legislation—it goes to the heart of our democracy and the heart of our society, which is the ability of people to exercise free speech—people were given a week to be able to file in their thoughts, their comments and their feedback. It was a bad process for such an important bill.</para>
<para>Then there was bad decision-making. The minister can personally order misinformation investigations and misinformation hearings. If that sounds draconian to you, it sounds draconian because it is. What are the guidelines for the minister? What are the guardrails for the minister? What's to stop the minister abusing these powers? These are the sorts of powers that you'd think that this government would be fighting against, especially in today's geopolitical climate, where we're seeing the rise of totalitarian regimes. Yet here they are trying to put in place powers which would be more at home in those types of regimes than they would be here.</para>
<para>The minister may exempt digital platforms. As the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, said, if the CFMEU had a digital platform, the minister could exempt that. What could anyone do about that? That's a very good question. Who decides which digital platforms we can have in this country and which ones we can't? The minister. I think it's a requirement of every Labor Party MP in this country to be backed by a union of some sort. So do you think the minister, if they're backed by a particular union, is going to say, 'No, sorry, your digital platform needs to be brought down because of misinformation'? No. The minister can pick and choose, and that is deeply concerning.</para>
<para>There's the unequal treatment of content. Academics, scientists, artists and parody or satire are exempt, except the views of everyday Australians aren't. There are so many holes in this that it is not even worth bearing consideration, because all it will lead to is all of us turning into everyday comics. Everyone will start using satire or parody to get their point across. Half the time when they're being serious on that side, we think they're practising parody or satire, but in this instance they're actually legislating for it. You'll be able to spread misinformation or disinformation through bad parody, bad jokes and bad satire, and who will decide whether it is or isn't? Of course, it'll be the minister. How does that work for everyday Australians?</para>
<para>It's almost incomprehensible how this has been drafted, because it is completely and utterly unworkable, and the only thing it will be used for is to shut down people trying to express a firmly held view. It could be a firmly held view when it comes to a political belief, a religious belief or a civil belief. Those views can be shut down. This is not the sort of country that everyday Australians want to live in. They want to be able to express their views. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of Australians now who worry that they can't freely express themselves. With this, that will get even more worrying and more concerning for them. I say to the government: please come to the dispatch box and explain how, when it comes to artists, parody or satire, that is going to work when it comes to this bill? It is clear and obvious that it won't.</para>
<para>There's also the unequal treatment of content, so-called professional news content. If something appears in professional news content, effectively mainstream media, it cannot be misinformation. But, if the same view or a contrary view were put outside of professional news content, it could be misinformation. How does this work? You could have exactly the same view as an everyday Australian and put that view, and that could be misinformation. Yet, if a mainstream media outlet expresses exactly the same view, that's fine. How is this workable? How is this manageable? Once again, who makes the decision as to whether or not it is misinformation or disinformation? That is the real question that needs to be answered.</para>
<para>Another concern that we have is that the bill gives ACMA so-called information-gathering powers. The bill gives ACMA powers to require digital platforms to provide it with information relevant to misinformation and disinformation. The bill extends ACMA's information-gathering powers to individuals who work for or are otherwise associated with digital platforms. Employees, contractors and fact checkers are subject to these powers. ACMA can use these powers if it thinks the person may have information or a document relevant to misinformation. The person must hand over documents to ACMA as requested or face fines of more than $9,000.</para>
<para>I assume that the minister has spoken to ACMA about whether they want these powers or not and whether, as an entity, this is the type of enforcing that ACMA should be doing. Does it have the relevant skills to investigate? Does it have the relevant skills to gather information? Does it have the relevant powers to be able to do this and then to fine? It is not something that ACMA was set up to do at all, and yet here we are giving this organisation these types of powers. Where are the guardrails? Who oversees whether ACMA are using these powers correctly or not? Who's directing ACMA? If I asked anyone in this building, I don't think anyone outside of about a handful would know who the managing director of ACMA is or who sits on their board, if they have a board or who works in that organisation. This is all of a sudden giving quite extraordinary powers to an organisation that no-one knows anything about. It is quite extraordinary.</para>
<para>As a result, people are raising serious concerns about this piece of legislation. The New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">References to Orwell's 1984 have become something of a cliche over the years but there is a sinister suggestion of its thesis in proposed legislation that is designed to sanitise public debate on a range of political issues …</para></quote>
<para>You cannot get more damning.</para>
<para>The Victorian Bar association said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Bill's interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services …</para></quote>
<para>That is damning. The Victorian barrister and Voltaire Society president Peter A Clark was quoted in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline>as saying the changes to the bill were the equivalent of putting 'lipstick on a pig'. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… this bill is unsatisfactory. If the government says there are deficiencies in our laws relating to political speech, then it should introduce a Bill to parliament dealing with those deficiencies.</para></quote>
<para>It goes on and on.</para>
<para>I think the most damning thing is what the feedback has been from people on the street. I can tell you that, in my electorate of Wannon, the feedback that I have had has all been one way. I thank every single constituent who has emailed me, written me or called my office about this bill. While they have deep concerns about the government's complete inadequacy in dealing with cost of living, infrastructure and making sure we have enough doctors, they also have deep, deep concerns about the government stepping in to control what they think and, in particular, their political expressions and the political views that they would like to express. It's why we in the coalition oppose this bill. It is why, if we are elected at the next election, we will make sure that we rip it up, because this is bad legislation being put through this parliament by a bad government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to add my voice to the hundreds of thousands of Australians—progressive, conservative, left and right—who have all indicated their strenuous opposition to this Albanese Labor government's attempt to curtail our freedom of speech and expression. This bill that we are debating, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, is the second attempt by the Labor government to regulate freedom of speech in Australia—individual citizens' online speech. They have done it a different way, but it is no less threatening to our ability to think, express and judge than the previous bill, which was opposed by over 20,000 submissions and groups across Australia.</para>
<para>I have had form in this. I have opposed these sorts of bills since I came to this parliament as a young person. People will remember the Rudd government's internet filter, which every technical expert said could not work, would not work and would not filter the internet, and yet the Rudd government pursued this vainglorious and stupid attempt to filter the internet. We had to fight that then and we had to defeat it. As a parliament now, whether you're progressive, whether you're conservative or whether you're from the Left or Right, we need to rise up and oppose this bill, and join the chorus of Australians who have paid attention to this and who understand that the government's function is not to regulate in a free society the content of peoples' minds. It isn't their role to arbitrate over the free thought, free expression and free speech of people. You're getting that from every quarter of Australian politics and Australian society in opposition to this bill. It's universal. There is no support for this bill, yet the government cannot take the cue to understand that combating misinformation and disinformation pertains to foreign powers trying to interfere in Australia and to malign actors from overseas interfering in Australia. That's what a properly constructed legislative regime should look like—not regulating in a free country our individual citizens, our private groups and our freedom of thought, worship and speech.</para>
<para>This misinformation bill that the government is desperate to get through reveals their agenda. Why is the government so desperate to pass a misinformation bill on our own citizenry? When you look at the notable failures recently—and I will certainly call out both sides when they've failed on this—I had great scepticism about the appointment of an esafety commissioner, and I was convinced about it because it would pertain to the protection of children. However, what we saw from the eSafety Commissioner is another example of what will happen under this bill, when the eSafety Commissioner decided to take legal action against an international platform, X, with Australian taxpayers' money to challenge a jurisdiction which she has no control over and which Australia has no control over.</para>
<para>The humiliating backdown of the eSafety Commissioner is another example of what will happen if the communications media authority, ACMA, is given power over Australians' decision-making. There will be litigation. They will take action against our citizens, and they will take action against platforms because they haven't taken action against our citizens. Why do we need this bill? It's a fundamental question. Why do we actually need it?</para>
<para>An honourable member: Elections!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes—my colleague says, 'Elections.' This bill does cover elections and political thought, clearly in violation even of the United Nations. I'm not a big fan of the United Nations in general, but the United Nations rapporteur has belled it correctly when he calls out that this kind of misinformation bill and this kind of misinformation violate international principles of people's ability to speak freely and to think freely. Even the United Nations has said this would be a violation of the right to free speech. So, when we ask why is this bill happening, the answer seems to be that this is a bill from a government that is obsessed with silencing opposition or having the ability to intimidate commentary that disagrees with its agenda, which is what any citizen in a free society should be inherently sceptical of.</para>
<para>When you look at modern examples of regimes like China which have total control over the internet and total control over thought and expression, or regimes like Iran, where they turn off the internet when there is a protest or riots—they simply turn off the platforms and turn off access to the platforms—it is terrifying. It is the Orwellian example that was written about many years ago coming to life now in the digital age when government without restraint, government without control and government that isn't controlled by the people and the citizenry in an affected society can do terrifying things to its own citizens. Imagine living in Russia, Iran or China and trying to express a different political view online, trying to access digital content or trying to test the government's provided information?</para>
<para>The key failing of this bill is that it assumes, incorrectly, that the government are the people who can decide what is misinformation and disinformation. I would suggest that government records throughout history suggest that the government is as guilty of disinformation and misinformation as any other body, privately constructed, or individuals. It is absolutely stunning to think that the government could think that the ACMA, an unelected body, would have arbitrary power to decide what it regards as misinformation. Having had some exposure to ACMA through government and through the executive of the federal government, I will go a little bit further than some of my colleagues and say the ACMA is completely incapable of fulfilling this function. They have neither the people you would trust, if you met them, to make a determination about misinformation or disinformation nor the technical capacity in terms of the digital age, when people from the private sector are on X or Facebook or other major platforms.</para>
<para>It's no reflection on ACMA. They are simply good people doing their own work inside the communications portfolio of the Australian government, but they are simply unable to fulfil the function that this legislation would give them power to arbitrate. It is our role as a parliament to say: 'Take a step back. They should not have that power in the first place.' We don't want government bureaucrats to have the power to decide what is misinformation in our private interactions online. It is, of course, assuming that people are stupid. It's an assumption which the Democrats have made in the United States, to their discredit in recent times, and the US public have seen through that. The Labor government here is assuming that people are uneducated and that people can't make their own judgements about information they receive online.</para>
<para>I think that is a false assumption and a dangerous assumption for a government. Think through the consequences of saying, 'The government knows better than you what you should be thinking and what you should be saying online and what is dangerous to you.' It is a false assumption, and I think it's something that everybody—Left, Right, progressive or conservative—can accept is dangerous. That's why the Senate committees have recommended several times that this bill not be passed. That's every committee that's looked at it. There's another one coming. I guarantee you, without pre-empting that committee, they'll also agree, whether they are Left, Right, progressive or conservative, that there is danger in this bill.</para>
<para>Yet there is one group of people in Australia not listening, and that is the Albanese Labor government. It is not listening to anybody in our society about this bill. It's not listening at all. What is the moral justification for a misinformation and disinformation bill about our own citizenry in our country, Australia? I believe most people are able to make their own judgements about information. They have so far done so very well. They're able to think through these things.</para>
<para>We might need laws to combat foreign powers using money to deceptively promote misinformation, and, certainly, that can happen in elections. We have foreign interference laws and foreign donation bans. We have passed many good laws to prevent malign actors from interfering in our polity or our information flow, yet here the government is saying government bureaucrats will now be the supreme authority in relation to the correctness of information.</para>
<para>We don't need these laws, and we don't need this bill. But the government is not listening to anybody, whether they are Left, Right, progressive or conservative. It's not listening to one submission. It's not listening to the United Nations for once. We must listen to the United Nations on everything else, but not on this, according to the Labor government. We need to take the time to have a look again, and I would encourage Australians everywhere to wake up in relation to this bill. Australians have a very laid-back culture. We take our freedom for granted; we take our free society for granted; we take our freedom of thought, speech and worship for granted. We assume that we have freedom.</para>
<para>Every bill like this that passes the parliament curtails individual thought and expression. That's why all my colleagues are here today opposing it. That's why the Liberals and the Nationals have opposed this bill so vehemently because a bill that's supposed to be about misinformation from foreign actors and bad people interfering within Australia has become about Australians' freedom of expression. It's somehow become about what we say and think to each other and that somehow the ACMA is going to know better what we should be saying and thinking to each other. I think we all know where this goes, so we will certainly oppose this bill.</para>
<para>Again, I highlight the case of the eSafety Commissioner from personal experience. As a former multicultural affairs minister, it must have been 15 minutes after the tragic stabbing of Mar Mari Emmanuel in south-western Sydney occurred—before I'd seen it on the news—that I had received the video of the incident from contacts within the Assyrian community and faith communities. It was circulating rapidly. In this day and age, that's completely normal. People circulate content. They share, in good faith, information with each other to say, 'Look what's happened down here.' Yes, it's terrifying. Yes, it's disturbing content. Yes, it's concerning. But we are all adults, and we are all familiar with this process in 2024. There are upsides to it; there are downsides to it.</para>
<para>But the government is naive to think that somehow a bill or a regulator can interrupt those interactions and stop them. We shouldn't attempt to set bureaucrats up over those processes because they will fail, like they do even in tyrannical regimes like Iran and China. Information gets through; information is circulated. Information will continue to circulate. But, in a free, democratic Western society, we should not attempt to have government bureaucrats sitting between those processes.</para>
<para>When the eSafety Commissioner issued the orders to stop that content, it was well after the fact. The horse hadn't bolted; the stable had bolted. The entire Melbourne Cup field was galloping all over the country. Then the eSafety Commissioner said, 'Oh, we need to stop this content,' after millions of people had seen it. Compliance with Australian orders is one thing, but taking legal action internationally is, again, an example of a government appointed bureaucrat, which has a track record of taking legal action internationally on jurisdictional questions against this particular company, extending their mandate without authority and without the consent of the people to do so. That isn't an isolated example or incident. It is an example of what will happen with the ACMA. It's an example of what will happen if we pass these laws.</para>
<para>Government overreach is the biggest danger in these sorts of things, and the construction of this bill, the provisions that this bill has put in place to hold the power to regulate what they do and how they behave over digital platforms, will mean they have the power over us. It is not power that we want to give the government. It's not power that we want to give those free-speech platforms. It's not power that we want ACMA, in particular, to hold.</para>
<para>The government, of course, refuses to listen. The Labor government is pushing ahead with misinformation and disinformation, saying that the Australian people are generating the misinformation and disinformation. The fact that elections, referendums—we've just had one—public health preventive health measures and imminent harm to the economy or financial markets are just some of the topics that will be covered by this bill is chilling. It ought to be chilling to people in Australia today. We've enjoyed the ability to speak freely, to think freely and to worship freely. Each one of these bills that gets passed will see more and more of these litigated cases from government bureaucrats, which will curtail our freedom of speech. So today I rise with my colleagues to oppose it.</para>
<para>I think the best thing that can happen now is the government scratches this bill for a second time—listens to every progressive organisation in the country and every conservative organisation in the country, Left and Right, which are aligned in 20,000 submissions against what the government is doing in their approach. Rewrite the bill to what it's supposed to be: curtail malign influence that is not genuine from overseas and onshore people that are doing it deliberately to deceive or misinform. It is not appropriate to set up a government regulator or bureaucrat over the Australian people and over their good judgment and their ability to freely access information. That's why you have unions, former union leaders, civil liberties councils, lawyers, law bodies, the United Nations, health officers and people from a wide variety of places not just sounding the alarm bell but actively opposing the Albanese government's approach on this bill.</para>
<para>I say to every Australian that you only have one recourse in the next six months. The government intends to pass this bill. The Liberal and National parties will oppose it vehemently through the House and the Senate. But Labor with their allies, the Greens, have the capacity to pass this law. If passed into law, every single Australian that is concerned about this bill and the government's approach to regulating their freedom of speech needs to go to the next federal election to fight the Labor Party and to defeat them at government. We have committed to repealing this legislation. We've committed to fixing it if the government passes it. There are millions of Australians already concerned. There will be millions more when this bill comes into operation, I can assure you, and when the ACMA starts determining things about freedom of speech. To every one of those Australians, I say to you that the power is with you through this parliament at the next election. Do not forget that this Labor government's main priority is to regulate your free speech and your freedom of thought.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I make my contribution, I will echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues to this most appalling bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. First, I want to put on the record that this is a seriously bad piece of legislation. It is a continued attack on the rights of the Australian people and free speech in this country. Truth in politics has always been important to me. With current advertising trending towards short, catchy sound bites, it deeply concerns me that the truth gets lost in our modern media. Our younger generation are particularly vulnerable, with platforms such as TikTok delivering super short messages without context behind the issues that face everyday Australians. The Labor Party in its recent Queensland election campaign ran an advertising blitz on the LNP, suggesting that they were going to privatise health services and take away women's reproductive rights, the new 'Mediscare' campaign. The Labor Party, in its recent Queensland election campaign, ran an advertising blitz on the LNP, suggesting that they are going to privatise health services and take away women's reproductive rights—the new 'Mediscare' campaign, so to speak. The pressure to influence our voters is intense. With compulsory voting for the upcoming federal election, it is an ideal time to encourage our families and younger generations to look deeper into the issues and do some research. Almost everyone has a smartphone and the ability to search for the truth behind these matters. Read the full story and make your own judgement on issues that affect how you vote.</para>
<para>This leads me to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which is currently being debated in federal parliament. Wherever you sit on the political spectrum, you should be concerned about this bill. It's not a Left-versus-Right issue. Criticism has come from all corners, from leading legal bodies to human rights commissions, civil liberty groups and even the media union. In the meantime, we already have seen the Labor Party freely use the term 'misinformation' to try and silence those who do not share their political view. We know that the government have been overwhelmed by large numbers of submissions on their bill. They conveniently delay releasing them publicly until a time of their choosing. Concerningly, this legislation directly involves the government in political communication. Under this bill, the minister may exclude any platform from the operation of the bill, so a digital site that has politics favoured by a government could be excluded, providing unfair advantage to a political party and providing skewed information to those wanting to be informed. More than 20,000 Australians made submissions and comments opposing this bill.</para>
<para>The new version of the bill gives the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, powers to require digital platforms to take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. Under the bill, ACMA does not make rulings on whether a particular piece of content is misinformation or disinformation. Rather, it gives powers to determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. If ACMA determines that a platform is not taking adequate steps, it can issue fines of up to five per cent of a company's global turnover. This legislation creates a huge financial incentive for social media platforms to remove comments made by Australians, even if those statements are made in good faith, essentially stifling free speech in Australia. Digital platforms risk big fines if they do not comply with digital platform rules and/or industry codes and misinformation standards. ACMA will determine whether or not a digital platform is compliant with the legislation in order to avoid the risk of fines. It would make sense for digital platforms to censor content which ACMA may see as disinformation or misinformation. In doing so, it is likely that platforms will self-censor the legitimately held views of Australians. The government has misfired badly on this important issue, and freedom of expression is under threat in Australia.</para>
<para>The coalition has been reviewing this new version of the bill, and we have significant concerns. One of the issues is that, while academic statements are exempt from being labelled as misinformation, the honestly held opinions of everyday Australians can be censored under this legislation. Censorship undermines the democratic principle of free speech and stifles creativity and the exchange of ideas. When individuals have their opinions censored, it can lead to distrust of the government. The coalition will fight Labor's misinformation bill because, just like their first attempt, it is an appalling attack on free speech here in Australia.</para>
<para>Already we have seen top lawyers slam the bill. The Victorian Bar association has made a scathing submission, which warned the bill would undermine free speech by encouraging 'chilling self-censorship' and stifling discussions of 'sensitive or controversial' views. The New South Wales Solicitor-General says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">References to Orwell's 1984 have become something of a cliche over the years but there is a sinister suggestion of its thesis in proposed legislation that is designed to sanitise public debate on a range of political issues so any debate that does occur accords with the views of a group of government-appointed bureaucrats.</para></quote>
<para>The Victorian barrister and Voltaire Society president was quoted in <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline> as saying the changes to the bill were the equivalent of 'putting lipstick on a pig' and expanding the legislation to capture political content was a change for the 'worse'. Politics involves a lot of commentary and a lot of loose language and it doesn't necessarily mean it's disinformation or misinformation.</para>
<para>The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… this bill is unsatisfactory. If the government says there are deficiencies in our laws relating to political speech, then it should introduce a bill to parliament dealing with those deficiencies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… … …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The government's role as an intellectual arbiter of the truth in social and political debate must be constricted, if not completely denied. This is based on deep scepticism about the good faith of those controlling the government.</para></quote>
<para>Professor Nick Coatsworth, former deputy chief health officer, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The terms 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' have become overused in public discourse and are employed by both left and right as a way to dismiss opposing viewpoints without engaging in debate. In an era where our limited attention spans hinder reasoned discussion, these terms have become shortcuts to shutting down conversation.</para></quote>
<para>… … …</para>
<quote><para class="block">Rather than seeking to impose the truth upon the public through legislation, we must focus on equipping our communities with the tools to critically assess and judge information for themselves.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Christian Lobby said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is no excuse for what is proposed in this bill.</para></quote>
<para>… … …</para>
<quote><para class="block">Where the government should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, it will instead require social media to control our public discourse. From public health to politics to the economy and ideology, how this bill defines harm will determine what you are allowed to say online.</para></quote>
<para>The Minister for Communications has existing powers which could now be used under the misinformation bill to order ACMA to conduct specific investigations. The minister can also order public hearings. The only constraint on that power is that it cannot relate to a particular content posted on a digital communications platform by a single end user identifiable by the ACMA. This power is wide open to political abuse and is inconsistent with basic democratic values. The government is trying to rush this legislation through and gave people barely a week to get their submissions into the Senate inquiry. We understand there have been many thousands of submissions made to the Senate inquiry but barely a fraction of those have been uploaded for public view. The communications minister is reported to have warned that there would be a devastating consequence should her rejigged legislation not be passed by the end of the year. This is alarmist and desperate language from a government that has had more than two years to address these issues. The coalition stands firmly opposed to Labor's misinformation bill because we believe in free speech and we will fight to defend those rights. This Labor government will not, and they will pursue.</para>
<para>There is a broad definition of 'serious harm' mentioned in this legislation. It is possible that a large amount of material could be captured as 'serious harm'—elections, referendums, public health, preventative health measures, imminent harm to the economy and financial markets and so on. It is appalling that there would be one rule for government MPs and another for everyday Australians who just want to have their say, including members of the opposition. The coalition's focus is on Labor's bill because that's what is before parliament right now. We are holding this bad government to account. This bill is a shocking attack on free speech and the government is trying to ram it through parliament this year. I've had many constituents contact my office with their concerns around this bill. We are all concerned about the spread of misinformation and this is not the solution.</para>
<para>New polling data released by the Institute of Public Affairs shows that 65 per cent of Australians said they are concerned misinformation laws will be used by government officials for political purposes; 69 per cent of Australians said they are concerned misinformation laws will be used by social media companies for political purposes. Australians are firming in their support to protect freedom of speech as the debate around proposed misinformation laws goes on. Forty-five per cent believe free speech should be protected, even if this means wrong, inaccurate or false information is public; just 34 per cent disagree. This compares with 38 per cent who agreed and 37 per cent who disagreed in May 2024. Young Australians are most opposed to the federal government's proposed online censorship laws, with the majority of Australians aged between 18 and 34 believing that freedom of speech should be protected online.</para>
<para>As shadow minister for communications David Coleman stated in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Democracies move forward by debating ideas. Progress is achieved through applying sunlight to ideas, not censoring them. Of course, the democratic process can be untidy. People hold unfashionable opinions that we might not hold ourselves. That's OK. After all, sometimes the unfashionable opinions turn out to be right.</para></quote>
<para>Labor's misinformation bill is a clear threat to this free exchange of ideas.</para>
<para>Understanding the immense and obvious risk, comparable countries to Australia do not have laws like this. For example, the United States and the United Kingdom do not have laws remotely like those the Albanese government is proposing. As the federal member for Flynn, I know that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental principles of a democratic society. Changes to the laws in this area involve a complex area of policy, and overreach by government must be avoided.</para>
<para>Our democracy has been formed on freedom of speech, and the coalition will always fight for this fundamental right of our people. 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' is a statement often attributed to Voltaire, a 16th-century freedom-of-speech advocate. The idea of protecting freedom of speech has been around for a very long time, and we should, as a parliament, continue the defence of freedom of speech. This is an appalling bill, and it should be opposed and condemned at all costs.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to add my voice and objection to the bill before the House, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. We've heard from numerous speakers about this bill and the nature of it. I must say that I think that, in my eight years of coming to this place and serving the people of Wide Bay, this is one of the most dangerous bills and most grievous attacks on what we hold close in our nation and what makes us great as a nation—the element of free speech.</para>
<para>This version of the bill gives the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, powers to require digital platforms to take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. Under the bill, ACMA does not make rulings on whether a particular piece of content is misinformation or disinformation. Rather, it is given powers to determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. If ACMA determines that a platform is not taking adequate steps, it can issue fines of up to five per cent of the company's global turnover.</para>
<para>The ubiquitous nature of the internet places it in all of our lives, and it's ever increasing. We didn't rely on it for much at all 20 years ago. It was only a minor part of our lives. But it has become an important part of our lives on many levels. In terms of safety, governments rely on it to convey a message. In terms of communication, when my predecessor started in this place in 1990, the way you got your message across was in the letters to the editor in the newspaper. That was the forum, and it took much time. But now we've evolved. The discussion happens in real time and online, and that is a good thing. People have the opportunity to discuss, and sometimes they do get it wrong in those discussions. Sometimes they will unintentionally put something forward that may not be right, but they should not be committing an offence, particularly where there is no intent. But this bill certainly puts those in charge of platforms in a position where they will receive a penalty if they allow that to happen. That will have the consequence of dumbing down free speech. This, for me, is a digital version of the burning of the books. It worries me tremendously.</para>
<para>Of course, you need some regulation within this environment; it has its great dangers. Recently this Albanese government was dragged kicking and screaming to age verification for young people, so we'll have safeguards for young people accessing pornography and gambling sites. That's good. They're the sorts of regulations and rules that we need. They actually help society. But this bill is clearly an attack on free speech and an attack on everyday citizens who want to engage in that. Instead of encouraging people to speak, to use their words to make their point, we have a government that is shutting them down. This is the sort of stuff you see in Russia and in China. This is not Australia. This is absolutely frightening.</para>
<para>My constituents have inundated me with their concerns about this bill, and I share them. I share the concerns of the 20,000 people that gave feedback to the initial draft that went out, which this bill is a rehash of. I share those concerns because those concerns are real. This is poor legislation.</para>
<para>The misinformation definition is one that is broad and open to interpretation. As I said before, it captures opinions that can be made in good faith. How is that happening in a democracy like Australia? Something that's said in good faith is now an offence, and someone's going to be fined for not shutting it down.</para>
<para>On the serious harm element of this bill, the broad definition of 'serious harm', we've got very recent and stark examples where this applies. Serious harm can occur in the environment of an election or a referendum. Now, that's a good one. We all lived through the recent referendum on the Voice, and the use of the term 'misinformation' there was absolutely extraordinary. We had a government who were providing no information. Typically, you're discouraged from making a negative inference on something, but there are times when it's valid to make a negative inference—when a government has information they're not sharing with you and when they're not answering the questions. We saw this with the Voice, with the construction of what they were proposing. It was open to the opponents of that to say: 'This is what it is. They're not saying it. This is what it is.' Those negative inferences would now be seen as misinformation. They were absolutely valid and an important part of the discussion and debate. It beggars belief.</para>
<para>On public health, the one time I crossed the floor in this chamber was to support Craig Kelly in a motion that was calling on this place to discuss what was happening in terms of government regulation. That was my side, but both sides were guilty of overreach when it came to that. That motion—that I crossed the floor on, to bring on a debate about those things—was lost. In my mind, that showed that this place and government could get things wrong, because we weren't discussing things. Discussions were being shut down and valid points were being censored. We saw that through COVID. Now we're legislating to make misinformation and disinformation a part of our lives. If that wasn't a big enough example for all of us to say, 'Let the sun shine in, let the views and opinions of everyone come forward, let's look at them,' then we're in uncharted territory. No. Let's shut down the discussion. Let's not let people speak. That's not why I stand in this place, serving the people. I stand in this place to encourage discussion. And if that discussion is wrong, then so be it. That's the whole nature of debating things.</para>
<para>This bill is so open to potential political weaponisation, it is absolutely disgraceful. The minister can personally order misinformation investigations! Orwell's has had a good run through this, but I'll say that again: the minister can personally order misinformation investigations. What is happening to Australia under this Albanese government?</para>
<para>They can exempt certain digital platforms. So, the minister can say, 'Oh, no; I think that one is exempt.' Why? Well, you don't have to be Einstein. There will be political bias associated with the determinations on this.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pitt</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The CFMEU.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My colleague mentions the union movement, the CFMEU, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. This bill also treats Australians differently. Academics and scientists and artists are treated differently. Now, I'm not going to criticise academics or scientists, but let's not kid ourselves and deny that history shows that sometimes the best research and the best science money can buy has backed up things that we now know to be completely wrong. If you're an academic, you can't be challenged under this legislation. I find that a bit confronting as well. That the average Australian citizen is treated like they're dumb, effectively, but if you've got a few letters in front of your name you're exempt from this legislation.</para>
<para>I didn't finish high school. I stand here in the parliament representing my people because they have had a good look at me and they've said to themselves: 'We like this bloke. We think he's trustworthy and we'll put him in there to represent us.' I didn't finish high school. I'm treated exactly the same in this chamber, because that's what democracy and debate is about. We're all equals. There are plenty of people in here who are far more educated than what I am, but they're equal to me in this place. That's what we should be striving for in society. But, instead, this draws a line and says: 'You're an academic. You're qualified, therefore you can speak freely. But because your friend hasn't been educated in the same way, I'm sorry, we're going treat them very differently.' This is the stuff of nightmares.</para>
<para>ACMA also has information-gathering powers—once again, very frightening stuff. I'm not alone, obviously. I said before that many of my constituents—there were 20,000 responses to the discussion paper when it went out, so I'm not alone. And I'll read what the New South Wales Solicitor-General, Michael Sexton, had to say. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.</para></quote>
<para>That's a more articulate and concise version of what I said before. This government is treating people as if they are dumb and they can't be trusted with their own words.</para>
<para>An opposition member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Or beliefs—exactly. To go to beliefs, the Australian Christian Lobby said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is no excuse for what's proposed in this bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Where the government should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, it will instead require social media to control our public discourse. From public health to politics to the economy and ideology, how this bill defines harm will determine what you are allowed to say online.</para></quote>
<para>If this bill passes the parliament, it will be a very, very sad day for Australia and it will signal a very dangerous future where government tells you what you can and can't say and government penalises people and organisations for not policing the truth in the way that it would like.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will not be supporting the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, because it will undermine, erode and hack down free speech in this country. Much has already been said about the extremely short and inadequate seven-working-day consultation period for citizens and groups to get in submissions to have their views on this bill heard. The consultation process has been sorely lacking and has been widely criticised by everyone, from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties to the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference.</para>
<para>However, as concerning as that issue is, and leaving it aside for the moment, my fundamental issue with this bill is that it will lead to censorship both by the digital platforms, who won't want to be fined by ACMA—up to five per cent of their global revenue—and by ACMA itself. I just don't want to entrust ACMA with that much power. The powers are broad and sweeping, and ACMA should not have them. It's not just big global digital platforms that will be affected. Websites will be caught, as will podcasts, search engines and message boards.</para>
<para>I have many issues with the provisions of this bill, one of which is the way in which misinformation is defined. It is very, very broad. It can include statements and opinions that are not designed to deceive or mislead but which nevertheless can fall foul of the censors. What is and what is not misinformation is subjective, and it's a minefield that threatens to explode on Australians engaging in the free speech that has made our democracy the envy of the world. Elections are also caught by this bill, which could have a huge adverse impact on the way free and fair political debate is conducted in this country.</para>
<para>I am also concerned that this bill gives the Minister for Communications broad powers to order misinformation investigations and hearings. They are broad and sweeping powers, and again I do not believe a minister should have them or be entrusted with them. The Victorian Bar association has said this about the powers to compel production contained in this bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill arms ACMA with extraordinary coercive powers that can be exercised against any person who might have information or documents 'relevant' to the existence of, among other things, 'misinformation or disinformation on a digital communications platform' … Suspected authors or disseminators of alleged 'misinformation' are obvious targets for the exercise of such powers. That makes this part of the Bill somewhat unique within its overall scheme—here the Bill is concerned with the responsibilities of individuals, rather than service providers.</para></quote>
<para>What the Victorian Bar association is saying is that the powers contained in this bill are far-reaching and they are very concerning. The Victorian Bar association also said this about the bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The bill's interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services.</para></quote>
<para>The Victorian Bar association did not stop there. It went further and said the bill 'should not be enacted'. The association said the bill is 'not justifiable' and, at the conclusion of its submission on this bill, reiterated that it will have a chilling effect. The association concluded its submission in this way:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The … Bill is not justifiable in this respect and will have a chilling effect. It is also likely to be ineffective and unworkable in responding to the harms to which it is purportedly directed.</para></quote>
<para>This bill cannot be supported. I wish to thank all of the residents of our area who have let me know about their issues with it. That's the importance of our democracy: everybody gets a say—everyone around Australia gets a say, as the member for Wide Bay was just stating to this House. Australians all around our nation are very concerned that they won't be able to have that free and fair say in our society during elections, in participating in our democracy, and I think that is extremely concerning. That's why I can't support this bill. Because of all of those serious concerns I have about the adverse impacts of this bill and the shocking effects and impacts it will have on free speech, I will not support it. I will be voting against it—it's a no from me.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This one-term Albanese Labor government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is a betrayal of democracy. The Labor government is debilitating our right to feel safe in Australia. The Labor government is debilitating our primary industries, our farmers and our fishers. It is debilitating our energy security. Those opposite cannot get inflation under control and are presiding over one of the biggest housing crises in history. Now, believe it or not, they are taking away our hardworking taxpayers' freedom of speech. What is the government's game? What are they up to?</para>
<para>Before I came to this place, I was the Mayor of the Whitsunday Regional Council. It was one of my very pleasing duties to perform citizenship ceremonies. Citizens came from all over the world to make the Whitsundays their home, and they came because they wanted to enjoy our rights and civil liberties. They wanted to enjoy freedom because, in their countries, a lot of them didn't have freedoms. They didn't have the choices that we do in Australia, so they came to Australia. The core of this was the freedom of speech, but now, unfortunately, it looks like the Albanese Labor government want to take away that freedom of speech. I never, ever thought that I would be standing up in this place defending the right to freedom of speech in this great country of ours. We on this side of the House find this to be an appalling attempt at legislation, and we will fight it tooth and nail—because it's deadset wrong.</para>
<para>Australians need to know what's in this bill. What will it do? It will impose huge fines on digital platforms if the government feel that the content of those platforms doesn't suit them. This means digital platforms will want to avoid those huge fines, so they will censor large amounts of free speech. That's right: they will censor free speech. I want the people in my electorate, the people of Dawson, to decide what content they want, what they want to read and what they want to watch. Let them make the choice. Let them do their research. Let them look at the facts. I don't want my people to have sanitised information. They can find out their own information and they can decide.</para>
<para>If this bill goes ahead, the Minister for Communications, personally, will be able to order misinformation investigations on her terms, at her choosing. This can be exploited. This can be used for political gain. These are extraordinary powers, and they are just not right. They have no place in Australia. This bill poses a significant threat to our democracy by giving excessive power to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to dictate what can and cannot be posted on digital platforms. The vague definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm', coupled with severe penalties for noncompliance, create the potential for overcensorship. There have been thousands of submissions made to the Senate inquiry, but barely a fraction of these have been uploaded for public view, and we need to ask why. Let's look at some examples.</para>
<para>If you're an academic, something you say can't be misinformation, but if you're an everyday Australian who disagrees with an academic, what you say can be misinformation. I tell you what: in my part of the world I've got a lot of tradies and a lot of labourers, and I can guarantee you they're a lot more sensible than most of the academics in Canberra. They're the ones that go to work each day and make things happen. They dig the holes. They fix the electronics. They're the people that actually make it happen, not the people that sit around the office and dream about what might happen. We need to listen to the ordinary Australians, not the people from the Canberra bubble.</para>
<para>If a comedian says something, it cannot be misinformation, but an average Aussie who disagrees with a comedian can have their own opinion censored. Wow! You can't make this up. It is absolutely bizarre! Podcasters will need to check whether something they might be seeing has misinformation before they put it to air. The honestly held opinions of ordinary Australians can be treated as misinformation. This is a fundamental issue for our democracy. Voltaire once stated, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' That is freedom of speech. Interestingly enough, there's a bit of conjecture about that. Some people say it came from Beatrice Hall, but, again, isn't it good that things can be challenged, that things can be discussed and talked about.</para>
<para>Some of the most interesting conversations you will ever have in your life are with people who don't agree with you. You can take their point of view on board, see what they have to say and, potentially, find a hybrid solution from the two points of view. Believe it or not, I actually listen to some of those on the opposite side of the House—maybe not Minister Bowen, but that's for very good reason, but I do generally listen to some of the information that comes from the other side and take the points of view on board. I think: 'Okay, maybe we can work with that. We can amend something. We can do something with that.' It's very, very important to listen, and that's what I do in my electorate. I listen to the people, but I also let—and expect—them have the freedom of speech to be able to look me in the eye and say: 'This is what we think. This is what we want you to do. Member for Dawson, you stuffed this up. We want you to do this.' I take that on board; I generally do.</para>
<para>The Labor government is ramming this legislation through, giving people barely a week to respond, so it can censor everyday Australians. This is so wrong. I believe in the right to engage in open and honest discourse online, and I fear this bill will stop our younger generation feeling confident to express their voices. It is not just me who thinks this. Scott Crawford of my electorate says, 'We don't need this. We need a new government'. Tick. Wendy Carroll says, 'The Prime Minister started this rubbish with the no vote. He didn't like people opposing what he was saying. the Prime Minister does not like the truth'. You're exactly right, Wendy. Through that divisive referendum that cost the taxpayers over $450 million, in my electorate over 80 per cent of the people voted no and then the people who voted no got accused of misinformation, saying the wrong thing. The fact of the matter is the people haven't got it wrong; people should be able to get all the information and make their own decisions, so, Wendy Carroll, you're exactly right.</para>
<para>Even from one of Labor's stronghold seats of Victoria, Victorian Bar made a scathing submission which warned this bill would undermine free speech and stifle discussions. Professor Nick Coatsworth said, 'We must equip our communities with tools to critically assess and judge information for themselves, not legislation.' That is what we do in Australia. We find our information, we get the facts, we think about it and then we make our own decisions. What about our diggers—our fine men and women—who have worn the uniform, put their bodies on the line, their lives on the line for this country to let us have our rights, our liberties, our freedom of speech? That's what they have gone and fought for. What must they be thinking now about the fact that we can have a government that can change things at the stroke of a pen? It is absolutely bizarre. I really implore those on the other side to think about this before they ram this vote through and think about our fine men and women who have defended our country, who have defended our rights, our liberties and our freedom of speech. This is so important to them and it's so important to me. I have received hundreds of emails from my constituents, all very concerned about what this bill does to our democracy.</para>
<para>Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, said if this bill didn't pass it would be threatening the safety and wellbeing of Australians. Sorry, Minister, but the only threat to Australians is your rigged legislation. It is hard to believe that any government in a democracy would put forward this bill. But the one-term Albanese Labor government have. Do you think it won't affect you? Well, think again. If you challenge the government's policies or criticise election outcomes, your posts will most likely be erased.</para>
<para>The coalition stands firmly opposed to Labor's misinformation bill because we believe in the right of free speech and we'll fight to defend those rights each and every day while we have breath in our bodies. My constituents of Dawson are standing with me on this one. Bin the bill; it is deadset wrong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens have been at the forefront of fighting mis- and disinformation and we have been pushing for a very long time for truth in advertising laws in this country because we have a situation where there are exceptions as to who can tell untruths. You can't do it if you're trying to sell a product, but, when it comes to politics, apparently you can. A big part of the reason that we have seen an erosion in trust in our institutions is because of the spread of mis- and disinformation has been allowed to flourish in this country, indeed around the world. What we have also been at the forefront of saying in this place is that in Australia now, if you are serious about tackling misinformation and disinformation, you have to tackle Rupert Murdoch. You have to tackle Rupert Murdoch and the massive power that that man has over media in this country. Labor and the Liberals are Murdoch cowards and have refused point blank to take on the biggest source of mis- and disinformation over the last half century in this country. We have pointed out that this failure to take on Rupert Murdoch's untrammelled power to promote mis- and disinformation has led to Australia having the second-worst concentration of media ownership in the world.</para>
<para>As a result of allowing that to be our media landscape, which Labor and the Liberals have because neither of them have got the guts to take him on, we've seen the undermining of reputable journalism. Allowing that massive concentration of media ownership in this country undermines reputable journalism. It is also crystal clear that this man has used his power to fuel social division, to target vulnerable minorities, to delay climate action and, most terrifyingly, to undermine democracy.</para>
<para>Today in this place we are dealing with some of the consequences of that as we look at what is happening around the world and see the terrifying result in the United States, where now a dangerous demagogue is running the country again. There are people around the world right now, including in Australia, who are terrified about what that will mean for them, what that will mean for women, what that will mean for people of colour, what that will mean for the climate and what that will mean for democracy. We all watched and saw violent protests on the Capitol in the United States fuelled by mis- and disinformation that somehow the previous election result was stolen or rigged—that somehow voters deciding to end the first Trump presidency was somehow a fraud and a result of the election being stolen.</para>
<para>You know who propagated that, aside from Trump himself? Fox News promoted that. We're not talking about what a few people might tweet—although, of course, that is part of it. We are talking about a very powerful mainstream media empire promoting mis- and disinformation that leads to democracy itself being undermined. They were so far beyond the pale in what they said in these false and fraudulent claims—that somehow the US election had been stolen—that, even in America, where they have much more liberal legislation and laws than us, they ended up shelling out $800 million to the people who run the voting machines because that was clearly—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for New England on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was wondering, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would have a look at standing order 90 on imputation. There was a number of things that the honourable member has said that—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to know the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Standing order 90 on imputation. He's making the inference that both the government and the opposition are somehow unduly affected by the actions of NewsCorp and that it decides the process of government.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm listening to the member for Melbourne, and I'm listening very carefully. The member for Melbourne is in order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What a glass jaw from the member for New England! How sensitive! As soon as you start to point out the influence of Rupert Murdoch, up jumps his biggest defender, the member for New England. This is the concern.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Melbourne will resume his seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was clearly a breach of standing order 90.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the member for New England—there's no direct point of order. I'm listening to the speech. He's referring to a particular incident overseas that could or may not affect legislation that's before us here today and a situation where this legislation could be used. The member for Melbourne will continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Even in the United States, Fox News had to then shell out hundreds of millions of dollars, because they knew that those fraudulent claims that had been perpetrated had gone too far, as far as the law was concerned. But we all saw what it meant for democracy when we watched those riots unfold and heard the perpetual claim that, somehow, an election had been stolen. That continued for a very long time, and that's just one part of the mis- and disinformation that has been promoted by Rupert Murdoch over many, many years, aiding the likes of Donald Trump.</para>
<para>But come back here, closer to home, and you'll understand there is a reason that scientists have described Rupert Murdoch as a climate villain who has used his television and newspaper empire to promote climate science denial and to delay action. After the horrific Black Summer bushfires, we saw a very strong move to say, 'It was nothing to do with climate'—apparently, it had something to do with hazard reduction burning—so much so that even James Murdoch came out and called out the climate denialism that was on show from Rupert Murdoch in the aftermath of the Black Summer fires. Even James Murdoch called it out. The scientists have a reason for saying this. As Joelle Gergis, a climate scientist at ANU, said, 'It is hard to think of another person who has single-handedly done more to muddy the public's understanding of climate change.'</para>
<para>As we look around the world now and see cars washed up in streets in Spain and see extreme weather events unfolding before us with rapid speed and catastrophic implications, we can jump into a Rupert Murdoch newspaper and find commentators saying things like, 'The climate crisis turns out not to exist.' That's according to what Andrew Bolt wrote.</para>
<para>It is this mis- and disinformation coming from Rupert Murdoch that led Kevin Rudd to call for a royal commission into the Murdoch empire and the power of the Murdoch empire. He rightly identified that as a means to tackle mis- and disinformation and its incredibly toxic and damaging effects which see not only violence in the United States but also climate denial and delay here as the climate crisis gets even worse, even as commentators write in these papers that, apparently, the climate crisis turns out not to exist. It is why half a million people in this country signed a petition backing Kevin Rudd's call for that royal commission. Other former prime ministers have spoken out about the problems with Murdoch media dominance in this country as well.</para>
