2024-11-19 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

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

 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Developing Northern Australia 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 7 12:31 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 7 BILLS Cyber Security Bill 2024, Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024, Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Navigation Amendment Bill 2024 7

Cyber Security Bill 2024

Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024

Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Navigation Amendment Bill 2024

Reference to Federation Chamber 7 12:31 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) the Cyber Security Bill 2024, the Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024 and the Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024; and (2) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024, the Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Navigation Amendment Bill 2024, at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. BUSINESS 7 BUSINESS Rearrangement 7 12:32 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring on Tuesday, 19 November: (1) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate on the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bill being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until: (a) no further Members rise to speak, after which the question is put on the second reading; or (b) 10 pm; or (c) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm; at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 20 November at 9 am; (2) in the Federation Chamber, when the grievance debate is adjourned, government business being given priority until the Federation Chamber adjourns at approximately 9.30 pm; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 7 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Standards Joint Committee 7 Membership 7 12:33 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator McKim has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards. BILLS 8 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 8

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

Second Reading 8 12:33 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. This bill responds to this parliament's inquiry into the 2022 election, conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Each parliament conducts such an inquiry to consider both the performance of the electoral system and its legislation following an electoral event, and to consider any further changes that might be required to keep our electoral regulations consistent with current behaviours and practices. The bill that was introduced by the government yesterday looks to implement recommendations from that committee's work, which the assistant minister referred to as being 'multipartisan'. But it was not multipartisan in agreement of the recommendations of that committee and its inquiry. Coalition members of that committee reflected our position when they provided a dissenting report to that committee's work. As coalition members stated, the coalition believes that any proposed electoral changes should support our system of fair, open and transparent elections which treat all political participants equally. Our system must encourage political participation that protects freedoms of speech, belief, association and thought. No participant should have fear of retribution for their beliefs or their support. The coalition believes that those who join or actively support political parties, like those who support civil society movements or not-for-profit organisations, do so on the basis of sincerely-held beliefs and a genuine desire to participate in their democratic society. Members of established political parties are not less worthy than those who support other forms of political campaigning movements or civil society causes. Changes to regulations at federal and state levels of government have increased the regulatory burden on political parties, making it harder for active grassroots participation. This is not a good outcome for democratic participation in Australia. Financially stable political parties with active membership representing the broad political spectrum are important foundations for a healthy democracy. The governing legislation and regulatory framework for political parties should ultimately encourage grassroots participation, not make it harder. This bill looks to implement recommendations 1 to 10 of the joint standing's interim report tabled in June 2023. Recommendation 1 proposed to lower the disclosure threshold of donations to $1,000, and this legislation reflects this. As the coalition stated in the response to the committee's report, we are concerned that there must be a balance between privacy and transparency. We have seen political intimidation by some in the community recently, often on the offices of parliamentarians. Any threshold should not be a discouragement to participation in the electoral system where there is any fear of intimidation or retribution from publication of the support of political parties or candidates. The Grattan Institute argued for a higher threshold of $5,000, noting this important balance, and stated: This would protect the privacy of small donors, and keep administration costs manageable, while ensuring that all donations big enough to matter are on the public record. Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the interim report are also reflected in the legislation. These propose to introduce donation and expenditure caps to the electoral system. The bill proposes to introduce a cap of $20,000 each year, indexed annually, which will apply to individual donors and entities. On expenditure, the bill proposes to introduce a cap of $90 million for each political party. A cap of $800,000 will apply to expenditure by any party or candidate on any individual electorate. A Senate cap will apply for a state or territory that will be valued at the number of electorates in that jurisdiction. The key concern for coalition members through the process of the committee's inquiry on this matter was that caps be applied fairly and equitably. The ability to set the caps of donations for the Commonwealth system that has never had this limitation is new ground and may require review. Another important aspect of the government's legislation is that it will capture political entities outside parties and candidates. As Professor George Williams stated on the potential loopholes with caps when he appeared before the joint standing committee: Unless we actually have a holistic regime, people will set up the equals, whether they be charities, third parties or the like. We need to make sure that they are equally covered with appropriate caps, disclosure and the like. Otherwise, we'll just end up with the electoral fundraising and the fight moving from parties to third parties. We welcome the view of the government that these caps should also apply to significant third parties, associated entities and third parties, who will be subject to expenditure caps of $11.25 million annually, with other limits at an electorate, state and territory level. Recommendations 2, 3 and 7 have been implemented through measures to implement faster disclosure timeframes, to alter the definition of 'gift' under the electoral law and to establish a system of common accounting for Commonwealth campaign accounts. These recommendations were all supported in principle by coalition members, and we see merit in these as improvements to the current system's integrity. It has taken the government nearly 18 months to bring forward legislation in response to the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the conduct of the 2022 federal election and nearly a year to bring forward legislation to address the final report of that committee. The government has had this time to consider and draft the legislation before the parliament today and, instead of providing the House with time to debate it in the normal manner, it has introduced it in a rush on a Monday for immediate debate on a Tuesday. We will continue to work with the government on this legislation as there are aspects with which we agree; however, the process for its debate and introduction have not been conducive to considering the wide-ranging impacts on the electoral system or the broader Electoral Act. As such, the opposition will be reserving our final position on this legislation, noting that we have yet to receive advice on some aspect which the government has undertaken to provide. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 9 BUSINESS Rearrangement 9 12:41 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That order of the day No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 9 BILLS Migration Amendment Bill 2024 9