<para>Billionaires are controlling all the platforms at the moment. If we want to tackle mis- and disinformation and if we want to ensure that in this country people can trust the information that they are getting, but also, critically, know that big power comes with responsibility when you run a media empire, why does Rupert Murdoch get a free pass from Labor's bill? People are entitled to know that operators aren't using it to fuel misinformation and disinformation. You can see it happening. There's this ecosystem that exists between the conservative commentators on Rupert Murdoch's payroll and then others who are offline as well. They feed on each other and amplify each other. It's why Chris Cooper, a director at Purpose, rightly said when talking about <inline font-style="italic">After Dark</inline> that Sky News Australia was now having a 'disproportionate contribution to global climate misinformation' and that 'we see the content shared through denier networks across the globe'. As he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Nobody is against freedom of speech. But this is about the amplification and broadcast of what's clearly disinformation, and that is the problem here.</para></quote>
<para>So I say to the government, as this bill progresses through the Senate, if you want to tackle mis- and disinformation, why aren't you looking at Rupert Murdoch? Why aren't you looking at Rupert Murdoch, when even Kevin Rudd has said that that is where we've got to start if we're serious about it? Why does Rupert Murdoch get a free pass? We can probably infer why. We know that Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals are Murdoch cowards. But there's a chance to do something about it. Listen to what people like Kevin Rudd are saying.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Melbourne should refrain from using the descriptive terms that he's used to describe other members.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes this bill is still before Senate inquiry;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the proposed legislation does not address the powerful, unchecked role that the Murdoch media empire plays in spreading mis- and disinformation in our democracy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the government to tackle mis- and disinformation spread by the Murdoch media".</para></quote>
<para>If we want to have any chance of tackling the climate crisis, we have to look at those who are trying to slow down climate action, and that starts with Rupert Murdoch. If we want to understand why it is that millions of Americans think that the previous election was stolen from them, we have to start with Rupert Murdoch. So, if we are serious about tackling mis- and disinformation, we need to start with Rupert Murdoch. Most people in this country get that. We have the second-worst media market in the world when it comes to concentration. With it, that brings enormous power to people like Rupert Murdoch. As this bill works its way through the parliament now and as the Senate inquiry continues, I urge the government to take this opportunity to tackle mis- and disinformation at one of its biggest sources and have the courage to take on Rupert Murdoch.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bates</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've been hearing about the pros and cons of combating misinformation and disinformation through legislation ever since the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill was circulated. Like many members in this House, in my electorate I have been inundated with calls and emails about this bill, even more than for the Voice referendum, which I received hardly any on. I understand the government's intention with this bill is to make social media platforms liable for prosecution for content posted by people that could be considered misinformation or disinformation. Currently, a voluntary code of behaviour for social media platforms is in place to manage this.</para>
<para>I think what many speakers in this House have failed to grasp is the scale of growth in social media and how futile it is to think that it could, or indeed should, be controlled by legislation. If anyone has a chance, I encourage you to listen to the BBC 4 podcast series called <inline font-style="italic">The Gatekeepers</inline>. It investigated the rise of social media and the inability of anyone to really control it, especially with the US Congress under President Bill Clinton passing section 230, which was originally part of the Communications Decency Act. This protects Americans' freedom of expression online by protecting the intermediaries that we all use and come to rely on, and it states that in 26 words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.</para></quote>
<para>Section 230 basically prevents any civil lawsuits being used against users or services that are based on what others say. Platforms aren't publishers. They're simply a means by which individuals can freely express themselves, and those individuals are responsible for their own actions and what they share online. As a result, of course, we've seen the growth of social media, the likes of Facebook, X, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, doing just that—providing individuals with the ability to create, shape and choose the content that they want to engage with.</para>
<para>This bill seeks to put some form of policing into this new world order. It can't. The Australian government cannot reach beyond these shores and it shouldn't attempt to reach into the minds of people seeking to express their views, however wrong they might be. It sounds scary but that's the reality. What one might consider fake news could be another's truth or vice versa. I don't believe that the government will be able to monitor or, as this bill intends, expect social media platforms to monitor or take responsibility for other people's thoughts and ideas. Like I said, global tech platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram and so forth have their own agendas and goals to connect people everywhere, to give them access to information anywhere, anytime, and at the same time build their businesses. As private companies, they can formulate their own rules on content. It is not a legitimate role of the government to influence this.</para>
<para>I think the primary focus of lawmakers in tackling mis- and disinformation is to ensure that individuals are educated and empowered to make their own decisions, choices, and to take full responsibility for their lives. The best protection is to ensure we and our young people are aware of the content out there. Give them access to information, diverse perspectives, diverse ideas from which they will make informed choices based on their experiences, what they learn from their parents, what they hear from their peers and what they get from listening to the influencers that they follow. It is, indeed, a brave new world. We need to be brave and trust that individuals are informed and capable of making their own decisions and choices about what they want to hear and engage with. Government should stay in the line of managing the information and not be involved in what the people can and cannot access.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank members for their contribution to this debate. Misinformation and disinformation pose a significant threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy. This bill will increase the transparency and accountability of the actions of digital platforms in relation to seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation, while balancing the freedom of expression that is at the very core of our democracy.</para>
<para>Again, I thank everyone who's contributed to the consultation process and to the debate on this bill, including the government amendments moved yesterday. I particularly acknowledge the strong advocacy and efforts to secure improvements to the bill by the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney and the member for Wentworth. The member for Goldstein advocated strongly for more to be done to support data access for researchers as a key element of transparency and accountability. The member for North Sydney emphasised the importance of the triennial review of the act being conducted as an independent review and advocated strongly for this to be made explicit in the law. The member for Wentworth has emphasised the importance of various review and reporting elements in the bill and has been testing how this will operate.</para>
<para>These issues have also been brought to my attention by members of the other place. I acknowledge the interest and engagement of Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young in particular. The government also welcomes interest and engagement with the staff of the offices of Senator Van, Senator Tyrrell, Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson to date. Senate scrutiny of the bill continues, and I look forward to the report of the Senate inquiry and continue to work constructively with senators on these important reforms. These amendments will refine the bill and improve Australia's laws to hold digital platforms to account and keep Australians safe online, because keeping Australians safe is the first duty of all of us in this place.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:45]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>60</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:52]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>78</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>57</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a second time. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>28</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (23) as circulated together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move government amendments (1) to (23) as circulated together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 11), after the paragraph beginning "The ACMA may make" in clause 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ACMA may also make digital platform rules to provide for one or more data access schemes. The rules may require digital communications platform providers to give access to data to approved independent researchers in relation to the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks in relation to misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms provided by those providers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 33), after the definition of<inline font-style="italic"> access</inline> in clause 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">approved independent researcher</inline> means a researcher who is approved by the ACMA to be given access to data under digital platform rules made for the purposes of clause 21B.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 13), after the definition of<inline font-style="italic"> content aggregation service</inline> in clause 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">data access scheme </inline>means a scheme prescribed by digital platform rules made for the purposes of clause 21B.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (after line 26), after paragraph 11(d), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(da) to facilitate research on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms provided by digital communications platform providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) effective means to counter such misinformation and disinformation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 17 (line 9), after "Code of Practice", insert ", the Community Radio Broadcasting Codes of Practice".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 18 (after line 22), after paragraph 17(1)(b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) the provider's current policy or policy approach, and any other information prescribed by the digital platform rules, in relation to access by researchers to data relating to the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks relating to misinformation and disinformation on the platform;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(bb) the steps the provider is taking to comply with its obligations under a data access scheme (if any);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 21 (after line 10), after Subdivision B, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision BA — Data access schemes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21A Objective</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The objective of this Subdivision is to provide for the making of one or more data access schemes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to assist the ACMA to perform its functions and exercise its powers under this Schedule in relation to misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms provided by digital communications platform providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to assist digital communications platform providers to comply with requirements imposed on them by or under this Schedule in relation to misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms they provide; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to inform the development of policies to address misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms provided by digital communications platform providers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21B ACMA may make digital platform rules for data access schemes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Digital platform rules may provide for one or more data access schemes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The digital platform rules may provide for one or more data access schemes that require digital communications platform providers to give access to data for the purposes of independent research in relation to the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks in relation to misinformation or disinformation on digital communications platforms provided by the digital communications platform providers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subclause (1), digital platform rules made for the purposes of that subclause may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) require digital communications platform providers to give approved independent researchers access to data in relation to the incidence of misinformation or disinformation on digital communications platforms provided by the providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) require digital communications platform providers to give approved independent researchers access to data in relation to the extent to which misinformation or disinformation may be amplified on digital communications platforms provided by the providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) require digital communications platform providers to give approved independent researchers access to data in relation to the methods used to prevent or respond to the following on digital communications platforms provided by the providers:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the incidence of misinformation or disinformation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the amplification of the incidence of misinformation or disinformation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) provide for different means by which approved independent researchers are given access to data under the rules; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) provide for procedures relating to requests for access to data by approved independent researchers under the rules including, but not limited to, time limits within which digital communications platform providers must deal with requests for such access; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) make provision in relation to fees that may be charged by digital communications platform providers before access to data is given to an approved independent researcher, under the rules, which must not exceed the reasonable costs arising from providing the access; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) provide for the giving of information to the ACMA by digital communications platform providers in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) requests for access to data under the rules;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) actions taken in relation to such requests; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) provide for approved independent researchers to give information to the ACMA on a voluntary basis, being information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) that the approved independent researcher obtained under the rules; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) that the approved independent researcher considers relevant to achieving the objective of this Subdivision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Digital platform rules must provide for criteria for approval of researchers</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The digital platform rules must, if rules are made for the purposes of subclause (1), provide for criteria to be satisfied before the ACMA approves a researcher to be given access to data under those rules, in relation to one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the research project in respect of which the researcher is to be given access to data;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the qualifications and experience of the researcher;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) how conflicts of interest will be dealt with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the organisation (if any) on behalf of which the researcher will conduct the research project concerned;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the proposed sources of funding for the research project concerned;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the technical and organisational capacity to fulfil data security and confidentiality requirements of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the researcher; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the organisation (if any) on behalf of which the researcher will conduct the research project concerned.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Certification of </inline> <inline font-style="italic">certain matters relating to use of data</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Digital platform rules made for the purposes of subclause (3) must also provide that a researcher must not be approved to be given access to data under those rules unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the researcher certifies that data to which access is given under the rules will be used by the researcher only in conducting the research project concerned, and that the results of the research project will be made widely available; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the researcher certifies that the researcher will not use the results of the research project concerned, or data to which access is given under the rules, for the purpose of obtaining commercial benefit or advantage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Confidentiality</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Digital platform rules made for the purposes of subclause (3) must also provide that a researcher must not be approved to be given access to data under those rules unless the researcher is willing to enter into a standard form confidentiality agreement (see subclause (6)) with each digital communications platform provider that will give the researcher access to data.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Digital platform rules made for the purposes of subclause (3) must also prescribe a standard form confidentiality agreement, which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must be directed towards protecting the security of digital services and data; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) without limiting paragraph (a), must specify that, if data to which access is provided includes information of a kind referred to in subclause 17(3), the information will not be further disclosed except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) in the case of information other than personal information (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Privacy Act 1988</inline>)—with the consent of the digital communications platform provider that provided access to the data; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) in any case—otherwise as required or permitted by law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21C Compliance with digital platform rules regarding data access</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A digital communications platform provider must not contravene digital platform rules made for the purposes of clause 21B.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subclause (1) is a civil penalty provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21D Remedial directions — contravention of digital platform rules regarding data access</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This clause applies if the ACMA is satisfied that a digital communications platform provider has contravened, or is contravening, digital platform rules made for the purposes of clause 21B.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The ACMA may give the provider a written direction requiring the provider to take specified action directed towards ensuring that the provider does not contravene digital platform rules made for the purposes of clause 21B, or is unlikely to contravene those rules, in the future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A digital communications platform provider must not contravene a direction under subclause (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subclause (3) is a civil penalty provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21E Review of operation of this Subdivision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) As soon as possible after the first anniversary of the commencement of this Schedule, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the operation of this Subdivision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The review must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider further the requirements for a scheme requiring digital communications platform providers to give approved independent researchers access to data relating to misinformation or disinformation on digital communications platforms provided by those providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consider whether this Subdivision should be amended.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The review must be conducted in a manner that provides for public consultation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subclause (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 29), after "(mg)", insert ", (mh), (mi)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 27 (line 17), after "(mg)", insert ", (mh), (mi)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 31 (line 31), after "Subdivision", insert "BA or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 52 (line 5), omit "or (mg)", substitute ", (mg), (mh) or (mi)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 1, item 2, page 52 (line 15), omit "or (mg)", substitute ", (mg), (mh) or (mi)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 53 (lines 6 and 7), omit "a review", substitute "an independent review".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Schedule 1, item 2, page 53 (line 11), omit "amended; and", substitute "amended.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Schedule 1, item 2, page 53 (lines 12 to 16), omit paragraph 70(2)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Schedule 1, item 2, page 54 (after line 17), after paragraph 72(e), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ea) subclause 21C(1) (compliance with digital platform rules regarding data access);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(eb) subclause 21D(3) (remedial directions—data access);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Schedule 1, item 2, page 55 (after line 3), after paragraph 73(c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) subclause 21C(1) (compliance with digital platform rules regarding data access);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Schedule 1, item 2, page 55 (after line 23), after paragraph 74(1)(c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) subclause 21C(1) (compliance with digital platform rules regarding data access);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Schedule 1, item 2, page 56 (after line 10), after paragraph 75(1)(b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) subclause 21D(2) (remedial directions—data access);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Schedule 2, item 2, page 60 (after line 27), after paragraph 10(1)(mg), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(mh) to facilitate research on the operations of digital communications platforms;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(mi) to support the development of an evidence base in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms provided by digital communications platform providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) effective means to counter such misinformation and disinformation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Schedule 2, item 14, page 63 (table item dealing with giving a remedial direction in subsection 204(1), column 2), after "21(2),", insert "21D(2),".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) Schedule 2, item 14, page 63 (table item dealing with variation of a remedial direction in subsection 204(1), column 2), after "21(2),", insert "21D(2),".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) Schedule 2, item 14, page 63 (table item dealing with refusal to revoke a remedial direction in subsection 204(1), column 2), after "21(2),", insert "21D(2),".</para></quote>
<para>I acknowledge the constructive engagement of the crossbench in informing the government amendments that are now before the House. The government's amendments will further enhance transparency of the actions of digital communication platforms in relation to misinformation and disinformation; improve oversight over the operation of the provisions in the bill; and provide additional clarity on the definition of 'professional news content'.</para>
<para>The government amendments include new provisions which would enable the ACMA to make digital platform rules to establish one or more data access schemes that would require digital communication platform providers to give independent researchers access to data for the purposes of research. Such a scheme would be focused on data relating to the identification, assessment and mitigation of misinformation and disinformation risks on the relevant platforms. The proposed data access scheme would support the development of an evidence base regarding the efficacy and performance of digital communication platform providers' measures to combat misinformation and disinformation. The digital platform rules would be enforceable in the same manner as the digital platform rules relating to complaints and dispute-handling processes, already in division 2 of part 2 of the bill. These will be legislative instruments subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.</para>
<para>The amendments would also provide new obligations for digital platform providers to publish their policies or policy approach to sharing their data for research purposes. When a data access scheme is enforced, the provider will also have to publish the steps they are taking to comply with the requirements under the schemes.</para>
<para>The bill would also be amended to require the minister to cause a review of data access arrangements for the purposes of misinformation and disinformation research, as soon as possible after the first anniversary of the commencement of schedule 9 of the bill. The bill currently provides for triennial statutory reviews of the bill but does not mandate or exclude that this be an independent review. The bill would be amended to mandate that the reviews be conducted as independent reviews, and I acknowledge the member for North Sydney for her constructive contribution to this amendment.</para>
<para>The bill exempts professional news content from being considered misinformation or disinformation. The definition of 'professional news content' includes news content that is subject to the rules of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, the Commercial Radio Code of Practice or the Subscription Broadcast Television Code of Practice, and rules or internal editorial standards that are analogous to these rules. On 16 October 2024, the ACMA registered new community radio broadcasting codes of practice, which include provisions relating to mis- and disinformation. The government amendment to the bill would include explicit reference to rules covering community radio broadcasting in the professional news content exemption. This is in recognition that this sector also has industry standards relating to the accuracy of broadcast content.</para>
<para>Through these amendments, the government will further enhance the transparency and accountability of how platforms treat misinformation and disinformation online. It would also enhance oversight of the operation of provisions in the bill through an independent review. Doing nothing to protect Australians from seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation online is simply not an option.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just wanted to rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 at this point in time, and I want to start by thanking both the minister and her team, and the government more broadly, for their genuine engagement on this, because I do think that it is very clear that the government has genuinely listened to the criticism it received from its first draft in 2023.</para>
<para>I want to reassure Australians that this piece of legislation includes a number of safeguards and improvements. It includes a comprehensive impact analysis that has been undertaken. The exemptions for government content have been removed. The enforceable misinformation codes and standards will be disallowable by this parliament. Digital platforms will continue to be responsible for the content they host and promote. What's really important to call out in a campaign of disinformation around this legislation is that neither the government nor ACMA will be able to engage directly with a content producer nor demand that content be removed. The government has amended the bill to also stipulate that the review would be undertaken by an independent third party, and I thank the minister for her engagement on this.</para>
<para>I want to specifically talk about the human rights implications of this piece of legislation as somebody who has fought incredibly hard for human rights protections in this country since I came to parliament. While there have been valid concerns about potential implications for freedom of expression, I believe that, to the extent that there is a restriction on that freedom of expression, it's justifiable and proportionate. In fact, this legislation actually protects a number of human rights, including the right to participate in public affairs, the right to vote and be elected, the right to security of person and the right to protect against vilification and discrimination.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member shall resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order: the member does need to be speaking to the specific amendments before the House, if she could tailor her remarks to the specific amendments the minister has moved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was listening carefully. The member was talking about section 3, the digital platform rules, providing for the criteria and did mention ACMA in her remarks, so she is being directly relevant. But I will make sure that all members are reminded that consideration in detail is not an opportunity for a second bite at the cherry or a second reading contribution. So far the member is being directly relevant, but just remember we're dealing with the amendments, not a general debate. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point I'm making is that the elements that have been introduced through the amendments to this legislation have made it infinitely stronger by ensuring that there is independent oversight in terms of how this legislation will be enacted and by ensuring that access is actually granted to researchers. In relation to that, I want to particularly thank the member for Goldstein for the amount of work that she has done in advocating for that exemption.</para>
<para>But what I will say is that, as we've discussed this piece of legislation in this House, the opposition have argued consistently for the potential breach of freedom of expression and I think that's a bit rich, given that, just a number of months ago, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended we introduce a human rights act, the opposition dissented vociferously on the basis that Australians' human rights are already adequately protected—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will resume her seat. Further to the point of order of the Manager of Opposition Business, the opposition isn't mentioned in the amendments. That is not able to be used in debate about positions; it is strictly about the amendments that are before me. Members do get some latitude, but to simply bring new argument into the debate is not possible under the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ultimately, the challenge before this parliament right now is to assess whether the bill strikes an appropriate balance between safeguarding against misinformation and protecting freedom of speech. I do believe this bill has struck that balance. It's not perfect, but it's a start. The risk that seriously harmful mis- and disinformation poses to this country is too great to do nothing.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will speak briefly to the government's amendments, in part because of the deep interaction that my office has had with the minister and her staff in recent weeks in trying to resolve some pretty substantive issues of concern in the original bill. The government's amendments go, in part, to several of those concerns, particularly around transparency and data rights access for researchers. Having taken substantial expert advice in recent months—indeed, since last year when the exposure draft of the bill was originally given to the parliament to assess and attracted tens of thousands of submissions—I've been working with experts to try to get to the core of enabling researchers to look under the hood of these platforms.</para>
<para>I understand the reservations that have been raised by many in the opposition and within the Australian community around this bill. But I think that, on balance, at the moment we have zero guardrails around the behaviour of these platforms as it relates to misinformation and disinformation, and, currently, the misinformation and disinformation that is being somewhat managed by the platforms is being done so under the rules of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. In this instance, this parliament, on behalf of the Australian community, is trying to take some level of control back in order to be clear on exactly what risk mitigation measures the platforms have in place so that we can see that, in areas of risk, the platforms are taking the appropriate action.</para>
<para>I note that experts say that the addition of these amendments does add robustness and is consistent with international best practice on data rights access, and it's likely to be a more powerful mechanism for countering misinformation and disinformation than just ACMA alone.</para>
<para>I also note the concerns that have been raised by the Human Rights Commissioner around this bill, and I will reassure members of my community that others have different views. The Human Rights Law Centre, for example, believes that, with the changes that have been made, this bill should be passed in its current form.</para>
<para>I thank the minister for the interaction and, indeed, the minister's staff, who have done an enormous amount of work with my office on this.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:10]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>86</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>53</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:13]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>79</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>56</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill, as amended, agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ROWLAND (—) (): by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7253" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment to the second reading motion, as moved by the member for Ryan, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:22]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>13</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>41</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time. <br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>36</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>36</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Dr Mulino be appointed a supplementary member of the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7276" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>36</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>36</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The decision of the High Court yesterday is not the one the government wanted—but it is one we were prepared for.</para>
<para>That's why the government is in a position to take immediate steps to protect community safety.</para>
<para>This morning I attended Government House, where Her Excellency the Governor-General signed new regulations into law that will allow us to continue to use curfews and electronic monitoring devices—ankle bracelets—as visa conditions on the NZYQ cohort.</para>
<para>These visa conditions are designed to protect the community—not as a punitive measure.</para>
<para>The new regulations were ready to go because the government was meticulously prepared for every possible outcome of the YBFZ case.</para>
<para>Those regulations are now in effect.</para>
<para>This legislation will support those regulations—but it is not necessary to give them immediate effect.</para>
<para>Part of the reason these changes are necessary is that the High Court has objected to certain conditions being presumed unless the minister finds otherwise rather than requiring a positive decision from the minister.</para>
<para>This particular provision was actually not in the original bill that the former minister introduced to this parliament but became part of amendments agreed to between the government and opposition before the legislation was finalised.</para>
<para>New community protection test</para>
<para>There is a new community protection test. These changes establish a revised community protection test in the Migration Regulations, requiring (among other things) that the minister is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the holder of a bridging visa (removal pending)—known as a BVR—poses a substantial risk of seriously harming any part of the Australian community by committing a serious offence.</para>
<para>Under the revised test, the minister must also be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the imposition of each condition (in addition to the other conditions imposed on the BVR) is:</para>
<list>reasonably necessary; and</list>
<list>reasonably appropriate and adapted;</list>
<list>for the purpose of protecting any part of the Australian community from serious harm by addressing that substantial risk.</list>
<para>The amendments of the Migration Regulations also necessitate certain amendments of the Migration Act 1958.</para>
<para>Section 76E at the moment is not consistent with the new regulations. The way the regulations have been drafted it will be some weeks before section 76E will be required to be used.</para>
<para>Therefore, while it is important for this legislation to go through within a reasonable time, it does not have to be rushed through this week.</para>
<para>Section 76E provides BVR holders an opportunity to make representations to the minister if they are granted a BVR with electronic monitoring, curfew or certain financial reporting conditions imposed, and for the minister to consider whether to grant a new BVR without one or more of those conditions (subject to the community protection test).</para>
<para>Enhanced removals powers</para>
<para>On enhanced removals powers, this legislation will also strengthen and streamline the government's power to remove to third countries people who have had their visas cancelled.</para>
<para>When someone's visa is cancelled, for any reason, the first preference of the government is for them to leave the country, voluntarily or involuntarily.</para>
<para>One of the most basic principles of our migration system is if you are in Australia you should either be a citizen or have a visa.</para>
<para>We will of course exercise our removal powers in accordance with our international non-refoulement obligations.</para>
<para>This legislation will establish immunity provisions which ensure that the Commonwealth and its officers (including the minister) are not liable under Australian law in respect of civil claims arising out of the performance of duties to remove a person, or the circumstances of a person being removed to another place from Australia where the Commonwealth and its officers have acted in good faith—under sections 198 and 198AD of the Migration Act (as opposed to creating a bar on bringing proceedings). This provision is prospective and does not extinguish claims for conduct that has already occurred.</para>
<para>The legislation will also clarify that despite any Commonwealth, state or territory law, collection, use, and disclosure of information about criminal history—including spent conviction information, charges, findings and results of a criminal proceeding—by the minister or an officer of the parliament, for the purpose of performing a function or exercising a power, including collection, use and disclosure by a person or body who has received the information from the minister or department for the purpose of providing advice or recommendations, is permitted and is lawful, regardless of whether the collection, use or disclosure of information occurred before or after commencement.</para>
<para>The legislation will further provide that the disclosure of information—including personal information and criminal history information—to foreign countries is permitted and broadly covers collection, use and disclosure for any purposes directly or indirectly connected with the removal of a person from Australia including in relation to a third-country reception arrangement. This overrides existing Commonwealth, state and territory restrictions on disclosing spent conviction information (with certain exceptions) and includes disclosure of information obtained before commencement.</para>
<para>This legislation will also make minor amendments to harmonise references in the Migration Act relating to the merits review of migration and protection decisions within the jurisdiction of the new Administrative Review Tribunal.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Enabling amendments</inline></para>
<para>To enable the effective operation of the proposed amendments, the bill also includes:</para>
<list>amendments to insert a definition of "removal pathway non-citizen", which includes:</list>
<list>unlawful non-citizens being required to be removed under section 198;</list>
<list>Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa holders;</list>
<list>Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa holders who were granted on the basis of acceptable arrangements being made to depart Australia; and</list>
<list>non-citizens who hold a visa prescribed by the regulations and which was granted on the basis acceptable arrangements have been made for them to depart Australia;</list>
<list>amendments to sections 197C and 197D of the Migration Act to extend the application of provisions relating to the revisiting of protection findings to include visa holders covered by the definition of "removal pathway non-citizen".</list>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Orders of the Day</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that Federation Chamber orders of the day Nos 1 and 2, government business, are returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7259" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>38</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, I proudly rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to keeping the NBN in public ownership. The National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 will ensure fairer access for all Australians, whether it's in the city, out in our communities, like ours in the suburbs, or in regional Australia, the Albanese Labor government is protecting Australians' access to the internet from private ownership.</para>
<para>This government knows that high-speed broadband is essential to modern life. Whether it's your six-year-old using online maths resources to improve their multiplication or VCE students studying for their upcoming exams, or an aspirational Australian getting reskilled or upskilled to further their career prospects, the internet has become intrinsically linked to our everyday lives. It makes things easier, more efficient and more connected. But, to make sure access remains fair and accessible for all Australians, we need to strengthen the current legislation to make sure that our National Broadband Network is owned by the Australian people, not some unaccountable private entity.</para>
<para>We all know high-speed broadband is essential to modern life. It allows Australians to work remotely, run their businesses more productively, videoconference with clients and colleagues and supply and receive telehealth services, while enjoying leisure with their families through streaming or gaming.</para>
<para>Keeping the NBN in public hands will protect the NBN and public access to high-speed internet for all Australians to come. If we have been taught anything in Australian political life in the last 50 years, it's that it takes a Labor government to protect and build vital national infrastructure. We build, they block—which is why, through this legislation and our election promises, we've made it clear: the NBN is not for sale.</para>
<para>Legislatively, it's quite simple. The bill incorporates new wording to make clear the preservation of the future of the NBN is in public ownership being an essential part of our lives. Currently, the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 includes provisions which outline the steps that need to be undertaken for the sale by the Commonwealth of its shares in the NBN Co. The bill removes these provisions from the act, ensuring the future of the NBN resolutely remains in the hands of all Australians.</para>
<para>For those wondering, why are we so adamant about keeping the NBN in Australians' hands? By having it in public ownership, we protect the NBN and guarantee full government support for the ongoing upgrades of the network and ensure our ongoing regulatory oversight of wholesale pricing. We are making sure that broadband remains available for all Australians.</para>
<para>This government has an ambitious plan in the updated Statement of Expectations issued to NBN Co. Put simply, we want to see more of our country better connected to the internet, and the legislation is one of the many changes and improvements the Albanese Labor government has enacted since coming to office to better the NBN.</para>
<para>For nearly a decade, ignorance and laziness dictated what happened to our NBN, with the coalition taking shortcuts and implementing a broadband plan that was outdated before they even put it in the ground. The coalition refused to see the importance of making sure Australians got an NBN to their homes, not just getting a local node. It's almost as if their apathy and incompetence could be used as an excuse to later trick Australians into wanting to see the NBN privatised.</para>
<para>But Australians know a dodgy job when they see one. We know that the future is best held in public hands. Instead, when you have a government that actually does their job, like our government is doing, you can already see the benefits to all Australians. We have invested in the NBN by committing $2.4 billion to expand full fibre access to an additional 1.5 million premises, including 660,000 in rural and regional areas, from September next year, boosting download speeds by up to five times the current speed, at no extra wholesale cost. A household or small business with a 100-megabits-per-second plan in 2024 will benefit from 500-megabits-per-second connectivity in 2025, as well as upgrading the fixed wireless network, including uncapped satellite plans for future needs.</para>
<para>Upgrades are already making a real difference in the lives of Australians, with faster and more reliable internet access. The government has been ready and has done its job in supporting Australians to have access to the internet—something that the opposition continually failed to do, because they simply gave Australians, especially rural and regional Australians, a lacklustre effort in a job that should have been done properly.</para>
<para>The coalition doesn't understand the NBN and its importance for Australians. It's like they've lost their belief in businesses as well. Do they believe that businesses can operate on a slow and low-capacity internet, with everything being handwritten and mailed or faxed—and the shadow Treasurer knows about faxes—to get to their destination? What businesses can grow and contribute to our economy with an internet connection that drops out every five minutes? But don't worry; these self-proclaimed experts on small business will make sure your business has access to a second-rate copper network and a wire to the node. That really makes things easier for businesses, doesn't it, especially in a competitive environment!</para>
<para>For rural and regional Australians, the so-called party of farmers does little to advocate for your access to the internet, relegating those not in urban areas to the disaster that was the copper rollout. All of this is showing that they have no clue how agricultural businesses work, unless they are big corporations with vested interests. If you're one of those corporations, don't worry; you'll be looked after. But if you're a local farmer, local student or small-business owner in rural and regional Australia, under a coalition government any dreams of reliable access to the internet are left at just that—dreams.</para>
<para>And then there's national security. In a world where we face many challenges, the very prospect of having foreign actors bidding the highest and potentially owning the critical infrastructure is really unthinkable. Would the alternative government consider compromising our sovereignty just to make a quick buck and hand off their responsibilities quickly? Yes; you wouldn't put it past them. Imagine being in a position of leadership and doing the easier thing, not taking responsibility for such an integral service that is essential to the future security of our nation. Think of the risks of privatising the NBN. That's why this legislation is important—to make sure the NBN stays Australian owned and in Australian hands, protecting sovereignty and security for the future of Australians.</para>
<para>In McEwen especially, we know what inaction and apathy towards the NBN by the former coalition government meant to our communities. Our residents had their data limited—both the amount and the time at which they could use it. Even in the face of a pandemic, where average Australians were forced to work from home, those opposite did nothing. They treated our communities as second-class citizens, preventing them from downloading more than 55 gigabytes a month—and that was if they downloaded between 7 am and 1 am under Sky Muster. This had a real impact and put hardship in our community, on top of what the global pandemic was already doing. High-speed broadband and working communication services are not just something that people expect competent governments to provide; they are essential for people to engage in work in this day and age. This was a big reason why the people in our communities viewed the former government as incompetent and out of touch. It was one of many examples of the Liberals and Nationals failing the peri-urban and regional communities of McEwen.</para>
<para>The coalition were too busy focused on leadership spills to govern and properly manage the NBN. I suppose that's because, from day one, they have never supported it. Even in the beginning, they actively opposed it. The two former prime ministers, Abbott and Morrison, did a mediocre job of implementing it. Remember when they did that Fox Studios dance around each other, talking about how they were going to limit it to 25 megabits per second? It was so good that even Clarke and Dawe made a special about it. The coalition have never understood what it's about and what it means to ordinary Australians. Turnbull himself used his own cash to buy fibre-to-the-premises in British Telecom but was then spending our money on fibre to the node and second-rate copper. The only country in the OECD that was buying copper for broadband was us.</para>
<para>Comments made when the NBN was first introduced about how it was 'just for watching videos' show a complete lack of understanding of what it means to Australians. When the coalition were in power, we heard from VCE students in Mernda and Doreen who were finding it harder than their peers in the city to do their study. It was because of the coalition's insistence on putting in second-rate schemes and letting the cost of the NBN rollout blow out due to their inability to have competent policies or put words into action. Our communities were neglected for nearly a decade under the former Liberal government. No matter how many letters or personal appeals to the many ministers who were given the communications portfolio, we were completely disregarded by those opposite. The fact that they have the nerve to stand here and talk on this legislation, when they did everything to undermine and impede the NBN rollout, is a joke. You don't even need a touch of remorse to see what they put our communities through.</para>
<para>Those opposite were, and still are, willing to put their heads in the sand. It was evident when, as communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull claimed, 'There has never been a more exciting time.' He was more focused on his career than on delivering for our communities. He managed to botch every decision in relation to the NBN, riddling it with mismanagement and neglect for the two years that he was in the job. Remember the famous statement he made back on 20 March 2014, as communications minister in the Liberal government: 'If connectivity was so important, why did you buy a house where there was no broadband?' It's almost as good as: 'If you want a good home, get a better job or get rich parents.' That's what old 'Eleventy Joe' Hockey said.</para>
<para>Under the coalition government, McEwen has always been an afterthought, left to get the scraps from the inner city and the big corporations. They stopped the rollout of the fibre NBN and had enough copper to go around the entire planet 1½ times. They produced a degraded system at double the price they said it would cost. The city of Whittlesea had already put pits and pipes in the ground for fibre optic, but they were left empty because those opposite decided that we weren't good enough to get fibre to the premises. They put it in in their own seats, but, as we know, pork-barrelling is a specialty of those opposite.</para>
<para>Their time in government was defined by their incompetency, but their NBN rollout was really a crowning achievement, deemed by many commentators as a national tragedy. You would think that losing government would have given them a little bit more humility and care and maybe even made them appreciate the NBN. But we see from the comments made by those opposite that, really, that's not the case. One of their self-confessed best and brightest, the member for Casey, told his story about the CFA volunteers not being able to send an SMS during the June storms of 2021—in 2021, they were in government; so he missed that point—but he's confusing NBN services with mobile broadband. No wonder they seem to want to give it away to the highest bidder; it's better than them admitting that they simply don't understand the importance of this. We also heard from the member for Flinders saying the quiet part out loud. Even though the shadow minister has been in damage control and saying he has no intention of changing ownership of the NBN, the member for Flinders went on <inline font-style="italic">Sky News</inline> and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It has always been in the contemplation that it would be privatised when the time is right.</para></quote>
<para>They can't even get their stories straight. During their time in government, we saw Australia's ranking fall to 65th in the world in 2022 for broadband access and usability. It is just unfathomable that they could do that. They just seek to sew confusion amongst the Australian people. They can't stick to their party lines, and they know little about the programs they're talking about.</para>
<para>The NBN is a Labor initiative, because Labor builds things. We build for the future; they just block and wreck. We understand the importance of it for all Australians. We understand the importance of the NBN for both the economy and for the security of our nation. This legislation not only keeps the NBN in Australian hands but also makes sure that the Australian government does its job and makes the NBN fair and accessible for every Australian. You would think that that would be important and that we wouldn't have this delay, but once again we see the coalition of noes, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens, lining up together—and we now see the Greens wanting to delay the passage of this bill even further. You would have thought, with what happened in Queensland, that they would have started to look up and say, 'We'd better start working for the betterment of the nation, not for ourselves.' But, alas, that's not the case.</para>
<para>This bill should go through. It's important that it gets passed. It's important because we need to know that critical infrastructure, like the NBN, remains in public hands, to make sure we don't go through all the problems we've had in the past where we've seen privatisation of the likes of Telstra and, of course, our power companies in Victoria, which made prices more and more expensive. It is our government that works to build this nation and to make sure we put the things in place that people need when they need it and how they need it. It's time the coalition got out the way, got on board, and started supporting us. Without this legislation, we further risk seeing things being sent off to private enterprise, which will then cause things to just run amok through our communities.</para>
<para>After nine years of neglect, today we are now seeing the problems caused by the fact that those opposite failed to deliver to Victoria the infrastructure needed to actually help things get done. So you can be sure that, if a coalition government got back in, this would be one of the first things on the chopping block, because they want to make sure they can flog things off as quick as they can. It's in their DNA. It has always been in their DNA. With superannuation and Medicare, and everything you look at that we have done, they have done everything in their power to get rid of it and to spoil it. We are going to make sure that this vital piece of infrastructure that needs to be here for now and into the future remains here in our public's hands.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7238" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7215" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>41</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>41</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on the sheet revised 4 November 2024, as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 600, page 540 (line 25), omit "31 January 2029", substitute "the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 600, page 540 (line 29), omit "no later than 31 March 2030", substitute "within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister".</para></quote>
<para>Providers will newly be able to charge a maximum refundable deposit for residential aged care of $750,000 indexed over time, up from $550,000, without seeking separate regulatory approval. Depending on when each person enters aged care, a couple could be required to pay deposits of up to $1.5 million between them, as well as significant ongoing fees for each person.</para>
<para>I won't detain the House for too long, but I would just like it to make it clear that this will have profound impacts on people's lives. My constituent, Betty, whose husband is living with dementia has written to me. She said: 'Many people have mentioned that my husband should be in a nursing home, and I realise that this will be necessary, but I cope as long as I can. My concern is that the ridiculously high entrance cost proposed will force carers, many women like me, to struggle on as a carer at home, largely invisible. To me, this is a feminist argument—a carer role for children and then for aged relatives, with a token reward. I've been saving hard to have the nursing home upfront fee, but there's no way I could save $750,000. This is a ridiculously high amount. I don't have to pay, apart from private insurance, when he is in hospital, as he is ill. I can't see a difference, to be honest. It is not a universal service that we will all use when we are deemed old. It is for those who need specialist care. It's not a hotel. Comparisons of that with being the normal cost of living is highly offensive. I also wonder if I should place him in a nursing home earlier rather than later, before July next year, which is very soon, as soon as he comes under the new rules—a cruel decision to have to make.'</para>
<para>I note that if Betty and her husband were able to save the $750,000, which is what it potentially could be—this will no doubt, I think, become the default minimum refundable deposit—it will be expended on her husband's refundable deposit. This will likely leave Betty with few savings should she later require high-level care, and I suspect, as Betty has said to my office, that this burden will be borne predominantly by women. I think this is very true.</para>
<para>Over a five-year period, at a conservative six per cent rate, a provider of residential aged care will earn $253,669 in compound interest on the refundable deposit of $750,000, and providers will newly be permitted to retain two per cent of that refundable deposit. That's up to $75,000. So, as well as the compound interest, we're looking at a contribution of potentially $328,000. The parliament is being asked to provide a huge windfall for operators on an understanding that the additional capital will be spent and maintained on improving facilities, but it's not exactly clarified exactly how the government intends to monitor that. What we need to make sure is that it's not spent on Lamborghinis or Birkin bags—and we have seen media reports of that—and that it's actually spent on improving facilities. That is why I am moving these amendments. I commend these amendments to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Mayo for her genuine and ongoing advocacy for older Australians, particularly in the electorate of Mayo. I confirm that the government supports the amendment with respect to the act review. This bill will deliver once-in-a-generation reform that will have a profound impact on the lives of older Australians and their families and carers, aged-care workers and providers. We agree it's important that the review into the operation of the act is brought forward to ensure that it is delivering on its intended purpose, to create a forward-looking aged-care system that upholds the rights of older Australians receiving aged-care services.</para>