Migration Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 9 12:42 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon We are obviously looking at the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 very closely. We want to make sure that it is assessed and we want to make sure that there won't be any unintended consequences. There are obviously always deep concerns on our side when it comes to anything this government does on migration. They have made a complete and utter mess of migration, whether it be the amount of people that have come into this country in the last two years—over a million people and growing when we're in the midst of a housing and rental crisis—or what has occurred through the High Court, where the government and the former immigration minister failed to defend the right for a government to protect its citizens and, in an agreed statement of fact, said that, when it came to the detainees that were being held by the government after they had committed serious crimes, there was no likelihood of them being removed from this country, giving the game away. This then saw 150 hardened criminals released into the community. That number has grown now to 224 and continues to grow, and we've now had a further decision in the cascading effect of the government's complete and utter ineptitude and incompetence which has seen ankle bracelets and curfews being removed from these 224 hardened criminals. Now, we want to help and support the government with keeping the community safe, because that is their No. 1 duty and something they have single-handedly failed to deliver in this term of government. As a matter of fact, they have been so weak and so incompetent when it comes to immigration that we've already seen one immigration minister go. We've seen one home affairs minister go. Now we have one individual trying to do both jobs—home affairs and immigration. The sad reality is nothing has improved; as a matter of fact, things continue to get worse. While we think the government needs to act to keep the community safe, we want to make sure the government, for once, is actually getting it right, and that's why we will closely examine this bill in a Senate inquiry. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024 9