<para>Aside from the member for Mayo, who has worked tirelessly in this space for many, many years, I also recognise the stakeholders who have advocated for this amendment in particular, including National Seniors Australia, the Older Persons Advocacy Network, Council on the Ageing, Dementia Australia, Carers Australia, Catholic Health Australia, Australian College of Nursing and Wongaburra, an aged-care provider in Beaudesert in the electorate of Wright. I note this was also a recommendation put by the opposition in the community affairs committee report on the bill.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) on the sheet revised 4 November 2024, as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 601, page 541 (line 3), omit "fifth", substitute "third".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 601, page 541 (after line 4), after subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) Without limiting subsection the matters to be covered by the review, the review must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) have regard to the objects of the Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consider the following matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the operation of the Statement of Rights and the Statement of Principles;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the effectiveness of the Act in delivering the objects, including enabling individuals to exercise choice and control;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the effectiveness of the Act in embedding the role of supporters in the aged care system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the extent of unmet demand for funded aged care services in a home or community setting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) the duration of waiting periods from application to service commencement for funded aged care services in a home or community setting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) the effectiveness of the governance (under Chapter 5) and regulatory mechanisms (under Chapter 6) of the aged care system in overseeing and ensuring the quality of funded aged care services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) the effectiveness of the Act in ensuring equitable access to funded aged care services for individuals, regardless of their location, background and life experience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(viii) the effect of Part 3 of Chapter 4 (about individual fees and contributions) on the sustainability of the aged care system, service usage and outcomes for individuals accessing funded aged care services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ix) the use of refundable accommodation deposits and daily accommodation payments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(x) the proportion of aged care accommodation payments being charged at the maximum accommodation payment amounts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(xi) the proportion of registered providers who charge an accommodation payment approved under section 290 (that is, an approved accommodation payment that is higher than the maximum accommodation payment amount);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(xii) the quality and timeliness of data published about the performance of the aged care system.</para></quote>
<para>This relates to clause 601, the statutory review. I have heard from key stakeholders, including National Seniors and Council of the Ageing, that the planned mechanisms for statutory review of the act after five years of operation are insufficient and too distant into the future. I've therefore moved amendments (3) and (4) in my name to require review of the operation of the act within six months after the third anniversary of the commencement of the act, with a report to the parliament to be tabled within 15 sitting days of the report being given to the minister.</para>
<para>I've also consulted with Council of the Ageing, COTA, regarding the inclusion of proposed terms of reference for the act's statutory review being an inclusive rather than exclusive list of matters required to be considered on review based on stakeholder feedback. They include the effectiveness of the act in delivering objects, including choice and control, for individuals; receiving funding for aged-care services; whether the act has been successful in embedding rights, principles and supported decision-making as the foundations of aged care delivered in Australia; whether the level of support and greater investment in support at home has improved access and reduced waiting times for individuals to receive care; the effectiveness of arrangements for regulation and governance of aged care; and the impact on ensuring the quality of funded aged-care services.</para>
<para>In the context of once-in-a-generation reform in the aged-care system coming out of a once-in-a-generation—we hope—royal commission, with huge impacts on older Australians' rights and the quality and cost of care, the importance cannot be overemphasised of building a meaningful statutory review to ensure that the effectiveness of the scheme is rigorously assessed so that improvements can be identified and promptly implemented when needed. I commend these amendments to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Mayo for her ongoing advocacy. I note, with respect to RAD reviews, we have committed to a phase-out of refundable accommodation deposits by 2035, following a review of sector readiness for this transition, which will be in 2029-30. The Aged Care Taskforce, which brought together aged-care stakeholders, experts and providers, found that time is needed to manage the transition away from refundable accommodation deposits and that a review should be undertaken in 2030. A change in the timeframe as recommended by the taskforce was not a key issue identified in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report on the Aged Care Bill.</para>
<para>With respect to the act review, we do agree it's important. We think the member for Mayo is correct on this. We think the review into the operation of the act can be brought forward to ensure it is delivering on its intended purpose to create a forward-looking aged-care system that will uphold the rights of older Australians receiving aged-care services. It was also a recommendation put forward by the opposition in the community affairs committee report on the bill. I thank the member for Mayo.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 5, page 3 (line 3), after "Cultural Rights", insert ", the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 7, page 14 (after line 2), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">cost</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</inline> means the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The Covenant is in Australian Treaty Series 1980 No. 23 ([1980] ATS 23) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on 7 the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).</para></quote>
<para>The amendments I am introducing today go to the objects of the Aged Care Bill 2024. Section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act provides that statutes should be interpreted in accordance with their objects and that all other provisions of the bill are to be read as far as is possible as being designed to carry out these objects.</para>
<para>There can be no understating, therefore, of the importance of getting the objects provisions in the legislation right. Currently the bill's objects clause states, among other things, the objects are to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">give effect to Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—</para></quote>
<para>the ICESCR—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—</para></quote>
<para>the CRPD. However, there is no reference in the objects to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is because the objects specify only those conventions that the Bill upholds in reference to the External Affairs power, but it does not mean that the Bill does not endeavour to uphold these other international conventions.</para></quote>
<para>Basically, the bill only includes those international human rights treaties that the minister considers relevant to the constitutional authority of the Aged Care Bill.</para>
<para>The Law Council takes a different view. In its submission on the bill's exposure draft, the Law Council queried the department's assessment that only the ICESCR and the CRPD are relevant to provide the constitutional foundation for the Aged Care Bill and to manage associated legal risk. The Law Council went on to say that various provisions in the bill may carry the risk that they do not have a proper constitutional foundation because there may not be a proper foundation for them in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These include the right to be free from all forms of violence, neglect or abuse and the right to be treated with dignity. Only half of Australians over the age of 65 are living with a disability. To rely only on a treaty relating to disability to give the bill its constitutional foundation is a risk.</para>
<para>The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the other hand, applies to all persons and will eliminate this risk if incorporated into the bill. After all, the report of the aged care royal commission described aged care in Australia as 'a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation' and said it tells a 'shocking tale of neglect'. It was the royal commission report that shocked the nation. The ICCPR is a foundational international human rights treaty, and it needs to be incorporated into what is, after all, a bill which seeks to establish a rights based framework for the older Australian.</para>
<para>Since publishing this amendment yesterday I've been contacted by Australia's Council on the Ageing, COTA Australia, expressing their appreciation for it. In their view, it will bolster the scope of powers the act sits upon. If we do truly want a bill that is based firmly on the rights of all older Australians, I ask for all my colleagues in this House to support this simple yet commonsense amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Mackellar for her amendment. As she is a former emergency department doctor and GP, I know she is acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that older Australians can access high-quality health and aged-care services. I acknowledge her intention on tabling this amendment is for the bill to give effect to Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the government doesn't support the amendment. To make the constitutional basis for this legislation clear, the objects specify only the international conventions relevant to the external affairs power: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That doesn't mean that aged care does not endeavour to uphold other international conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill I move government amendments (1) to (65) on sheet TH111:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 7, page 6 (after line 11), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">accommodation agreement</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">accommodation bond</inline> means an accommodation bond within the meaning of the old Act in relation to an individual that was paid or payable by the individual immediately before the transition time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">accommodation charge</inline> means an accommodation charge within the meaning of the old Act in relation to an individual that was paid or payable by the individual immediately before the transition time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 7, page 18 (after line 6), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">health service</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">home care account</inline>, for an individual: see section 226E.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 7, page 21 (line 5), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">means not disclosed status</inline>, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">means not disclosed status</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for an individual accessing funded aged care services in a home or community setting—see section 314A; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for an individual accessing funded aged care services in an approved residential care home—see section 320.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 7, page 23 (after line 6), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">official of the Pricing Authority</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">old Act</inline> means the <inline font-style="italic">Aged Care Act </inline><inline font-style="italic">1997</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 7, page 31 (after line 6), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Transition Care Program</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">transition time</inline> means the time this Act commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Clause 7, page 31 (after line 8), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">unit price</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">unspent care recipient portion</inline>, for an individual: see section 273A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">unspent Commonwealth portion</inline>, for an individual: see section 226A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Page 192 (after line 19), at the end of Division 3, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">186A Protection of compensation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of any provision of this Act (other than section 186) and any other legislation of the Commonwealth or of a State or a Territory, a payment of compensation to an individual under section 186 is not to be treated as being a payment of compensation or damages.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This subsection prevents a compensation payment affecting other payments that may be payable to the person under legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Nothing in this Act prevents a liability insurance contract from treating a payment of compensation under section 186 as being a payment of compensation or damages.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Clause 191, page 199 (line 1), at the end of subclause (2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (i) the registered provider has agreed to deal with the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion (if any) in accordance with Division 3A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Clause 192, page 199 (line 12) to page 200 (line 10) (method statement), omit the method statement, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Method statement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 1. Work out the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the subsidy basis for the service is efficient price or unit price—multiply theprice charged by the provider to the individual for an hour or unit of the service (whichever is applicable) by the number of hours or units of the servicedelivered to the individual on the day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the subsidy basis for the service is cost—the cost.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2. Reduce the amount worked out under Step 1 by the sum of any reduction amounts for the classification type for the service group that apply to the individual. This is the <inline font-style="italic">provisional subsidy amount</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 3. Work out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the available balance of the individual's ongoing home support account on the day in accordance with section 193, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the provider (if any) on the day in accordance with section 226A, taking into account any amounts already debited from that portion in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any) on the day in accordance with section 226E, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 4. Reduce the provisional subsidy amount by any amount (the <inline font-style="italic">excess amount</inline>) by which the provisional subsidy amount exceeds the available balance of the individual's ongoing home support account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 5. Reduce (but not below zero) the excess amount by the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the provider (if any). This is the <inline font-style="italic">remaining amount</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 6. If the remaining amount is not zero, reduce the remaining amount by any amount by which the remaining amount exceeds the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 7. Work out the sum of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount worked out under Step 4; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount worked out under Step 6; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any secondary person-centred supplements for the classification type ongoing for the service group home support that apply to the individual for the day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The result is the amount of subsidy payable to the registered provider for the individual for the service for the day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Clause 192, page 200 (line 16) to page 201 (line 15) (method statement), omit the method statement, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Method statement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 1. Work out the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the subsidy basis for the service is efficient price or unit price—multiply theprice charged by the provider to the individual for an hour or unit of the service (whichever is applicable) by the number of hours or units of the servicedelivered to the individual on the day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the subsidy basis for the service is cost—the cost.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2. Reduce the amount worked out under Step 1 by the sum of any reduction amounts for the classification type for the service group that apply to the individual. This is the <inline font-style="italic">provisional subsidy amount</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 3. Work out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the available balance of the individual's short-term home support account on the day in accordance with section 195, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the provider (if any) on the day in accordance with section 226A, taking into account any amounts already debited from that portion in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any) on the day in accordance with section 226E, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 4. Reduce the provisional subsidy amount by any amount (the <inline font-style="italic">excess amount</inline>) by which the provisional subsidy amount exceeds the available balance of the individual's short-term home support account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 5. Reduce (but not below zero) the excess amount by the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the provider (if any). This is the <inline font-style="italic">remaining amount</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 6. If the remaining amount is not zero, reduce the remaining amount by any amount by which the remaining amount exceeds the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 7. Work out the sum of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount worked out under Step 4; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount worked out under Step 6; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any secondary person-centred supplements for the classification type short-term for the service group home support that apply to the individual for the day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The result is the amount of subsidy payable to the registered provider for the individual for the service for the day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Clause 197, page 206 (line 16), omit "that".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Clause 197, page 206 (line 22), after "paragraph (a)", insert "of this subsection".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Clause 197, page 206 (line 23), at the end of subclause (3), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) that the fee reduction supplement and the matters set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection may be set by a determination made by the System Governor, and that the determination may include a limited period for which the supplement is payable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Clause 205, page 211 (line 11), after "registered provider", insert "in relation to an individual".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Clause 209, page 213 (line 31), at the end of subclause (2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (i) the registered provider has agreed to deal with the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion (if any) in accordance with Division 3A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Clause 210, page 214 (line 11) to page 215 (line 9) (method statement), omit the method statement, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Method statement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 1. Work out the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the subsidy basis for the service is efficient price or unit price—multiply theprice charged by the provider to the individual for an hour or unit of the service (whichever is applicable) by the number of hours or units of the servicedelivered to the individual on the day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the subsidy basis for the service is cost—the cost.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2. Reduce the amount worked out under Step 1 by the sum of any reduction amounts for the classification type for the service group that apply to the individual. This is the <inline font-style="italic">provisional subsidy amount</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 3. Work out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the provider (if any) on the day in accordance with section 226A, taking into account any amounts already debited from that portion in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any) on the day in accordance with section 226E, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the available balance of the individual's notional assistive technology account on the day in accordance with section 211, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 4. Reduce (but not below zero) the provisional subsidy amount by the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the provider (if any).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 5. If the amount worked out under Step 4 is not zero, reduce the amount by any amount (the <inline font-style="italic">excess amount</inline>) by which the amount exceeds the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 6. Reduce the excess amount by any amount by which the excess amount exceeds the available balance of the individual's notional assistive technology account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 7. Work out the sum of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount worked out under Step 5; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount worked out under Step 6; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any secondary person-centred supplements for the classification type ongoing or short-term for the service group assistive technology that apply to the individual for the day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The result is the amount of subsidy payable to the registered provider for the individual for the service for the day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Clause 211, page 215 (after line 30), after subclause (4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) If the account was established for the individual for the classification type short-term for the service group, at the start of a day prescribed by the rules the amount prescribed by the rules is credited to the account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Clause 211, page 216 (lines 13 and 14), omit "worked out at step 1 of the method statement in section 210 for each of those claims.", substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">worked out as follows for each of those claims:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) first, take the amount worked out under Step 1 of the method statement in section 210 for the claim;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) then reduce the amount referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection by the sum of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the registered provider (if any) on that day in accordance with section 226A, taking into account any amounts already debited from that portion in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any) on that day in accordance with section 226E, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Clause 212, page 216 (lines 24 and 25), omit "the classification type", substitute "a classification type".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Clause 214, page 217 (line 21), omit "that".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Clause 214, page 217 (line 27), after "paragraph (a)", insert "of this subsection".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) Clause 214, page 217 (line 28), at the end of subclause (3), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) that the fee reduction supplement and the matters set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection may be set by a determination made by the System Governor, and that the determination may include a limited period for which the supplement is payable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) Clause 218, page 219 (line 31), at the end of subclause (2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (i) the registered provider has agreed to deal with the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion (if any) in accordance with Division 3A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(24) Clause 219, page 220 (line 11) to page 221 (line 9) (method statement), omit the method statement, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Method statement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 1. Work out the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the subsidy basis for the service is efficient price or unit price—multiply theprice charged by the provider to the individual for an hour or unit of the service (whichever is applicable) by the number of hours or units of the servicedelivered to the individual on the day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the subsidy basis for the service is cost—the cost.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2. Reduce the amount worked out under Step 1 by the sum of any reduction amounts for the classification type for the service group that apply to the individual. This is the <inline font-style="italic">provisional subsidy amount</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 3. Work out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the provider (if any) on the day in accordance with section 226A, taking into account any amounts already debited from that portion in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any) on the day in accordance with section 226E, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the available balance of the individual's notional home modifications account on the day in accordance with section 220, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 4. Reduce (but not below zero) the provisional subsidy amount by the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the provider (if any).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 5. If the amount worked out under Step 4 is not zero, reduce the amount by any amount (the <inline font-style="italic">excess amount</inline>) by which the amount exceeds the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 6. Reduce the excess amount by any amount by which the excess amount exceeds the available balance of the individual's notional assistive technology account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 7. Work out the sum of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount worked out under Step 5; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount worked out under Step 6; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any secondary person-centred supplements for the classification type ongoing or short-term for the service group home modifications that apply to the individual for the day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The result is the amount of subsidy payable to the registered provider for the individual for the service for the day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(25) Clause 220, page 222 (lines 7 and 8), omit "worked out at step 1 of the method statement in section 219 for each of those claims.", substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">worked out as follows for each of those claims:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) first, take the amount worked out under Step 1 of the method statement in section 219 for the claim;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) then reduce the amount referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection by the sum of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the available balance of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion held by the registered provider (if any) on that day in accordance with section 226A, taking into account any amounts already debited from that portion in accordance with that section on that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the available balance of the individual's home care account (if any) on that day in accordance with section 226E, taking into account any claims already debited from that account in accordance with that section on that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(26) Clause 221, page 222 (line 18), after "account period for", insert "a".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(27) Clause 223, page 223 (line 15), omit "that".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(28) Clause 223, page 223 (line 16), before "the fee", insert "that".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(29) Clause 223, page 223 (line 22), at the end of subclause (3), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) that the fee reduction supplement and the matters set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection may be set by a determination made by the System Governor, and that the determination may include a limited period for which the supplement is payable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(30) Page 224 (after line 19), after Division 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3A — Unspent Commonwealth portions and home care accounts</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">226A Unspent Commonwealth portion</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A registered provider starts to hold an <inline font-style="italic">unspent Commonwealth portion </inline>for an individual at the transition time if, immediately before the transition time:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the registered provider was an approved provider that held an unspent home care amount in relation to the individual as mentioned in the <inline font-style="italic">User Rights Principles 2014</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount of the Commonwealth portion of that amount under section 21CA of those Principles was not zero.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The <inline font-style="italic">available balance</inline> of the individual's unspent Commonwealth portion at a time is the difference, worked out in accordance with this section, between the sum of the credits that have been made to the portion at that time reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of the debits that have been made to the portion at that time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Initial credit</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) At the transition time, the amount of the Commonwealth portion of the individual's unspent home care amount under section 21CA of the <inline font-style="italic">User Rights Principles 2014</inline> immediately before the transition time is credited to the portion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Debits for claims</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If one or more claims are made under section 251 for person-centred subsidy for the delivery of a funded aged care service to the individual on a day, the portion is reduced on that day (but after the start of the day), in the order prescribed by the rules, by the amount by which the provisional subsidy amount for the service was reduced under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Step 5 of the method statement in subsection 192(1) or (2); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Step 4 of the method statement in section 210; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Step 4 of the method statement in section 219;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(as applicable) for each of those claims<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Insufficient funds</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the debiting of an amount in relation to a claim under subsection (4) would result in the portion being debited below zero, the claim is taken to be a claim for such lesser amount (including a nil amount) that would not result in the portion being debited below zero.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Debit for return of unspent Commonwealth portion</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">provider election</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If the registered provider elects to return the available balance of an unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual to the Commonwealth under section 226B, the portion is reduced, at the start of a day prescribed by the rules (which may be a day before the day the election is made), by the amount of that balance at the start of that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Debit for return of unspent Commonwealth portion</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">individual transfers between provider service delivery branches</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If a registered provider returns the available balance of an unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual to the Commonwealth under section 226C, the portion is reduced, at the start of a day prescribed by the rules, by the amount of that balance at the start of that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Debit for return of unspent Commonwealth portion</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">provider ceases to deliver services</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) If a registered provider returns the available balance of an unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual to the Commonwealth under section 226D, the portion is reduced, at the start of a day prescribed by the rules, by the amount of that balance at the start of that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ceasing of portion</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) The registered provider ceases to hold an unspent Commonwealth portion for an individual when the available balance of the portion is reduced to zero.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">226B Return of unspent Commonwealth portion — provider election</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A registered provider may, by written notice given to the System Governor and in accordance with the rules, elect to return the available balance of an unspent Commonwealth portion for an individual to the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Before making the election, the registered provider must obtain the individual's written agreement to the making of the election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The election is irrevocable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">226C Return of unspent Commonwealth portion — individual transfers between provider service delivery branches</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a registered provider holds an unspent Commonwealth portion for an individual to whom the provider is delivering funded aged care services through a particular service delivery branch of the provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the provider ceases to deliver those services to the individual through that service delivery branch and starts to deliver those services to the individual through another service delivery branch of the provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) there is continuity of the delivery of those services to the individual by that provider.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The provider must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) give the System Governor written notice of the matters mentioned in subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) return the available balance of the unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual to the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">226D Return of unspent Commonwealth portion — provider ceases to deliver services</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a registered provider holds an unspent Commonwealth portion for an individual to whom the provider is delivering funded aged care services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the provider ceases to deliver funded aged care services to the individual.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The provider must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) give the System Governor written notice of the matters mentioned in subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) return the available balance of the unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual to the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">226E Home care account balance</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Home care account</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A notional home care accountis established for an individualat the transition time if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately before the transition time:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the individual had a home care account under the old Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the home care account balance of that account under the old Act was not zero; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the transition time, no registered provider holds an unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual under section 226A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Available balance</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The <inline font-style="italic">available balance</inline> of an individual's home care account at a time is the difference, worked out in accordance with this section, between the sum of the credits that have been made to the account at that time, reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of the debits that have been made to the account at that time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Initial credit</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) At the transition time, the amount of the individual's home care account balance under the old Act immediately before the transition time is credited to the account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Credit for return of unspent Commonwealth portion</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">provider election</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If a registered provider elects to return the available balance of an unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual to the Commonwealth under section 226B, the account is credited, at the start of a day prescribed by the rules (which may be a day before the day the election is made), by the amount of that balance at the start of that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Credit for return of unspent Commonwealth portion</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">individual transfers between provider service delivery branches</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If a registered provider returns the available balance of an unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual to the Commonwealth under section 226C, the account is credited, at the start of a day prescribed by the rules, by the amount of that balance at the start of that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Credit for return of unspent Commonwealth portion</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">provider ceases to deliver services</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If a registered provider returns the available balance of an unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual to the Commonwealth under section 226D, the account is credited, at the start of a day prescribed by the rules, by the amount of that balance at the start of that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Debits</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If one or more claims are made under section 251 for person-centred subsidy for the delivery of a funded aged care service to the individual on a day, the account is reduced on that day (but after the start of the day), in the order prescribed by the rules, by the amount worked out under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Step 6 of the method statement in subsection 192(1) or (2); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Step 5 of the method statement in section 210; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Step 5 of the method statement in section 219;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(as applicable) for each of those claims<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Insufficient funds</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) If the debiting of an amount in relation to a claim under subsection (7) would result in the account being debited below zero, the claim is taken to be a claim for such lesser amount (including a nil amount) that would not result in the account being debited below zero.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ceasing of account</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) The account ceases when:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the available balance of the account is reduced to zero; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) no registered provider holds an unspent Commonwealth portion for the individual under section 226A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(31) Clause 231, page 229 (line 21), omit "that".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(32) Clause 231, page 229 (line 22), before "the fee", insert "that".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(33) Clause 231, page 229 (line 31), at the end of subclause (3), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) that the fee reduction supplement and the matters set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection may be set by a determination made by the System Governor, and that the determination may include a limited period for which the supplement is payable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(34) Clause 235, page 232 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (5), if the individual is included in a class of individuals prescribed by the rules, the <inline font-style="italic">person-centred subsidy reduction</inline> for the day is the amount prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(35) Clause 242, page 237 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite subsections (1), (3) and (4), the <inline font-style="italic">provider-based subsidy reduction</inline> for a registered provider for the classification type ongoing for the service group residential care for an individual is the amount prescribed by the rules if the individual is included in a class of individuals prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(36) Clause 273, page 258 (lines 18 and 19), omit Step 1 of the method statement, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 1. Work out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the service group is home support—the individual's individual contribution rate under section 314 for the day referred to in subsection (1) of this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the service group is assistive technology or home modifications—the lower of the individual's individual contribution rate under section 314 for the day referred to in subsection (1) of this section and the day prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(37) Clause 273, page 259 (line 27), at the end of subclause (5), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (c) any other contribution or fee prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(38) Page 259 (after line 27), after clause 273, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">273A Unspent care recipient portion</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A registered provider starts to hold an <inline font-style="italic">unspent care recipient</inline><inline font-style="italic">portion </inline>for an individual at the transition time if, immediately before the transition time:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the registered provider was an approved provider that held an unspent home care amount in relation to the individual as mentioned in the <inline font-style="italic">User Rights Principles 2014</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount of the care recipient portion of that amount under section 21CA of those Principles was not zero.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The registered provider must comply with any requirements prescribed by the rules relating to unspent care recipient portions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(39) Clause 276, page 261 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting paragraph (2)(b), rules made for the purposes of that paragraph may provide that an amount may be charged for only a particular period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(40) Clause 277, page 262 (lines 22 to 24), omit subclause (4), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite subsection (1), if the individual is in a class of individuals prescribed by the rules, the <inline font-style="italic">maximum daily amount of the resident contribution</inline> payable by the individual for a day is the amount prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Reduce the following amounts in accordance with rules made for the purposes of subsection 231(3):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if subsection (1) of this section applies—the amounts worked out under each of Steps 1, 3 and 4 of the method statement in that subsection;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if subsection (4) of this section applies—each amount prescribed by the rules that relates to the amount worked out under that subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(41) Clause 278, page 263 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This section does not apply if the individual is included in a class of individuals prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(42) Clause 279, page 265 (line 5), at the end of subclause (5), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (c) any other contribution or fee prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(43) Clause 279, page 265 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) This section does not apply if the individual is included in a class of individuals prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(44) Clause 283, page 268 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting paragraph (2)(b), rules made for the purposes of that paragraph may provide that an amount may be charged for only a particular period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(45) Clause 284, page 269 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Despite subsection (1), the registered provider must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) charge the individual a higher everyday living fee in circumstances prescribed by the rules; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) enter into a higher everyday living agreement with the individual in circumstances prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(46) Clause 287, page 271 (line 5), before "This", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(47) Clause 287, page 271 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The provisions of this Part do not apply in respect of the delivery of funded aged care services to an individual (other than under a specialist aged care program) if the individual is included in a class of individuals prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the provisions of this Part do not apply in respect of the delivery of funded aged care services to a class of individuals because of subsection (2), the rules may prescribe different requirements in relation to the delivery of those services so far as the requirements relate to an accommodation bond or accommodation charge, and the charging or payment of any amounts in relation to such a bond or charge.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(48) Clause 294, page 279 (line 24), before "less", insert "equal to or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(49) Clause 294, page 279 (line 34), after "method", insert "prescribed by the rules".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(50) Clause 294, page 281 (line 1), after "method", insert "prescribed by the rules".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(51) Clause 297, page 284 (line 5), after "and the home", insert "(reduced by any deductions made to that amount in accordance with section 308)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(52) Clause 302, page 286 (after line 25), after paragraph (c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) circumstances in which an individual's daily accommodation payment is not to be indexed in accordance with rules made for the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(53) Clause 308, page 289 (after line18), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite subsection (1), that subsection does not apply in relation to an individual's refundable deposit balance if the individual is in a class of individuals prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(54) Clause 314, page 295 (line 11), omit "decision", substitute "determination".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(55) Clause 314, page 295 (line 21), omit "decision", substitute "determination".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(56) Clause 314, page 295 (line 23), omit "decision", substitute "determination".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(57) Clause 314, page 295 (lines 26 and 27), omit "worked out in accordance with a method".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">[technical correction</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(58) Page 295 (after line 27), after clause 314, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314A Means not disclosed status</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Means not </inline> <inline font-style="italic">disclosed status</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An individual accessing funded aged care services in a home or community setting has <inline font-style="italic">means not disclosed status</inline> if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the System Governor determines that the individual has that status in accordance with the rules; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the individual makes an election in accordance with section 314B.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(a), rules made for the purposes of that paragraph may prescribe that the System Governor may determine that the individual has means not disclosed status if the individual is asked to provide specified information prescribed by the rules, within a specified period, and the individual fails to do so.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Determining means not disclosed status</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A determination under paragraph (1)(a) takes effect on the day specified by the System Governor in the notice under subsection (5). The day may be before the day on which the determination is made but must be in accordance with the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For example, the means not disclosed status may take effect on the individual's start day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If, after that determination is made, the individual provides sufficient information as requested under subsection (2), the System Governor must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) revoke the determination that the individual has means not disclosed status; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) determine the day the revocation takes effect (which may be before the day that determination is made).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Giving notice of determination</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Within 14 days after making a determination under paragraph (1)(a) or (4)(b), the System Governor must give written notice of the decision to make that determination to the individual.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The notice under subsection (5) must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the decision is to make a determination under paragraph (1)(a):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) explain the consequences of the individual having means not disclosed status and the steps the individual must take if the individual wants the determination to be revoked; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specify the day the determination takes effect (see subsection (3)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) set out the reasons for both the decision to make the determination and the decision as to the day the determination takes effect; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the decision is to make a determination under paragraph (4)(b):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) specify the day the revocation takes effect; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) set out the reasons for the decision as to the day the revocation takes effect; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) state how the individual may apply for reconsideration of the decisions mentioned in the notice; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) include such other matters as are prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Determinations not legislative </inline> <inline font-style="italic">instruments</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If a determination under paragraph (1)(a) or (4)(b) is in writing, it is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314B Electing to have means not disclosed status</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An individual may, by written notice given to the System Governor, elect not to give any information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of subsection 314A(2) to the System Governor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The individual may make the election during the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) starting on the individual's start day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending on the day immediately before the day the System Governor determines, in accordance with the rules, that the individual has means not disclosed status.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the individual makes an election under subsection (1), the individual's means not disclosed status takes effect on the individual's start day and remains in effect until the day the individual withdraws the election in accordance with subsection (5).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) While the election is in effect, the System Governor must not request the individual to give any information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of subsection 314A(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The individual may, by written notice given to the System Governor, withdraw the election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(59) Heading to clause 315, page 296 (line 1), omit "of".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(60) Clause 319, page 302 (lines 8 and 9), omit "total assessable income", substitute "asset".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(61) Clause 319, page 304 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite subsection (1), if the individual is in a class of individuals prescribed by the rules, the <inline font-style="italic">daily means tested amount </inline>for the individual is the amount prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, an amount prescribed by the rules under subsection (5) may refer to an individual's total assessable income, the value of an individual's assets, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(62) Clause 320, page 304 (line 5), after "individual", insert "accessing funded aged care services in an approved residential care home".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(63) Heading to clause 336, page 328 (line 2), omit "of".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(64) Page 329 (after line 7), at the end of Chapter 4, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 6 — Miscellaneous</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">337A Compensation for acquisition of property</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the operation of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Chapter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a legislative instrument made under this Chapter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph), the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the Commonwealth and the person do not agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Federal Court of Australia; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Supreme Court of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">for the recovery from the Commonwealth of such reasonable amount of compensation as the court determines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(65) Clause 602, page 543 (after line 15), after subclause (7), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Rules about transitional cohorts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7A) Without limiting subsections (1) and (7), the rules may make different provision for an amount (including in any of the ways provided for in subsection (7)) for different classes of individuals, including classes of individuals (<inline font-style="italic">transitional cohorts</inline>) identified by reference to the individual being approved as a recipient of a kind of care under any of the following as in force or existing immediately before the commencement of this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the <inline font-style="italic">Aged Care Act 1997</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the <inline font-style="italic">Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the program manual for the Commonwealth Home Support Program or the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7B) Without limiting subsection (1), the rules may prescribe the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) arrangements for individuals in a transitional cohort to elect to cease to be included in the cohort;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) circumstances in which an individual will cease to be included in a transitional cohort.</para></quote>
<para>The government moves this amendment to include grandfathering arrangements, including the 'no worse off' principle in the primary legislation for the Aged Care Bill. We have heard from stakeholders that they are concerned about what this change will mean for people who are already accessing aged care. To respond to these concerns and provide certainty to people already in aged care, we're putting the grandfathering arrangements in the bill. This will mean that existing home care package care recipients, people on the national priority system or individuals who have been assessed as eligible for home care at the date the new arrangements were announced will pay the same or lower contributions under the new system. The principle will also apply to people who are receiving residential care at the time the reforms were announced. These residents will retain their existing arrangements for their time in residential care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the government setting out transitional arrangements for grandfathering in the primary legislation, rather than waiting for the transitional bill, given the questions that have been raised by advocates and constituents showing the need for clarity. Firstly, I wonder if the minister could provide some clarity with respect to the lifetime means-test cap, proposed to increase from approximately $82,000 to $133,000, as it's my understanding that the cap covers only some but not all fees. Could the minister please confirm which of the following fees will be capped by the lifetime mean-test fee cap? Does that include the basic daily care fees, the daily extra services fees—to be called the 'higher everyday living fees', which can total thousands of dollars per year, as reported by the Older Persons Advocacy Network? Will the cap cover the daily accommodation payments for those unable to pay the refundable deposit?</para>
<para>I also request clarification as to whether the grandfathering will also apply to the amounts that may be charged for refundable deposits for residential aged care. Likewise, I would like to confirm the scope of the grandfathering proposed under the 'no worse off' principle. My office has been advise that this principle applies purely to the lifetime means-tested fee cap that the person may be required to pay for receiving funded aged-care services. Can the minister please advise whether the person's entitlement to services they may already be receiving under a home-care package, such as gardening, cleaning and the like, will be grandfathered into the new Support at Home system? Alternatively, will the new lower and more prescriptive Support at Home service limits apply? I ask this because I have constituents who are worried that the gardening services they currently receive are going to be significantly reduced in hours.</para>
<para>Secondly, the amendment refers to a class of people in the rules for the purpose of the no worse off principle, but it does not exclusively explain who those rules are meant to apply to. Therefore, I respectfully seek clarification from the minister with respect to this. Will those with a pre-existing lifetime contribution cap to be grandfathered include people who have applied for My Aged Care and sought an aged-care assessment but have not yet been assessed as at 12 September this year; people who had undergone an aged-care assessment, were on the national priority list waiting for aged care or were receiving a funded home-care package on 12 September 2024; people who had undergone an aged-care assessment or had been approved for and allocated or receiving CHSP, Commonwealth Home Support Program, services as at 12 September; and people who were experiencing hardship, which COTA argues requires definition in the act?</para>
<para>Further, National Seniors Australia have raised the following queries, and I share their concerns. Could the minister provide greater clarification about when the no worse off principle, the grandfathering, ends? The public communication implies the no worse off principle is ongoing but not where there are clear end dates. Could the minister please provide more information regarding what factors are to be taken into consideration when setting price caps for different Support at Home services and what methods are to be used to determine the price setting for different services? Could the minister please advise what the government is actively planning to do to clear the backlog of approximately 76,000 people who are on the waiting list? I note that aged-care providers have said there need to be an additional 55,000 packages and that they have capacity to provide those services.</para>
<para>I also wish to seek clarification from the minister that clause 186A excludes from means testing any payments of compensation or damages made by a provider under the act's compensation pathway for serious injury or illness caused by them in breach of their duties under the act—meaning a provider cannot claw back from the recipient any compensation payment that may have been paid out of a breach.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have some further questions for the minister in the consideration in detail stage. I've liaised with the Council on the Ageing regarding some other issues about which we share some concerns. Will the government move to include an explicit definition of 'hardship' in the bill? The Council on the Ageing advocates that 'hardship' be defined as someone having less than 50 per cent of the basic pension in income after essential services are paid, which is what it is today. The Council on the Ageing also advocates that the assets test for determining hardship be equalised with the minimum asset value in the bill, which is 2.25 times the annual basic pension.</para>
<para>Another question to the minister: will the government amend the bill to ensure that a provider cannot charge any fees if someone is experiencing hardship, as defined? Currently, the bill only explicitly prevents the non-clinical care contribution being reduced if someone is in hardship. Other supplements may offset user contributions to zero for the hotelling contribution if someone has assets less than $206—the accommodation contribution—but there is also no explicit link to the hardship.</para>
<para>There remain two user contributions that appear to have no link to be reduced if hardship is found. The first is for people with assets above $206,000, and that includes potentially a full pension for people who have asset levels and accommodation payments of up to $750,000 in the form of a RAD. The second is the issue of additional services, or higher everyday living services, which have been the subject of some media reports—charges for beds or even for pillows. These fees are not regulated by the act nor included in the hardship calculations, and there is no clause in the bill that would stop these fees from being charged.</para>
<para>While the system assumes that these fees are optional, the experience of many people—as we see from the OPAN presenting issues report released today—is that, if they do not agree to pay these additional service fees, they are not able to secure the bed that they or their loved one so desperately needs. Can we make sure that we don't have a system where people who can't afford a pillow are not given a pillow? Will the government commit to retaining provisions to ensure that the formerly additional services, now higher everyday living services, are truly optional and that older people and their families aren't being forced to pay for things they have no use for or benefit from?</para>
<para>The OPAN annual report indicates that aged-care residents are being charged more than $31 a day for additional services, such as a gym that they can't physically use, alcoholic drinks that they don't consume or lollies that they can't even eat due to diabetes. Some providers are including the person's bed, pillows and meals—which are fairly low on Maslow's basic needs hierarchy, rather than being luxuries. Will the minister please clarify that residents who can't physically use or do not choose to use those items will not necessarily be charged for those items?</para>
<para>Will the government amend the bill to require providers to consider certain factors when setting room prices of $750,000 as a RAD? The government has signalled it intends to allow providers to charge up to $750,000 from January next year. However, a number of stakeholders have raised concerns that the new act needs additional protections around room prices, and any such protections won't start until 1 July next year. One of the biggest concerns is that the median house price in many areas is far below $750,000.</para>
<para>Will the government amend the bill to ensure that we don't have a two-tiered system where providers can cherrypick only the wealthiest of residents? We need to have a sustainable aged-care system that ensures that everybody, no matter what is in their bank account, is provided with high-quality care. I'd appreciate the minister's response to those questions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the government amendment on sheet UD107 as circulated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 158, page 167 (line 26) to page 168 (line 18), omit subclauses (5) to (7).</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the minister for moving this amendment separately. I understand time is of the essence, so I'll just place on the record a couple of brief concerns that the Greens have about this amendment.</para>
<para>This amendment removes what we thought was a very good provision in the original bill that ensured there was a workers voice. In an industry like this—where care is in fact nothing, in many respects, but what the workers do—it is the workers who are doing the care. There's been a feeling, as expressed by the unions and other representatives, that over many years their voices and their concerns have not been heard, especially about the workplace, the delivery of packages and so on. We thought that the original provision in the bill was a good provision, and we don't think that it should be taken out. So we oppose this amendment because this amendment removes a workers voice.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:23]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>8</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill, as amended, agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>55</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7215" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>55</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:32]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>52</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>72</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to suspend standing order No. 43 until the completion of the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That standing order 43 be suspended until the conclusion of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ask yourself if you feel better off compared to 2½ years ago. I bet the answer is no. The answer is no because the Albanese Labor government's bad decisions are crippling our country. It's no because of Labor's homegrown inflation disaster. It's no because of Labor's 18 per cent increase in the cost of living. It's no because of Labor's six quarters of negative growth, putting us in the longest per capita recession in 50 years. It's no because productivity has nosedived 6.3 per cent and we're paying 23.5 per cent more in personal income tax. It's no because Labor promised a $275 reduction in our power bills, but instead electricity is up 22 per cent. It's no because gas is up 34 per cent, insurance is up 18 per cent and savings are down 10.2 per cent. It's no because Labor has given us the worst six months of business insolvencies on record. It's no because mortgages have tripled. It's no because Labor wanted to divide our nation. It's no because Labor's economic, energy, immigration and industrial relations policies are driving up inflation and stretching household budgets to breaking point. Under Labor, our living standards have plummeted. It's no because Labor has failed the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>GROW Clinical Psychology, People First Healthcare</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Two excellent primary healthcare providers in Calwell received Medicare Champion awards at the Stronger Medicare Awards ceremony the other day.</para>
<para>GROW Clinical Psychology in Roxburgh Park led by Dr Firdevs Tat delivers culturally sensitive bulk-billed mental health services to our multicultural community. The team is recognised for its commitment to accessibility, particularly for culturally and linguistically diverse communities. To meet the needs of its large cohort of Turkish-speaking clients, the GROW team includes Turkish-speaking practitioners, including the only Turkish-speaking consultant psychiatrist in Victoria. GROW promotes the importance of mental health and works to reduce the stigma of mental health challenges. The team has a particular focus on community outreach, running workshops for teachers and parents at local schools, engaging women's family violence services and working with referring health professionals.</para>
<para>The other Calwell award recipient is Dr Mohammed Al Ebrahimi, the CEO of People First Healthcare, which is also in Roxburgh Park. Dr Al Ebrahimi is an optometrist who arrived in Australia in 1998 as a refugee from Iraq. People First Healthcare supports almost 1,000 clients and employs around 300 staff. Many of his patients are refugees and migrants born in the Middle East, who face significant barriers to accessing health services.</para>
<para>Congratulations to both of these excellent local services on receiving their much-deserved awards.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endangered Species</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Environment Minister Plibersek has announced that she will delay a threatened species assessment on Macquarie Harbour's maugean skate for a period of 12 months. This decision prolongs the uncertainty for our salmon-farming industry employees, who are living with the possibility of their industry being shut down completely. The West Coast of Tasmania is buckling under the uncertainty, and it appears that this minister couldn't care less. I condemn her decision. Kicking this assessment down the road is a political strategy, not one made on science or in the best interests of Tasmania and the West Coast.</para>
<para>The science clearly shows that the maugean skate population in Macquarie Harbour is at the same levels as it was 10 years ago. This further proves that the skate population data being asserted by green activists with the sole purpose to shut down this vital industry is flawed. Delaying this assessment and the linked EPBC review decision simply allows Minister Plibersek to shield Labor in Tasmania from pushback from Tasmania's salmon workers and the industry in order to shore up votes across inner-city, mainland electorates. It's a year since Minister Plibersek started this unnecessary process, and now families on the West Coast face yet another Christmas with their futures in limbo. The West Coast deserves better than this Labor government is delivering them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Security</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELYEA</name>
    <name.id>309484</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week, Stephen Jones, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, delivered an educational scams forum to Dunkley locals. Older Australians are particularly vulnerable to scams. Attendees at the scams forum shared experiences of losing thousands of dollars of their retirement savings, which impacts their livelihood, mental health and wellbeing. Minister Jones shared tips and tricks to mitigate the loss of funds through scams and shared links to support services available to assist. Locals who are wanting to learn more about how to stop scammers can refer to our little black book, which they can obtain from electorate offices around the country.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has been working very hard to ensure the hard-earned savings of older people are protected. We are very aware of the need to do more. To those of you who were at the scams forum last week, I want you to know that Stephen Jones has today introduced the Scams Prevention Framework Bill. This will make Australia the toughest target in the world for the criminal organisations that are scamming billions out of Australia—a world first that we hope will be law by Christmas.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'm delighted to present a speech from Jasmin, a 22-year-old resident of the Curtin electorate, as part of the Raise our Voice program. Jasmin says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It wasn't until I joined the WA Justice Association that I learnt that Medicare is not universal. That once someone is incarcerated in Australia, they are denied access to equal healthcare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia is facing a fatal prison healthcare and mental healthcare crisis. Since January alone there have been 61 deaths in custody.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This crisis is rooted in the inadequacy of our current prison healthcare systems and not only undermines the human rights of prisoners but is also unlawful. In the next 10 years I want to see a more just, equal Australia, one where prisoners aren't dying from poor healthcare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The standard of healthcare in prisons is dangerously sub-par to that provided to the general public.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Allowing access to Medicare in prisons would equalise this standard of care and ensure Australia fulfils its domestic and international obligations to provide equal healthcare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Making Medicare truly universal would improve health and mental health outcomes for prisoners, reduce recidivism, aid in facilitating reintegration, and improve community health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are facing a crisis that's killing Australians. But we already have a functioning solution. I urge Parliament to heed the advice of the Australian Medical Association and allow prisoners access to Medicare for a more equal Australia.</para></quote>
<para>I thank Jasmin for her contribution to parliament.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Holt Electorate: Hampton Park Transfer Station</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since my election as the federal member for Holt, I have heard from countless residents who are deeply concerned about the proposed Hampton Park waste transfer station. On Monday, the City of Casey approved the waste transfer station, notably just before a newly elected council is set to take office for the first time in four years. This decision has understandably left the community feeling frustrated and ignored. As a resident of Narre Warren South, I understand firsthand the impact the odour has on residents' quality of life. It is something I experience on a daily basis. Between January 2022 and December 2023, more than 1,500 complaints were lodged regarding the odours from the site. When people moved into the surrounding suburbs, they were assured that the landfill would close in 2040 and be converted into a public park. Major utilities require community support and trust in the promises made when they were built. I call on the City of Casey to recommit to the original development plan for the Hampton Park landfill site.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At a Mackellar Youth Partnership Meeting recently, the students each prepared a 90-second statement on a topic that was important to them. Today, I'm delighted to be reading one of these, from Keisha Tickle, a leader of a local high school in Mackellar:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As the extortionate workloads and demands increase for public school teachers, immense stresses are put on their mental and physical health, resulting in 50% of new teachers leaving the profession in the first five years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As such, their ability to cater to student needs is substantially decreasing, significantly impacting students' academic performance and emotional wellbeing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Students are beginning to teach themselves, teachers are taking 'sick days' in a poor attempt to stay afloat, and students' educational needs are being neglected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The public school system is collapsing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Furthermore, we have a teacher shortage; resulting in students in almost 10,000 lessons each day being left without adequate instruction in disruptive class arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are only <inline font-style="italic">half</inline> the number of casual teachers available to meet educational demand.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If students are having just <inline font-style="italic">one</inline> subject covered or missed in a five period day, that's 20% of their learning lost.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Why should our education suffer because the teaching profession is not being sustained?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The public system is failing us.'</para></quote>
<para>Thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Clingan, Professor Philip, OAM</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am honoured to speak about an exceptional member of our community, whose dedication and impact have left a profound mark on the Illawarra: my good friend Professor Phil Clingan OAM, who is here in the gallery today with his amazing wife, Margaret. Professor Clingan is not only an esteemed academic and oncologist but someone who embodies a spirit of service and compassion. He has been a relentless lobbyist and a key motivator across multiple governments for change and improvement in our local health system.</para>
<para>Over decades, Professor Clingan has made significant contributions to the field of oncology and to the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven, combining his deep expertise with an unwavering commitment to patient care. He has participated in more than 120 international clinical trials, with over 100 peer-reviewed publications, 20,000 reads and 15,000 citations. Beyond his clinical work, his role as an educator has been transformative, mentoring and inspiring the next generation of doctors. Through his lectures, guidance and famous colourful shirts, he has imparted not just knowledge but the values of empathy, passion and dedication. For his exceptional service and countless hours devoted to bettering the lives of others through community initiatives, patient advocacy or volunteer efforts, he received an Order of Australia Medal in 2012.</para>
<para>Professor Clingan's life and career remind us that true leadership is found in actions that uplift, educate and improve our society. I say to him: we wish you, Margaret and your loving daughters, Elizabeth, Rebecca, Philippa and Stephanie, all the best in your retirement.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bowman Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Over recent decades, the Redlands has faced significant growth, but our local infrastructure has been neglected. Thankfully, there have been two major road projects currently underway: the Queensland government's partial Cleveland-Redland Bay Road duplication and the Redland City Council's Panorama Drive-Wellington Street duplication, which were made possible by investment from the former federal coalition government.</para>
<para>While these roads run parallel, the speed and delivery of these projects have diverged dramatically. Cleveland-Redland Bay Road languished at the bottom of state planners' drawers for decades, whereas the council's Panorama Drive project was well planned and prioritised. In 2019, when the former coalition government had money to spend on new infrastructure, there was only one local project that was investment ready—Panorama Drive.</para>
<para>But let's contrast the progress of these two projects. Panorama Drive stage 1 finished last month after only a year and nine months of construction. The additional 2.4 kilometres of duplicated road cost $57.4 million. Meanwhile, the former state Labor government's Cleveland-Redland Bay Road project has no end date in sight, despite being under construction for four years and counting. The meagre 1.5 kilometres of duplicated roadway is costing the state $110 million—double the time, double the cost, half the road. That's the difference between good and bad management of our infrastructure. I'm looking forward to the new Crisafulli state government making the Redlands a priority and fixing Labor's mess.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Cutting students' HECS debt and making TAFE permanently free is cause for celebration, because we know a quality education opens doors to new opportunities. For many young people, student debt can be a deterrent to pursuing a tertiary education, and that's why we're backing young Australians. We're committed to slashing student debt by 20 per cent, saving each student about $5,500. In my electorate alone, this means reduced debt for 18,000 graduates. The Albanese government will also lower repayment rates, because graduates shouldn't have to pay off student debt until they're earning a decent wage.</para>
<para>In contrast, those opposite have said this policy 'reeks of elitism'. Let's just remember: the former coalition government jacked up fees for thousands of students under the Jobs-ready Graduates program, striking at the heart of equity at access to education. We're taking a different approach. The Albanese government wants all Australians to embrace the opportunities that come with a tertiary education. We want to reduce the burden of debt, we want to reduce barriers to undertaking a qualification and we want to reduce cost-of-living pressures, particularly for young Australians who are just getting a start in life. We want to build for the future, and we will always fight for better, fairer access to education.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I bring the House's attention to a piece by Charlie Peel, that intrepid reporter from the<inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline>: 'Fears for habitat on the rise … alongside the turbines'. Mr Peel outlines that the Clarke Creek wind farm, which is in the Broadsound Range, just a few years ago was an island of eucalypt forest in a region surrounded by cleared farmland, forestry and coalmines. Now what have we got? A hundred kilometres of gravel roads and raised pads for the said turbines, which are over 210 metres high. And what was required? The clearing and levelling of 350 hectares of pristine koala habitat. That's almost 900 acres. It is absolutely extraordinary.</para>
<para>Clarke Creek claim that there have been no koalas harmed in the building of the said wind farms and roads, yet they've absolutely destroyed their environment. They might not have run over one yet, but there's still time. And who's done a deal on this? The former Queensland Labor government signed the contract for the supply from Clarke Creek.</para>
<para>And what are we missing? What can't we see for the trees—or the cleared trees? The Greens. There are no Greens here. Where are they? No-one is tying themselves to a bulldozer. No-one is chaining themselves to a tree. No-one is out there trying to protect the habitat of these koalas, and this is pristine habitat. They'll show up in a city or on a bay where there might be one tree where someone's grandfather saw a koala 10 years ago, perhaps, but here, with actual destruction, the Greens are nowhere to be seen, because their only focus is the Middle East.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chisholm Electorate: 1st West Waverley Scout Group</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to congratulate the 1st West Waverley Scout Group on 60 amazing years. Since 1964 the 1st West Waverley Scout Group has played an important role in our community by supporting our local young people to develop important life skills. There are people aged six years and above contributing to scouts, and they are all enthusiastic participants. I had the great pleasure of attending the 60th anniversary celebration of the group, and it was such a joyful event, bringing together current and past members, some from right around the country who travelled for the occasion. Thank you so much for inviting me. It was such an honour to be included in the event. Some members have been involved with 1st West Waverley for decades. I want to acknowledge all of the volunteers over the years for everything they've done, and continue to do, not just for scouts but also for our wider community. Congratulations to the 1st West Waverley Scout Group on 60 incredible years!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>36 Months</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition and I met with representatives of the 36 Months campaign, which is doing extraordinary work in advocating for the protection of children from social media and have been advocating for a long time for the age of 16 to be imposed as a limit. We met with Matthew and Kelly O'Brien, the parents of Charlotte, who was tragically lost to suicide, and also with Robb Evans, the father of Liv, who was also tragically lost to suicide. The strength of these parents in the most unimaginable of circumstances is something that is extraordinary, and their advocacy is the definition of 'powerful'. I also want to acknowledge Rob Galluzzo and Michael 'Wippa' Wipfli, who have set the agenda through their 36 Months campaign in an incredibly impressive fashion and used their ability to reach the community in an extremely impressive way.</para>
<para>In June the coalition committed to legislating for a minimum age of 16 for social media. We welcome the government taking on that position today. We don't want there to be exemptions in this legislation for companies like Instagram or TikTok or Snapchat—that must not happen—and we want to work to get this legislation not only introduced this year but passed this year to protect Australian families.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia has been built on education, built on young minds in primary schools around the country and built on the skills Aussies learn at a tertiary level in our world-class TAFEs and universities. This is what makes education so important. It's even more important that Aussies can access it, no matter who they are or where they live, because, without those skills and without the opportunity to learn a trade at TAFE or study their passion at uni, Australians are held back. They're held back from building a future for themselves and their loved ones, and they're held back from building our future as a nation. That's why the Albanese Labor government is breaking these chains and putting tertiary education on the doorsteps of everyday Aussies. We're doing that by providing 100,000 fee-free TAFE places every single year, helping Aussies to build their livelihoods, regardless of their means, as they build the future of our country. We're also bringing university opportunities to the very streets of Australian suburbs through the establishment of 14 suburban university study hubs around the nation in communities at a disadvantage when it comes to education and opportunity. We want to give everyday Aussies the hammer to break down the obstacles of disadvantage and smash the barriers of inequality. We want them to thrive through an accessible, affordable education system. Under this Labor government, we are building Australia's future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How bad does it have to get before the Albanese government starts taking the economy seriously? Gas has increased in price by 34 per cent since Labor came to government. On electricity, they promised a $275 reduction in household power bills. Australians are paying up to $1,000 more than what Labor promised. We have consistently asked one question of this Labor government: what is the real total system cost of your plan to build a net zero electricity grid? You still cannot answer that question.</para>
<para>It's been the same with the Queensland Labor government, by the way. The Queensland Labor government couldn't tell the people of Queensland the cost of the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro project. The new LNP government said it's costing $36 billion. That's over $15½ thousand per Queensland household. This is the problem—when Labor hides the real cost of its energy plans. So I say one more time to the Prime Minister and to the energy minister: will you tell the Australian people the real total system cost of your energy plan?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>United States of America: Presidential Election</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After 10 am this morning, I spoke with President Trump, and I congratulated him on his election victory. It was a very constructive discussion. We affirmed the strong relationship between our two nations and committed to working together for the benefit of our people, including through AUKUS. Our government's approach has always been about investing in our capabilities and investing in our relationships. That's true at a national level, and it's also true at a personal one. As Prime Minister, I have made it a priority to invest in relationships with world leaders to build trust and respect, in Australia's best interests. I built that with President Biden, and I will do so with President Trump.</para>
<para>The election of a new administration is a new opportunity to emphasise, once again, all that Australia brings to the table, as an ally, as an economic partner, as a stable democracy, as a leader in the region and as a power in our own right. My government will always make sure that Australia has a seat at the table and a say in the decisions that shape our region and shape the world. We are investing in our defence capability. We are promoting security across our region. We are seizing economic opportunities so we reap the benefits for the Australian people. In all of these endeavours, over decades, we have worked together with the United States—both sides of politics here in Australia but both sides of politics in the United States as well. This has been to the enduring and mutual benefit of both of our nations, and I look forward to working with President Trump in the future in the interests of both of our nations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I join with the Prime Minister, and, on behalf of the coalition, I congratulate the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and soon to be the 47th President of the United States. As we know, it is a truly historic electoral outcome for the United States. It hasn't been repeated by any other president in American history, except in the 19th century, and that makes it a truly historic event. It makes it important in Australia's eyes because we want the United States to continue to be the great democracy that it is. We have worked together closely with our friends through the ANZUS alliance and the AUKUS arrangement, which the coalition signed with the Americans and the Brits during our term in government. Our troops have fought together since 1918 in the Battle of Hamel. We have enduring strengths, and together we are stronger. We will make sure that President Trump is not somebody to be scared of but somebody that we can work very closely with, and that's exactly what we will do.</para>
<para>I want to also congratulate the Republican party for the campaign that they conducted and acknowledge the fact that they won not just the Senate but the House as well. I offer my respects also to Vice President Harris for the campaign that she ran and the dignity that she demonstrated during her concession speech earlier today, our time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTRY</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>MINISTRY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Temporary Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, will be absent from question time today. I say, I think fairly, on behalf of all the House that our thoughts are with him today as he farewells his mum at a private ceremony. The Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery will answer questions on his behalf.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gambling</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. The government has been sitting on its hands for 498 days since the former member for Dunkley, the late Peta Murphy, handed down her report on the harm caused by online gambling. Around the time of her passing, the Prime Minister said of Ms Murphy that she 'led the charge on reducing the harm caused by online gambling'. When will this government make a decision in relation to online gambling reforms, a decision very much on the minds of the Australian people?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ROWLAND (—) (): I thank the member for his question. I am sure everyone in this place knows someone or has constituents who know someone who has been personally impacted by the scourge of what happens when people have addictive problems with gambling. The fact is that this is costing our economy some $25 billion a year. The government is considering very carefully and consulting widely on the recommendations that were contained in the late Peta Murphy's report. It's important to note that there are issues in this report that go not only to issues of federal responsibilities but also to states and territories. That is why we are doing this in a coordinated way, and we are making good progress.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is interesting to hear some of the interjections from those opposite because, if only the Leader of the Opposition had been a senior cabinet minister for 10 years in government, they could have done something about this—if only! They talk about sitting on our hands. In the previous government, a report was put out on banning the use of credit cards for online wagering. What happened? Absolutely nothing. It was up to us to implement it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Take responsibility.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Moreton is warned. The member for Banks is entitled to a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Coleman</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on relevance. The question was very clear. It was: when will the government make a decision on gambling reform? The minister should be asked to address that question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has made reference to that part of the question. She needs to make sure she is being directly relevant. She has been mentioning the report. She is entitled to do some comparing and contrasting, but the remainder of the answer simply cannot be about any other thing than the topic that she's addressing, not opposition policy. But I will listen carefully to make sure she is being directly relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As we work through this as an orderly cabinet government that consults with people, we will ensure that we satisfy three key areas. Firstly, we'll ensure that children are protected. Secondly, we'll break that nexus between sport and online wagering, because we know that under the previous government—and this goes to the issue of effectiveness—when they tinkered with these rules it resulted in an increase in advertising. We will be forward-looking and comprehensive. We also want to ensure that we address that particular cohort that is at risk, which is young men, who are being targeted with that advertising to a saturation level.</para>
<para>We are determined to get this right. We are determined that not only will this complement the many efforts that we have made in this area, including the implementation of BetStop, which has seen over 20,000 people self-exclude themselves. This is going to the issue that we had to pick this up from the national consumer protection framework. It was not done. We've picked all these things up, including the wagering ban and making sure that the Stevens review, which had been buried under the previous government, was implemented. We will get this right, we will get this done and it will have a measurable difference on gambling harms in this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how will a social media age limit for children under 16 years old help keep young people safe online, and why is this so important?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lingiari for her question. She is just one of the many members of this parliament who have made representations about the harm that social media is doing to our young Australians. Today, the government is calling time on it. Cabinet has approved a minimum age of 16 years to access social media and, tomorrow, I will convene National Cabinet to seek support for national legislation to be introduced by the end of this year. I want Australian parents and families to know that we have your back. I want to give children a childhood and give parents peace of mind. The onus will be on social media companies, not parents or young people. There will be no penalties for users. The eSafety Commissioner will provide oversight and enforcement.</para>
<para>I do thank the Minister for Communications for her determination and her focus. This has been a priority for this minister, and she has been a relentless champion for the wellbeing of our young people. I am also grateful for the work of civil society. The Let Kids Be Kids campaign and the 36 Months campaign have all been really important. This morning I met with Mat and Kelly O'Brien, parents of Charlotte, who tragically lost her life. I spoke to Kelly a few weeks ago. It is an unspeakable tragedy to lose one's child. I met with Robb Evans, the father of Liv Evans. No parent should ever go through what they have gone through. No parent should ever have to call on the sort of courage that they have shown in speaking out on behalf of others. I'm very grateful for their advocacy, and I pay tribute to them today.</para>
<para>Government has a responsibility to do everything we can to help as many young Australians as we can. We are stepping up and providing national leadership, and I'm confident that tomorrow, when the National Cabinet meets, we will ensure that there is a single system going forward to ensure uniformity. That is so important. We know that this isn't the only solution. We know there's more to do. We know that there's a ban on young people buying alcohol and that, from time to time, under-18s do get access, but that's not a reason to walk away from sending that message and putting in place the support for parents that they need and are calling for in order to support the children in their families.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training and the former minister for immigration. Of the 500,000 people—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my right! We're not going to have people giving commentary. I'm going to hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The standing orders don't allow questions on the basis of people being former ministers. If they did, there would be lots of questions to a former minister for the environment, but that's not what standing orders—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And health, of course!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The deputy leader knows that a minister can't be asked about any responsibilities in a former portfolio, just as she knew when she was a minister as well. We'll just restart the question. We probably don't need that part of the question. That's an extra that everyone knows but doesn't need to be added to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. Of the 500,000 people who have enrolled in fee-free TAFE courses, how many have dropped out of their course?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my left! We don't need sound effects and commentary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the deputy leader—I really do thank her—for another question about fee-free TAFE. Actually, it's 508,000 who have enrolled in fee-free TAFE in the data that we have to hand. Our focus is on opening the doors of opportunity to them, to see them get through and attain qualifications or pathways to employment. She should be aware that the data custodian doesn't actually keep that dataset. We are much more focused on ensuring that people get the skills that they need to enter into employment.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my left! There is far too much noise. The minister is going to pause.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Social Services will cease interjecting. The minister was asked for a number in the question. As the chamber knows, under the standing orders, I can't compel a minister to give a number, whether it be a yes/no response, a figure or a fact. I can't compel the minister, and I know that's what the deputy leader is after, but I can compel him to be directly relevant to the question about the numbers of people who are enrolled in fee-free TAFE and about the difficulties around the project. But I'll hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because she is entitled to raise a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a point of order on relevance. I appreciate your remarks about a precise number, but the question addressed the number of dropouts and completions. The only thing the minister is addressing is commencements. He is clearly out of order and not relevant. If he doesn't know the answer, he should just say so.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not the time to add extra comments. The minister was asked a tight question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On numerology!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will cease interjecting. This places the chair in a position where I want to enforce the standing orders, so I'm going to ensure that the minister is being directly relevant, but I'm also asking for the chamber to listen with respect and courtesy to the minister as well. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In fact, maybe they should have been listening, because I did directly go to the question. The shadow minister could perhaps listen. She could perhaps also have regard to the explanation that was given in estimates last night of this issue and the data that we keep. I say again though that we are interested in free TAFE providing Australians with the skills that they want to get gainful employment, and I am frankly baffled that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition want to talk this down.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Herbert is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They want to pick a fight, not with us but with 508,000 Australians and their families, in the same way that they want to make life harder for three million Australians with student debt, including debt that got a lot worse under them.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister was not asked about student debt. He was asked about the program he's responsible for. I'm just going to give him one more chance; otherwise, he'll have to conclude his answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Speaker. I did go to that. What we are focused on is ensuring that Australians, through free TAFE, get the skills they want and our economy needs. We've been through the issues about how the data is collected by the independent data custodian. We know that free TAFE works because of the Victorian experience, where many more people are completing their courses than university students—many more people than across the VET sector broadly. Around 54 per cent, for those who aren't listening, in the Victorian experience are those who are completing. This is why we have put in a bill to make free TAFE enduring. The question for members opposite is: are they going to support it, or are they going to walk away from public TAFE and all of those students?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government helping parents keep their kids safe online?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government is focused on positive solutions to issues of national concern, and the safety and mental health of our young people is paramount. The welfare of children is a collective responsibility, and it's heartening to see the Commonwealth and states working together in this important effort. Social media, of course, offers many benefits to Australians, but it is also a source of harm, and too often social media isn't social at all. As the mother of two young daughters, I understand the anxiety of parents about the impacts of social media and the screen addiction of their children. We are on their side.</para>
<para>The fact is that social media has a social responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of children, but they are falling short. While a government may not be able to prevent every harm on the internet, there is always more we can do to make a difference. That's why the Albanese government is legislating a minimum age for access to social media. As the Prime Minister has outlined, tomorrow he will convene National Cabinet and recommend that 16 be legislated as the minimum age. The government will introduce legislation this year with an implementation period of a year from when the legislation is passed.</para>
<para>Our legislation will be a world first. This is a national challenge that requires national leadership and that's why we have worked closely with the states and territories and are taking strong action. Consistent with the design principles I outlined in October, national cabinet will consider a proposal that includes: the onus being on social media platforms to prevent access—and there will not be penalties for parents or young people; a new definition of age-restricted social media platform will be adapted from the existing Online Safety Act definition for the purposes of the age limit; we will prioritise privacy protection for information collected for age assurance purposes; there will not be grandfathering arrangements; and the age limit will apply to holding an account and will allow access to social media in a logged-out state.</para>
<para>I want to make it clear our legislation is about the protection and not the isolation of young people. Determining the age of 16 was not arrived at lightly. We are confident this is the right decision. The normative value of 16 is immense and it will establish new expectations within society about social media use. The government has consulted widely to determine the basis for our decision, including with experts, parents, youth organisations, academics, and our state and territory colleagues.</para>
<para>I want to thank all who have engaged constructively on this issue. Your insights have guided our thinking and there are so many personal experiences, such as those the Prime Minister and I heard this morning, to add to our determination to get this right. Responding to these concerns has been the focus of the Albanese government because the safety of our children comes first.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>University of Canberra: Pathway to Politics for Women, Clingan, Professor Philip OAM</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Wentworth, I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are participants from the University of Canberra's Pathway to Politics for Women program, which aims to equip diverse women with the skills and knowledge to drive change through political leadership. Also in the House today is Professor Philip Clingan OAM, a talented and dedicated oncologist, cancer researcher and patron of the Illawarra Cancer Carers. His tireless work, advocacy and fundraising drives have made significant contributions to improving services in the area and providing support to those suffering from cancer. Welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>SPENDER () (): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Organised crime syndicates are scamming households, who are losing life-changing sums of money, including in Wentworth. Ninety-four per cent of scam losses are borne by individuals and only six per cent by banks. This is despite banks having greater tools at their disposal to stop scams. Does the minister think consumers are responsible for and have the ability to prevent 94 per cent of scam losses? If not, will you take action to make sure banks and other companies pay for losses in proportion to their ability to prevent them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wentworth for the question and for her ongoing engagement on this issue. I will also take the opportunity to thank my colleague the Minister for Communications on the work that we have been doing together, a team effort to ensure that we keep Australians' money safe and their information safe. Earlier today I introduced the new Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 into the parliament. When legislated, it will ensure that Australia is the toughest country in the world for these multinational crime syndicates that the member for Wentworth refers to to make a dollar. That is our objective—to ensure Australians are kept safe and that this becomes the toughest country in the world for the criminals to prey upon Australians.</para>
<para>I am asked about the approach we have taken and how it differs from other approaches. I have to say that it is in this particular regard that we differ from the approach of our predecessors. The approach under our predecessors was, if you get scammed, you are a mug and you are on your own. They were soft on financial crime, they were soft on financial criminals and, as a result, scam losses on their watch doubled and then doubled and then doubled again.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The member for Wentworth was on her feet before the member for Wannon. I will hear from her. As the person who has asked the question, they shall have the first right to take a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Spender</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is on relevance. I didn't ask about alternative approaches; I asked specifically about the losses borne by consumers versus the losses borne by banks and their ability to prevent them.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For consistency, the member for Wentworth is correct. Under the Speaker's direction, I will ask the minister to refrain from talking about alternative approaches or policies and to return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The focus of our legislation, and the focus of the question, is around how we prevent scams occurring in the first place and, when they do occur, how we ensure the victims are compensated. That's the whole focus of the legislation: it introduces tough new obligations. These obligations will fall upon banks and also upon telecommunications companies and social media platforms, and I'll return to this point in a moment. These tough obligations are to ensure that they are keeping their customers safe. They are obligations to prevent scams, obligations to detect scams, obligations to disrupt scams, obligations to report scams and obligations to ensure that they are responding, including responding to their customers to ensure that their money and their information is safe.</para>
<para>I agree with the member for Wentworth that not nearly enough is being done by banks to ensure that their customers are being kept safe and that their customers are getting compensated for losses. That is a core feature of our scheme. There are clear paths for remediation and clear paths for compensation. But we do not accept the approach that has been pushed by some others—that we should let social media platforms off the hook. Two out of every three scams originate from an ad published on a social media platform. Meta, in and of itself, is the single biggest advertiser of criminal scams in the world. They're not a start-up. In Australia they made between $5 billion and $6 billion last year alone. So, yes, we need to keep the banks on the hook and keep the banks responsible for their part in the harms, but we should also be ensuring that big social media companies like Meta are kept to account as well.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What progress is the Albanese Labor government making in the fight against inflation? What obstacles are standing in the way?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Werriwa. I also want to acknowledge the great work that the assistant minister is doing when it comes to financial security. We heard about some of that a moment ago.</para>
<para>The cost of living is the major pressure on people in our communities, and it's the No. 1 focus of this Labor government. We're coming at this cost-of-living challenge from every conceivable, every responsible angle, whether it is tax cuts, energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, cheaper early childhood education, rent assistance, wage increases and the changes we're making to student debt.</para>
<para>We know that the official data doesn't always capture precisely how people are faring, but we have seen inflation come off really considerably in our economy. When we came to office it was much higher and rising, now it's lower and falling. It had a six in front of it under those opposite and it now has a two in front of it. Because of that, headline inflation is now back in the target band for the first time since 2021. As the secretary of the Treasury said yesterday, as I said yesterday, as the Governor of the Reserve Bank said today, the Reserve Bank targets headline inflation, but underlying inflation is important as well. Both headline and underlying inflation—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will pause. I'm not going to have the member for Hume continually giving commentary throughout this answer. It's just not on. We can't have this continual commentary, so make no more interjections for the remainder of this answer, and the House will be a lot better.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume is desperately unhappy because both headline inflation and underlying inflation went down in the data last week, and it went down in the forecasts from the Reserve Bank this week. It has been—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right, the Manager of Opposition Business is entitled to raise a point of order, and I won't have this being disrupted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The standing orders are very clear on imputations of improper motives. To suggest, as the Treasurer just did, that the shadow Treasurer is 'desperately unhappy' is to impute improper motives to him. This Treasurer does it all the time, and he should be required to comply with the standing orders.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Groom! No, we're not giving commentary. We're going to listen to each other and show each other respect. The Deputy Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Butler</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Happiness or unhappiness is not a motive, and I encourage the Manager of Opposition Business to have a look at the shadow Treasurer's face.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! We're going to handle it this way: for the remainder of the answer, I'm just going to require the Treasurer not to refer to other members at all—just get through the answer and not refer to any other members. I just want to listen to the Treasurer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point I'm making is that last week both headline inflation and underlying inflation went down, and, in the forecasts the Reserve Bank released this week, they have lowered their forecasts for both important measures of inflation. The fact that today marks one year exactly since interest rates last went up reflects the progress that we are making when it comes to inflation. This fight against inflation is our No. 1 focus, and the Governor of the Reserve Bank again acknowledged that today when she said—and I'm quoting—'I think the attitude at the moment that I'm hearing from government is the right one.' This is the same governor who said our surpluses are helping and our cost-of-living relief will help.</para>
<para>I say to those opposite: stop trying to diminish what Australians have achieved together in our economy under this Prime Minister and under his government: inflation halved, real wages growing again, a million new jobs, tax cuts for every taxpayer, two surpluses, and less debt. We're not yet there, but we have made a lot of welcome progress. We know that the opposition leader is a risk to this progress, because we know his record: gutting Medicare, pushing wages down and pushing prices up. These are the costs of his reckless arrogance. His reckless arrogance will have real costs for ordinary people who are doing it tough enough and would be doing it tougher without our help.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Visa Refusal or Cancellation</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the ankle bracelets and monitoring conditions were removed from 215 dangerous noncitizen offenders, including 12 murderers, 66 sex offenders, 97 people convicted of assault and 15 domestic violence perpetrators. How many of the hardened criminals who are in the community are wearing ankle bracelets or subject to curfews right now?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, the decision from the High Court that's been referred to there is not the decision that the government wanted, but it is a decision that we'd prepared for. So this morning I was with the Governor-General, signing new regulations, and those new regulations allow what was cut out by the High Court yesterday to now go through reconsideration on a new test, which is viewed as being legal, and for that new test to be applied to the full case load.</para>
<para>Of course, let's not forget that the concept of people in these circumstances being on ankle bracelets at all is something that has only started since this government came to office. It was previously the case, for example, that 102 sex offenders were released from immigration detention by the Leader of the Opposition with no conditions at all.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just going invite the Leader of the House to pause because I want to hear from the member for Wannon.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Speaker. It goes to relevance, and this question is incredibly important to the safety of the Australian people. To be directly relevant, you have to answer: how many are subject to ankle bracelets and curfews right now?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, the Deputy Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Butler</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the point of order, Mr Speaker: it's quite clear in <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> that a minister is able to compare and contrast, provided that does not take the entirety of their answer.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>, page 554, does go to that area. The minister has been referring to the question. He is being directly relevant. He is entitled to talk about the policy topic. He won't be able to remain on that for the remainder of his answer, particularly about alternative policies, but, while he's been going for about 20 seconds on that topic, he's entitled to do so under the standing orders and <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>. But I'll listen carefully to make sure he is being directly relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Therefore, the new test and the new rules have been in place since this morning. Within 24 hours of the High Court coming down with its decision, the government had taken three actions. The first action that we took was to make sure that we had increased the number of people on Border Force under Operation AEGIS. That has been an increase that we were stepping up in anticipation of the possibility of this decision so that that operation in Border Force now has two-thirds additional people—a 66 per cent increase on the number of people who are there, working on that. Secondly, the regulation was signed off by me. Obviously, we had to check it against the specifics of the majority ruling in the High Court. That was signed off by me last night and put through the executive council this morning, and is now being applied by the department. Thirdly, legislation had to be introduced to the House. The regulation takes immediate effect. Obviously, people then have to be tested against it, but the regulation takes immediate effect.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Hume.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Additional to that, legislation is required which isn't required for the reg to take immediate effect, but is required for us to have the full powers that we want to be able to have, and that legislation was introduced before question time today.</para>
<para>All of that has happened with a High Court decision that came down only yesterday. This government's first priority is community safety. If I can remind members, the first priority is not ankle bracelets or detention for these people; our first priority is we don't want them in Australia at all, and that is why we introduced powers today in the legislation to improve the government's capacity to remove people from this country in that situation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Education: What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support Australian students and build a better and fairer education system? And what has been the response?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my mate the cracking member for Cunningham, for her question. On Monday the 15 per cent pay rise for early educators was passed by this House. About two hours ago, the legislation to increase funding for our public schools was passed by this House. Both of these reforms are really important. That extra funding will be tied to things like phonics checks, numeracy checks, catch-up tutoring and extra mental health support, because we know that there's a real link between the mental health of students and how they perform at school. That's also why the action that the Prime Minister and the communications minister are taking to end the doomscrolling and get our kids out of the cesspit of social media is so important.</para>
<para>What we announced on the weekend is also important. We announced on the weekend that, if we win the next election, the first piece of legislation we'll introduce will cut student debt for three million Australians by 20 per cent. I've told the House this week about what it will mean in different electorates and different communities right across the country—in the cities, in the suburbs, in the regions, in the bush. This is what it will mean in places with some of the lowest incomes in the country: in Fowler, in the Western Suburbs of Sydney, which has the lowest median personal income in the country, more than 22,000 people will have their student debt cut; in Spence, in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, almost 20,000 people will have their student debt cut; in Calwell, in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne, almost 23,000 people will have their debt cut; and in Watson, more than 24,000 people in the electorate of Watson will have their debt cut.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for New England will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And in the community that I am so privileged to represent in this place, the electorate of Blaxland, almost 25,000 people will have their debt cut.</para>
<para>These are people who know what education can do, how it can lift people up and help them to get ahead, help them to build the life that they deserve and that their families deserve. They know that this Labor government has got their back and will cut their debt, unlike this anti-aspiration, kick-the-ladder-out-behind-them mob opposite who were against them getting a tax cut and now are against them getting a debt cut.</para>
<para>Mr Littleproud interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>These three million Australians now know that if Labor wins, they win—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>but if the Liberals win, they won't.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is far too much noise by the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Hume. They are now both warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CONAGHAN () (): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the 215 hard-core criminals released into the Australian community are receiving welfare and housing benefits at the expense of the Australian taxpayer?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, the greatest expense that any of these individuals have incurred is the cost of their crimes. That's the greatest expense. And those crimes are why their visas were cancelled. That's why our first priority is for them to be out of the country.</para>
<para>If they can't be out of the country, then we wanted them in detention but the High Court has said that's not possible. The High Court has said, for these particular individuals, they have given us a way of being able to use the forms of monitoring we wanted to use but not under the specifics as to what had previously been approved by this parliament, and so that's what we are now having to do. But our first priority is always that we don't want these people in the country in the first place.</para>
<para>The most expensive option is when they're in detention. The next most expensive option is when they're in the community. And the cheapest option is to get them out of the country. The arrangements when they're in the community and the expenses that are involved with that use procedures that were put in place and existed for the entirety of the previous government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring we have the skills to reach our target of 1.2 million homes? How is the government's approach to building more homes different from the alternatives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Macarthur. He is a fierce advocate for housing for his constituents, but he's also one of the most loved people in the parliament. Mike, it's great to get a question from you.</para>
<para>At the upcoming election there's going to be a very clear choice on housing. There's the Labor government which has brought the Commonwealth back to the table on this life-defining issue for millions of people. A government which is pulling every lever we have to build more homes, to help renters get a fairer deal and to help more Australians into homeownership. And there's an opposition which completely checked out of housing when they were in government and have consistently tried to stop our government from taking action on this matter.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we've set a bold and ambitious target of building 1.2 million houses over five years. Those opposite think boldness and ambition are a bad thing because they'd actually be held accountable for their failures. On this side of the House, we are investing a landmark $32 billion to combat a housing crisis that's been a generation in the making. Those opposite have said they'll cut $19 billion out of that program—what a dumb idea, cutting funding to housing in the middle of a housing crisis.</para>