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 9 12:45 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon As everyone in this House knows, and knows very keenly, when it comes to customs tariff amendments we've got to make sure that we have proper discussions on these issues. When it comes to tariffs in particular—and this is something which is dear to my heart—we as a nation have to do everything we can to reduce tariffs globally. As a trading nation, a nation which has relied on trading for many, many years, we have to make sure we get it right. If we see an increase in protectionism, that will harm Australia. I speak from experience as a former trade minister who successfully negotiated the UK free trade agreement and the free trade agreement with India. It is incredibly important that we continue to advocate strongly that the world doesn't go down a protectionist bend. The sad reality is that is what we are seeing. In many quarters we're seeing increased protectionism, which isn't in our interests at all. We've got to show, by example, that we continue to advocate for free trade. The purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The amendments are largely administrative, covering, notably, enhancing productivity; abolishing over 450 nuisance tariffs; setting the general rate of customs duty applicable to tariff headings and subheadings to 'free'; support for Ukraine, extending duty free access for goods imported from Ukraine by 24 months from 4 July 2024 to 3 July 2026; and repeal of spent phasing rates of duty—as the rate applicable to goods classified has been reduced to 'free', they are considered spent provisions and are therefore no longer relevant and not required. This change will result in the relevant general customs duty rates being set to 'free'. I want to talk for a moment about the key to us continuing to support Ukraine. It's a thousand days today since that immoral and objectionable invasion by Russia of Ukraine. The suffering we've seen of the Ukrainian people at the hands of Russia has been deplorable and despicable. There has been senseless loss of life. A country has been partly destroyed because of this immoral act by Russia. The only thing that has kept Ukraine going is its extraordinary fortitude and its extraordinary ability to fight for the freedoms that Russia wants to take away from it. It has been a lesson for the globe about standing up against tyranny. I couldn't be prouder of the way that the Ukrainians have fought and fought to protect their sovereignty and to protect their way of life. Australia has played a role in supporting Ukraine, and that is something that we should all be immensely proud of. We have to make sure that we continue to provide that support, including by enabling Ukraine to export their goods here to Australia and by making sure that we continue to say to Russia, 'What you have done is morally wrong, and we will make sure we oppose it every single day and we will make sure that your exports will not be allowed to come here.' We have to fight this tyranny and we have to help support Ukraine in fighting this tyranny. That's why the particular aspect of the bill which extends the duty-free access for goods imported from Ukraine by a further 24 months, from 4 July 2024 to 3 July 2026, is so welcome, especially when it was the coalition that initially put this measure in place after that heinous act by Russia. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 10

Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 10 12:52 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to support the Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This protocol upgrade is modernising the agreement to better align it with the digitised world that we now live in. Protocol adjustments are done on a timeline. It's very appropriate that we do this with FTAs. Every five years or so, we look at the agreement and look at how we can modernise the agreement to upgrade it to make sure it's taking into account new technologies and new things that might be happening in the trading world. This agreement is going to mean that ASEAN has the highest quality FTA with its partners. It has eliminated tariffs on 96 per cent of Australian exports to South-East Asian markets. We know that ASEAN as a bloc is going to become, by any measure, the fourth-largest trading bloc in the world over the next number of years. They're our neighbours and a very exciting part of the world. There are upgrades across several areas to ensure the FTA retains its relevance and adds value to developments across the frameworks, including the RCEP. The RCEP itself was signed by the coalition government on 15 November 2020. Was that you, Member for Wannon, who did that? Mr Tehan 210911 I'm not quite sure. I can't remember. I did so much, it's hard to remember it all! Mr HOGAN 218019 You did a great job. Mr Tehan 210911 I think I did. Mr HOGAN 218019 Yes, I'm sure you did. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties completed an inquiry into this agreement in May 2024, and a lot of this bill has come from their recommendations. They found that the original agreement has not kept pace with opportunities in education, services, investment, mobility and digital trade. Since this agreement has come into force, the best practice for FTAs has changed because of technological developments in the digital economy, the uptake of ecommerce to facilitate greater ecommerce in the region, enhanced consumer confidence, data transfers and privacy issues—and also to combat fraud. The original agreement also lacked of a modern FTA what comes in areas such as environmental protection, competition, government procurement and labour rights. The upgrade also solves the problem of the current version no longer meeting the consumer and business requirements for a high-quality contemporary FTA. Key Australian stakeholders including peak industry bodies saw a requirement for this upgrade and supported the things in this bill. They saw a particular need for streamlined rules of origin processes and updated services and investment outcomes to increase certainty for Australian businesses and investors. They also sought trade facilitation measures for positive trade outcomes such as competition and sustainable development to be included in the upgrade. The amendments in this will enter into force 60 days after Australia, New Zealand and at least four of the ASEAN members have notified of the completion of their domestic processes. We have agreed to this bill as to ensure entry into force of the agreement as soon as possible so exporters can benefit from the improvements and as to enable Australia to celebrate this important milestone in our partnership with ASEAN and to support our business and expand regional economic integration. I might just transgress a little bit. We, more than anyone, understand the importance and benefit of open and free trade. It's very appropriate that I speak with the previous trade minister here, the member for Wannon too. I remind the House—in fact, the member for Wannon was the person who told me this—when in government, I think, from 2013 to 2022, goods and services exported by Australia increased from the mid-20s, by a deal I know the member did with India and the UK along with some of the last two agreements we did, to almost 80 per cent. In the markets, our exporters had access to cheaper and more competitive rate because of the tariffs that were removed. It has just given our exporters enormous opportunities, from that time. I actually think it goes to one of the great accomplishments of the coalition government from 2013 to 2022 in that area of trade. I remind the House too—I especially remind our city cousins of this; I know the member for Wannon is a rural MP as well—of Australia's exports. Where do they come from? The four biggest exports from this country are coal, iron ore, gas and food. With all due respect to our city cousins, all of that's from the regions. Regional Australia is driving the economic outcome of our country right now. Just those four alone—let's round them all out to roughly $100 billion each. It goes up and down depending on the terms of trade, but that's roughly about $400 billion, just those four things alone, of the $650 billion that we exported last year. So regional Australia is certainly punching above its weight in generating the wealth of this country. It's all based on the free trade agreements that we did in government, and it's very important. What's interesting too, as I often remind people, is that, when we look at the history of Australia, this wasn't always the case. When we look back to federation, there were two parties. The Labor Party was around, just. We weren't. The Country Party didn't exist until 1920. I don't know if the Liberal Party had a sort of metamorphosis around that. But the two major parties in Australian politics in 1901 who first sat in the federal parliament were the protectionists versus the free traders. That's interesting to remind ourselves. We have some challenges now. I'm old enough to remember things, which may be good or bad—I don't know—but I think, for the last 30 or 40 years, that the world has embarked on an open trading system. I think people saw the benefits of trade, and, for the last 30 or 40 years, global trade in fact has gone from US$6 trillion a year to over US$30 trillion a year, in the last 20 years. Another figure that's interesting with that is global poverty as a percentage of the world's population. At the same time, it has gone from 30 per cent of the world's population to 10. So I always say to social welfare advocates, who are arguing for the improvement of people's social and economic outcomes around the world, to be free trade advocates, because I think those two are interlinked. We, as Australia, as we opened more up to different countries and economies, like we said with the figures when we were in government, have made us a more open trading economy to our betterment. Are there any Western Australians in here? I don't know that there are. Some airports don't look like this, but if anyone wants to see how important regional Australia is to our export capacity and performance, I encourage everyone to go to Perth Airport at six o'clock on any morning and look at the people who are filing through the security and baggage systems. They're all in high vis and they all work in export industries. It's quite phenomenal to see because there are thousands there every morning. It's always good to get up in this place and talk about trade. I do this with great pleasure and privilege, and to do this standing in front of a previous coalition trade minister. The coalition is supporting the update in the protocols within this amendment because we are the free-trade champions in this place. Debate adjourned. Navigation Amendment Bill 2024 12

Navigation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 12 13:00 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I, on behalf of the federal coalition, rise to speak on the Navigation Amendment Bill 2024, which we will be supporting. This bill proposes minor modifications to the Navigation Act 2012 to implement an amendment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, SOLAS. In Australia, the Navigation Act 2012 implements our obligations under SOLAS, including regulating international ship and seafarer safety and protecting the marine environment. The IP Code is a mandatory set of regulations aimed at ensuring the safety of personnel who are transported to and from work at offshore facilities. Expansion of the maritime offshore and energy sectors has created growth in new offshore industrial activities and demand for carriage of industrial personnel to and from offshore facilities. The changes to the convention were to address a lack of international regulations for cargo ships transporting more than 12 personnel who do not work on board the vessel. The transport of industrial personnel is distinct from conventional passenger carriage, as it often involves offshore support vessels operating in challenging and hazardous environments. Consequently, the safe transfer of industrial personnel necessitates specialised skills and control measures that are not technically required in standard passenger operations. The amendments futureproof the descriptions of passenger, seafarer, industrial personnel and industrial personnel vessel by adopting the SOLAS definitions. Additionally, this bill introduces a regulation-making power specifically for industrial personnel vessels. This bill gives effect to the SOLAS amendment and ensures Australia's compliance with its international obligations under the convention. It will allow foreign vessels in Australia to rely on the newly established International Code of Safety for Ships Carrying Industrial Personnel. On 20 March 2024, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties resolved that binding treaty action be recommended to give effect to the SOLAS amendment. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties noted the government considered that the bill is expected to have only minor practical, legal and financial effects on Australia. The government assured the committee that this is because it is rare that an international vessel would carry industrial personnel to an Australian offshore facility and that Australia's current regulatory arrangements on the safety of vessels engaged in offshore operations likely meet, if not exceed, the amendment's effect. As stated at the beginning of my remarks, the federal coalition will be supporting this bill and we commend it to the House. Debate adjourned. Free TAFE Bill 2024 12