<para>On our side of the House, we're helping 35,000 tradies build the construction skills that we need through fee-free TAFE. On their side of the House, they call fee-free TAFE 'wasteful spending'. On our side of the House, we've helped 130,000 Australians into homeownership through an expanded Home Guarantee Scheme. On their side of the House, they managed just 60,000 in their decade in office.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we're investing in 55,000 social and affordable homes. We spent more on building new homes in our last budget than the coalition did for the entire nine years combined of their government. On this side of the House, we've helped a million Australians with a 45 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. On their side, they didn't increase rent assistance once above CPI in a decade—not once.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker is now warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As with so many other things, there is a lot at stake with housing at this upcoming election. We're in the middle of a big housing program to build more homes, get renters a fairer deal and help more Australians into homeownership. And we're in the middle of a big transformation about the way that the Commonwealth government engages with housing. We've got a big, bold, positive agenda, which is making real change for real people. All this progress will be at risk if this reckless, negative, aggressive opposition are elected to govern our country again.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question's to the Minister for Home Affairs. Since releasing the 215 hardened criminals into the community, have any been charged with an act of sexual assault?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The records of what we've got there would be largely issues held by state and territory authorities. I don't have those stats in front of me. But what I will say is that the concept of people on visas who have committed crimes previously being in the community with no restrictions is what used to happen. That's why I give the example—you refer to those particular crimes—102 convicted sex offenders were released with no conditions into the community from detention by the Leader of the Opposition. Sixty-four child sex offenders were released with no conditions into the community by the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government making housing more affordable by supporting infrastructure to get homes built more quickly? What alternative approaches are there?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Blair for his question. He represents an area of significant growth, and he knows that one of the keys to addressing the cost of living is bringing down the cost of owning or renting a home. That means increasing housing supply. We are tackling the problem from every angle, with a $32 billion plan, which is already building more homes today, helping people buy homes, massively increasing rent assistance and getting more social and affordable housing into the system.</para>
<para>As part of the plan, we've put $1.5 billion over two years onto the table to tackle two of the biggest issues that are blocking housing supply: speeding up the planning processes and funding new infrastructure. We've already announced funding for projects to speed up planning, and we've put more development-ready sites into the pipeline. That includes unlocking more land for housing in the rapidly growing Ipswich West region in the member's electorate, turning surplus land at the CSU campus in Rockhampton into housing in the member for Capricornia's electorate, fast-tracking housing development in the Riverland region in the member for Barker's electorate, getting faster approvals done for 45 new social homes in Yarrabah in the member for Leichardt's electorate and paying for the planning work for a new housing estate in Temora in the member for Riverina's electorate.</para>
<para>The Housing Support Program is also investing, alongside state governments and state development agencies, in a multitude of projects. They include $40 million to fund sewer utilities and local roads, delivering 500 new homes in Meadowbrook in the rapidly growing southern suburbs of Brisbane. We've also announced $4.5 million for local road improvements to support 400 new homes in Knoxfield in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne.</para>
<para>I've seen those opposite have made some announcements of their own in this space. But buried in the fine detail—and you've always got to read the fine detail—of that announcement is the fact that those opposite are planning to fund enabling infrastructure with concessional loans to local councils, an approach that will force councils to raise rates or to levy developers to repay the loans. These costs will be passed on to future homeowners.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You issue concessional loans. You already do.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition simply is not serious about fixing the housing crisis. We know they have committed to cutting $19 billion from housing, and now they are saying, 'We'll pay for your infrastructure, but only if we increase your rates and if we put your housing prices up, because we're going to charge developers for it.' You've always got to look at the detail with that man opposite. You've got to look at the detail. While we are building, they are blocking. Putting them in charge of housing affordability is simply too risky.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUKUS</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Donald Trump's win is bad for women, bad for people of colour, bad for the climate and bad for democracy. Many people are terrified about what having this dangerous demagogue in charge will mean for the world, including here in Australia. To help keep Australia safe, will you now cancel the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement so that we're not tied at the hip to Donald Trump?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. We support the AUKUS arrangements because it is in Australia's national interests. If you think about Australia's defence and what is required in terms of capability for an island continent located where we are in the world, then shipping is obviously a key asset. For Australia, when you look at how a country defends itself, there is no more effective way than through a submarine. If you look at what the most effective form of submarine is in terms of power—because of stealth, because of the amount of time that they can stay under the water, because of undetectability, because of the depth to which they can dive and because of how long they can stay under for—for Australia's national interests, I was convinced through proper briefings with the defence department and with defence officials that this is the correct way to go. I continue to work with Mark Hammond—the Chief of Navy—the CDF and other defence personnel. There's the work that Jonathan Mead is doing as well to ensure—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Farrer then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're not going to have people just giving their commentary all throughout question time. There's far too much of it. I want everyone to show more respect and a little more restraint after this week.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was speaking in support of AUKUS, which I thought had bipartisan support across the chamber. It is in Australia's national interests, and it's in our long-term interests. We have put in place phases. We've already had a visit to Australia by a Virginia class submarine that the defence minister and I went into at the base in Perth. We will have, as well, some Virginia class submarines built in the United States, and then we will also have SSN-AUKUS—the same vessels built in the United Kingdom, in Barrow, which I visited as well, and in South Australia. That isn't just about defence. That's about advanced manufacturing here in Australia. It has a massive spin-off, as well, that we're seeing through education, with many Australians engaging already in the United States and in the UK. This is about Australia's national interest. I'll always stand up for Australia's national interest, and that is why I support this program.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What reforms has the Albanese Labor government made to the NDIS to get it back on track? What changes are being made, and what problems are being fixed to ensure that every dollar is supporting participants?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the tenacious member for Adelaide, whose win-loss ratio since the 1998 election is 6-3. He never gives up!</para>
<para>I'm pleased to update the House and the people listening to question time about the progress of the NDIS, and I'm pleased to explain how Labor is building the NDIS's future. We're making sure that every dollar gets through to the participants for whom the scheme was designed. The NDIS is an important economic and social nation-building project, and it is helping people. Labor has been working to get the NDIS back on track every day since the last election. I acknowledge the work of people with disability and their supporters for their efforts too.</para>
<para>There are definitely still problems with the scheme, but I can update the House on signs of progress. Participants who've been on the scheme for longer than two years who are aged more than 15 are reporting that their community participation is up, and 15- to 24-year-olds report that their employment prospects or their jobs have increased from 10 per cent to 22 per cent. In fact, 51 per cent of their parents and carers are now able to get paid employment because of the NDIS.</para>
<para>I can also update the House on the financial green shoots of stabilisation. In the last year of the coalition, the scheme outlays grew by 23 per cent, and the number of people joining the scheme grew by 15 per cent. Now the scheme outlays in the last financial year have grown by 18 per cent and the number of people joining the scheme has stabilised at eight per cent. Next year, we're on track for 12 per cent and, the following year, eight per cent. I'm pleased to advise the House that, even from the May budget to now, the outlays have decreased by a billion dollars less than were expected in the May budget, which means that, over the next four years, the scheme will invest $210 billion in people but not $229 billion.</para>
<para>There are reasons why this is happening. Firstly, the states have agreed that the NDIS shouldn't be the only lifeboat in the ocean. We've also started the overdue process of registering providers, of whom 90 per cent in the scheme are unregistered. We've sorted out what you can and can't spend money on in the scheme. And we're sorting out a uniform assessment to make sure how you're eligible for the scheme is transparent. We've invested in the agency and the safeguards commission. And we've also put people with disability in top leadership positions in these organisations. Finally, we're chasing the crooks—519 investigations and 50 people before the courts, some of whom are now in jail, and over a billion dollars in payments investigated. More payments are being scrutinised than ever.</para>
<para>But I think the best news about the scheme is that Labor has led the reforms in this term but we couldn't have got them through without the bipartisan support of the coalition. What this tells people with disability is that at least two of the parties in this House are committed to actually seeing the scheme be there for the future. At the risk of embarrassing the member for Deakin, he did a great job wrangling the litigious and soon-to-be departed coalition senators to support us eventually. Under Labor, the NDIS is here to stay. I acknowledge the work of the parliament to this goal.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. At Senate estimates, officials gave evidence that the Attorney-General released a convicted terrorist into the community by granting him parole. Prime Minister, what was this individual's offence? Into which state or territory has he been released? And does this individual pose a threat to the Australian public?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the Attorney-General.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The safety of the community is the government's highest priority at all times, including when making parole decisions. In relation to cases such as, I think, the one that the member referred to, there is a very high threshold that must be met before a person can be granted parole. The decision is informed by advice from relevant agencies and the safety of the community is the most important consideration in these decisions. Parole keeps the community safer. It means mandatory controls and mandatory supervision are in place which would otherwise not be available at the conclusion of someone's sentence. And the opposition knows that these decisions are informed by a range of expert assessments about an offender. They also know that individuals on parole are subject to strict supervision conditions which are informed by the advice of law enforcement and corrective services agencies. At all times, parolees are under the close supervision of state—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will pause. He was asked—and I know where the member for Wannon is going—about a specific case, but, as you know, under the standing orders I can't make him directly answer the question on the specifics the member for Durack asked. But I will make sure he's being directly relevant to the question, and talking about the parole process, in this case, is directly relevant. I'm just going to remind the member for Wannon that it's going to be really difficult to raise a point on relevance, in light of what I've said. The member for Wannon has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It does go to relevance because the question asks: 'What is the individual's offence? Which state or territory was he released into? Most importantly, does this individual pose a threat to the Australian community?' And the Attorney-General should answer the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Moreton then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to the point of order, the Attorney-General is going to the exact principles that are worked through by the government in making these decisions.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And he will need to return to the question and ensure that what he is addressing the House does remain directly relevant. It was a specific question, There is detail required, but I'm just going to ensure that he's being directly relevant. If he strays into any other topics, I will sit him down. The Attorney-General has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The opposition know that individuals on parole are subject to strict supervision conditions which are informed by the advice of law enforcement and corrective services agencies. At all times parolees are under the close supervision of state and territory corrective services agencies. I can also advise the House that, when in government, those opposite made similar decisions to release offenders on parole. As the Attorney-General's Department advised Senate estimates just two days ago, a Liberal attorney-general and a Liberal assistant minister released three offenders on parole between 2020 and 2022.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, You have given a clear direction to the Attorney-General. Standing order 91(c) makes it clear that a member's conduct is disorderly if they wilfully refuse to conform to a standing order, and that is what the Attorney-General is doing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To get through this, you will need to make it directly relevant to the question through the Senate estimates part of the question without simply talking about alternative policies or the previous government. I will give the Attorney-General one more chance. I want him to listen carefully to me. If he strays beyond that he will have to return to his seat. The Attorney-General has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are not going to talk about the details of individual offenders. And it is very disappointing to see the opposition seeking to politicise what is an important part of the criminal justice system, particularly when it is a part of the criminal justice system that the former government utilised. I include in that the three offenders released between 2020 and 2022 who were convicted of online child sexual offences and people smuggling.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will resume his seat. He has finished his answer—well, he has now.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Why is bulk-billing important in Medicare, and what pressure has bulk-billing faced in the past? What has the Albanese Labor government been doing to promote more bulk-billing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my friend the member for Lyons, who joined earlier this year the Prime Minister and many of us at the 40th anniversary of Australia's most important social program, Medicare. Medicare was hard-fought. It was opposed tooth and nail at the time by doctors groups and by the Liberal Party, who, election after election, promised to abolish it. For Labor, bulk-billing was at the heart of our vision for Medicare but, again, that was hard-fought. The AMA instructed its members not to bulk-bill for a long time, and we know John Howard, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, described bulk-billing as 'an absolute rort'. Although we won that fight as well, the truth is, those opposite have maintained their lack of support for bulk-billing right through the intervening years.</para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition said there were too many free Medicare services and then tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether for everyone. When we blocked that change in the other place, he then kicked off a six-year freeze to the Medicare rebate that ripped billions and billions of dollars out of general practice, causing bulk-billing to wither on the vine. Then, rather than having the courage to own the damage that those opposite had inflicted on Medicare, they tried to fudge the figures, magically producing a bulk-billing figure of 88 per cent on the eve of the last election. The vice president of the college of GPs called them out, describing that 88 per cent figure as 'misleading' and 'significantly skewed'. Shortly after the election, the college president, Dr Price, described the reality this way. She said that bulk-billing was in 'free-fall' and general practice was 'at a tipping point'. So maybe instead of holding up a sign like he did yesterday with this misleading figure scribbled with crayon on it, the Leader of the Opposition might reflect on his own role in creating this utter mess. If he doesn't get it, I'll tell you what: Australia's doctors do. They ranked him as the worst health minister in 35 years in a poll of doctors. The Australian Doctor magazine says, '1,100 doctors took part in the survey,' and it quoted one GP as saying that Mr Dutton 'will be remembered as the dullest, least innovative and most gullible'.</para>
<para>Well, we've got a different approach. We're committed to cleaning up his mess, to strengthening Medicare and to reversing the slide in bulk-billing. In just 12 months, we've delivered 5.4 million additional free visits to the doctor. More doctors, more bulk-billing, more urgent care clinics—that's our approach to strengthening Medicare.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery. On 28 October, Israel's parliament voted to ban UNRWA from the country within 90 days. With aid trucks entering Gaza already at less than seven per cent of pre-war levels and with no viable alternative to UNRWA, the Secretary General of Medecins Sans Frontieres has said that this ban will have catastrophic implications for people in Gaza and the West Bank now and for generations to come. What is Australia doing to ensure that the people of Gaza do not die of starvation and preventable diseases such as polio?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. Let me begin by condemning the attacks of October 7 and the resulting war and civilian deaths. We call for an immediate release of all hostages, for an immediate ceasefire and for the free and unfettered flow of humanitarian aid.</para>
<para>UNRWA does life-saving work, and that's why successive Australian governments have funded it since 1951. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is catastrophic, and only UNRWA has the mandate and the infrastructure to receive and distribute aid on the scale that's needed right now.</para>
<para>UNRWA has also been subject to several external investigations in light of the October 7 attacks, including by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna and the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, who concluded that UNRWA was the critical backbone of humanitarian services in Gaza and that there was no proof of systematic terrorism links. Importantly, UNRWA is implementing all recommended reforms.</para>
<para>As the foreign minister said in Senate estimates earlier today, the simple reason why we support UNRWA is that we don't want innocent Palestinian civilians to starve to death. It's as simple as that. We call on Israel to allow free, unfettered humanitarian access to Gaza in line with the International Court of Justice ruling.</para>
<para>The question asked what we are doing. Firstly, we joined with Canada, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and the UK to urge Israel's Knesset to not proceed with the legislation to ban UNRWA. We've also made our opposition clearly known directly to Israeli authorities in Tel Aviv and Canberra following the legislation's passage. We continue to work through diplomatic channels in Tel Aviv, through the UN and here in Canberra to urge immediate and open access for aid workers and supplies.</para>
<para>We've provided a total of $94.5 million in humanitarian funding to the region since October 2023. This includes $6 million to UNRWA, which continues to flow, along with the other partner agencies we funded in Gaza, including UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the Red Cross, the UN operational services and the UN Population Fund. We've also provided our regular annual contribution of $20 million to UNRWA.</para>
<para>So, to the member's question, we'll continue to urge a reversal of this decision, we'll continue to support urgent humanitarian aid to the region and we'll continue to stand by and urge everyone for an immediate ceasefire and for urgent humanitarian assistance to the region.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How will cutting student debt and making fee-free TAFE permanent and other cost-of-living measures help build a stronger future? What other approaches are there?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. Indeed, this Labor government is about building Australia's future. We announced on Sunday we'll cut student debt by 20 per cent. We'll raise the HECS repayment threshold, putting more dollars into pockets of graduates. We'll make free TAFE permanent. Three million Australians will get relief on their debt and 100,000 Australians will get free TAFE every year, because when the government invests in education, every Australian benefits.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. We're just going to get through—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for New England is now warned. We've got six people on warnings. Don't try your luck. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite have the arrogance to look at young Australians and say, 'You should pay more.' That is what they are saying. We want to strengthen our nation. Those opposite don't, and that's the difference. What makes Australia stronger is free TAFE, so it's easier for more Australians to become tradies, carers and IT specialists. Who's against it? They are. What makes Australia stronger is cutting student debt. Who's against it? They are. Giving every Australian taxpayer a tax cut—who's against it? They are. Cheaper child care—who's against it?</para>
<para>Government members: They are!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Energy bill relief for every household—who's against it?</para>
<para>Government members: They are!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Getting wages moving again—who's against it?</para>
<para>Government members: They are!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Bringing back manufacturing and making more things here—who's against it?</para>
<para>Government members: They are!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>More affordable housing and building more homes—who's against it?</para>
<para>Government members: They are!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are building Australia's future, investing in cost-of-living relief at the same time. We have halved inflation since we came to office. But those opposite don't cheer for Australia; they cheer against Australia. They are never more depressed as when good figures come out showing that inflation is going down, wages are going up and a million jobs have been created. Just one of our cost-of-living measures has had a new figure this week. Our cheaper medicines, which were opposed by those opposite, have now ticked over to have saved Australians $1 billion. This was a measure that those opposite opposed, like they have opposed every single cost-of-living measure that we have put forward.</para>
<para>We've done all of that while turning their massive Liberal deficits into two Labor budget surpluses. We'll continue to build Australia's future. They'll continue to be the great blockers. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Presentation</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The President of the Senate, the acting Chief Executive Officer of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority and I have signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the exercise of IPEA's information-gathering powers where parliamentary privilege may be involved.</para>
<para>The purpose of this MOU is to agree to processes that will be followed when IPEA exercises its information-gathering powers under section 53 of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017. This will ensure IPEA's powers are exercised in a way that affords parliamentarians an opportunity to raise claims of parliamentary privilege and to safeguard the relevant information and documents whilst claims of parliamentary privilege are being considered.</para>
<para>The MOU details a process to be followed when a section 53 notice is issued to a parliamentarian, including where a parliamentarian wishes to make a claim of parliamentary privilege over the information or documents sought. It also details a process for issuing a section 53 notice to a third party, including what is to occur when IPEA considers that notification of the relevant parliamentarian could compromise the conduct of the audit or assurance activity.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge the work of the President, the bipartisan members of the MOU working group and the acting Chief Executive Officer of IPEA in negotiating this agreement. I present a copy of the MOU. I can also indicate to members that the President and I will be writing to all parliamentarians providing you with copies of the MOU.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The importance of Australia's relationships with our key allies.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is vital that Australia maintains strong working relationships with our key allies, and there is no more important ally than the United States, our most important security partner, a critical economic partner. Our security relationships go back for more than 100 years. Our troops have fought together since 1918. We have been bound together by the ANZUS treaty since shortly after World War II. More recently, we went into the AUKUS arrangements, under which Australia will receive access to some of the most sensitive nuclear technology that the United States possesses. We're forming new arrangements, such as the Quad—the United States, Japan, India and Australia.</para>
<para>The United States is a major source of inbound investment. It's a major export market for Australian businesses. So it is very important that the governments of these two nations work together closely and effectively. That is uncontestably in the interests of the Australian people. It is very important that there is mutual respect and trust between political leaders in both systems. What that means—I think it's an uncontentious proposition—is that there's a requirement on the Australian government of the day to be professional and to be disciplined in the way that it approaches our relationship with the United States, as there is in the way it approaches our relationship with other key allies around the world.</para>
<para>Let's be very clear on what our responsibilities are as political leaders in Australia. It's the job of the Australian government to deal with the government of the United States, the government that is chosen by the people of the United States. It is the right of the American people to choose their President. It is the obligation of the Australian government and of Australian political leaders to deal in a professional and respectful way with the government of the United States. Indeed, we saw that behaviour being modelled and demonstrated by the previous coalition government under the first Trump administration. We saw that administration apply tariffs to steel and aluminium imports from around the world, as is the perfect entitlement of the democratically elected government of the United States. But then Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull successfully had Australia exempted from those arrangements. That was an example of a coalition government working constructively, professionally engaging with the President and the administration in the United States.</para>
<para>You would have thought all of these are uncontentious propositions, so trite as to hardly be worth making. But, sadly, the evidence is clear that there are too many Labor politicians who do not accept or understand these statements, these principles, that I've just articulated. Instead, time after time, they fall prey to the temptation to engage in performative virtue-signalling directed at their Lefty echo chamber to try and get more likes on Twitter or X. There's example after example, I'm very sorry to say, of senior figures in the Albanese Labor government indulging themselves by doing just this and going for that short-term sugar hit of approbation and approval from within their Lefty echo chambers. But that is very much not in the interests of Australia and the Australian people. For example, the minister for climate, emissions reduction and energy published a book in February 2021 titled <inline font-style="italic">On Charlatans</inline>. It hasn't been widely read, but I suspect it has been widely remaindered. But it does contain a description of the man who has just been elected as the President of the United States. It contains a description of him as 'narcissistic', 'a liar' and 'the worst President in United States history'. This is a current senior Labor politician engaging in remarkably irresponsible conduct which is not in the interests of the Australian people, not in the interests of Australia and not in the interests of a prudent and mutually respectful relationship.</para>
<para>What about Wayne Swan—Swannie—the current Treasurer's mentor? Surely we could have expected him to be more responsible in his approach? I'm sorry to say not. In a podcast on the ABC's Radio National—of course, he was naturally tempted to go for that virtue signalling and approval from the leftie echo chamber—he had this to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The rise of Donald Trump is what happens when rampant wealth and income inequality, which causes immense despair across working classes across the world, leads to such disillusionment with the political system that it pushes it in a neo-fascist direction.</para></quote>
<para>I don't think that could be regarded as a responsible or prudent thing to say or a thing which is in the interests of the Australian people, a thing which is in the national interest.</para>
<para>What is it that we've heard from other senior ministers in this government? The Minister for the Environment and Water had this to say in 2016 about then presidential candidate and just elected President Donald Trump:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He's broken so many conventions I think it's fair enough for us as Australians to say we are deeply concerned about the security concerns his candidacy raises.</para></quote>
<para>Again, she's falling prey to the temptation to appeal to the leftie echo chamber, rather than thinking in a sober and responsible way, 'What is the thing that I should be saying, as a senior Australian politician, in our national interest?'</para>
<para>What about the Prime Minister's senior press secretary, formerly the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> journalist 'Murpharoo'—what did she have to say about President Trump? She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It was fascinating to be with Trump in the Oval Office … He had a simple objective: stonewall, redirect and destabilised the room.</para></quote>
<para>Again, you could not say that the now source of senior advice to the Prime Minister was carefully calibrating her words in the interests of maintaining a mutually respectful relationship with the United States.</para>
<para>What is it that the Assistant Treasurer had to say? In one of his many missteps in November 2016, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… weve seen a lot of people hoping like hell that theres a massive disconnect between what Donald Trump campaigned as and what hes going to govern as …</para></quote>
<para>Again, it's a self-indulgent piece of commentary appealing to the leftie echo chamber.</para>
<para>You would hope, of course, that our Prime Minister, the man who holds this august office, would take a more responsible position. You would hope that. Unfortunately, at Splendour in the Grass, again falling prey to the temptation to appeal to the crowd—he was probably wanting a t-shirt—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He must have had free tickets.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Probably—he was probably trying hard to convince the 18-year-olds that he was one of them. In a forum, he was very critical. In fact, he used the words—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Could the member for Petrie and the assistant minister please stop the interjections. I am really struggling to hear. I've been very gracious in allowing them to go on for this long, but I don't want to hear them anymore.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is disappointing to have to report that the current Prime Minister of Australia, in a public forum, said of the man who has just been elected President of the United States—and I'm going to use a euphemism here, because we are in the Parliament of Australia—'He scares the S out of me.' That is what our current Prime Minister said. This is the same Prime Minister who, just before question time today, said that he'd made it a priority to build trust and respect with other leaders. That's what he said.</para>
<para>But surely we can rely upon our Ambassador to the United States, KRudd, to sort it all out, because he knows everything! The unfortunate truth is that, in an interview, the man who has just been elected President of the United States said of KRudd that he is 'not the brightest bulb' and, 'If he's at all hostile, he will not be there long.'</para>
<para>The fact is that it is vital that we maintain a respectful and trust based relationship with our most important security partner. Sadly, senior politicians in this Albanese Labor government, from the Prime Minister down, have failed dismally.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Members will appreciate that we serve in this place in historic times. Australia currently faces the most complex, most challenging and most consequential strategic circumstances in living memory, and the Australian public look to us for cool heads and calm leadership in this time. Our region, the Indo-Pacific, is currently being reshaped by a series of fundamental dynamics of change: climate change, demographic change, technological disruption and intensifying strategic competition. They're all reshaping our region. Military power is expanding, but the means to constrain conflict are not. The rules and norms that have underwritten our regional security are coming under increasing pressure. The way that all of these changes will unfold will have vital implications for Australia's prosperity, for our security and for our very way of life.</para>
<para>In these circumstances of change, Australia cannot afford to be a mere spectator. We know that we need to influence these dynamics of change in Australia's national interests. We want to build a region that's peaceful, prosperous and secure; a region that's governed by rules, norms and international law; and a region where there's a strategic balance that ensures that countries are free to make their own choices, where no country dominates and no country is dominated. We've said that we'll use all the tools of statecraft to pursue these objectives: diplomatic, defence, development, soft power—every source of national power at our disposal. But we can't do it alone. We need to work with our key allies to pursue these goals. For a country like Australia, isolation is impotence.</para>
<para>So our relationships with our key allies matter now more than ever before, and, since the last election, the Albanese government has worked tirelessly to strengthen our relationships with our allies, to deepen our engagement with our partners and to repair our relationships and restore trust in the Pacific. We've done this because we know that, in complex, challenging and consequential times, our relationships matter. Our relationship with the United States is our most important in this respect</para>
<para>Overnight, the United States resoundingly elected President Donald Trump as their President, and the Australian government congratulates President Trump on his election. Prime Minister Albanese has already spoken to President Trump and reiterated that Australia will work closely with the new Trump administration to realise the benefits of our strong economic partnership. We look forward to working with President Trump in the interests of both of our nations. The United States has long played a leadership role in the stability and security of the Indo-Pacific, and Australia will strive to strengthen cooperation between our two nations in the region.</para>
<para>As the foreign minister said in Senate estimates today, the Australian government has been working to ensure that we were ready for whatever the American people decided in this election. Our preparations included engagement with many key Republicans by the Prime Minister, the defence minister, the foreign minister and our embassy in Washington.</para>
<para>I might just add, on the back of the contribution from the Manager of Opposition Business, that former prime minister Rudd, our ambassador to the United States, is a highly effective ambassador. He's recognised across the Australian parliament as doing an excellent job advancing Australia's interests in the United States. Indeed, he has already met with two-thirds of all senators. As a former prime minister, he's an experienced statesman. He's a China expert. Leaders around the world seek out his advice, and that's true in Washington too.</para>
<para>I just want to share a couple of quotes in this respect. Joe Hockey, another former ambassador, has said with respect to Mr Rudd's work:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it doesn't matter whether you are Liberal, Labor, Green, whatever. Australia first.</para></quote>
<para>Dennis Richardson, another former ambassador, has said previously:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Those who pursue this matter will be doing so for political reasons, divorced from the national interest.</para></quote>
<para>That's what we've just seen here today.</para>
<para>The Labor Party is proud of our legacy in our relationship with the United States, the legacy of our great wartime leader John Curtin turning to America and laying the foundations for our most important security relationship, the ANZUS alliance. It's a relationship that has endured across generations and across changes of government in both countries. It's a relationship that is being strengthened through the AUKUS agreement. Through AUKUS, Australia is playing its part in working to maintain the conditions for peace in our region. Through AUKUS and other significant and transparent investments in our defence industry and military capabilities, Australia is building our capability as a reliable security partner for the region and contributing to the collective deterrence of aggression and coercion in the Indo-Pacific. This is in the strategic interests of Australia, the US and the UK.</para>
<para>Partnership is at the heart of AUKUS. Members on both sides of the House know well that AUKUS is structurally embedded across both sides of politics in the US. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we have a voting record that we can look to in this regard. Democrats and Republicans, including Trump Republicans, voted in support of AUKUS-enabling legislation in the US Congress at the end of last year, and support for AUKUS is embedded in the US. It stretches across the political spectrum. The AUKUS caucus in the US Congress is vibrant and full of advocates for the agreement and friends of Australia. The US election has no more changed support for AUKUS in the US than the Australian election changed support for AUKUS in Australia. Our relationship with the US goes far beyond AUKUS, though, of course. In the Quad, Australia works closely with the United States alongside two other key partners for Australia who have also had elections this year—India and Japan.</para>
<para>The government was pleased to welcome India's external affairs minister, Dr Jaishankar, back to Australia and our parliament house just this week. Australia is one of Dr Jaishankar's most visited countries, a reflection of a relationship that has gone from strength to strength under our government. Australia and India are close economic partners with strong and growing economic and community ties. Under our government, India has become a top-tier security partner, and we are progressing the interoperability of our air and naval assets in an unprecedented manner. We now are a regular participant with India, Japan and the United States in Exercise Malabar. Prime Minister Albanese was even invited onto the INS<inline font-style="italic"> Vikrant</inline>, India's new locally built aircraft carrier. DPM Marles was invited to fly with the Indian Navy from Goa to Delhi on a P-8I flight. Our comprehensive strategic partnership is supporting an extraordinary tempo of engagement between our countries.</para>
<para>Our relationship with another Quad partner, Japan, has never been closer and never been more important. Our special strategic partnership is underpinned by our significant trade, investment, defence and security ties and a deep affinity between our peoples. Japan is an indispensable partner in shaping a region that's peaceful, stable and prosperous. Our joint declaration on security cooperation, the entry into force of the reciprocal access agreement and announcements around further cooperation with NATO and the United States at the 11th Australia-Japan 2+2 all send clear messages to the region about our close alignment and contribution to security and stability.</para>
<para>In South-East Asia, we have built on the extraordinarily successful ASEAN-Australia Special Summit in Melbourne of this year by continuing to implement the South-East Asia economic strategy by establishing the ASEAN-Australia Centre, with an investment financing facility up and running and the development of a pipeline of projects to boost Australian investment into South-East Asia.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, Indonesia held the largest single-day election anywhere in the world, and the people of Indonesia chose President Prabowo as their leader, a good friend of Australia. We've taken that relationship to a new level, signing the groundbreaking Australia-Indonesia Defence Cooperation Agreement earlier this year.</para>
<para>In the Pacific, we've been repairing relationships and restoring trust. Unfortunately, the opportunity to be the only partner in the Pacific was lost to us over the previous decade, but we're now working to become the partner of choice again. We're investing more than ever in the Pacific. We're working hard to be the partner of choice on security and economic matters in the region.</para>
<para>The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty has now entered into force, and it represents a momentous step in the elevated partnership between our two countries. The Falepili union puts into place transformational arrangements to safeguard the future of Tuvalu and advance our shared interests in a peaceful, safe and prosperous Pacific. Tuvalu and Australia recognise that our interests and futures are intertwined and that our security and sovereignty are best assured by acting together.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were in Samoa last month for CHOGM. It was the Prime Minister's seventh visit to the Pacific as Prime Minister and his first visit to Samoa. We saw then the Pacific Policing Initiative on display at CHOGM with an 11-country police deployment—a Pacific led, Australia backed initiative endorsed by Pacific leaders in Tonga in August.</para>
<para>We have come a very long way in our relationships with key partners in the Pacific, vital relationships for the future prosperity and security of both Australia and the Pacific family. We've worked on rebuilding trust and rebuilding these relationships. That all happened after the last election and the election of the Albanese government. Since the election of the Albanese government, we've seen elections in most of our ally and key partner countries around the world. Some have seen changes in government; some haven't. What hasn't changed is this government's commitment to working with our allies and key partners in challenging and consequential times—working together to shape a region that we want to live in. That is a region that's peaceful, prosperous and secure, a region governed by rules, norms and international law, a region where no country dominates and no country is dominated. It's in our national interests to do so, and we'll continue to do it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There could be no more important subject to be discussing in today's matter of public importance debate than the importance of Australia's relationships with our key allies. It's appropriate. It's timely.</para>
<para>In politics, as in life, sincerity is everything. Say what you mean and mean what you say; don't say it if you don't mean it. If you post it, stand by it. If you say it, stick by it. Whilst I appreciate that views may change over years, sudden changes of heart for whatever convenient or inconvenient circumstance are a little less believable, which brings me to the interesting scenario that Australia's ambassador to the United States of America, former prime minister Kevin Rudd, finds himself in—quite a predicament all of his own making.</para>
<para>You see, Mr Rudd has only just now removed negative comments that he posted about President-elect Donald Trump from his social media. Some might say, 'Well, at least he's done it.' Some might say, 'It's better late than never.' But it has only happened in the hours just gone. Why has it taken Mr Rudd until today to delete posts about Mr Trump? Oops! Mr Rudd was appointed as our envoy to the US in December 2022. That's almost two long years ago, and a lot has happened since that time. In June 2020 Mr Rudd described Mr Trump as 'the most destructive president in history'. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He drags America and democracy through the mud. He thrives on fomenting, not healing, division.</para></quote>
<para>And he went on and on.</para>
<para>Wouldn't you think, given Mr Trump has long been a Republican candidate and their nominee for the election just decided, that Mr Rudd might have considered those posts and thought, 'Perhaps I should take them down'? Maybe he thought about it months ago, weeks ago or days ago, but, no, he's left it until today to do it. Do you know why? I reckon it's because he has hung on to those beliefs. I reckon he's still of that view. Now, as the dust settles on the Trump versus Kamala Harris presidential election, we have this anti-Trump government scrambling to somehow, in some way, make amends, to supposedly make things right and pretend as though commentary in years past or in recent times didn't happen. But it did.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has also been backtracking after his 2017 strongly held and strongly expressed views on Mr Trump. Embarrassingly, they emerged on the eve of the US poll. Oops! A big oops! Even then the now PM was—let's face it—a senior parliamentarian. He'd been around for more than 20 years when he made those comments. He was a shadow minister in an opposition with a credible—or, at least, they thought so—chance of forming the next government.</para>
<para>What happened next? Just recently, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were hurriedly dispatched to go and smooth things over, as it were, with Mike Pompeo, who is tipped to be the US Secretary of State in a future Trump administration. You can imagine the briefing: 'Quick! Go and patch things up. Tidy it up for us. Be nice. Do nice. Pretend as though we care!'</para>
<para>I rather prefer the diplomatic attitude of former prime minister Tony Abbott, who offered a very, very good description in his very well written op-ed in today's <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline>. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In today's even more fraught and perilous world, with aggressive dictatorships united in their hatred of the West and determined to overthrow the Pax Americana, which until recently had made the world more free, more fair, more safe, and more rich for more people than at any time before in human history, it's more important than ever that Australia stand with America and do whatever we reasonably can to help like-minded countries under deadly threat.</para></quote>
<para>He is right, of course, and I do worry, given the leader of the Greens question, what will happen to our relationship without our key ally, the US, if we have a minority Labor-Greens government— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Prime Minister has clearly said, we congratulate President-elect Trump on his election victory. The United States, of course, is one of the world's great democracies and Donald Trump supports the alliance we have with the United States. In both Australia and the United States, our security and economic relationship will only go from strength to strength. Personally, I am very proud to be the co-chair of both the Parliamentary Friends of the United States and the Parliamentary Friends of AUKUS. In fact, I caught up with Rear Admiral Richard Seif, Commander of the US Pacific Fleet Submarine Force, at the US Embassy this week. I've seen first-hand the interoperability of our AUKUS partners, both with the Marines, with the air force, with the navy—with all elements of our alliance. I visited HMAS Stirling last month in Perth and saw AUKUS partners working side by side to deliver the historic submarine tendered maintenance period of the Virginia class <inline font-style="italic">USS Hawaii</inline>.</para>
<para>Our government will work closely with the new Trump administration to realise the benefits of our strong security and economic partnership and of course that includes AUKUS. Our Prime Minister has spoken with President-elect Trump this morning, as we heard earlier. As the PM said today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our Government will work closely with the new Trump Administration to realise the benefits of our strong economic partnership. The United States has long played a leadership role in the stability and security of the Indo-Pacific. Australia will strive to strengthen the co-operation between our two nations in the region. Australia and America are old allies and we are true friends. … I look forward to working with President Trump and working with him in the best interests of both our nations.</para></quote>
<para>Australia and America of course are old allies and we are true friends. The alliance between Australia and the US has endured for generations, since the darkest days of World War II.</para>
<para>My electorate—Darwin and Palmerston in the Northern Territory—is a focal point of this history, and still today Australia's north is at the heart of our relationship with United States. We have the United States Marines in Darwin every year and we have US force posture initiatives at RAAF Base Tindal in the member for Lingiari's electorate. The Territory has a proven history of hosting and supporting large multinational activities and exercises with our US friends. The US Marine Corps loves Darwin and has been there for more than a decade now. The strategic importance of Australia's north to Australia's defence has long been recognised by government and policymakers but most importantly our US allies. Since World War II, northern Australia has been a critical contributor to Australia's security as part of our Australia-US alliance. Geographically, Darwin sits at the centre of the Indo Pacific, and AUKUS is in both the strategic benefit and in the national interests of Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. That is as much the case today as it was at the start of this week. That has not changed. We welcome the broad bipartisan support that has been demonstrated in the United States for both the alliance and for AUKUS and we can be confident of their support because, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we have the voting record. When you look at the way the US Congress voted at the end of last year in support of AUKUS, it was strong across the political spectrum. So we do have a sense of confidence that, going forward, this is a program that will be supported in the United States, as it is in the UK and as it will be here.</para>
<para>Our government, the Albanese government, has restored Australia's international reputation and continues to rebuild our relationships with our key partners. Our government's approach has always been about investing in our capabilities and investing in those relationships. I echo the words of the assistant foreign minister regarding our ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd. He knows the US very well indeed, and we're very lucky to have him there representing us.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The relationship between Australia and the United States is vitally important to both nations. Australia is the only nation that has fought in all the major conflicts that the US has been involved in since the First World War, so the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. No other nation has been in all those conflicts alongside the United States. Indeed, we were so vitally grateful to have the United States with us in some of the darkest days of this nation in the Second World War, when there was a very real prospect and chance that mainland Australia would be invaded by the Imperial Japanese Army.</para>
<para>That was, in many ways, an epochal moment for this nation, and it was the great Labor leader John Curtin who was really the father of that close relationship with the US that we've had ever since that point. So it is important that, as the people of the United States have chosen a new administration, we reconfirm and recognise in this place the important relationship between the elected government of the United States and this government, remember why the relationship is so important and make sure that we do all we can for it to endure into the future. In many ways, the future of our relationship with the United States is something to be greatly excited about.</para>
<para>The AUKUS agreement that will lead to the construction of nuclear submarines in my home city of Adelaide is particularly exciting, not only because of the capability that will be acquired for our Royal Australian Navy but because of the industrial and economic outcome for the city of Adelaide. We've heard, as recently as in question time today, the Greens political party attack that alliance and attack that great opportunity for my city of Adelaide. The Greens leader wants us to pull out of AUKUS and to scrap the nuclear submarine program for South Australia. Not to be outdone at just scrapping one program, I'll reconfirm, on the record, that the Greens want to scrap the Hunter class frigate program as well. So, if the Greens have their way and get their balance of power in some kind of power-sharing agreement with the Labor Party after the next election, there'll be no naval shipbuilding in Australia. That's the position of the Greens.</para>
<para>They want to scrap the AUKUS agreement. They don't want to work with the Americans on acquiring that transformative technology that would give our Royal Australian Navy the absolute best capability that they absolutely deserve and that we should all be working together to give to them. They want to get rid of all naval shipbuilding, which means losing more than 10,000 jobs in my home state of South Australia. So, at the upcoming election, when the people of my seat of Sturt and the member for Adelaide's seat are holding the pen or the pencil over the ballot paper, if they are thinking about putting a high number in the box for the Greens, then they're voting to get rid of 10,000 jobs from the South Australian economy, and that will be absolutely devastating for the people of Sturt, the people of Adelaide and the people of South Australia.</para>
<para>We in the coalition have a very consistent and proud record of engagement with the United States. Some of us have taken it to an extreme level—the member for Banks married an American, so he really doubled down on ties between our two great nations, and I thank you for that! But, with the incoming Trump administration, there are great opportunities for us to do so many things to deepen the relationship between Australia and the United States. The defence and national security one is vital, obviously. The economic one is extremely exciting, and the cultural one as well. Being from an electorate that has very significant film and screen industry infrastructure, I'd love to see greater ties between some of those big American content creators and the South Australian Film Corporation, located in my electorate of Sturt. And there are so many other opportunities for us to leverage the great history of our relationship with the United States for great prosperity for both of us into the future.</para>
<para>Thank you to the member for Bradfield for bringing this matter of public importance before us today. I very much appreciate the chance to reconfirm, as a member of this great chamber, how important it is for all of us to recognise, remember and continue to invest in the relationship between Australia and the United States.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge that Australia has no greater ally than the United States, and I congratulate President-elect Donald Trump on his election. This government, like every Australian government, will work with the US President of the day.</para>
<para>I was quite interested to hear the Manager of Opposition Business give a speech that was long on sanctimony but short on reflection. Let's not pretend that the Liberal Party were masters of tact in international diplomacy during their decade in power. They were walking around the world offending, abusing and lecturing countries that are Australia's allies and friends. Time after time they damaged Australia's relationships with their sanctimony on the world stage, so I thought I'd go through some of the greatest hits of the Liberals in power and their foreign policy.</para>
<para>No. 1—we have to start with this one—was their charm offensive on the Pacific. The now Leader of the Opposition endeared himself to everyone in the Pacific by talking about rising sea levels into an open mic—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just a moment. I've got a point of order from the member for Wright.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Buchholz</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Could I just draw the member's attention back to what the actual MPI is today? We were speaking about the relationship with America, and we are a substantial way—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is your point of order a question of relevance?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Buchholz</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes; absolutely.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am listening carefully. I was thinking of that, although we've had a few people deviating today. But the discussion talks about the relationship with our key allies, plural. The Pacific is certainly part of that relationship. The member is not out of order, but I am listening carefully.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm horrified to hear they don't think the Pacific are our key allies! Certainly the current Leader of the Opposition didn't think the Pacific was one of our key allies when he said into an open mic, 'Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door.' Could you think of anything more offensive? Could you think of anything more calculated to damage the relationship we have with these important partners?</para>
<para>The president of Kiribati criticised the remark as 'vulgar'. He said it was 'unbecoming of leadership'. But to be honest, he was being polite—much more polite than the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition's remark was boorish, it was vulgar and, importantly, it wasn't very funny. The serious consequence of this was that Australia lost a lot of support in the Pacific at a crucial time.</para>
<para>No. 2, the second of the greatest hits of the Liberals in power traipsing around the world offending everyone they met. In September 2021, the now Leader of the Opposition, during a visit to India, made some remarks about China. He referred to them as being 'increasingly coercive' and talked about a 'zero-sum mentality'—as if he would know—which earned him a sharp rebuke from China's foreign ministry, which labelled his comments 'extremely dangerous and irresponsible'. Let's remember that we're talking about Australia's No. 1 trading partner. With reckless comments and shooting from the hip, the current Leader of the Opposition caused great offence. And who paid the price for this? It wasn't the now Leader of the Opposition. It was our farmers, our lobster producers, our wine producers, our barley producers. Importantly, the Special Minister of State, Don Farrell, now has to travel around the world fixing up all these relationships, and credit to him for reopening all of those markets.</para>
<para>No. 3, who could forget our friends, the French? Maybe they're not an ally of ours either. Scott Morrison, who decided to cancel a $90 billion contract with France for 12 conventional submarines, did it with great tact, deft diplomacy, by not telling the French and letting them find out in the media! Of course they were appalled. The French foreign minister called it 'a stab in the back'. To make the situation even worse, Morrison lied about it and released text messages from President Macron. President Macron did use great tact. When asked whether Morrison had lied to him, Macron responded, 'I don't think he lied; I know.' Again, this had serious consequences for Australia in the world.</para>
<para>The final one is India. They talk so much about the importance of India, but, when push came to shove and when India was in its moment of need in COVID, what did they do? They implemented a country-specific travel ban. They have never respected Australia's relationships in the world. They did them great damage. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would say to the member that if you are seriously saying that China is our ally, then there is a real issue in terms of Australia and who its allies are. I congratulate President-elect Trump on winning the election in recent days. Like all oppositions and governments, I will continue to support and work with what is one of Australia's greatest allies, whom we have worked with, whether it is on defence and security or trade, since World War 2 and all the way through any number of conflicts.</para>
<para>Whether it is a Trump administration or others, whether it is a coalition or Labor government, right across the decades we have maintained that relationship and strengthened that relationship. One of the results of those decades of work is the AUKUS security pact and AUKUS agreement. It is critical to our nation's security. That is why it is a bipartisan approach. But I also welcome the comments of Assistant Minister Watts—that the Labor government will do whatever it takes, will take all paths through soft diplomacy and will pull whatever lever is necessary to strengthen the relationship with the United States.</para>
<para>I've got a couple of suggestions, which I'll come to. Firstly, there have been a lot of comments about Ambassador Rudd. Like many in this place, I've met Ambassador Rudd a couple of times. I don't know him well. We clearly have different politics. But when you put the green-and-gold tracksuit on and you have Australia's crest, you are Australia's guy. This country, regardless of where you sit in this parliament, expects you to do your utmost for our nation, and I expect the same from Ambassador Rudd. Of course, if that doesn't work out, the Prime Minister will have to deal with that issue. I expect Ambassador Rudd to work hard for our country, as anyone does around the world, whether they are consular-generals, ambassadors or any of the other diplomatic relations that we have with many of our nations, particularly our allies.</para>
<para>Here's one out of the box that they probably should consider on the other side. There is one Australian who is incredibly close to the Trump administration. There is one Australian who was actually there when the announcement was made in the last 24 or 48 hours about President-elect Trump. There is one Australian who happens to be Australia's biggest individual taxpayer. Gina Rinehart is very, very close to the Trump administration. If Assistant Minister Watts is going to be true to his word, the government should also reach out to those individuals who have direct contact with the camp, because it is in Australia's interest. The good thing about Gina Rinehart is she actually loves this country. She's incredibly patriotic, and I think she would be very helpful in terms of any government that is an Australian government in working with one of our strongest and closest allies. I thank Assistant Minister Watts for his suggestion. I think that it's one that should be taken up.</para>
<para>Regardless of whether it is AUKUS or ANZUS, regardless of whether it is trade or defence, we have always worked closely with our security partners, in particular the United States. That is why it is so disappointing that I've just had a message that there is breaking news on Sky News right now—whilst we're in the chamber—that the WA Labor Premier has said, 'The Trump victory is a dark road.' I have to say that that sort of commentary from a premier of a state in Australia is incredibly unhelpful. We need to ensure that we are all moving in the same direction. It is why we have bipartisanship on our defence agreements such as AUKUS. The idea that the WA Premier would be out there saying things like this is a mistake. We need to continue to work with the administration, as we always have.</para>
<para>Some of the things President-elect Trump said during his campaign I think are actually quite positive, because what he has said to the American people is that he wants to bring down interest rates and lower the cost of energy. I think that's a great approach. It's one that we want to take here in Australia. The way he intends to do that is, 'Drill, baby, drill.' He intends to have more oil and gas. If we look at the reality and the facts around energy production, Australia actually produced around 455 million tonnes of coal. The US domestic consumption in a year is about 425 million tonnes. So they actually consume almost as much as Australia produces as a whole.</para>
<para>We've got to be factual around the energy debate because people are hurting and they can't pay. They simply can't pay. There will be an increase in the domestic production of oil and gas in America. The danger for us is that more manufacturing from this country will leave to go somewhere where energy is affordable and will make their businesses profitable, rather than being here where energy costs continue to go up because we have decisions from governments like the Victorian government not to explore and produce more gas. As a result, they have now run out and the price is through the roof. It is an incredibly important arrangement with the Americans, and we should take every opportunity to strengthen it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the beginning of this week at the National Prayer Breakfast, Max Jeganathan from the Centre for Public Christianity gave a powerful and personal address about the importance of finding grace and bringing fractured communities together in a world full of many challenging conflicts. He equally emphasised the eroding nature of anger. These are lessons that we can still learn more here—a little more grace and a little less anger would not go astray.</para>
<para>I agree that Australia's role in the world and our own national security relies heavily on nurturing and sustaining strong relationships with allies, particularly those that share our democratic values. I have devoted much of my time here to developing and strengthening those ties at a parliamentary level as the chair of the country groups of the United Kingdom, Bhutan, Croatia, Paraguay, Chile and Egypt and as an active member of other groups, including the US country group.</para>
<para>Australia is a great nation and we have enviable capacity on a number of scores, but the reality is that we are a middle-power nation. Australia will always want to make a positive contribution to world affairs and maximise peace and stability across all nations. We want to work to address the global challenges of climate change and economic stability with our global allies. We are blessed with our own enormous landmass and lengthy sea lanes to protect. On that basis, Australia needs to have relationships with like-minded nations that ensure that these tasks are achievable. Working with our allies, Australia will continue to contribute positively to world affairs and to be a free and prosperous nation that can support freedom and prosperity across our region.</para>
<para>Of central importance to meeting this challenge is sustaining strong links with the United States, links that have been strong across our shared histories. Maintaining these links falls on a host of participants, but, in particular, it is incumbent on all of us parliamentarians to contribute. Noting the events of the last 24 hours and the outcome of the United States election, I believe these links and efforts must continue regardless of the twists and turns of political life in both nations, and I have confidence that they will do so. I endorse the strong statements by the Prime Minister on this matter yesterday during question time when he said that our government will seek to build a strong partnership with whoever the American people choose as their president. The alliance between Australia and the United States has always been bigger than individuals. It has stood tall through generations of governments from both sides of the aisle. The Prime Minister followed through on these comments with his phone call to President-elect Trump today.</para>
<para>I was pleased yesterday that the opposition leader endorsed the Prime Minister's words on this score. I also endorse the foreign minister's comments today that underpin that Australia's desire to maintain strong links with United States will not chop and change but will continue as it has done so over many decades through successive governments.</para>
<para>So let us with good grace continue to work together for the common good, regardless of the outcomes of elections which we might not all be satisfied with but which were conducted in a civil and peaceful manner.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The title of an MPI is quite important, and often, as the member for Parramatta did, we stray from the actual title. The title here is 'The importance of Australia's relationship with our key allies'. The day after the United States election, we really are referring to the United States, but I would like to refer to the word 'importance' because, when it comes to our relationship with the United States, its importance is everything. That's how important it is, and I want to illustrate that through one example.</para>
<para>I want to take the chamber back to a time before anyone here was born: 1942, 4 to 7 June. It was six months after the attack on Pearl Harbor and one month after the Battle of the Coral Sea. Japan had taken Hong Kong, the Philippines, British Malaya, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies. Japan sought to eliminate the US as a strategic power in the Pacific. They correctly assessed that the source of that power was their carrier forces—each carrier being a floating 'death star', for those more familiar with <inline font-style="italic">Star Wars</inline>. Midway is a small atoll 2,000 kilometres north-west of Hawaii. The Japanese felt that, by attacking it, they would compel the Americans to defend it, and it would shift the trajectory of the war.</para>
<para>Assumptions were made on intelligence and, thanks to the ingenuity of young US officers, the Japanese naval code was broken, and they were able to guess not only where but when and how the attack would occur. The battle was immense. The Japanese lost 3,000 men and four carriers. The US lost 300 and one carrier, and it struck a fatal blow to the Japanese military machine. This was the Allies' first victory, and, had the US not won, the war would have taken a different course, including for Australia.</para>
<para>There are two points to note about that one battle that shaped the course of that war and why it is known as one of the most consequential battles in military history. The first was industry. The US had an inferior capability in terms of equipment, they had lower numbers and they had been wounded by previous battles, yet they still prevailed because US industry in Hawaii repaired the <inline font-style="italic">Yorktown</inline> and put it back into operation within 48 hours. Very few countries on earth would have been able to do that at that time, and that is why US industry is so important to our national interests.</para>
<para>The second was human will. We don't just have alliances with random countries because of their ranking in power and status; we have alliances because of what they believe in, who they are and what drives them to bet everything on fighting for their country. Young men flew into hell at Midway, and, in doing so, they helped keep Australia safe. The War Memorial just down the road, which has 103,000 names, would be maybe five times as large if not for the bravery of young United States men who fought in battles like that. But they didn't just fight for a flag, an oath or a constitution; they fought for a country worth fighting for. They fought for a country that believes in values that are very similar to ours and that are their true north: democracy, the rule of law and freedom.</para>
<para>There has been a lot of hyperbole in the last 24 hours, and that's all it is: hyperbole. The United States isn't its president, and it isn't the political party that is in power there. It is a nation of people who believe in things, as we are. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, Australia isn't Anthony Albanese, and Australia isn't the Labor Party. Australia is the people and the people who will come next. The same applies to the United States.</para>
<para>One of the issues we have to deal with in keeping Australia secure is the security dilemma. The security dilemma goes like this: if our adversaries feel insecure, we will be insecure; if we act, they will counteract. The source of that insecurity is not that democracies, which we are and the United States is, will destroy nations. That's not the fear; the fear is that we exist, that we set an alternative example. And the counteraction is to throw sand in the gears of democratic institutions. We've seen a lot of that in the last 24 hours—a lot of that sand thrown by people in this country. It feeds off mistrust, and it's deliberately designed to undermine democracies. The way we practise democracy matters, and the way the United States practises it matters, and it is a great credit to them that they had a peaceful transfer of power.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Albanese Labor government has given extreme significance and importance to our relationships with our international partners, especially with the United States. We have rebuilt—we have spent nearly the last two years rebuilding—our relationships that needed to be restored and Australia's international reputation by recognising and acting on climate change. We've rebuilt our diplomatic capability and demonstrated leadership in the multilateral system and on global issues. This Albanese government has restored our relationships with France—as we heard from the member for Parramatta earlier—and concluded a roadmap to an enduring and positive partnership with them.</para>
<para>Australia is a trusted partner of Europe, and nothing underscores this more than being one of NATO's partners. We are valued for our insights in the Indo-Pacific. In fact, as one of NATO's partners in the Indo-Pacific, we were able to attend as observers the 75th NATO Summit. This underscores our importance, and it does so because we're valued for our knowledge and our work in the Indo-Pacific. We know that developments in the Indo-Pacific could quite easily affect Euro-Atlantic security. So the strong relationships this government is building and has built around the globe help us to address the world's challenges and the challenging strategic circumstances of our time.</para>
<para>When it comes to the US alliances, we know that there is nothing more important on the international sphere. We heard this morning that Prime Minister Albanese rang Mr Trump and congratulated him. We look forward to working with the Trump administration, as we've worked with the Biden administration, as we've worked with the Obama administration, as we've worked with the Bush administration. Regardless of who was in government here and regardless of who the presidential players were in the United States, our relationship and friendship and our alliance are far stronger than individuals, and it will continue to get stronger. Australians and Americans are great friends, and we all heard in different speeches on both sides of the House here today of those dark times in World War II, where Darwin was bombed and we had foreign submarines on our shores. Australia was under real threat at that time, and it was the Americans that came to our rescue. Therefore, in that particular moment, there was a friendship and a bond that was secured between the United States and Australia. It has continued, it is growing strong and it will grow stronger.</para>
<para>Our nations are bound by a history of shared sacrifice and commitment to common values and, above all, that respect and affection between our people. Recently, AUKUS is a huge, huge issue in my electorate—a huge issue of importance—because it is a partnership that's focused on enhancing regional stability and safeguarding a secure and stable Indo-Pacific while setting the highest standards of nuclear nonproliferation. Through AUKUS, Australia seeks to replace the existing capability with a new capability of nuclear-powered submarines. But, also, it is so important to South Australia, my own home state, and to my own city of Adelaide because of the high-tech technology and jobs that it will create, and it is already doing that. So, as a South Australian, I know the importance of the alliance, and I know the importance of the partnership, but, more so, I know the importance of the future—creating jobs and creating a great economy for our nation and specifically for South Australia. Already we're seeing companies and businesses set up in South Australia, businesses. I have Lot 14 in my electorate. Cutting-edge research is being done there, and this is due to the capabilities that Australia will be able to get in the future. We're talking about approximately 30,000 jobs being created.</para>
<para>It gives me great pleasure to know that last year both sides of the United States Congress—both Democrats and Republicans—voted for the AUKUS legislation. That shows great support from the US for the AUKUS partnership, which also has great support here in Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time </inline><inline font-style="italic">expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7259" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, talk about fake news! Who knew that this Labor government would introduce its own misinformation bill—in fact, their second attempt—yet be here in this debate spreading misinformation about some alleged secret plan, which nobody on this side of the House even knows about, for the NBN to be privatised? How ironic!</para>
<para>The amendments in the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 are amendments to the Labor Party's own legislation, introduced on 25 November 2010, when the current Prime Minister was in cabinet as the then infrastructure minister. He introduced the bill, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It … sets out 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.</para></quote>
<para>So there it is: Labor set up the NBN for privatisation, not the coalition, as is now being asserted in this debate. This is an attempt at wedge politics, but Labor have ended up wedging themselves.</para>
<para>Days earlier, the then communications minister, Stephen Conroy, had confirmed privatisation was on the agenda and highlighted that rural and regional areas would need to be front and centre of the sale. This is the same former communications minister who only months earlier in 2010, with pomp and ceremony, had come to my home town in my electorate of Mallee and declared Mildura to be the first place in the nation to switch off analog television and switch on digital television. That was a great announcement. However, on 1 July this year, Mildura had the indignity of being the first to switch off digital television. So maybe Labor are wary that their 14-year itches are starting to scratch. Having let down rural and regional Australians in my electorate at the 14-year mark, maybe they realise they need to protect rural and regional Australia from themselves and add extra safeguards to prevent the sale of the NBN. Who knows?</para>
<para>In my electorate of Mallee, I am pleased to say, a new NBN presence is being established in Sea Lake. I know local constituents have been waiting patiently for that, and, hopefully, it will come online in December. Robert Graham is one of those in Sea Lake, and he says: 'An NBN rollout is great once it is live because it brings the rest of us in line with the rest of the country. It opens us up to do the things we have not been able to do. At the moment we are on ADSL Sky Muster and if you use that you have a latency issue, whereas the fibre removes our latency issues. If you are on ADSL, you are bandwidth restricted, but fibre opens up the restrictions which mean things like telehealth and downloading and streaming all become a viable option.' I might say that most Australians can enjoy those services —I won't even call them privileges. Health care is a service. I note that the local progress association, Advance Sea Lake Inc., are looking forward to that service being upgraded. I also understand, after advocating for local residents, that the transition from satellite to fixed wireless in Woorinen South will begin in the second half of 2025.</para>
<para>I am currently investigating NBN outages at Murtoa that a local resident complained about at a recent stall I ran at Murtoa's Big Weekend. My constituent says these outages happen without warning—a bit like power, really. But as I discussed recently with the NBN representative, this may come down to a retailer's failure to act on warnings that the NBN, as a wholesaler, provides to them. This is probably a sticking point with the NBN that many consumers don't understand—that their choice of retailer may be having an impact on their awareness of NBN outages. Of course, if the outages weren't happening in the first place there would be less cause for consternation.</para>
<para>Under the watch of this Prime Minister and the communications minister, Labor have overseen a major decline in the NBN, and maybe Australians aren't aware of this. They have hammered Australians with massive NBN price increases. We have seen six million families smashed by NBN price rises of up to 14 per cent since October last year. Australians were dealt with a double whammy of higher internet costs, with two price hikes in the space of just eight months since the Albanese government backed a new pricing deal for NBN last year. And what did the Minister for Communications say? Infamously, she described this price rise as 'great news for consumers'. I'm not sure how you work that out.</para>
<para>Under Labor, the satellite business is collapsing. Two years ago, the NBN had more than 120,000 satellite customers, and Starlink had virtually none. Today, the NBN is down to 85,000 satellite customers and Starlink has more than 270,000. I might be one of them. The government response was to convene a roundtable meeting. This government have never met a roundtable they didn't like. Over the same time period, the NBN's brownfields business—meaning existing homes—has almost 100,000 customers, and at the same time the NBN's cash losses have blown out. For the most recent financial year, its net cash flow was minus $1.4 billion to $300 million, worse than the minus $1.1 billion result in the previous year.</para>
<para>It is intriguing that Labor are so determined to keep the NBN in public hands, and I emphasise again we on this side are not talking about changing that position. But when it comes to nuclear energy, Labor opposes our plan for seven publicly owned nuclear power plants at existing coal-fired power plant sites across Australia. Labor have instead gone to a Labor-dominated inquiry here in parliament into the prospects for nuclear energy in Australia but that inquiry on this bill tell you it is Labor who have thrown positivity out of the window. We know their election slogan, thanks to the pomp and ceremony in Adelaide at the weekend—building Australia's future. The future, according to Labor, will be built on fear—fear about nuclear energy, fear of phantom privatisations. That is Labor's positive vision for the future. When you campaign on fear, what you are doing is demonstrating how small your vision for the future is. You pull down your opponent with fear tactics so nobody notices how small your vision really is. We now have a government more focused on countering the opposition's policies—governing from opposition, if you like—rather than their own. They are so desperate they have dusted off the old chestnut of going a step towards university education being free. That is what their thought bubble of 20 per cent debt forgiveness for HELP debt means—you are one-fifth of the way to your university education being free.</para>
<para>Many constituents who are old enough to remember say this Albanese government is worse than Whitlam's, and they are right. Now Labor are diving 50 years back into the history books for other ideas to out-Whitlam Whitlam. I remind those opposite that the Whitlam government was a one-term government. Be careful where you take inspiration from.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to be speaking today on this bill, the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. I am very pleased because it is vital that the NBN stays in public hands. We are very much committed to do that. This bill will amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to ensure ongoing public ownership of the NBN. The bill incorporates new wording to make it clear that the NBN is to be preserved in public ownership as an explicit requirement, and that's what's important about this bill.</para>
<para>We, the Albanese Labor government, have made a rock-solid commitment to keeping the NBN in public ownership. Of course, the fibre and fixed-wireless upgrades we took to the 2022 election are being delivered on time and on budget, which is effectively a first for any government in terms of how we are rolling out those improvements. Australians are now taking up fibre upgrades in record numbers, and this is vitally important. It leads to a much better user experience and customer experience, and less fault as well. There's a lot of innovation happening, particularly in terms of satellite technology, which really does have the ability to transform connectivity for all Australians.</para>
<para>In regional and rural areas like mine, especially, issues surrounding the upgrading of the NBN are at the forefront of the minds of so many people. There are so many reasons we require that. For the vast number of wonderful small businesses that we have in my region and in other parts of regional Australia, having connectivity is at the heart of them functioning as a small business. Of course, we need that connectivity for educational purposes as well. For so many years under the coalition we didn't have that. It meant so many businesses struggled. It meant many people couldn't access those educational resources.</para>
<para>People need access to the NBN for personal reasons, and we desperately need to have access to connectivity in times of natural disasters. In my region we had the devastating floods of 2022 when all technology wasn't available. It was an incredibly difficult time. We've made some major investments since that time, in terms of having equipment and technology there for increased connectivity during natural disasters. That is absolutely important. Our government understands that we need to do all that we can to ensure we can access that technology in times of a natural disaster because problems with connectivity added to the incredible distress and devastation that we were feeling during the floods of 2022. We have made a commitment to making sure that there is more capacity for connectivity when we are in natural disasters.</para>
<para>We have said many times that we strongly believe the NBN needs to stay in full government ownership, to support that ongoing upgrade to the network and also—very importantly—to ensure the ongoing regulatory oversight of NBN wholesale pricing to keep broadband affordable for Australians. That will only happen if we ensure that it remains within public ownership.</para>
<para>Having access, particularly affordable access, to the NBN is incredibly important for a whole host of reasons, as I mentioned earlier. We want to make sure that stays in place. It is also essential to deliver the strategy for a greater and more connected Australia, including rolling out more fibre in the fixed line network, planning for the transition to next-generation satellites and modernising universal service obligations. There are a whole variety of reasons why we need to ensure that NBN ownership stays in public hands and to ensure that happens effectively and efficiently.</para>
<para>Our cybersecurity and national security imperatives naturally require a massive government oversight as well, and that can only be done through government ownership. We've said we wouldn't support any future sale of NBN, particularly if it were to involve some sort of foreign ownership. That could potentially raise very serious national sovereignty and security risks. So there are a whole host of reasons why the NBN should remain within public hands.</para>
<para>As I've said, the NBN is critical national infrastructure, and we have maintained it. We need to have it in place. That's why we introduced that. Many years ago, we knew how important it was to roll that out so that people could have access to the NBN. It was established by a Labor government because of the failure of a former Liberal-National government to foresee a plan for the digital transformation of the economy. You do have to plan well in advance for what is required to transform our economy—particularly for those regional and rural areas that continue to rely on the NBN for important day-to-day activities and business activities—and, more broadly, to provide that security and service during natural disasters.</para>
<para>We know that the sale of Telstra under the then Howard government was a complete disaster, and it really showed how the Liberal Party and particularly the National Party sold out many regional communities. There were initially some guarantees of service delivery, and none of that eventuated—none of it. People remind me of that every day. They remember when it was sold off by the Howard government and the implications for the regions.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>87</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Headstone Project South Australia</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Headstone Project SA is a voluntary organisation that was established in 2017 and is dedicated to locating World War I veterans buried in unmarked graves throughout South Australia. In the last seven years, the Headstone Project has installed 108 headstones and identified a further 413 veterans believed to be resting in unmarked graves. It's estimated that there are at least 2½ thousand unmarked graves across 900 cemeteries in South Australia. Why are there so many unmarked graves? After serving in the horrors of World War I, many soldiers returned bearing the scars of unfathomable experiences, often becoming disconnected from family and friends in their community. Unmarked graves were also a sign of the time, as many died during the Great Depression. As Headstone Project SA president John Brownlie explains, a grieving family had to consider whether they would put food on the table, pay rent or put a marker on a loved one's grave.</para>
<para>We exist as a nation because of the sacrifices that these men and women made. Indeed, we remain eternally indebted and owe every returned soldier resting in an unmarked grave the honour and distinction of a prescribed military headstone recognising their service to Australia. No reasonable person would deny that, yet we have a government that has denied a request by the Headstone Project to receive deductible gift recipient status, DGR status, effectively curtailing their important work.</para>
<para>Earlier this week, I asked the Treasurer in question time if he would reconsider the government's decision, particularly given their counterpart organisation, Headstone Project Tasmania, does have DGR status. The Treasurer agreed to have another look at the decision, and a meeting with the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury was arranged. Buoyed by the apparent willingness to reconsider this grievous decision, I was quickly disappointed when advised at the meeting that the government would not be overturning the decision.</para>
<para>On Monday 11 November, the nation will observe Remembrance Day, a day of reflection to honour members of the armed forces who died in the line of duty, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, representing the end of hostilities in 1918. The assistant minister and other government officials will, appropriately, attend services. Incredulously, this attendance comes after denying DGR status for a voluntary organisation whose sole remit is to honour the service of returned soldiers who, despite their sacrifices, now rest in unmarked graves. I urge the assistant minister laying a wreath to please reconsider this unjust decision.</para>
<para>What makes this decision all the more galling is the understanding that the government has approved a total of 4,930 organisations for DGR status. That's right—4,930 organisations, but not the Headstone Project SA. To be very clear, I don't doubt the validity and worthiness of every organisation that has received DGR status. The following is just a small sample of the broad variety of DGR approved entities that positively contribute to our community: the Chatty Cafe Scheme, which encourages people experiencing loneliness to meet and chat; the Cad Factory, which reimagines the world through contemporary art practice; Cultural Dissent, which promotes the discussion of culture and its links to social and environmental issues; a personal favourite, Cricket for Climate, which is using sport to lead the way on climate solutions; and No Lights No Lycra Education, which is improving the mental health and wellbeing of young people through social connection, music and movement. They have all got DGR status, but not the Headstone Project SA, whose sole purpose is to find the graves of our World War I veterans.</para>
<para>The point I wish to make is that, without the service of and sacrifice made by men and women who now rest in unmarked graves, none of these organisations would now have the freedom to undertake their activities. Yet the very organisation that seeks DGR status to properly honour those who made sacrifices is denied it. This decision is unfair, it is inequitable, and, frankly, it's utterly disgraceful.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's so incredibly vital that we improve aged care. We all witnessed what was going on in the sector only a couple of years ago. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation were vocal about their frustrations with the previous government. In their words, they were frustrated, disgusted and heartbroken. It got so bad that the then minister for senior Australians chose to attend an Ashes test match over a parliamentary inquiry into the COVID outbreak in nursing homes. We all remember what happened. They wanted a government that had some guts. And so the Labor Party went to the last election with a promise to reform aged care. Now, as the government, we are delivering on that promise with a $5.6 billion package that makes essential changes to improving the viability and quality of residential aged care.</para>
<para>We're also establishing Support at Home, a new system of home care which will help older Australians hold on to their independence and age in their own homes, and it will keep them part of the communities that they love and that love them so much too. Support at Home participants will see wait times reduced to three months by 2027. There will be more tailored support services, doubling the amount of ongoing classifications all the way up to almost $78,000 a year. We're going from four aged-care packages to eight. It's going to provide more flexibility and more choice, which is so important. There's support for home modifications, with up to $15,000 to make your home safer, and faster access to assistive technologies like wheelchairs and walkers. A no-worse-off principle will provide certainty to people already in aged care that they won't make a greater financial contribution to their care. The new contributions and accommodation arrangements will only apply to new entrants to residential care from 1 July 2025.</para>
<para>We are also introducing new laws to protect older Australians in aged care with stronger powers to investigate bad behaviour and civil penalties for breaching standards. We're introducing a statement of rights for older Australians in aged care with a positive duty of care for providers. They must uphold those rights. There's a new whistleblower protection coming, too, and regulatory powers and a new independent statutory complaints commissioner for aged care. We are taking these reforms very seriously.</para>
<para>Recently, I have been visiting some terrific aged-care facilities right across my seat of Paterson to talk with older Australians about the issues that matter to them. A visit to Salamander Haven Village just a couple of weeks ago was such a delight, and I've also been to Fingal Haven and Harbourside Haven. We talked about the future of the country. We talked about our economy and housing. We talked about online scams, how sophisticated they're becoming and how those scams make older Australians feel so incredibly vulnerable. They're not the only ones who feel vulnerable to them. They are, indeed, getting cleverer and better at trying to scam all of us.</para>
<para>However, these reforms for aged care are not the end goal. There is always more work to be done and improvements to be made in delivering quality results to this sector. That's why I love to see community engagement programs that deliver results. Salamander Haven are working towards improving food experiences through the magnificent Maggie Beer Foundation. We all saw what a wonderful job Maggie did on the ABC with trying to improve food and, more importantly, nutrition for our senior Australians. They've also been working with Tomaree High School with a program where students visit and spend time with the residents. These programs are enriching the lives of not only those living at Salamander Haven but those children from Tomaree High School who are just getting the most incredible experience of spending time with some of our most experienced Australians. It doesn't get any better than that. Those who live in aged-care centres and facilities deserve decency and respect, and I am incredibly pleased to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is delivering for aged care in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Berowra Electorate: Epping and North Epping</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When boundary changes were recently announced by the independent Electoral Commission, I received calls from friends, residents, local businesses and community groups based in Epping and North Epping. My family is no stranger to Epping. My mum was a Brownie in the Epping-Eastwood pack of the Girl Guides which met at Epping Baptist Church and she used to swim competitively at the Epping pool in Dence Park. My father was a schoolboy at Epping grammar, which is located on Blaxland Road. My wife, Joanna, grew up in a home on Surrey Street in Epping. So I am really looking forward to representing people in Epping and North Epping in our parliament.</para>
<para>In the past, Epping and North Epping have been represented by two people I admire greatly, John Howard and John Alexander. John Howard has been a mentor of mine for a long time and I'm grateful to him for his counsel on many issues. John Alexander is much loved in Epping and North Epping, and it was great to have him join me as we visited small businesses and locals recently. We visited a bakery which I think epitomises what our community is all about. The bakery is owned by a Cambodian Australian, it has an Italian name and he served me a challah, a Jewish bread, which demonstrates how diverse our community is. JA and I also bumped into a group of women who had finished their Zumba class and got chatting. Before long, I'd agreed to go to Therese's Zumba class. I am not going to re-enact my moves in here, because I'm sure that's unparliamentary, but I can report I had a great time.</para>
<para>Later that day, along with the Liberal candidate for Bennelong, Scott Yung, we had lunch at an Epping institution, Xi Bay, with some of my friends who are leaders of the Chinese community, including Patrick Voon, Simon Chan, Felix Lam and the indefatigable Helen Sham-Ho. They tested my Chinese, and I think I passed. I dropped in a few uses of 'ni hao', 'xie xie' and 'wo jiao'. We talked about the positive impact that the Chinese community has had on our local area and the way Chinese Australians contribute to Australia's multicultural success story. I see that in people like Tracy Yap, who's been the leading real estate agent in the northern districts for over 30 years. Tracey and her son, Danny, are unrelenting in their enthusiasm for our local area.</para>
<para>It would be remiss of me not to mention another well-known Epping establishment, which is my new favourite dumpling restaurant, Hot Dumpling, where I celebrated World Dumpling Day. I have to say I have become addicted to the chicken, garlic and chive steamed dumpling washed down later with a beer at the Epping Hotel.</para>
<para>Another great part of being able to represent our community is getting out and meeting some of the one of the wonderful local sports groups across the electorate. Together with the new state member for Epping, Monica Tudehope, I recently attended Rangers Day, when the community came together to celebrate the achievements of the North Epping local soccer, tennis and netball teams, which have over 1,000 members combined. I was honoured to present the award for football's person of the year to Chris Walsh, whose wife, Nicki, won the same award last year. I also met some of the great people who make the club what it is, including its president Craig Denyer, Matt Walker, Kristen De Gioia and Ben Heard, all volunteers so dedicated to making our community great.</para>
<para>The level of input that people have in our community was again evident at my recent Epping and North Epping leaders forums. I heard from people like Judith Dawes, John and Tricia Whealy, Richard and Anne Ure from the Civic Trust, David Tait from St Albans Anglican, John Sullivan from Epping Uniting Church, Anton Marquez from All Saints Church, Shaun Garvey from North Epping Men's Shed, Ken Douglass from the North Epping bowling club and David Thompson and Peter May from the local Probus club. Their dedication to our community is inspiring.</para>
<para>Despite the great things happening, I'm also hearing some things which are troubling. While doorknocking some professional services businesses around Epping recently, I heard from accountants and financial planners about some of the challenges that people are facing in the local economy. I've been a member of parliament for over eight years, but, to be blunt, I haven't heard such a dire outlook from so many small business operators before. Accountants and financial planners always know what's happening in the economy because they see it in their own clients. They told me of the number of businesses that are closing due to red tape, the reduction in demand, the cost of living and the lack of confidence in the economy caused by this government and its policies and how that is hurting our businesses and costing local jobs.</para>
<para>I am committed to listening to our community and working with others to deliver local outcomes. After talking to Councillor Sreeni Pillamarri, I met with Parramatta Lord Mayor Martin Zaiter and the council's general manager, Gail Connelly. I've also had meetings with Hornsby's mayor, Warren Waddell, and general manager, Steven Head. We discussed some of the local issues which we need to tackle together—issues relating to traffic, development and infrastructure. I've taken away some ideas and I am now working on a plan to help our community.</para>
<para>I know that listening to our community and working together is the best way to deliver local solutions, and that's what I hope to be doing as the member representing Epping and North Epping into the future. I look forward to getting out and talking to more people in the Epping and North Epping communities and getting to really know and understand the many issues and challenges that face that community, so I can be their voice in this chamber in the federal parliament.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Floods: Insurance Industry</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I talk to people who live on the Nepean River or the Hawkesbury River about cost-of-living pressures, one particular cost rears its head. For those who live on the flood plain, it's home insurance, and that's if they're able to get it. Many people can't find an insurer who will offer them flood coverage, or the price that they're asked to pay, which can be up to $35,000 a year, is just completely out of reach. It's tempting to hit out at the insurers for gouging, but after spending years trying to get to the bottom of this pricing issue, and at the end of a more than 12 months long inquiry into flood insurance, I know that the simple answer is not necessarily the right answer.</para>
<para>Residents shared their experience about insurance with the inquiry via surveys and hearings, including in Richmond last May. Some of that evidence has been quoted in the final report, <inline font-style="italic">Fl</inline><inline font-style="italic">ood failure to future fairness</inline>. I want to thank all of those who gave evidence, and that includes Hawkesbury City Council and many residents of the area, for whom reliving those difficult times was in itself a really challenging thing to do. There are 86 recommendations in this report, covering a wide range of issues affecting flood insurance, including expecting the industry to do better by those who are insured when they make a claim. Of all the recommendations in the report, I want to focus on affordability, access and mitigation. Mitigation is a non-negotiable. Without practical, tangible steps to reduce the potential impact of floods, whether it's lowering the level of Warragamba or whether it's looking at levees and raising evacuation roads, nothing else is sustainable.</para>
<para>I want to see the Australian government continue to fund community-level mitigation, ensuring at least $200 million a year, every year, as the Albanese government has introduced. We're starting to see changes, but we need that to be ongoing. I want to see individuals get the support they need so they can build back better from a flood, and they should be rewarded with lower premiums for the efforts that they make. I want to see insurers explore more innovative products for homes and small businesses, particularly where homeowners have ways to minimise the repair or clean-up costs by being prepared, like putting their kitchen on wheels. I want to see buyback options for homes with very high flood risk where alternative mitigation measures are unlikely to manage the risk. If you're in a home where you can't get insurance, it's likely a future buyer won't be able to get insurance, and you need to have some choices.</para>
<para>In our report we make it clear that no-one wants to see any more housing development in high-risk areas. We've also singled out the removal of state based taxes, which currently add 20 to 40 per cent to the cost of the premium. New South Wales continues to charge insurance customers to fund emergency services, adding a third layer of tax that increases premiums. And we've recommended that the federal government look at the appropriateness of a government supported reinsurance arrangement to make flood insurance more affordable.</para>
<para>The real message of the report to every parliamentarian and every government—local, state and federal—is that there is urgency to this problem. We are not alone in the world, though, in facing these challenges. On a visit to the US a few months ago with the Insurance Council of Australia and the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, I spoke with insurance and government officials from California through to Washington, DC. The challenges we face are so similar that we could almost finish each other's sentences.</para>
<para>What we have to do in Australia, though, is be careful in any design of a scheme. It has to be done walking alongside the insurance industry, state and local governments and, most importantly, homeowners. It's time to look at how we make sure that people who have homes on the flood plain can afford insurance of what is likely their biggest asset. Now is also the time to have hard conversations about buybacks, about making individual homes safer and more resilient and stopping that new development on the flood plain. None of this can be done without working closely through all these different parties. What we don't do now will cost taxpayers further down the track. It'll undermine local economies, and it will lead to heartbreak for the most flood-prone homeowners.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of my communities in the south-west of WA, I want to sincerely thank the Leader of the Opposition, who recently came to my electorate to announce that, under a coalition government, there will be no offshore wind farm in our iconic pristine Geographe Bay, one of the most naturally beautiful parts of Australia and indeed the world. I specifically want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for listening to the majority of our south-west community members, who are strongly opposed to this seriously flawed Labor government proposal. Our communities know that this Labor wind-farm plan does not add up on economic, environmental or social grounds. However, what we also know is that, as always, Labor is simply steamrolling regional communities in its obsession to get to its 82 per cent renewable target by 2030, done by ruthlessly riding roughshod over our communities, forcing our regional communities to bear the burden of Labor's intermittent, unreliable renewables-only obsession.</para>
<para>Put simply, Labor's green dream is our regional communities' worst nightmare. Just look at Broken Hill as a prime example of what happens to regional and remote communities dependent on the unreliability of Labor's renewables and battery storage policy. Picture hundreds and hundreds of around 300-metre turbines covering 4,000 square kilometres of Geographe Bay. What a dreadful and appalling blight on the major tourism and recreation attraction in the south-west of WA. For countless locals, as well as the tens of thousands of visitors to the south-west, Geographe Bay is the drawcard. It is their amazing marine recreation area for boating, fishing and diving, for instance. It is without question absolutely the wrong place for Labor's wind farm.</para>
<para>There will be massive costs in the construction, maintenance and removal that we will have to pay for by way of our power bills. There will be kilometres of undersea cables, and substations will have to be installed to bring that energy ashore, causing severe underwater disturbance. Once onshore, transmission lines will have to be built through highly productive prime farming, agricultural and vegetable-producing land. Added to this, as each successive new wind project is built, it will need its own separate and additional undersea cables and substations, as well as its own separate and additional transmission storage and connection to the South West Interconnected System. Each one of these hundreds of wind turbines will have to have its own exclusion zones. Global exclusion zones range from 50 to 500 metres on all sides of each turbine—north, south, east and west of each turbine. These are no-go zones, no-fishing-or-diving zones.</para>
<para>It's my understanding there are currently no policies or guidelines on safety and protection zones anywhere in Australia. All the details and durations of these zones are unknown. Our community is being sold a Labor pig in a poke. Of course what we do know is that the fish will congregate around the substructures in these exclusion zones and draw recreational and commercial fishing species away from permitted fishing zones. Our south-west says no, and the coalition says no. We say no to 4,000 square kilometres of 300-metre massive wind turbines in Geographe Bay.</para>
<para>There are also, as we know, national security and defence issues, and I see that Sweden has rejected 13 offshore wind projects over defence concerns around unacceptable consequences for Sweden's military and defence. Consider the Virginia subs that are coming in along our coastline. As I said, this project does not add up on economic, environmental or social grounds. Offshore wind, as we know, costs at least three to four times more to produce than onshore wind. That is according to a CSIRO report released last year. To recover the very high construction, installation, maintenance, management and eventual removal costs of these in around 25 years, who will be paying the increasing cost of power? Our south-west individuals, families, businesses and industry will be forced to pay through increasing power bills. But there's a second one: as a taxpayer, they'll have to top that up through Labor's Capacity Investment Scheme, which underwrites the proponent's tendered price if the market does not agree—a double whammy; not just one additional cost to taxpayers but two additional costs. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for saying no.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Werriwa</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Lurnea, in the seat of Werriwa, has been my home for my entire life. It's the place where I was born, raised and educated, but, more than that, Lurnea in the seat of Werriwa is the place that I choose to call home, and I would not live anywhere else. With you, Speaker, it has been a privilege to sit in the chamber as the member for Werriwa since 2016. The immense honour is not lost on me, and I'm grateful to my constituents for their ongoing support and trust, which enable me to fill this position and come to the place on their behalf. My neighbours are my friends. At times, after a day in the office, when I drive home, my neighbours are there to greet me with their problems and issues. They're not always very big, but my neighbours count on me to help them navigate the government issues.</para>
<para>Incidental times like these with neighbours in my driveway or front yard personify and articulate what I enjoy about being a local member. My job is to help out and repay the trust of my constituents, particularly those that have voted for me in the ballot box. Be it immigration, Centrelink, Medicare or NDIS, my neighbours and constituents sometimes need help in connecting with and solving problems with the government. I take a great deal of pride in that my office is always open to everyone and that every constituent, no matter how large or small their issue may be, gets assistance.</para>
<para>Having lived locally all my life, I can claim with certainty to be ingrained in our community. My children went to school locally, I referee junior rugby league, and, prior to entering parliament, I worked locally. On top of this, I served on Liverpool City Council. All the experience adds up. It enables me to genuinely express the concerns and aspirations of my community, and, as all members of this chamber know, the job of a local member is multifaceted. Certainly, there's constituency work, which I enjoy a great deal, but there's also the extremely important job of advocacy on behalf of my community and constituents. I undertake the advocacy with a passion in the media and the parliament and through constant on-the-ground campaigning.</para>
<para>In recent years, the massive growth in population has shaped many of my efforts in this regard. Thankfully, the Albanese government has delivered on many of the critical needs, and I point particularly to the government's massive investment in local roads and other vital pieces of infrastructure, such as the Moorebank intermodal or Western Sydney airport. I would like to particularly mention the $1.6 billion investment by the Albanese government in the M12 Motorway and the $37.5 million upgrade of the M5 Moorebank Avenue-Hume Highway intersection.</para>
<para>But wins come in small packages too. Recently, I attended the Catherine Cannuli Cup at Cirillo Reserve at Middleton Grange. The facility is top class for women's soccer and now has a state-of-the-art electronic scoreboard, again as a result of the Albanese Labor government and a much-needed grant. And then local schools have also benefited from the Albanese government's investment in education. I don't have time to mention them all, but they include James Busby High, Ashcroft High, Miller High and James Meehan high. They have all received massive investments by this government, the latter receiving $1.5 million to upgrade a hall. These are all wins for my community, and I take a great deal of pride in my and Labor's role in their delivery.</para>
<para>My record over my entire period of public life testifies to my core and steadfast belief that only Labor can bring about the type of society, community and Australia where all have opportunity and all feel valued and supported. I've never been prouder to be a member of the Albanese government and represent my community in this place. The privilege of being a Labor member in parliament is never lost on me. It has been a journey for sure that I, born and bred and raised in Lurnea, will never take for granted. But my work is not yet finished—not by a long shot. With my community's support, I look forward to playing my role in delivering the next chapter of the Albanese government and seeing my electorate and my home continue to thrive and get the attention it deserves.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 16:59</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>92</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Thursday, 7 November 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Payne</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>93</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>City of Joondalup: Arts and Culture</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is an emerging need in our community to provide additional resources to support our cultural, creative, visual and performing arts sector. It has been a common theme expressed in responses to my electorate-wide community survey: the sentiment that sporting and community groups receive the lion's share of government funding at the expense of the arts. There is a sizeable thriving arts community in my electorate. In particular, I acknowledge the efforts of Deputy Mayor Adrian Hill and Councillor Phillip Vinciullo from the City of Joondalup, who are strong advocates for the arts.</para>
<para>As our regional city evolves, develops and matures, our facilities require sufficient capacity to host conventions, exhibitions and performances for a wide range of groups. In order for organisations such as the highly professional Joondalup Symphony Orchestra to grow and develop, access to storage space for musical instruments, a suitable space for recitals, and venues for performances are required. Providing facilities for the arts is an essential part of community development. The concept of a Joondalup performing arts centre was considered in detail a few years ago, with differing views from the community at the time as to its proposed design, the cost—estimated at $100 million—affordability for rate payers, and whether it would be adequately utilised. It was controversial at the time.</para>
<para>It is clear that a project of this scale should be jointly funded by all three levels of government: local, state and federal. I understand that there is a site located within the Joondalup Learning Precinct of Grand Boulevard that is set aside for the construction of such a facility. Furthermore, the City of Joondalup has reserve funds of $37.5 million set aside for a future civic facility. Experience has shown that it takes several years to get a project of this magnitude off the ground, so the process should be started early. The time is now right for the concept of a regional convention, exhibition and performing arts centre for Joondalup and Perth's northern suburbs to be revisited through extensive stakeholder engagement and community consultation. By partnering with organisations such as Edith Cowan University and the local business community, the facility can be utilised for a wide range of purposes such as expos, product launches and a civic venue for corporate events, ensuring it does not become a costly white elephant for rate payers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Raise Our Voice Australia</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently, we celebrated Raise Our Voice in Parliament week. I'd like to raise the voice of Rahan, a young person in my electorate of Fraser, by reading this speech that he prepared. The following are his words:</para>
<para>According to a 2023 report from UnitingCare, more than 880,000 children under the age of 15 in Australia are socially and economically isolated. The cost of living crisis is a major issue affecting everyone. It highlights that while the cost of necessities such as food, housing, and other commodities is rising, people's salaries are not keeping up.</para>
<para>Children and families of the hardest hit by this crisis. Many young kids cannot eat nutritious food, let alone get the sustenance they need to reach their potential every day. According to a Foodbank report, over 365,000 children in Victoria lived in severely food-insecure households last year. This significantly impacts not only their physical development but also their mental state.</para>
<para>We must act now to ensure that young people have better opportunities in the future by giving them a fair chance today.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Mission Australia reports that those who experienced poverty as children were 3.3 times more likely to be poor in the future, 2.5 times more likely to live in social housing, and 2.5 times more likely to experience financial stress. They are also more likely to suffer from poor mental health and physical health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 10 years, I envisage the eradication of poverty, because no Australian child should have to endure the vicious cycle of poverty. It is a fundamental human right, and firmly I believe that if we come together, young and old, we can create positive differences. This is my vision for the future, and together we can make it. The countdown starts now.</para></quote>
<para>I thank Rehan for his speech. They're very thoughtful words from a young person in my electorate, and I applaud this initiative, which gives young people a chance to have their words and contribution read out in parliament.</para>
<para>With an average age of 51 in our parliament—and I must say parenthetically that I look back with some fondness and indeed wistfulness at being 51—too frequently, the voices of young Australians go unrepresented. Young people deserve to have a say in their future and to influence the world they inherit. At school visits, I'm often asked about how young people can participate or influence the political system, particularly before they reach voting age, and I often talk to them about writing letters, about initiating and running campaigns and about petitions. Campaigns like the Raise Our Voice initiative are also critical platforms for the opinions of young people to be given an airing and ensure that all Australians are heard in our parliament. As Rehan says, the impacts of childhood poverty cannot be overstated and neither can the importance of young people making themselves heard.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mitchell Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to continue my campaign on the Rouse Hill Hospital to ensure this vital public service is not just completed but constructed within a reasonable timeframe. The former coalition government allocated the land and got underway with the planning for a new public hospital just outside my community and the electorate of Mitchell, one of the fastest growing areas of Sydney. I want to note at the outset that the Minns Labor government is asking my community in Mitchell and the electorate of Greenway across the road to triple our development targets to take 30,000 new dwellings. At the same time, it is not progressing infrastructure like the Rouse Hill Hospital—one of the vital services absolutely needed if they're going to ask for a tripling of the density dwellings within our communities.</para>
<para>When you look at the population that has already come, this hospital has been flagged as absolutely necessary. There is pressure on the Blacktown Hospital and emergency room. The Blacktown Hospital was upgraded by a Liberal-National government at the state level, even though it has been a Labor electorate for maybe 100 years. The only government that upgraded the public hospital at Blacktown to a fully serviced public hospital was a Liberal-National government. I call on the member for Greenway, Michelle Rowland, who has fallen into the interesting position of taking part of my electorate now under a redistribution—we're now crossing over for a period of time in which she'll be the Labor candidate and I'll be the Liberal serving member—to get her socks on and get the Minns government to get the Rouse Hill public hospital underway.</para>
<para>She is also the president of the New South Wales Labor Party. We have a Labor premier, a Labor state president and a candidate now in the electorate who cannot convince her own government to get the Rouse Hill public hospital constructed, funded and underway. I think that, at the same time the state government is saying triple the density to 30,000 dwellings, we had 10,000 earmarked. This is an obvious, simple and logical argument, and the member for Greenway, state president of the Labor Party and the current sitting member who will be impacted by half of this overdevelopment in my electorate, is in a position of power. The new public hospital has had land allocated. Costs have been planned and put ahead by a Liberal-National government. It is time for the excuses from the New South Wales Labor Party to stop. It is time to get on with building this vital public infrastructure. You cannot ask a community to triple the density of their community but not provide the infrastructure upfront.</para>
<para>People in New South Wales have gotten used to a federal government which planned for the Western Sydney Airport, and the roads and rail links are going in before the airport opens. They've gotten used to great public infrastructure, like roads, rail and light rail. The light rail was a fantastic initiative, all funded and operated by a New South Wales Liberal-National government. It is time for the Labor government and Premier Minns—and I call on him and the member for Greenway—to do their jobs and complete the Rouse Hill public hospital as a matter of urgency prior to increasing the density they're allocating to our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kavanagh, Ms Skye</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones and the entire Australian parliament, I'd like to extend our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Treasury official Skye Kavanagh, who tragically died on 1 November, aged 33. I'd like to particularly acknowledge Skye's mother, Veronica, father, Michael, and brother, Aidan.</para>
<para>In 2016 Skye Kavanagh moved from Melbourne to Canberra to start as a graduate in the Department of the Treasury. Skye was a major contributor to many high-profile and challenging public policy issues across a number of areas in the department. This included law design; the structural reform group; environment, industry and infrastructure; digital platforms; and, most recently, the competition policy unit. With her keen intellect and strong interest in public policy, Skye drafted countless briefs, new policy proposals and cabinet papers to progress key government policies. She was frank and fearless in her advice, deeply knowledgeable in a wide range of public policy matters, constructive, well respected and generous in the way she shared her knowledge.</para>
<para>This was not just within Treasury but across the Public Service, including in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the department of infrastructure and ministerial offices. Skye's work included implementing reforms of the Harper competition review, key contributions to the purchase of the Snowy Hydro, establishing the gas code of conduct, energy market misconduct legislation, the electricity retail code and progressing work on the news media bargaining code. Relevant to my portfolio, Skye was instrumental in setting up the competition taskforce 12 months ago and prepared the very first brief advising the government on how and what needed to be done, including merger reform. That merger reform bill is before the parliament today. Skye was involved in setting up the NDIS taskforce within the ACCC to examine possible competition and consumer issues in the sector. Her advice, work and contribution will be part of the public record forever.</para>
<para>Beyond her work, Skye contributed positively to the culture of the department. Skye was involved in the Progressing Women initiative and was an advocate for flexible work arrangements. She practised what she preached and demonstrated how the workplace could and should better support women. Skye Kavanagh's career made life better for Australians. While it is most devastating for her family, friends and colleagues, she is a loss to us all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sutherland Shire Police Area Command Medals and Awards Ceremony, Wanda Surf Life Saving Club Tradies One Club Carnival, Harding, Taylor</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to congratulate the members of the police who received awards at the Sutherland Shire Police Area Command medals and awards ceremony. The following officers received the National Police Service Medal for 15 years of police service: Sergeant Trisha Laughlin, Sergeant Peter Wilkes, Leading Senior Constable Casey Beldon and Leading Senior Constable Mark Johnstone. The following officers received the National Medal for 15 years of service by members of recognised government and voluntary organisations that risk their lives to protect the community: Sergeant Trisha Laughlin, Sergeant Peter Wilkes, Leading Senior Constable Casey Beldon and Leading Senior Constable Mark Johnstone. The following officers received the first clasp to the National Medal: Detective Sergeant Jane Scrivens, Sergeant Matthew Hecimovic and Sergeant Richard Hill. The following individuals received the New South Wales Police Medallion for 10 years awarded to civilian employees for service: Jessica Clifford and Sharon Hamling. Thank you for your service to our community, state and country.</para>
<para>I'd also like to recognise the Wanda SLSC Tradies One Club Carnival. The Wanda Surf Life Saving Club held their ninth annual Tradies One Club Carnival on Saturday 26 October. There were 1,250 competitors from 25 surf clubs and hundreds of family members in attendance. I'd like to thank the 150 local volunteers of the Cook community who helped out on that day. I would also like to recognise and thank the following members of the Wanda carnival committee, who put in many hours managing and delivering this event in challenging surf and seas: Fiona Sutton, president of the Wanda Surf Life Saving Club; Greg Allum AM, the chair of the organising committee; Mark Sargeant, club patron; Greg Pierce, director of surf sports; Dean Slater, director of the junior activities group; and Dave McGrath, surf boat coordinator. The overall carnival honours went to the hosts, Wanda SLSC. Congratulations to you. They won the tradie's trophy with the highest point score of 665 points. They were followed by Cronulla Surf Lifesaving Club who came second, then North Cronulla came fifth and Elouera came sixth. That was a great performance from the four Bate Bay clubs of Cook.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to recognise Taylor Harding. Taylor is a year 11 student at Kirrawee High School who won first place in the national My First Speech competition. Her speech was on reducing the exploitation experienced by children, with a focus on reducing harm created by the online exploitation of children. It was great to speak with Taylor and her mum, Justine, yesterday. I look forward to her career. Maybe one day we'll see her serving the community of Cook in politics. To Taylor and to Kirrawee High School: well done.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gorton Young Leaders Awards</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to congratulate the talented and hardworking recipients of this year's Gorton Young Leaders Awards. Since 2009, through these annual awards, I've been acknowledging selected year 12 students from the electorate of Gorton who've demonstrated a commitment to active public leadership within their schools and communities. These awards are an important way to recognise and encourage local young people beyond academic performance and to reward their efforts in supporting their communities. I'm consistently impressed with the remarkable achievements of the prize winners and the remarkable local talent who call Melbourne's west their home.</para>
<para>This year we have 20 Gorton young leader award winners across 10 local schools in the electorate of Gorton: from the Australian International Academy in Caroline Springs, Lubna Lufti and Amaar Yasir; from Lakeview Senior College, Trinity Cachia and Lachlan Martinovic; from Taylors Lakes Secondary College, Laura Santoro and Sam Daniel; from Overnewton Anglican Community College, Pippa Wiggins and Asad Kazmi; from Keilor Downs College, Sage Gobeo and Venkata Harshu Tammina; from the Catholic Regional College Sydenham, Christina Stanford and Caelen Khoo; from Southern Cross Grammar, Prapti Dutta and Oli Cokovski; from Copperfield College, Jazmin Barbaro and Ali Kacmazer; from Springside West Secondary College, Emily Watts and Mananpreet Dhaliwal; and, from Gilson College, Chloe Spiteri and Samuel Mouser.</para>
<para>All of these students have made significant contributions to their schools and to their local communities. Many are school captains and vice captains and represent their school or community officially. Some have done specific work, like running sports and other events, working with disadvantaged communities and helping the elderly, and fundraising for various causes. These are the students that people seek out for assistance and that show leadership in their community. They advocate for and help others. They put others before themselves, and they should be commended for their efforts. I wish all recipients of this award well and the very best for the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sunshine Coast residents have never done it tougher. Rental prices have increased by 27 per cent in just one year. Families with an average mortgage are now paying an additional $22,000 a year. We have senior citizens, mums and dads and even children living on the street—nearly 1,000 people every single night.</para>
<para>Now, this is very clearly a problem that has started since the Albanese government came to power. It's why the coalition has announced a housing plan of $5 billion to unlock half a million homes across Australia. It's why the coalition believe that we have to get back to basics. We have to build, again, a strong economy in Australia, not because a strong economy is an end unto itself but because only with a strong economy can you ensure homes can be built, people can put food on the table and we can provide vital public services. That's the importance of a strong economy. But this Albanese Labor government has failed on the economy, and it has failed the Australian people, including those I serve in this parliament, the people of the Sunshine Coast. Where Labor has failed, only a coalition government can fix it.</para>
<para>These problems, we know, are not just on the Sunshine Coast; they're right across the country. It is why we have seen even gas prices increase by a whopping 34 per cent since the Albanese government came to power. It is why food and education have increased by nearly 12 per cent. After 12 interest rate increases, is it any wonder that the Australian people are hurting so much? Insurance has increased by about 17 per cent.</para>
<para>Then, of course, we have the problems with energy. We have a government that went to the last election promising the Australian people a $275 reduction in their household power bills, yet we have households around Australia paying up to $1,000 a year more than what this Prime Minister promised.</para>
<para>This is all as a result of a labour movement which is focused on everything but a strong economy, and when you fail to deliver a strong economy you fail the very people that all of us parliamentarians are sent here to Canberra to serve. It is why only a coalition will put the economy first and, by extension, the people of Australia first.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hotham Electorate: Sports Clubs</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Nathan Ephraums and his family are very familiar faces around the electorate of Hotham. That's because Nathan is, of course, part of the Kookaburras, Australia's national men's field hockey team, and he very proudly represented Australia at the Paris Olympics. Nathan is an elite athlete, but he has often spoken about the fact that he got his start in sport through community clubs. He's talked about the fact that community clubs like the ones in my electorate foster great values and build all-round good individuals. I couldn't agree more, and I want to talk a little bit about some of clubs that do amazing work in my community.</para>
<para>I have to start with the Oakleigh Krushers, the Oakleigh Amateur Football Club. I'm very honoured to be the joint No. 1 ticketholder of this amazing institution. They are a phenomenal club. They have men's seniors and reserves teams; a thriving women's seniors team, which is absolutely phenomenal; under-19s; and an over-35s team. They do breast cancer fundraisers, they host sausage sizzles—they raise money for important things. They are absolutely phenomenal. They share a venue with the Oakleigh Dragons. Go the Dragons! My little one started out his footy journey this year playing under-eights, and I was very lucky to see those young ones get started on many Saturday mornings this year. I want to shout out to my friend Pat Heverin, who is the President of the Oakleigh Krushers and an absolute legend.</para>
<para>Just next door is the South Oakleigh Bowling Club, another remarkable example in a different type of sport. Their chair, Greg Telley, has doubled their membership in the last two years. They have made this club one of the most thriving bowling clubs in our electorate. They don't just do bowls, of course, Deputy Speaker. Like a lot of clubs in your electorate, I'm sure, they do dancing, yoga, music and, of course, the classic—barefoot bowls. It's absolutely awesome. They received a $10,000 grant through the Australian government's Stronger Communities Program and they used that money to help replace the women's toilets, which weren't up to scratch, with new ones. This has ensured that they are seeing the membership of women in the club grow really strongly, and I'm superproud to have been able to participate in that.</para>
<para>The Clayton Seniors Snooker and Social Club rounds out this list of extraordinary sporting clubs. This is led in part by fundraising team member Chris Francis. He talks about the fact that they have a great diversity of membership. The club members range from 70 to 86. They are men and women from the incredibly rich multicultural family in my community of Hotham, including Indian, Sri Lankan, Pakistani, Egyptian and Australian members. The club recently received a $2,000 volunteer grant. They play snooker, one of my all-time favourite sports, and they play table tennis, do linedancing and more.</para>
<para>I could go on and on but I'm running out of time. I want to say one quick thing: none of these clubs work without the parents, friends and community members who volunteer to make things happen. They are part of the beautiful fabric of my Hotham community, and I'm so proud to be able to speak here in parliament about their work.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New England Electorate: Crime</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to read an article from the local paper in Tamworth:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In one incident, a 24-year-old man at The Heights—</para></quote>
<para>a nice suburb in Tamworth—</para>
<quote><para class="block">was awakened at 4.40am and threatened by three males—one was brandishing an axe and another a knife.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The trio fled the scene with a mobile phone, five watches and the man's Volkswagen Passat.</para></quote>
<para>Madam Deputy Speaker, this is what is happening in northern New South Wales.</para>
<para>I was speaking to a lady the other day in the little town of Bingara. Her house was broken into. They actually videoed her for social media, and they get more kudos if they can touch the sleeping victim when they're in there. This woman was terrified. She was awake. She just knew that if she showed them she was awake she was going to be beaten up. They steal the keys, they take the car and they burn it out. They assault people.</para>
<para>Another one I was talking to—a husband and wife. They've been married for 40 years, love each other dearly but won't sleep in the same room. She insists on sleeping in a locked room because she's scared, and he sleeps in another room because he can't stand sleeping in a locked room. He's claustrophobic; it worries him.</para>
<para>At another house, they broke into it, belted up the guy, stole the keys, went out to the car and drove the car out through the house—not out of the garage but through the house. Then they drove it round the house, screaming at them, then took it away and burned it. Other people at Uralla broke into the pound and stole the cars; some of them made it back towards Moree, and they burnt them out.</para>
<para>This is what's happening. It's just pandemonium. People in Sydney mightn't see it, but it's making its way there. I brought this up, and people in Victoria say, 'It's happening here.' We've just had two elections, one in the Northern Territory and one in Queensland. The big issue? The No. 1 issue was law and order. Whether we like it or not, this is going to work its way into the federal election. When the first thing that people on the street talk to you about is law and order, whether you like it or not it makes its way into a federal election.</para>
<para>Just so we're clear, I was talking to Aboriginal people, and I said, 'Well, why don't you say something about it?' They said, 'Because they'll burn our house down. You've got to understand there is no sense of balance. These are criminals, they will burn our house down and, if we're in it, it won't worry them too much.'</para>
<para>People want to feel safe, and they want to make sure the government and the laws—they're over excuses; they don't want to hear excuses. If someone's threatening them, they don't want them slapped on the wrist. They want cuffs put on their wrists, and they want them taken to jail. Otherwise, we are failing in a fundamental aspect of government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bennelong Electorate: Raise Our Voice Australia</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Each year since I was elected to this place, I've had the privilege of delivering a speech on behalf of the voices of young people in my community through the Raise Our Voice Australia program. This year Raise Our Voice asked participants how they would like to see their community change in the next 10 years, and I wanted to take the opportunity today to share just some of the submissions that I received.</para>
<para>The first statement is from Tilly. She would like to see more done to protect our environment. Hear, hear, Tilly! Tilly is 12 years old, and she told me: 'By the time I'm 22, I would like to live in a community that has more trees, in a world that is more ecofriendly. The next parliament can help this by making laws to limit the amount of trees that can be cut down in Australia. We need trees to breathe, and at the moment we cut down more trees than we regenerate. I'm scared to imagine a world where there are no trees left, and I wonder why no-one cares enough to fix it.' Well, Tilly, we care.</para>
<para>Next I'd like to share the words of Nina from Boronia Park Public School: 'My generation will have to live with the consequences of climate change, and so much more must be done to help this. I think we must make sure everyone drives electric cars because they put less carbon into the atmosphere and are so much better for the environment. A way we could help everyone drive electric cars is if the government makes them more affordable. Then more people would want to buy them because they would be cheaper than others. When teenagers buy their first car, they should be helped to buy an electric one.' I agree with you very much there, Nina.</para>
<para>Finally, we've got the words of Amelia and Rain, who are both 11: 'Mental development is important not only for your mental health but important for physical health. Mental health is what helps you grow a happy mindset, helps determine how we handle stress and all these things. Schools can help promote this by providing programs that help children with understanding their emotions. Parliament can help by sending a message out to principals and local community members in every suburb which can make announcements at community or school events or meetings. By the side of mental health stands physical health. More parks should be made around Australia for our general health. Parks provide us fresh air, trees and all the things that help us with our physical health. Trees in parks could help with making Australia less floodable. Parks could also encourage more people to get out of their homes and enjoy the nature of Australia.'</para>
<para>I'd like to thank Tilly, Nina, Amelia and Rain and all the other kids who sent their Raise Our Voice suggestions to me. They remind us all of our duty to create a future that they can thrive in. I love involvement from young kids in the political process—it's something I try to foster and encourage when I'm back home in Bennelong. Their passion for a better, greener and healthier world inspires us all to act with urgency because their tomorrow depends on the choices that we make today. Thank you to Raise Our Voice for all the work that they do and thank you again to the young kids who wrote these very thoughtful speeches and sent them through to every member of parliament here.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>98</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7238" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7215" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>98</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As many speakers before me have noted, the Aged Care Bill 2024 proposes a refined means-tested user-pays system for co-contributions to everyday living and independent support. It also goes to the systemic issues within the current aged-care system that are forcing aged-care providers out of business, which reduces options for aged care. Only a few months ago, Aged and Community Care Providers Association Chief Executive Officer Tom Symondson said the aged-care system was in crisis and half of residential aged-care providers are losing money. I know that some in this House will argue that this bill should be about only quality and standards of care, but we also need to be practical and acknowledge that aged care needs to be sustainable.</para>
<para>As with the recent NDIS bill, I agree without reservation that we need to provide human centred services, and that the rights of the person accessing the services should be paramount, but we also need to make those services affordable enough that we can continue to provide them. This is particularly important as our population ages and more Australians start to move into aged care. I support the concept of those who cannot afford to pay making greater contributions, but the feedback from those who have contacted my office is that they don't want to pay more for services. They've made decisions based on the current situation, and this should be recognised. I'm glad to see that current users of aged care will be guaranteed to be no worse off. Those who have yet to enter the aged-care system want to limit the amount they must pay but, overall, they recognise that the system needs proper funding.</para>
<para>A few weeks ago I visited St Ives Retirement Living in Jolimont, during one of my regular community visits, and I was delighted to have 30 residents come to chat with me about a range of topics, including the new act. While there were concerns about having to pay more and about the amount of detail yet to be disclosed, there was general acceptance that, with an ageing population, aged-care services need to be sustainably funded from somewhere. While much of the detail remains to be seen, I'll be tracking implementation to confirm that the funding changes do not leave anyone in financial hardship, and advocating for change if they do.</para>
<para>I want to express support for the way in which this legislation has focused attention on ageing in place through the Support at Home package. Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of older Australians want to live in their own home as they age so that they can remain connected to their community and services with which they are familiar. A survey conducted by Anglicare Australia in 2022 found that 87 per cent of people want to remain at home. Similarly, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute recently found that between 78 and 81 per cent of older Australians aged over 55 want to live in their own home as they age, which is why this part of aged care must be addressed comprehensively. I am pleased to hear that the new act will include 30,000 new packages, but this will not guarantee support for everyone who requires it. I appreciate that the maximum annual amount of funding available for in-home clinical aged care is increasing from $61,000 to $78,000. I also support the provision of additional funding for home modification, palliative care and short-term restorative care. I worry, however, that access to short-term restorative care is not always available.</para>
<para>Unpaid carers—those spouses, siblings, children and other family members providing support and care to older people living in their own homes—make an enormous contribution to the lives of older people, and the act does not acknowledge this role. The act should reflect the role of carers and their importance to the older people they support while acknowledging the carers' individual needs. Having sat on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs during its recent inquiry into the recognition of carers, I've heard plenty of evidence about the important role that carers play and the need for their appropriate recognition in our service systems.</para>
<para>The availability of adequate respite so carers can take a break is of particular importance to my constituents. Access to respite is required for people like 69-year-old Joyce of Doubleview, who lives with her 90-year-old mother and provides much of her care. Last year she wanted to take a holiday, but she couldn't find respite for her mother in order to do this. Joyce has provided many years of care for her mother and deserves to take a break. The act does not improve the availability of respite. It should include incentives for residential aged care to make respite beds available.</para>
<para>I also worry about the timeliness of decision-making for Support at Home packages. The statement of rights in the act could include an obligation to provide home-care services to those eligible within a six-week period and an obligation to undertake timely assessments. In the absence of these changes, my office will track how long these decisions are taking under the new act.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety shone a light on some of the neglect which has taken place in the aged-care system and showed that we need reform in the way our aged-care residences are managed. I'm hopeful that the creation of a statement of rights and a statement of principles will protect the safety of users of our system. I support a positive duty on providers to uphold these rights and I support the creation of an independent complaints commissioner of aged care.</para>
<para>In the bill's first iteration I was concerned about the inclusion of criminal penalties for providers who breached aged-care standards. We need providers to continue to be incentivised to provide care, and I'm glad that provision has been removed from the bill. I know that some in my community were disappointed by what they saw as a reduction in penalties for systemic neglect within aged-care facilities, but I do think we need to balance the need for appropriate care with the need for provider services. I believe the civil penalties for providers who step out of line, including fines of more than $1.5 million for serious failures, adequately recognise the seriousness of breaches while also recognising that scaring off providers would have a negative effect on the quality and provision of aged care. I would support reviewing the act in three years to determine if it's fit for purpose, as the five-year review period seems a bit long.</para>
<para>In conclusion, we need this updated aged-care act, and I support it generally. It has taken some time to get to this point, and whether it succeeds will be determined in its implementation. As my office continues to support constituents negotiating the system, I'll be looking out for how simple, accessible and user friendly the new system is; for how transparently people can find out how they'll be affected individually; for how funding changes affect individuals, ensuring that they do not create financial hardship; for how we protect the humanity of the new system; for the ease and availability of access to Support at Home packages and short-term restorative care; and for recognition of the role of unpaid carers and for availability of respite for people like Joyce. Any large shift can take some time to bed down. My office will be working with constituents to bring any teething issues to the attention of the government and the department so that they can be resolved. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been clear for a long time—indeed, perhaps since before the royal commission hearings but certainly since then and most certainly since the findings—that our nation has had to have a conversation with itself about reforming aged care. That conversation is one that will continue, but this bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, represents a significant opportunity for those opposite to step into that conversation, and these reforms are very much about that.</para>
<para>From my assessment, the situation that we face in this country right now is devilishly difficult. We have aged-care providers in large capital cities, some of which are commercial operators and some of which are not-for-profit operators. We have aged-care providers in rural cities like the one I come from, Mount Gambier, South Australia's second-largest city—both commercial, for-profit operators and not-for-profit operators. We have aged care providers in the smallest of towns, some of which I represent. Some of these have as few as a handful of residents in them.</para>
<para>I can say none of those are commercial operators because, of course, those entities are barely viable in many cases. There is complexity in the nature of the provision of aged care—and that's before I even speak about the provision of in-home services, which are so important because at the heart of our national aged-care system is the desire to allow people to make dignified choices. There is a choice around aging at home or taking an alternative route—a choice about perhaps aging at home until a particular point in your journey and then a transitioning to an aged-care facility. In order to provide that dignity of choice, our nation has had to, over very many years, develop different systems that meet different needs, and a system, in a sense, that is as complex and diverse as our nation itself.</para>
<para>My view, for a long time, has been—particularly since some of the shocking revelations that came to light and gave rise to the royal commission—that the resources available en masse to the aged-care sector in our nation weren't sufficient to meet the standards that Australians expected for aged-care provision. Our nation had a choice. It was effectively no choice, but I'll set out what the choice was. We could either expect lower standards for those in aged care—this is why I say it's no choice, because of course that's completely unacceptable to every Australian, particularly given the revelations we heard in many of the places, and the stresses, financial or otherwise, on aged-care facilities—or we could find additional resources to ensure that the aged-care sector was sustainable and delivered the standard of care that Australians expect for their most vulnerable citizens.</para>
<para>That's the journey our nation has been on. It's not one that has necessarily been driven by one side or the other of this House. In fact, I think it's been a collective effort, and a collective understanding that we need to find those resources. When I say 'find those resources', that then leads to the challenge that presents itself here. Who pays? I've said that there needs to be additional resources, but what mix of resources? What contribution does the public make to aged care, generally, and what contribution does the individual receiving those services seek to make? Of course, that discussion is at the heart of these reforms.</para>
<para>I want to be clear. Whilst I'm saying that we as a nation we have had this conversation, this is not a bill that's been co-designed by those opposite with the coalition. In my view, it would have perhaps been preferable if there had been a genuine co-design exercise across the parliament. I think we'd be in a much better place. Instead, as a result of that failure to co-design, we remain critical, on our side of the House, of the failures to address workforce regulatory impacts and the timelines that are set out in the bill.</para>
<para>Last year alone, 49 aged-care homes closed, under the administration of those opposite. I don't have the number of aged-care places that amounts to, but you can imagine it would run to hundreds. That is a significant indictment on those opposite. Before I get to how the coalition has worked to improve this bill—not in a co-design phase but once it was presented to us—I think, in my time in this place, the greatest example of regulatory impacts that put pressure on particularly smaller aged-care facilities, the likes of which proliferate in my electorate, was the decision around 24/7 RNs. I don't have a difficulty with that decision at all; it was the timeline associated with it. One would think that, if that were your plan, if you wanted to ensure that that's where we were, you would say, 'We'll give aged-care facilities a number of years, perhaps four, to implement this,' and four years is important for a reason I'll talk about. And then we'll go to the university sector and say, 'Let's ramp up your capacity to educate young men and women—and middle-aged people or otherwise, who may want a change in career path—to attain their registration as a registered nurse,' so that, at a time when aged-care providers are seeking those registered nurses, to meet their regulatory obligations, there will be a pipeline ready to access.</para>
<para>Instead—I'll tell you what happens in my electorate, and, Deputy Speaker Archer, I'll hasten to suggest it's happening in yours too—an aged-care provider poaches registered nurses from the local hospital; the local hospital poaches registered nurses from aged care, and this cycle continues. Because, as I said earlier my contribution, for some time the sector hasn't been properly resourced in the way it should be, what ultimately happens in a fight between the aged-care facility and the local hospital is that the local hospital wins. And so the aged-care facilities in my electorate are reliant on temporary staff, who come at an incredible cost. That cost is forced upon them. Hence, we have this viability issue in the aged-care sector, and I suggest it is a significant reason why 49 facilities have closed in the last year alone—courtesy of those opposite.</para>
<para>But enough of that. What are the improvements that the coalition have made to this bill—but not during the co-design phase, because we were excluded from that phase, as was, by the way, the sector, who are frustrated and have expressed their frustration to me and others about having not been appropriately consulted in that phase, despite now being asked to make contributions to the Senate inquiry, the one, of course, that we referred this bill to. What are the improvements that we've been able to achieve? The member for Curtin just mentioned one at the conclusion of her contribution—the grandfathering provisions. It is only fair and proper that someone, having made a decision based on the laws of the day, entering into an aged-care journey, should be governed by those rules and not other rules or rules that have changed during the course of that journey. That grandfathering provision wasn't included in the original iteration of the bill, and I'm pleased to say that it is a measure which will give a significant deal of comfort to the older and ageing Australians who have already entered into their aged-care journey. And it will include anyone who's on a home-care waiting list and others.</para>
<para>We fought for a much lower taper rate because we wanted to ensure equitable contributions for Australians who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement. We wanted an assurance that the Federal government will remain the majority funder of aged care, not the consumer. It is a challenge in public policy circles. We ask people to work hard and save for their retirement and, then, seemingly—and many constituents have made this point to me—we punish Australians for having done exactly what we asked them to do. Fighting for the lower taper rate is about saying to Australians who worked hard and saved for their retirement, 'We've heard you and we understand it's important that you're not treated in a way that is so inequitable as to be unfair.'</para>
<para>On a similar line of betting, if I can say that, we fought hard to ensure that there are caps around the total sum a consumer can pay over the lifetime of their aged-care journey. Those caps are important because, again, they give some certainty to Australians who've worked hard and saved for their retirement.</para>
<para>We 've removed criminal penalties, which, of course, is important. A member of my own staff volunteers her time for an organisation in the aged-care sector. She's on the board of a local aged-care facility. When she came to me and asked whether that was a course she could adopt, given her employment with me, of course I was open to that. I did point out to her, on a personal level, that I'd be concerned about the criminal penalties that hang in and around this sector. So I'm pleased to say they are a thing of the past. We don't want to dissuade, in particular, volunteer directors from doing the good work in their community that they can do for fear that perhaps something untoward might happen at their facility and that they'd face an immediate term of imprisonment.</para>
<para>We ruled out the workers' voice, which was really just those opposite having a lend, quite frankly. The idea was outrageous. It was an attempt to force unionism into every aged-care home. Labor wanted a workers' representative to be able to come into every single aged-care home and demand an explanation on any aspect of its operations. Now, we support aged-care providers working consultatively with their staff, but we're not going to let unions bash down the door and march into aged-care homes and tell them how to do their jobs. This is why we've successfully fought to remove this provision.</para>
<para>But the most important change from the proposed bill to the one that's currently being debated, from my perspective, is funding for rural and regional Australia. Having said that, I still think it's insufficient, and I expect most people who've thought deeply about this will agree with me. It's important for those listening to the contribution to understand that these things are always negotiations. It would be fantastic if we were in a position to be able to mandate particular provisions, but we can't; we have to do this by way of consultation, and the coalition has secured $300 million in additional capital funding, through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program, for rural, regional and remote aged-care facilities. The truth is: because of the approach taken by those opposite—particularly around regulatory changes and other things, making aged-care facilities marginal, if not unsustainable, across the country—there has been an investment strike. That is, no aged-care facility is building any additional capacity anywhere in the country. That's got to change. The situation is at its worst in regional, rural and remote Australia, and that's why this $300 million is important.</para>
<para>I say, though, that even this provision is modest and that, in a perfect world—one perhaps governed by a coalition government—I'd hope to see additional capex in this space, because, just in relation to the last Modified Monash Model 5 to 7 grant funding round, we saw an oversubscription rate of 10 to one. Literally billions of dollars of capex are required in this sector right now. So I'm hopeful that the reforms will give the aged-care sector the ability to invest that capital, to grow and meet the demands of a baby-boomer population that will need to access aged care, but I remain a little sceptical that the $300 million—whilst I support it, and obviously it's an achievement to go from zero dollars to $300 million in this space, courtesy of our negotiations—is sufficient. I hope it is. But, in any event, I'm grateful to have made the contribution. I am pleased that, despite being excluded from the co-design phase, the coalition's interest in this matter has improved the outcome for older Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to quote Tia Walker: 'To care for those who once cared for us is one of the highest honours.' Indeed, the way that we care for the aged in our community is important to us as a nation. There is one thing that every single Australian has in common, and that is: every single Australian has had a parent. And so whether or not it is us here as policymakers, thinking about how we care for the aged and how we legislate for effective aged care, or whether it is people of, say, my generation, who are now looking at having to assist their parents, their parents-in-law, their neighbours, their aunties or their uncles into aged care, this is an issue that will impact, at some time, every single Australian. So when we are looking at reforming the aged-care system it is, I think, testament to the importance that the coalition has put on these sorts of reforms that so many of my colleagues on my side are also speaking on this.</para>
<para>In the interests of clarity, we can look first of all at what is meant by aged care in this country. It's a system of funding and regulation to ensure that Australians are cared for in their old age. Currently, there's no minimum age. Under the bill that's proposed, people will be eligible for aged-care funding if aged 65 or over, or 50 years or more for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. At the moment, Commonwealth subsidies plus individual means tested contributions provide funding for aged care in Australia. Under the bill as proposed, the Department of Health and Aged Care will oversee Commonwealth funded aged care, with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the complaints commissioner as the main regulatory bodies. Both the current and proposed aged-care systems differentiate between aged care provided in a person's own home or community setting and care provided in a residential aged-care facility, in terms of funding and regulatory processes.</para>
<para>Thankfully, the aged-care facilities of the 21st century and, indeed, of 2024 are significantly different to those of the past. I can still remember being a very young girl and going to see my great-grandmother in a nursing home. It was very institutional, and I still have the memory of shock when I walked in and it was eight beds to a room, with four women on each side. They had a bed, a tiny little set of drawers next to them, a curtain that could be put around them and one toilet and shower, to support eight elderly women. I think back to that model and say thank you to all of the former governments and the parliamentarians that have gone before me that have brought about significant change to this sector.</para>
<para>Just on that, I want to, first of all, mention the way that the coalition has attempted to work with the government in this space. The efforts of our shadow health minister, the honourable senator Anne Ruston cannot be understated. Senator Ruston has indeed brought a degree of intellectual rigour to this debate and has seen to it that there were some changes made to these reforms. So, in principle, the coalition supports broadly a much better aged-care system. We are disappointed that there was a lack of cooperation from those in Labor and those on the other side. There was a lack of willingness to work cooperatively and collaboratively with us. I think that that's disappointing because this should be above politics. This should have been a bipartisan approach. I think, quite frankly, it is a bit of a damning indictment on the Prime Minister and also the health and aged care minister that that opportunity was not available to us. We did provide a clear offer to work with the government on this. The reforms overall have come about in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We on this side have remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and certainty that older Australians deserve.</para>
<para>I don't think any older Australian wants to give up their independence and go into residential care. I know how devastating it was in my family when my maternal grandmother had a stroke. She was unable to stay at home, paralysed on one side of her body, and unable to use the toilet or feed herself. We had to make that very difficult decision to find a place for her. It is, I think, one of the most awful choices that you have to make. It is a terrible choice, and I think that you feel the lingering guilt even though you know that it is the right thing to do and there is actually no other choice. It is therefore very important for the Australians who are going into these facilities and for their families to know that they are going to be well looked after physically and in terms of mental health—that they will be adequately simulated, for example, and, if they are able, will be able to partake in social activities. Loneliness is one of the biggest issues affecting older Australians. We need to ensure that they have those social interactions and that they have activities available to them. That is why, again, this sector is so important and it is important that any reform is done well.</para>
<para>One of the main issues for this sector—and it's disappointing that the reforms don't really address this—are the chronic workforce shortages within aged care. I know that I've been out to many aged-care facilities within the electorate of Hughes during the campaign. I originally went out to HammondCare, which is at Hammondville and provides significant support for elderly Australians, particularly those with dementia. HammondCare is probably a national leader, if not a world leader, in the way that they care for their residents with dementia. When I spoke to their CEO at the time, I said, 'What is your biggest challenge?' And he said to me, 'It is the workforce.' A lot of the workforce is casualised. An example of one of the issues is that, because of the low rates of pay, aged-care workers cannot afford to live close to where they work. They do shift work, so often they have to do significant travel on public transport across Sydney at midnight or one o'clock in the morning. Clearly, that's a safety issue, particularly for the many women who work in aged care.</para>
<para>The workforce shortages have not been addressed in this reform, and I think that is a real concern. If we do not have the requisite number of Australians who are able or willing to work in aged care, we need to look at how to do better within this sector to ensure, for example, that we have housing for aged-care workers close to where they work. We also need to ensure that our immigration system is properly set up so that we are targeting that sector and bringing those skills in from overseas aged-care workers. That is, again, where we are seeing a failing on the part of the Albanese Labor government in the immigration sector in dealing with our skills shortage and in dealing with aged care.</para>
<para>I started by saying that how we look after our older and most vulnerable Australians is a matter of national interest. I particularly note that I recently met with two different Probus groups in my electorate: Bangor Probus and Sutherland combined Probus. These people would certainly not call themselves elderly! They are very active and engaged, but they have all said to me that they are looking at downsizing and moving into residential care at some stage in the next five to 15 years, and they are very worried at the moment. They have no clear understanding of what the reforms will mean in terms of how much they will pay, what they will be paying for and what level of care will be provided by the Commonwealth. As they move into aged care, of course they will need the medical assistance. But they also want to continue to live the sorts of lives that they have lived independently. And they should be able to. If the women who are moving into these facilities want to have their hair and nails done every week, that should be available to them, but they need clarity as to whether that's being paid for by them or by the Commonwealth.</para>
<para>The people who I met with are not necessarily saying they expect the federal government to pay for this, because most people who are in Probus are self-funded retirees. They are the backbone of Australia and they have done everything we've asked them to do: work hard and pay your taxes but save and provide for yourself into the future. This group of Australians, particularly, need to be respected for the way in which they have saved for themselves and have aimed to look after themselves. So, particularly for that group of Australians, what is happening in aged-care reform, particularly with financial implications, is very important.</para>
<para>I have met recently with not just HammondCare but a number of aged-care facilities in my electorate. I want to give a shout-out to them because they are absolutely outstanding organisations. They provide high levels of care and great, fun events. I've played Olympic bollards. I've been to a hat parade and a Mad Hatter's tea party. I've been at open days. We've had a great deal of fun in the Hughes electorate with a lot of the aged-care facilities, so I just want to quickly make reference to them. There is the BaptistCare Warena Centre at Sutherland, where I presented a nuclear test medal to Mr Rayner. Mr Rayner had been involved in working on the nuclear testing in the Pacific region in the 1950s. The federal government now provides a medal to those people as recognition of their service to their country when they were working at those facilities, often without any protective clothing.</para>
<para>There is also Bupa Sutherland, where I met many of the workers for Aged Care Employee Day. It was great. We had a big, beautiful cake; I certainly remember the cake. Anglicare Donald Robinson Village at Kirrawee needed new Australian flags, and they were presented with that. I also went to BaptistCare Warena at Bangor, where the District Singers performed. This is a great bunch of local residents who have joined together and go around and perform at various places, including some of the aged-care facilities. I've also been to 3Bridges at Menai. It is not an aged-care facility, but from Monday to Friday there is a different seniors group there. On Wednesdays, for example, they have a special event for people with dementia who are living independently but need some extra support and extra socialisation.</para>
<para>I've also been out and met with the Moorebank Happy Seniors group, and they were extremely happy. We had coffee and cake, again, and a really good chat about the things that are affecting them. I've also been out to St Vincent's aged-care services at Heathcote a number of times to provide chocolates, flowers or a plant to residents there who have made the 100-year birthday mark. That is also a fantastic service. To conclude, broadly these reforms are supported, but this could have been done better and we must ensure that aged-care reform is done well for our country going forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Hughes. I was listening out of the corner of my ear as she spoke. People around me kept annoying me, but I was listening to you and the story about how you went into the aged-care facility with your great-grandmother and there were four beds either side. It's powerful imagery. If it talks about one thing, it talks about how we have a duty to people. My view is you have a duty to people before they're born, after they're born and definitely when they're vulnerable before they die, to be quite frank.</para>
<para>When I was much younger I did a bit of charity work. There were two areas I really struggled in. I struggled when I worked in the Gladesville psychiatric home. I just couldn't do it. I wasn't up to it, because it was a problem I couldn't fix. The other one I really struggled with was when I worked in an aged-care facility. I was not getting paid; it was just charity work. I won't give its name away, but I remember it was so brutal. There was one poor lady there and she obviously hadn't paid her account. She was lying there with a sheet over her and there was nothing in the room and the windows were open so the cold air was blowing in. They were obviously wanting her to die. That's what the objective was on that one. I was 16 years old, so there was nothing much I could do about it, and I probably didn't know what was going on till I reflected on it later. That was no way to treat a human being, especially someone who was so vulnerable.</para>
<para>Building on that, I remember being out at Boulia. I did a little bit of work out at Boulia, and then, when I was in politics, I got to go back out there again. It's in the far west of Queensland. If you go to Longreach and you think that's far west, go further west and there's Winton. If you think that's far west, go even further west and you'll get to a T intersection where south is Birdsville and north is Mount Isa. That's called Boulia—well, actually, there's Bedourie and a couple of other places. At Boulia, this tiny town or big village with a pub—that's about it—the Australian Hotel, owned by John Tully and Tania Burns, when you talk to people and ask, 'What you want?' they say, 'Aged care.' That's because the people who have grown up in Boulia and have lived in Boulia do not want to go to what they think of as the big town, which was Longreach, which is not that big. They've lived their lives in Boulia and they want to die in Boulia.</para>
<para>Later on, I did a lot of work—I'm not trying to blow wind up my own backside—for St Vincent de Paul, and a big part of that was to go to aged-care facilities. What people wanted to do was have that connection to their lives. They didn't want to be isolated. I used to make an excuse to see them by selling them the newspaper and if they didn't have the money I just gave it to them. They just wanted to talk about what the season was like, what the cattle prices were like—they wanted to talk about their life. It's called humanity, and this bill, which the coalition will be supporting, although we'll be putting up amendments to it, builds on allowing people's humanity. It builds on making sure that we treat people with dignity. That's what life is all about—treating people with dignity, respecting life and treating life with dignity.</para>
<para>The bill allows us to have greater oversight of what's going on, especially of things like the transfer of people into better rooms, which we listened to the member for Hughes talk about. I bet you those ladies—four beds on either side—would have liked a better room had it been offered to them. That's what issues such as this speak to. Being in aged-care facilities is such a vulnerable time for people. They're looking at their money. They're looking at how they're going to pay for it. The family is working out how they're going to pay for it.</para>
<para>In our family we were blessed. We were lucky. Dad was a pretty handy businessman and he had a bit of coin, so, with the support of nurses, we looked after both mum and dad in the house until the day they died, and that was so important. What resonated with me was that my dad lived to be 98½ years old. Why do people live longer? It's because they have an attachment to their family and they have an attachment to what's going on around them. But it's not only about living longer; it's about living with a quality that they enjoy. Even now in politics, I know all of us, as politicians, go into aged-care facilities—or we should—and we see the people who are just dying to speak to us. They want that connection. They just want to have another human being to talk to, and that is what is vitally important.</para>
<para>With the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, it's working together. People talk about this place and say, 'Oh, you always fight each other.' We don't really. Overwhelmingly, things in here go through in a bipartisan way. This is yet another intersection in trying to work for the common good. In making sure we look after people, we are suggesting changes that we think will make the bill better while making sure that our ultimate objective is the dignity of human life and the capacity for people not only to be born with dignity but to be treated with dignity. We must understand that we don't own people's lives. We have a duty of care over their lives, but we do not own people's lives and, because it's not our property, we must respect it. It is the property of the person whose life it is, not ours.</para>
<para>Another issue we have to touch on, though, is a big concern in regional areas. I know you, Madam Deputy Speaker Payne, would be very aware of this, coming from a regional area. So many of the aged-care facilities are not for profit; they're community based. They've got community boards. People work on those boards for free. The concern they have is this: 'Please do not regulate us to such a point, because the alternative to us is nothing. There is no alternative aged-care facility if we close down.' I think of the problems and the pressures on places such as Quirindi, which is a classic example, but there are other towns in New England as well.</para>
<para>We may have well-intentioned regulations here, but the effect on the ground is people going from an aged-care facility in their area to no aged-care facility. I don't mean another because the others are booked out—none. The only place they can go is palliative care, and even they don't have the beds. That's a terrible thing to do to a human being—to take them from an aged-care facility in their local town, where local people come in and maybe present them with the papers on the weekend, saying: ' Do you want to buy the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Tele</inline>? You haven't got three bucks? Don't worry, you can pay me next week. Here you go. Blah, blah, blah.'</para>
<para>To kick them out—this is where we have to be careful with the 24/7 registered nurse. It sounds great. The trouble is, if they can't get it, what are you going to do—shut them down? That is not the better alternative. There's got to be a capacity in this building—with its free air conditioning, free lights and, basically, free everything—to understand that other people don't have those sort of liberties. They are constrained by their cash flow. You have to make the suit fit the wearer, and that means you have to make sure that you say, 'Can I get an aged-care facility? Can I assist that community body to bring an aged-care facility into their town? Can I make sure that I'm aware of the facilities that are under stress? Have I got an active program on the ground to make sure that we touch base with these ones, even in Western Australia, and that none of these aged-care facilities are going to close down?'</para>
<para>It's a statement of the competency of government, isn't it? Law and order—that's a statement of competency of a government. If people feel scared, a fundamental aspect of government has failed. Medical care—I'm thinking of the things that get brought up with me—if a lady cannot have a baby in a local hospital, that is a fail. If a lady is on a bypass past Tamworth Base Hospital, having to be sent to Newcastle, that is a fail. If you cannot have a child in Muswellbrook because they don't have obstetrics, that is a fail. If you cannot defend the country, well, nothing else matters. You just don't have a country anymore; it's all over. So that's a massive fail. If you don't keep dignity for people in their later life, that is a fail.</para>
<para>These are fundamental things. They're not the exciting, glamorous things. 'Rah, rah, rah, we're going to talk about the weather,' or something like that. 'It's all marvellous.' But that is not what people out there are listening to. They want to say, 'Are you going to look after me when I can't look after myself? If I break my leg, is there going to be a doctor there? If someone attacks my nation, can you defend it? Later on, if I'm short of a quid, am I going to get a pension?' These are the things that people connect to.</para>
<para>This is why a bill like this is in the Federation Chamber, for all those watching—both of you!—because it is non-contro. It means it's going to go through. But I bet so many of you watching—both of you—are thinking, 'Hang on, what do I take out of this so that my parents and my grandparents are going to be looked after?'</para>
<para>In summary, we've got a couple of schedules, and schedule 1 is really about the conduct of residential care and assurances that the information the government gets helps them do a better job in managing aged care and finds problems early and deals with them, which makes abundant sense. The second schedule really is a sort of a backup of the first. It's how that information is used. Also there's a thing called section 83 that deals with breaches within that. It deals with typical things, like bedsores. There's nothing worse than when you go into an aged-care facility and you get that smell of boiled vegetables, faeces and urine. You know straightaway that there's something going wrong there. It worries you because you see the people there and you think, 'Are they being looked after?' Are these mums and dads and grandparents being looked after? So you've got to have close oversight of that. There are a couple of amendments to sections 332 and 337.</para>
<para>What we are also seeing is an attempt to deliver more aged care. It's a big issue. We have an ageing demographic. To be frank, we're not breeding our own. We're importing other people's babies. Therefore, with an ageing demographic, it means that a lot of people don't have the kids and the grandkids to financially support them when they go into aged care. My parents—may their souls rest in peace—had 18 grandkids. They had six children. My brother passed away, so they had five children. We were very lucky. There's my sister. My brothers are doctors and solicitors and there's me. We had the capacity to support our parents. There was a whole range of us, so we had the resources to support our parents.</para>
<para>Some people going into aged care now won't have had any kids. Some of them might have had one kid or two kids. If they've had one or two, those families are struggling to support themselves, they're struggling to pay their own bills and they've got no money to pay for mum and dad. That means that it falls to the state to pay for them. But, even so, it doesn't mean they should live the final part of their life like Oliver Twist. There's got to be a sense of dignity in how they live.</para>
<para>This is another thing. It's a strange thing, but it's part of what we've got to look at. Australians have got to have more children. We've got to try and work out why they're not having children and work out how they can, because it filters right through to how you support everybody.</para>
<para>You've got to ask yourself the question right now: when something happens to you, and it will—it absolutely will; even if you die, it's going to happen to you—who's going to support you? How does that work? Who is actually going to look after you? I think, for a lot of people, if they have a realistic view, the answer might be nobody. 'Nobody will be looking after me because I don't have children and I don't have grandchildren,' or 'I've got one son,' or daughter, 'and they're up to the gunnels in debt. They've got no money to look after me. So who's looking after me? I've got my super.' Okay. I'm an accountant. A very rough rule of thumb is that you're going to live on a tenth of that super a year. If you've got $300,000 in super, see if you can live on $30,000 a year. Good luck with that. A lot of people say, 'I'm doing well—600 grand.' Okay, that's 60. You'll get by, but it's not going to be flash. It's not going to be flash at all. Once you go into an aged-care facility, a big paw comes down onto some of that, and it becomes their super and their resource, and you've got to deal with that.</para>
<para>So we have to continue to work on this in a bipartisan way. We have to make sure, to the best of our abilities, that dignity in a person's life in the evening and the autumn of their times is as present as it was at the age of 35, and therefore aged care is crucial.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. There are generally only two times in our lives—we hope—when we're fragile, we're vulnerable and we may require long-term physical support from others. The first is, of course, when we're young—when we're born and we must rely on our parents to raise us, to feed us and to care for us. The second is when we enter our older years. Once again, we may need to rely on others for physical support. So, as we take measures as a society to ensure the proper treatment of our youngest citizens, we must work to guarantee high-quality care for our elderly.</para>
<para>I'm sure all of us in this place can agree—and we don't always agree on much, but I think this is something we can agree on—that older Australians should be able to enter that phase of their lives with dignity and security, to have their needs met and to feel safe. I think everyone in this place would agree with that. Unfortunately, the aged-care sector has been plagued with a range of problems for quite some time. In 2018, when the coalition was in government, we recognised the need to have an independent review of aged care in Australia, and we took that important step of establishing the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. In response to the royal commission, we're providing more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate needs of the sector, and we remain resolute in advocating for the dignity and security that our older Australians deserve. We are currently seeing more than half of Australia's aged-care homes operating at a loss. This is occurring at the same time as our population continues to age, with an increasing desire to remain at home. These are just some of the issues that mean reform of the sector is necessary, and I'm really proud that the coalition has engaged in good-faith negotiations with the government to work towards a bipartisan solution.</para>
<para>I won't pretend that this legislation before us today is perfect, because it's not. The bills before us, for instance, leave much of the heavy lifting and substantive detail to be formulated by the executive in the form of delegated legislation. Nor will I pretend that the Albanese government have covered themselves in glory by once again failing to implement a proper and transparent consultation process on key changes. In saying all that, on this side of the chamber we do know that we are at a crossroads for the aged-care sector, with some 49 aged-care homes having closed since Labor took office in May 2022. This, of course, needs to stop, and I'm certainly hoping that the introduction of these bills will reverse this trend and result in the commencement of critical new builds across the country. It is with that goal in mind that we have worked collaboratively with the government to improve this legislation.</para>
<para>I'd just like to pause for a minute to make a special mention of Senator Ruston, the shadow minister for health and aged care, who has led the coalition's good-faith negotiations with the government. I can tell you that Senator Ruston deeply cares and understands the challenges facing the aged-care sector. She knows just how important her portfolio is. Well done, Senator Ruston. I give credit to her for this negotiation, which has led to some very important elements being included in the bill, which I would like to now make comment on.</para>
<para>One of the measures I'm particularly pleased about—although, as a regional member of parliament, I'd say that we could always go further—is the inclusion of funding for aged-care providers in regional, rural and remote Australia. Unfortunately, the government originally did not think that it was necessary or wise to include a targeted plan to support these providers, despite the disparities we know exist in regional Australia. Our specific focus has meant that $300 million in additional capital funding through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program has been included, allowing providers to upgrade their facilities. I'm hoping that this will allow for more seniors to remain in the regions that they love as they age instead of being forced, predominantly, to move into urban centres away from friends and family.</para>
<para>This is a phenomenon that happens far too often. People living in my electorate of Durack—1.5 million square kilometres, so that's a lot of towns and a lot of seniors, a lot of people ageing—feel like they have no choice but to leave their communities to receive care. I'm seeing that particularly in areas like the Pilbara and the Kimberley. Imagine what it must be like to have lived in a place your whole life, just to be forced to leave at a time when you're probably at your most vulnerable. We do need to think of the mental health consequences as well as the physical.</para>
<para>Last month I travelled with my state Liberal colleague Mem Beard MLA to have lunch with Sylvia Kelly and the wonderful members of the Gingin Care Group. In the shire of Gingin, which is in the peri-urban area of Durack, there are 900 people aged over 70. This is their dream:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A permanent daytime place in where older people who have care in home but who find the days very long and can't really cook any more, can come together for as many days as they want, to get quality fresh food, play games, share coffee, have some gentle exercise with others, get a nurse to check the scrapes and cuts that happen with older skin—</para></quote>
<para>it's happening to me now, Madam Deputy Speaker—</para>
<quote><para class="block">sit in a garden with others and chat and watch birds in a bird bath, have a computer person (with a computer) to help with all those computer things that are too hard—all in one place.</para></quote>
<para>Such a beautiful aspiration! What they're talking about, really, is a halfway place. They're already getting care in their home, they don't want to go into an aged-care facility, and this would be like a halfway place to make sure they could stay in their own home for as long as they wanted to. But, sadly, once these Gingin residents get to the point where they need extra help, where they need to go into an aged-care facility, there is very little available locally and they are forced to leave. I heard from many people, especially women, the day we had lunch that they were really worried about the future. That's why there was the idea of this halfway home, which maybe would allow them to stay for another couple of years.</para>
<para>All of this, of course, makes you think about your own parents. Certainly, meeting that group of wonderful Gingin residents made me think about my own mother, who lives in Kalgoorlie. I don't think she'll mind me saying she is over the age of 80, although she doesn't look it. She still cooks up a storm and still looks after her beautiful garden, but she's starting to need help with the odd job, and I think she would say that those few jobs will eventually grow into many jobs that she needs help with. Now, she would say, 'Melissa, I don't ever need to go into an aged-care facility,' but we don't know the future. The reality is that for my mum, Lyn Dellar, to stay in Kalgoorlie, where she wants to live—she loves and is passionate about the Goldfields area—the aged-care facility options for her are very few. Who knows what the future will be for her. Hopefully, she will never get to that point. She's an incredibly capable woman, and of course I'm immensely proud of her. This is just a personal example of what life is like in the regions.</para>
<para>Another important provision was that the changes initiated by this legislation would be grandfathered in. This is good news. We advocated for this because we on this side of the House believed it was incredibly important that those who were already in the system wouldn't be impacted by the changes in the two bills we're discussing today. This means all older Australians currently in the system, including those on a home-care waiting list will not pay one cent more for their aged-care journey. I think that's incredibly important. This is, of course, a commonsense provision and shows respect to our senior citizens. As a general principle, government should not move the goalposts for those who have already entered the system—any system. I think we would all agree that that's a very good principle for any government. Of course, people in aged care will already have calculated exactly how much they can afford and are making decisions based on that, so I'm sure this will be a very welcome inclusion.</para>
<para>We also worked to ensure a fairer deal for hardworking Australians. We did this by fighting for the inclusion of a much lower taper rate, to ensure equitable contributions for Australians who have worked hard all their lives to save for their retirement. We also gained an assurance from Labor that the federal government—not the consumer—would remain the majority funder of aged care.</para>
<para>Another priority of the coalition was the maintenance of lifetime contribution caps on care contributions across residential care and home care. I believe this inclusion will provide much-needed certainty for families who may have loved ones in care for many years. The reality is we don't know how long the journey is, and this will ensure that older Australians and their families will be required to contribute to care cost for only four years.</para>
<para>The government's original proposal sought no cap on home care and a $184,000 on residential aged care only. We were able to gain the concession that no older Australians will ever pay more than $130,000 for home care and for nonclinical care and residential care combined. This addition will save many older Australians and their families tens of thousands of dollars. We strongly pushed for the removal of criminal penalties from the bill following serious concerns that their inclusion would force the exit of highly capable staff from the sector out of fear of being criminally punished to a level not seen in any other industry.</para>
<para>The Albanese government wanted aged-care workers—at a time when we're struggling to get highly qualified aged-care workers—and even volunteers to be criminally liable under the new act—madness! We squashed Labor's outrageous attempt to force unionism into every aged-care home. Labor wanted a worker's representative to be able to come into every single aged-care home and demand an explanation on any aspect of its operations. We support aged-care providers working consultatively with their staff. That's what we expect. That's what the residents in aged-care facilities would expect. But we will not let the unions march into aged-care homes and tell them how to do their jobs. That is why we successfully fought to remove this provision.</para>
<para>Once again, I give a big pat on the back to Senator Ruston for all of her efforts to improve these bills. We are an ageing population and our senior citizens are precious. They deserve respect and understanding as they enter their latter years. They want to be treated with dignity and we should be proud of the care they are given at a most vulnerable time of their lives. Sadly, the care in aged care often falls short of the necessary standard. This bill goes some way to improving the aged-care system, which in its current form is not sustainable. But it's a good start—let's be positive. It's a good start, but we should be watching the aged-care sector like a hawk to ensure that the cost of care is reasonable, that care is of a high standard, and that the aged-care providers are financially viable and believe they have a bright future. Quite frankly, without aged-care providers there is no aged care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think much of the public think that we down here in Canberra are partisan and don't get along. I think it is quite the opposite. We try our very best to work together, and I'm sure the member for Corangamite sitting across the table would agree. This bill is one of those times that we have tried to work together and have done. Labor have taken on many of our amendments in the best interests of older people—those people in aged care. We do work well together down here, despite what you see in question time—and I quite often question that question time gives the wrong impression to people, because we work well in communities, we work well together and we are all here for the benefit of Australians and to make Australia a better place. We've certainly taken a huge step forward in terms of this bill and what we're providing for older people.</para>
<para>During my maiden speech—and, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, we came in at the same time, and my maiden speech feels like 10 years ago, not five years ago—I spoke about aged care. I spoke about aged care being little more than a balance sheet, a ledger with profit and loss. I think we have come some way since then, in terms of the royal commission into aged care, but we have a lot of work to do.</para>
<para>I think back to when I was a boy. My father was a GP in a small country town, and, on a Sunday, after church, we would go and do the rounds with him, and that included going to the nursing homes. I distinctly remember the smell of the nursing home, and it was sterile. It wasn't a home. It was like a hospital where people went to die. It was almost like palliative care. And we would walk around with dad and speak to the older people, and quite often we'd be the only people, outside the nursing staff, they would've seen all week. To be perfectly honest, I hated it because it was so sad. You would go around and speak to these older people, sitting in their chairs or lying in their beds, who had nothing and saw no-one apart from the nursing staff. I've spoken about my father; he said we needed to do better for those people who'd built our country, who were at the end of their lives, and he was exactly right.</para>
<para>I know we have come a long way since then—a very long way. On that point: I recently went to the 50th anniversary for Nambucca Valley Care, or NVC, who have nursing homes in Nambucca, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey and Macksville. They were set up as a not-for-profit and remain not-for-profit, and the services they provide for our community are absolutely wonderful. I cannot imagine our community without them. It was a great night, a wonderful evening. I give a shout-out to the Pacific islander nurses and nurses' aides, who put on a wonderful performance that night. It shows the importance of the PALM scheme and our immigration scheme with our Pacific neighbours.</para>
<para>Those services that are provided by NVC are second to none. And they are part of our community. When you look at not-for-profits, as opposed to for-profits—and getting back to that statement, that ledger or balance sheet—their clients aren't treated like a number. They're not treated as profit and loss. They're treated as people—people who have built our country; decent human beings.</para>
<para>In recent times—speaking of a high level of quality of nursing homes—the coalition, when we were in government, were fortunate enough, in St Agnes' parish in Port Macquarie, to secure over $11 million in both state and federal funding, to go towards a dementia village based on a project and a design from the Netherlands. I'm sure, Deputy Speaker, you've been to dementia wards. They are not nice places to go to. But this facility—and I use that word loosely—or this place is eight homes, which are open. I would be proud to live in one of these homes. The 94 residents are free to walk around. It doesn't feel like a hospital or an aged-care home, and it is absolutely first class. If today were the last day I stood in this place, that would be one of my major achievements. In Cowper, we have over 30 per cent of the population who are over the age of 65, but we also have one of the highest dementia rates in the country. So to have a place where people can go and truly call it home, where they can go outside and garden or go and collect the eggs from the chicken coop—it is actually like being at your home. It provides that relief and comfort for the families as well. You're not walking into one of those cold, sterile homes or hospitals; you're actually going into a home to see your mum, your dad, your grandma or your grandpa, and they are happy in there. That's one of my greatest achievements, and that is what we need to be working towards. This bill goes a long way towards that.</para>
<para>While I'm talking about aged care and home hospice, only last week I met with the home hospice ladies in Port Macquarie. They raise funds for people who can't afford the equipment they need when they are at home in palliative care. I experienced palliative care very early because my father died when I was still a teenager. He was at home, and we were able to give him home hospice because we could afford it. But many can't. I had an afternoon tea with these wonderful ladies from home hospice, and they raise money so people can stay at home in palliative care. So thank you to the home hospice ladies for the work that you do and the fabulous tea and sandwiches that you put on.</para>
<para>This bill was a bipartisan effort, but I do commend the coalition on the changes that they put forward and I thank the government for accepting those changes. I will just run through those. This bill aims to ensure that the Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them now and into the future. We'll continue to consult with older Australians because that's the only way to keep up to date with what is required. One of the major things that we suggested and that was accepted by the government was the grandfathering clause. The coalition actually fought to include the grandfathering arrangements to ensure that every Australian who had already commenced their journey in aged care would not be impacted by these changes. That means that, if you're in aged care now, these won't affect you, so you don't need to be worried. There will be no changes. You'll continue to stay where you are and enjoy, hopefully, the services and the care that you're being provided.</para>
<para>There are contribution caps, which are extremely important. The original proposal saw no cap on home care and a cap of $184,000 on residential aged care only. We gained a concession that no older Australia will ever pay more than $130,000 for home care and the non-clinical care in residential care combined. We secured $300 million in additional capital funding through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers to upgrade their facilities as well as additional aged-care funding, particularly for regional, rural and remote aged-care homes.</para>
<para>I make the point on regional and rural aged-care homes that what we don't want to do is overburden them with regulation. While I agree with the implementation of 24/7 nurses, the timing for that made it very, very difficult in regional and rural areas. We saw the closure of over 40 aged-care homes across Australia because of that. So, if you overburden regional and rural providers, you might not have the services in some of the smaller towns. We've actually seen that in Cowper. We need to have that really delicate balance between having rules for service providers and making it so hard that you're concentrating on box-ticking rather than looking after your clients and your residents. Again, I did agree with the implementation of 24/7 nurses. There are some exceptions there, but we don't want to close down our residential aged-care facilities because of a box-ticking exercise.</para>
<para>It was pleasing to see the removal of the criminal penalties that were proposed under the original bill. On criminal penalties, as a former police officer and a lawyer, you do need a specific and general deterrence in certain circumstances. But, in aged care, do we really want to penalise or make it a criminal offence for some of our volunteers—people who go in there and work with the right intentions? Here we are saying, 'If you do the wrong thing, whether that be accidentally, then you're open to criminal penalties.' I think that's the last thing that we wanted. Again, that was taken on board by the government, and those criminal penalties have been removed, which is very pleasing to see.</para>
<para>But there are other facets of this bill that I could go through. At the end of the day, we are, as I've said, all here to improve the lives of our older Australians, to improve aged care, and we have come a long way, but we do have to take further steps. At the end of the day, it is pleasing to see that all sides of government have worked well to see this bill pass. I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to speak on an issue of profound importance: the aged-care sector in our nation and the Aged Care Bill 2024. This sector is not just about another part of our healthcare system; it embodies the respect and care we should show to those who built our nation. I just wanted to talk about my own experience with this first. My father was in an aged-care facility in Rockhampton several years ago. It was probably very traumatic for everyone. The staff there worked so hard to look after people in care, but I just had people coming to see me all the time asking if I could help them with regard to doctors, more staffing and all the rest of it. I have to say that the staff worked very, very hard, but I think sometimes the system actually lets them down.</para>
<para>But there has been some good news in Rockhampton. Bethany, which is owned by the Catholics, has received significant funds from the federal government and is building a state-of-the-art facility in Rocky. Also, Benevolent Living, which is a privately run organisation, has done major expansion on their facilities in Rockhampton. I was very lucky recently to go to Alexandra Gardens and meet some of the residents there. I joined them for happy hour, when they have a lovely time. It's a place where they live, so we really need to make sure that they're respected when they live there.</para>
<para>The opposition has been clear in our offer to work with the government on sensible aged-care policies because we need a system that is not only robust but sustainable to support future generations. Ensuring a strong and well-funded aged-care system today means that future generations will have the security and confidence to age with dignity, knowing that they will be cared for as they deserve. This forward-thinking approach also alleviates the emotional and financial burdens on families, fostering a society that values its elders and plans responsibly for the future.</para>
<para>Since the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which was called for and responded to by the coalition, we have remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve. The legislation before us is a direct response to the first recommendation of the royal commission to implement a new rights based Aged Care Act. This is an essential step, one that the coalition supports in principle. It is important that we recognise that aged care is not merely a sector; it reflects how we value and care for our elders as a society. The way we treat our seniors sets a benchmark for future generations, instilling in them a sense of security and trust that their own needs will be met with respect and compassion. Supporting a strong aged-care system ensures that our society continues to honour its past while building a foundation of dignity and care for the years to come. In response to the royal commission's findings, the former coalition government took swift and decisive action, providing more than $18 billion in funding to address the immediate needs of the sector.</para>
<para>But it's not just about funding; it's about recognising that aged care reflects how we as a society value and care for our elders. Throughout good-faith negotiations, the coalition has consistently worked to ensure that reforms in aged care provide the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve. We have held the government accountable and pushed for the introduction of this reform package, ensuring that it sparks a nationwide conversation about aged care.</para>
<para>The challenges before the sector are undeniable, with more than half of aged-care homes across the country operating at a loss, coupled with an ageing population and the increasing preference for ageing at home. It is clear that the way aged care is delivered needs to change. That is why the coalition urge that this bill be immediately referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. We look forward to an open and transparent process engaging older Australians and the aged-care sector in this critical conversation.</para>
<para>While we support the spirit of this bill, we reserve our final position until the committee's report is delivered. I'm proud to say that, through negotiations, the coalition has achieved significant amendments to the government's proposed legislation that will safeguard the interests of older Australians. We have worked tirelessly to ensure fairness for Australians who have spent their lives working hard and saving for retirement. We pushed for and secured grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps, a more balanced, tapered rate and a guarantee that the federal government remain the majority funder of aged care.</para>
<para>Grandfathering arrangements are one of our critical achievements. They mean that Australians currently receiving residential aged care, on a home-care package or on a waitlist for home care, will not face changes to their existing financial arrangements. In simple terms, this ensures that those already within the system will not pay more for their care.</para>
<para>We have also fought for a fairer taper rate, advocating for contributions that increase at a much slower rate than the government's initial proposal. This protects those who have worked hard and saved diligently for their retirement. Additionally, we secured a commitment that the government, not the consumer, will remain the majority funder of aged care. One of the most significant outcomes we secured is the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions. This cap provides peace of mind for families in knowing there is a maximum limit to what they will need to contribute.</para>
<para>We also introduced a time-limited contribution cap for residential aged care, ensuring families will only contribute for a set period of four years. Furthermore, we championed an additional $300 million investment in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers. This funding is vital for facilities struggling under financial constraints, allowing them to upgrade and meet necessary standards. It ensures that all Australians, no matter their location, have access to quality aged care.</para>
<para>The coalition have always recognised unique challenges faced by rural and regional aged-care homes, and we remain committed to supporting them. Supporting these areas is crucial because they often face significant barriers, such as geographical isolation, limited healthcare resources and challenges in attracting and retaining skilled staff. Ensuring equitable access to aged-care services in these communities upholds the fundamental principle that all Australians deserve the same level of care and respect, irrespective of their postcode. This commitment helps bridge the divide between urban and rural care, fostering a more inclusive and just society.</para>
<para>We also successfully advocated for the removal of criminal penalties from the bill. Let me be clear: this does not mean providers in the wrong are given a free pass. Existing work health and safety laws, banning orders and criminal codes already provided the regulatory framework to hold individuals accountable. The introduction of new criminal penalties, as proposed by the government, was not a recommendation of the royal commission and would have unintended consequences, potentially driving capable workers away from the sector.</para>
<para>Our efforts have also stopped the imposition of forced union representation in every aged-care home. We believe in collaboration between providers and their staff but will not support measures that prioritise union mandates over quality care, particularly when small providers bear the heaviest burden. Despite achievements, we must remember that this bill remains the government's package of reforms. It was not co-designed with the coalition, and there are critical issues that remain unaddressed. The government has failed to adequately consider workforce impacts, regulatory challenges and realistic implementation timelines.</para>
<para>This oversight is not without consequences. Just last year, 49 aged-care homes closed under this government's watch. This is a stark reminder that words alone are not enough. Action and foresight are paramount. We must ensure that this bill does not lead to further closures, but rather that it fosters an environment conducive to the development of new facilities and essential investments that sustain and improve the sector.</para>
<para>Transparency has been another area of deep disappointment. The government's process has been shrouded in secrecy, with crucial details embedded in delegated legislation yet to be disclosed. This lack of openness and clarity frustrates not only older Australians and their families but also the dedicated providers and workers who strive to maintain high standards despite mounting pressures. We have repeatedly called on the government to release all associated rules and documents for the bill's final debate. Only with full disclosure can Australians understand, prepare for and respond effectively to the impending changes.</para>
<para>While this bill seeks to ensure Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible, promote dignity and support independence, much work remains. The coalition remains committed to consulting with older Australians and the sector, through the ongoing inquiry process, to achieve the best outcomes. We will continue to work towards a system that prioritises the dignity and care of older Australians, ensuring they receive the support they deserve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. It is important that we recognise that aged care is not merely a sector; it reflects on how we value and care for our elders, as a society.</para>
<para>Aged care across this country and especially in Central Queensland is, quite frankly, at breaking point. Whether it's getting a loved one such as a mother or father or a grandmother or grandfather into an aged-care facility or trying to get through the mountains of bureaucracy when applying for a home-care package, it's really a nightmare for many Australians. Data has shown us that some of the most vulnerable older Australians are waiting as long as an entire year to get a home-care package. Wait times for level 3 packages have blown out from nine to 12 months, while the wait times for level 4 packages have risen from six months to nine month.</para>
<para>Last year, Carinity Summit Cottages, an aged-care facility in Mount Morgan in my electorate of Flynn, closed. They advised that the ongoing nationwide shortage of aged-care staff, combined with Mount Morgan's regional location, made staffing the facility incredibly difficult. Given the national care workforce shortage and the increased difficulty of recruiting staff, the only viable option for Carinity cottages was to close.</para>
<para>It is clear that the current aged-care model is not working and significant changes need to be made that will not affect communities in rural and regional Australia. The coalition provided a clear offer to work with the government on sensible aged-care policies, because we need a system that is strong and sustainable to support future generations.</para>
<para>Since calling for and responding to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the coalition has remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve. This legislation delivers on the first recommendation of the royal commission, appointed by the coalition, to implement a new rights based aged-care act.</para>
<para>In response to the royal commission, the former coalition government provided more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate sector needs. Through good faith negotiations, the coalition has sought to ensure that many reforms provide dignity and clarity for older Australians, and we have held the government to account to finally introduce their package of reform and bring all Australians into this important conversation.</para>
<para>The issue before our aged-care system is undeniable. With more than half of aged care homes across the country operating at a loss, an aging population and a desire for people to age at home, the way that aged care is delivered and supported needs to change.</para>
<para>This bill represents a significant package of reforms, which is why we pushed to have the bill immediately referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. We have valued the opportunity, through this open and transparent Senate inquiry process, to finally have an open conversation with older Australians and the aged-care sector about the government's proposed reforms. Now that the committee has delivered its final report, we are considering its findings and recommendations.</para>
<para>Following the inquiry, the coalition remains supportive of introducing a rights based framework to guarantee a world-class aged-care system for older Australians into the future. However, as coalition senators noted in the report, there are concerns that the bill contains several shortcomings that should be remedied for it to deliver on its promised outcomes.</para>
<para>We have been critical of the government for their lack of consultation on this significant package of reforms, and this was a concern that was reflected by stakeholders throughout the inquiry. That is why the government must be transparent and release the subordinate legislation associated with the Aged Care Bill before it passes parliament. Withholding this critical information prevents all stakeholders from being able to understand and prepare for the full impact of the changes contained in this bill.</para>
<para>Through good-faith negotiations with the government, the coalition has achieved significant changes to the proposed legislation that will protect the interests of older Australians and future generations. The coalition has worked tirelessly to ensure that the government's reforms are fairer, particularly for Australians who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement. That is why we pushed the government to include grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps, a much lower taper rate and an assurance that the government will remain the future funder of aged care—not the consumer.</para>
<para>One of the most critical outcomes of our efforts was the introduction of grandfathering arrangements. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care, on a home-care package or assessed and waiting for their allocated home-care package will not see any changes to their existing arrangements. In effect, it will mean that all Australians currently in the aged-care system will not pay one cent more for their aged-care packages.</para>
<para>We also advocated a lower taper rate towards aged-care contributions to ensure that those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement receive a fairer deal. The taper rates we demand mean that funding contributions increase at a much slower rate than the government has proposed.</para>
<para>Furthermore, we sought an absolute assurance from the government that they would remain the majority funder of aged care—not the consumer.</para>
<para>We also fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions. These caps we demanded mean that Australians will always know that the maximum they could ever be required to contribute is fixed. Importantly, the maintenance of the lifetime cap will provide families with peace of mind when it comes to the costs associated with caring for their loved ones. Not only did we fight for a lifetime cap but we also introduced a time limited contribution cap of four years for residential aged care.</para>
<para>In addition to these financial safeguards, the coalition secured an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers, who are struggling to remain open under the current government. This funding is critical for upgrading facilities that often struggle to meet the necessary standards due to financial constraints. It is vital that all Australians, regardless of their geographic location, have access to a quality aged-care service. The coalition has always recognised that rural and regional aged-care homes face unique challenges and need more support from this government. We understand that rural, regional and remote homes will also get significantly increased funding for the services they provide to people in their care.</para>
<para>We also fought for the removal of criminal penalties from the act . Our position on criminal penalties has always been clear, and so has the position of both royal commissioners. The introduction of criminal penalties was not a recommendation of the royal commission. Instead, it was an ill-considered and not-consulted-on election promise from this Labor government that would have had dangerous consequences. And let's be clear. By removing criminal penalties from the bill, the coalition has not given a free ticket to providers who are in the wrong. Existing WHS laws, banning orders and criminal codes provide the necessary regulatory framework to hold these people to account. The introduction of stand-alone criminal penalties was simply yet another example of the government's heavy-handedness when it comes to the regulations. We support the need for older Australians to be safe and supported in our aged-care system, but, in order for them to be safe and cared for, we need the workforce to exist in the first place. We have also successfully eliminated provisions that would have forced unionism into every aged-care home, taking the focus away from quality care and instead increasing mandates felt the hardest by small providers.</para>
<para>Whilst there have been significant achievements made by the coalition during our negotiations with the government, it is important to remember that this is Labor's package of reforms. This bill has not been co-designed alongside the coalition.</para>
<para>This government has failed to address critical issues, such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation timelines, in the bill. These issues continue to go unaddressed by the government and are causing some serious consequences. Last year alone, 49 aged-care homes closed under the government. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, one of those aged-care homes was in my electorate of Flynn, at Mount Morgan. The coalition is seeking to ensure that the introduction of this bill will not force the closure of more homes and, instead, result in the commitment of critical new builds across the sector—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 11:41 to 12:26</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We remain disappointed by the lack of transparency the government has shown to the Australian public throughout the entire process of reform, with conversations forced to occur behind closed doors. It is clear from the two inquiry hearings held thus far that there is notable frustration among older Australians and in the sector: frustration that many of the changes proposed by the government were not consulted upon, frustration that much of the detail of the new act is held in delegated legislation which is yet to be seen, and frustration that without this delegated legislation Australians cannot adequately respond and prepare for the changes to come. The coalition has called on the government to finally be transparent and publicly release all of the rules associated with the bill prior to its final debate so that we can fully understand the effect of this bill on the sector, on older Australians and on the wider community.</para>
<para>However, it remains clear that this bill aims to ensure Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them today and into the future. It aims to promote dignity, independence and a meaningful life for older Australians, which the coalition remains committed to. We will continue to consult with older Australians in this sector throughout the ongoing inquiry and work through the issues that are raised as we seek to achieve dignity and clarity for all Australians. As the federal member for Flynn, I will continue to fight for our aged-care sector, as we all will have to rely on it at some point in time in our life.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>113</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Central West Early Childhood Awards</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to draw the attention of the House to the crucially important contribution that early childhood educators make to our communities and nation. Our early childhood educators are true community heroes. They nurture the future of our regions and country and give our children the best possible start. They have an enormous and lasting positive impact on children's lives. It's important that our communities value our early childhood educators and the essential role they play in developing great Australians. It's vital that we not only appreciate them but celebrate their wonderful achievements and the excellence in early childhood education that they bring to our country.</para>
<para>It was therefore a true honour to attend the second annual 2024 Central West Early Childhood Awards in Orange recently. Two hundred and eighty educators and their guests gathered to honour nominees and award recipients from around our region and thank them for a job very well done. The heartfelt thanks and congratulations of our communities must go to all of the nominees and award winners on their outstanding contributions to early childhood education.</para>
<para>I make special mention of the following award recipients. The Certificate III Educator Family Appreciation Award went to Lillee Bullock from Grow Early Education Kelso. The Outstanding Early Childhood Educator Diploma Award went to Melinda Nicol from Nature's Academy. The Family Appreciation Award for Outside of School Hours Educator went to Meg Corby from Aspire, and the Award for Excellence in Sustainability went to Bangala-la Preschool. The Family Appreciation Award Diploma went to Kelly Cusack from Papilio in Bathurst. The Outstanding Achievement Award for Everyday Excellence went to Lauren Senton from Pied Piper Preschool at Wallerawang. Outstanding Early Childhood Teacher went to Kristy Crump from Circle Early Learning of Blayney. The Family Appreciation Teacher Award went to Tanya Lamers from Goodstart Early Learning Molong Road. Outstanding Family Day Care Educator went to Rebecca Setter, and Outstanding Out of School Hours Educator went to Wanita Smith. The Family Appreciation Award for Family Day Care Educator went to Tammy Litt. The Award for Excellence in Team Work and Culture went to Goodstart Early Learning Kelso. The Award for Excellence in Food and Menu went to Erin Armstrong and Great Beginnings, and the Award for Excellence in Pedagogy and Practice went to Moad Street Preschool. And I note that Moad Street Preschool educated my own child, so well done to the Moad Street Preschool team. The Award for Excellence in Community went to Pied Piper Preschool. The Award for Excellence in Early Learning in Cultural Responsiveness went to Goodstart Early Learning Molong Road. The Award for Excellence in Inclusion went to Pinnacle Preschool, and the Award for Excellence in Support Services went to Parents as Teachers. The Samara Golding-Piper Memorial Award for Excellence in Leadership went to Raewyn Molly from Eugowra Community Children's Centre. The Molly Ticehurst Memorial Award for Outstanding Early Childhood Educator Certificate III went to Terri Van Tempest.</para>
<para>The 2024 Central West Early Childhood Awards were, quite simply, wonderful. Well done to local music legend Megan Woods and glittering MC Betty Confetti for providing a great night's entertainment. I wish to extend my sincere thanks and congratulations to event organiser and founder, Katherine Wilson from Circle Early Learning in Blayney, on a highly successful night. Katherine is a true leader in early childhood education in our region and our country. She deserves the thanks and appreciation of this House and also our nation. Congratulations and thanks also to Katherine's organising team of Samantha Stevenson, Haylie Sloan, Janine Lewis, Kim Laird and Libby Hill-Wallace.</para>
<para>Coming together to celebrate early childhood educators that do so much for our communities was a privilege. I know all members will join me in thanking early childhood educators right around our country for the tireless work they do for our children and the future of our county. I would like all of our early childhood educators to know how very much appreciated they are.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Capital Territory Election, Community Events</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The ACT election produced a fantastic outcome for the ACT and the residents of my electorate of Bean. Congratulations to Chief Minister Andrew Barr and all his team on their re-election and a renewed mandate. I'm pleased that two new Labor MLAs were elected to the ACT, to the assembly, to represent the division of Brindabella, which overlaps the southernmost part of Bean, from Kambah to Banks, Tharwa and beyond. Caitlin Tough, who I've known for many years, and Taimus Werner-Gibbings were both elected for the first time. The southside having two new, fresh, energetic MLAs to represent Tuggeranong and surrounds is welcomed. I'm looking forward to working with both these impressive new MLAs to deliver great outcomes for our community.</para>
<para>I thank the outgoing Labor MLAs Joy Burch and Mick Gentleman for all their efforts over a long period of service to the southside. I'm also delighted that the residents of the division of Murrumbidgee, which overlaps with the Woden and Molonglo Valley parts of Bean, returned to the assembly the Labor MLAs Marisa Paterson and Chris Steel. I've worked constructively with both these hardworking members over the past four years, and I'm keen to renew our work together.</para>
<para>To the unsuccessful candidates at the election, I express my commiserations. The Hare-Clarke electoral system is a cruel beast. All the candidates should be proud of their efforts.</para>
<para>Community life in the south side is something I always cherish, and there is no better time than the fete season happening now. I encourage all residents to take advantage of the wide array of fantastic activities on offer. The schools, community groups and volunteers behind these activities deserve the support of the general community, and I can guarantee that those who do attend will all have a great time. I'll give a quick plug to some of the events to keep an eye out for in Bean over this weekend. The Wanniassa School Twilight Picnic and the Sacred Heart Primary School's Twilight Fair in Pearce are both tomorrow Friday 8 November. St Thomas the Apostle Primary School in Kambah has a fete on this Saturday 9 November. The Orana Steiner School in Weston have their Spring Fair this Sunday 10 November. Holy Family Primary School at Gowrie have their fete on the following weekend. And, of course, SouthFest is back that weekend as well. There are many other activities happening this weekend and beyond. Especially since the COVID era, it's critical to that appreciate these types of activities where we can all get together to have fun should never be taken for granted. I encourage Bean residents and people from right across the ACT region to get down to at least one of the great community events happening in the South this weekend and the weekends following.</para>
<para>The SDA has launched a groundbreaking case at the Fair Work Commission to abolish junior rates for workers aged 18 years and older. If successful, the case will lift wages for young workers in supermarkets, drive-throughs and pharmacies across the country. These changes would not only increase minimum wages within these sectors but also impact other enterprise agreements that currently include junior rates. At the heart of this case, however, is that these 18- and 19-year-old workers are adults that deserve to be paid accordingly. Indeed, in many cases, these young workers are paid 30 per cent less for performing the same tasks as their older coworkers. Put more simply, if you're an adult, you should earn an adult wage no matter what. The SDA also highlights that young Australians face the same living costs as everyone else but are unfairly compensated in terms of wages. As SDA national secretary, Gerard Dwyer, has pointed out, 18-year-olds are adults. They do not receive a discount on their rent or bills because they happen to be 18. This disparity in pay is discriminatory and out of touch with the cost of living. The SDA's campaign aims to build public support for fair wages and underscores the importance of treating workers equitably. This is a campaign that everyone in this House should be able to get around and support, wherever your electorate might be in this country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure: Roads</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know the Albanese Labor government is sick of hearing me talk about the Bruce Highway. However, the issues are not going away, and neither am I. The Bruce is a national disgrace. Fifty per cent of the entire Bruce Highway is failing basic safety standards. In my electorate of Dawson, the road has a two-out-of-five star rating for road safety. As Australia's longest highway, it has developed a reputation for potholes, delays and, most of all, fatalities. Much-needed funds for upgrades simply disappear.</para>
<para>I've started a petition, and I'm presenting some of the real-life experiences from my constituents to be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record. Trevor Haller travels from Ayr to Townsville and experiences near misses every time, every day. Michael Botto's story is this: north of Calen, a car and caravan hit a rough area and started to sway badly. They ended up off the road with no major damage. It just scared the life out of them. I just went to Brisbane and back this week, and I cannot believe how bad the Bruce has become from Gladstone North. It has been left too long and is truly a disgrace. Wayne Gower says that, constantly, the roads are trash. Overtaking lanes are few and far between, and many drivers are taking risks. Just fix the damn highway. It stretches some 1,600 kilometres, takes 18 hours straight to drive, crosses over 26 rivers and is touched by almost every city in Queensland. For most along the coast, it is the only road to go north or south. Narelle Haworth from the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland says there are sections where it doesn't look like a highway anywhere else in the developed world. She also stated that none of the Bruce is rated a full five-star rating—none.</para>
<para>If you're driving on the Bruce Highway you are five times more likely to be injured or killed in a crash compared to those driving on the Hume Highway. This year alone, in 11 short months, 30 people have lost their lives on the Bruce. In the last 10 years, over 150 people have lost their lives. This cannot keep happening. In true Labor style, this one-term Albanese Labor government cut the funding agreement for the Bruce from an 80-20 federal-state split to a 50-50 split. This is a serious funding cut if ever I've seen one. This was an historical arrangement agreed to by both sides of the House. However it's been ripped up without a care in the world.</para>
<para>At least now Queenslanders have some direction under the new leadership of David Crisafulli and the LNP. The Queensland government has committed to working with the federal government to reinstate the 80-20 funding arrangement, and the Queensland LNP will re-establish the Bruce Highway advisory council. In seven short days under Premier Crisafulli, more positive movement has taken place than in the whole time under former premier Steven Miles. It's no wonder Queensland voted for a fresh start. In more good news the Dutton led coalition has made a commitment to restoring the funding arrangement back to the original 80-20 split.</para>
<para>We know there are challenges. Queensland has more tarmac than any other state in Australia. We have fewer people to pay for upgrades, and many different types of vehicles use the Bruce. But do you know what? We also deliver billions of dollars of mining royalties to both state and federal governments, and we help feed the nation. It's about time that's recognised and some money comes back to the regions. To the truck drivers who drive the Bruce daily, to the tourists, who are essential to our economy, to the food producers, who deliver much-needed fresh produce to our supermarket and our miners who travel to work, and to the families who are taking their kids to school or going on a holiday that they've saved up for, I give you my word: I will not give up fighting to make sure that you have a safe road to drive on.</para>
<para>Every Queenslander needs a commitment from the Albanese Labor government for a 10-year upgrade and maintenance plan. Do you think we'll get this from the government? Probably not. What I do know is that the coalition will do it. We understand how important it is, and we want our truckies and families to get home safely.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McDonald, Superintendent Christine</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>SITOU () (): There is a photo that I have with Superintendent Christine McDonald, and I think it captures who she is and what she brings to the role. It's a photo that I have with her in her uniform, and it's covered in Holi colours. It was at an event that I held in March this year. Superintendent McDonald had been the local area commander for the Burwood area for only less than a month, and she was at this event because she believes in the role that police can play in connecting with the community. Young students were there and they were squealing with delight as they got to throw colours at the police, and families had the opportunity to meet Superintendent McDonald. She was accessible and personable, and that's important for communities like mine, a diverse community made up of people from around the world. For some, their interactions with law enforcement in their home countries may have been very different. They may have been bound by fear or defined by corruption.</para>
<para>The work that Superintendent McDonald does with her team lives out the true meaning of community policing, focusing on building relationships with the community because they understand that crime prevention, finding perpetrators of violent crimes and making the community feel safe can only be done in partnership with the community. Residents need to trust their police and know where to go when they witness crime or feel scared or threatened. It's that active policing and building trust with the community that I admire in Superintendent McDonald, and I'm pleased it has been recognised by others too. Last week Superintendent Christine McDonald was awarded the Irene Juergens APM Fellowship Award at the Rotary NSW Police Officer of the Year Awards in recognition of her outstanding dedication to community based policing. I feel privileged to get to work alongside Superintendent McDonald. I've learned so much from her and I am inspired by her example.</para>
<para>We've had frank conversations about the challenges in our community, and Superintendent McDonald has said that the biggest challenge for her team is tackling domestic violence. This is true not just in my electorate; it is a major challenge across New South Wales. It's an issue that the federal and New South Wales governments are squarely focused on. Both governments are spending record amounts to help fund emergency financial support and accommodation to help victim-survivors and expand programs that reduce the rates of violence against women and children. The New South Wales government has passed laws that make it harder for alleged domestic violence offenders to get bail and has made coercive control a criminal offence.</para>
<para>I've been to many community events with Superintendent McDonald, and there is a line that she often uses at these events: 'I don't want anyone to suffer in silence. Come to your police so we can help you.' That is the exact message that the community needs to hear. While she has been the Burwood police area commander for less than a year, she's having an extraordinary impact. Earlier this year, along with the member for Strathfield, Jason Yat-Sen Li, we held a community round table to discuss how we can tackle domestic violence together, working with Burwood police. I was so pleased that Superintendent McDonald was able to be there.</para>
<para>We've also been working closely with Burwood police on another major crime that is having an extraordinary toll on many in the community: scams. I've seen the devastating impact scams can have on an individual. We've had several constituents come for help because they've been scammed out of huge sums of money. The financial and emotional consequences can be devastating. I've now held two antiscam forums to arm the community with the knowledge and information they need to protect themselves and at each of those events Superintendent McDonald and her team have been there to speak directly to the community about how the police can support them.</para>
<para>Recently, a 15-year-old in my electorate was charged with a knife crime. That young person killed someone. There was a line that Superintendent McDonald used in a press conference. She said, 'Today, one life was lost and one life was ruined.' That is the approach that she takes to policing—to be strong and tough but also to be empathetic. It is something that I have lived by.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mallee Electorate: Agriculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a myriad of threats to Australia's food security in my electorate of Mallee. I want to quote a Mallee constituent, 93-year-old Jim Hepworth, known as Spud. Jim himself is a fourth-generation farmer in Donald, and he is looking forward to his grandson becoming a sixth-generation farmer on that farm. In his own words, Spud says about proposals like the VNI West transmission lines, wind turbines, mineral sands and mining operations in the region:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Something like a power line or mineral sands going through breaks your heart. We fought to keep this place through droughts and floods and for every 5 or 6 years we get a bad year and being a farmer you know how to get through those bad years. All my life, it's been the farm. Farmers are the greatest naturalist people in the world, if they don't look after their ground, it's gone—it's like, if you don't look after your wife she will be gone too, won't she? Land's the same.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some people want the windmills, others don't want them—they don't tell each other what's going on, they are squabbling and fighting.</para></quote>
<para>And I might just interrupt to say that many of these proponents are using non-disclosure agreements when they talk to farmers, so they're not allowed to talk with their neighbours. This is tragic in itself. I'll go back to Spud:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It never happened years ago—farmers went to their neighbours before they did anything. It's all gone out the back window, it's all money … companies throwing money at them left right and centre, they (<inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">neighbours</inline>) aren't thinking of 100 years of friendship their forefathers brought together. Families aren't talking to family members. It's bringing a big division to the population, we can't afford to have people not being friends in the country. That's what it's all about—you love to go into the supermarket and talk to your neighbour, you don't want to see them in one row and dodge them because you don't want to meet them, that's not the country way of life. They are ruining the country way of life. People have to be wary, you want to talk to your neighbours and friends before you do anything like this.</para></quote>
<para>Jim felt the need to speak publicly about the situation because there is bad blood being stirred in my electorate of Mallee and across regional Australia, weaponised by Labor's reckless approach to energy policy.</para>
<para>In the couple of minutes I have left, I want to talk about my electorate and, in particular, the VNI West transmission line. The corridor was confirmed last week to the outrage of 60 per cent of the farmers on that route. I've seen the map. I've seen all the red dots that light up, where farmers are saying: 'No. Transmission Company Victoria'—TCV, which sits under AEMO at a federal level—'are not going to be allowed onto my land.' I'm not sure how the Victorian government is actually going to achieve what they want to achieve. Well, I do know. The state government have actually legislated compulsory acquisition and a no-appeals process. We live in 2024 in Australia, a country that is free, where people who own land should be able to do whatever they desire on their land, particularly when it's being productive. But what we have in Victoria is a government who has taken away those rights. No farmer can go to VCAT and appeal the decision of the Victorian Labor government. This is an atrocious situation, and it is not Australian. Farmers are now paying lawyers to fight their cause but to no avail. Wind turbines are multiplying in Mallee, and we have become ground zero for the rush to renewables—the renewable energy zones. It's not something that is working out too well for the government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELYEA</name>
    <name.id>309484</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Off the back of the excellent news over the weekend—and today, with the introduction of the Free TAFE Bill—that a re-elected Albanese government will legislate to guarantee 100,000 permanent fee-free TAFE positions each year and to also cut debt by 20 per cent, I want to talk about young people.</para>
<para>Firstly, it is fantastic that the average university student will have their HECS debt cut by $5,500 per person and won't have to start repaying it until they are earning at least $67,000. We all know the cost is a huge barrier to our young people getting an education. In my electorate of Dunkley, where many young people come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, the thought of having to lock yourself into a course or a degree can be daunting and off-putting, especially if there's a financial burden attached to these decisions. Free TAFE resolves this dilemma, ensuring that no financial barrier exists to young people who are unsure about what they want to do in life but are very keen to get a job, earn a living and have a career.</para>
<para>The other week I visited Chisholm TAFE in Frankston with the Minister for Skills and Training, Andrew Giles. We heard from nursing, dental and youth work students about how the biggest thing that entices these students to study at TAFE is accessibility, by removing the cost barrier. The great thing is it's not just young people who are taking full advantage of free TAFE. There are also many older people who didn't get the opportunity to study and are now using the opportunity presented by the Labor government to reskill and upskill.</para>
<para>Closer to home, there are so many great organisations in my electorate doing amazing work supporting young people. We need more youth and community services staff in our area to meet the demand. There is also a lot of discussion in the state of Victoria about the welfare of young people. I have worked with some of the most disadvantaged people in south-east Victoria and nationally for over 30 years, particularly in Frankston. From my experience, young people lose their way because of a range of factors. Sometimes these factors are out of their control, and often they're experienced from a very young age. Family breakdown, family violence, a diagnosis of a learning disability—experiencing one of these things on its own is enough, but for a growing number of young people there is a combination of issues that result in their disconnection and disengagement from school, family and community.</para>
<para>In the electorate of Dunkley we have a plethora of organisations that are working incredibly hard to support our young people, including headspace, YSAS, the Salvation Army and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. Recently, I met with headspace staff and members of their youth advisory team to learn about the key issues impacting young people in our local area. COVID lockdowns that led to loneliness and isolation, disengagement from school, learning barriers and gender identity are some of the biggest issues, along with having limited role models to guide and support young people. When I spoke to students studying youth work and community development at Chisholm TAFE, in Frankston, a number of them shared that they had experienced trauma, disadvantage and marginalisation and needed support and time to learn in a space where difference and diversity is embraced. Chisholm TAFE teachers Raelene Stockton and Joe Zollo are providing this learning environment to the students to enable them to forge a career pathway, as I did, through TAFE. Well done to both of you for your contributions to the sector over many decades in teaching. The fact that the courses these students are studying are now free, thanks to the Labor government, means more people are getting the opportunity to study and the freedom to study, because finance is not a barrier. Well done, Chisholm TAFE, headspace, YSAS, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and all the teachers for the innovative and exceptional support you provide to young people and those who want to support them in Dunkley.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:57</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>