Free TAFE Bill 2024

Second Reading 12 13:04 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon As we know, nothing is free in this world. Sadly the government seems to think that, if you call something free, that somehow that makes it free. But that goes to the fact that this government knows nothing about how to manage money and in particular knows nothing about how to manage government spending in a cost-of-living crisis. If you cannot deal with the No. 1 priority facing this nation at the moment—which is that we are facing a cost-of-living crisis due to the fact that this government cannot get its spending under control—then, sadly, you are failing the Australian people. At the moment the Australian people are seeing their gas bills going up, their electricity bills going up and their rents going up, and when they go to the supermarket their grocery bills continue to go up and up and up. Yet from this government we're seeing scant recognition that people are facing a cost-of-living crisis. If the government keeps spending, we will see inflation continuing to be way above that of nearly every one of our major OECD partners and our major G21 partners. That will mean that interest rates will stay higher for longer. And what does that mean? It means, sadly, that people's cost of living will continue to rise. There's this serious question that needs to be answered now, and the government should think about this every single day: when they look the Australian people in the eye, can they say that the Australian people are better off today than they were when the Albanese Labor government was elected? No, they cannot. That is a damning indictment on this government. It's a damning indictment on the failure of this government to deal with inflation, to deal with the cost-of-living crisis that is facing everyone. All of us understand the need to deal with skills and education in this nation, and it's incredibly important that we can develop the skills that we need locally so we can address skill shortages. Our deputy leader and shadow minister has articulated this magnificently. That is what we as a nation need to do. In particular, we've got to make sure that, when it comes to undertaking apprenticeships and vocational education, people not only sign up but also complete their courses. It's all very well encouraging people and to say 'TAFE's free'—although we know it's actually the taxpayer who's paying for it—and to say, 'We want you to join up.' But if people just join up for the sake of it and then don't complete it, and when you've got a minister who used to be an immigration minister and made a complete mess of that and potentially is just going to do exactly same in this space—a minister who doesn't have the wherewithal to know that it's not just about people getting in the front door but about the learning, being educated and being able to address the skills shortages that we face—then this idea of fee-free TAFE, where it is the taxpayer who pays, won't achieve anything. I know that the shadow minister has a lot more to say on this, so I will leave it there and enable the shadow minister to continue on. It is incredibly important that the new minister, the failed immigration minister, does not make a complete mess of this. But the sad reality is that I think we're on the path to that, because my hell he left a mess in immigration! And I don't think this government is going to be able to clean it up; I think it's going to require a change of government to do that. But I'll allow the shadow minister to continue while I've still got some time left. 13:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I appreciate the remarks of the member for Wannon, who, like me, is a regional Liberal who understands absolutely the importance of representing our rural and regional communities. He has a wideranging brief across so many issues but with complete understanding of the disastrous nature of this government's policy when it comes to skills and training. So, yes, I'm delighted to speak on the Free TAFE Bill 2024 to say how disappointed I have been by what we have already uncovered about this bill. I'm going to outline our issues with the bill shortly, but I want to make it very clear that the coalition do value TAFE, and we value the students that go to TAFE; it's all about the students. And it is time for Labor to stop using TAFE as a shield for their incompetence. That incompetence is writ large in this bill. I regard my role as the shadow minister for skills and training as an enormous privilege. As Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I get to pick my portfolio, and I picked skills, because I understand that skills is a critical area of policy for the future of our nation and the future of our young people. When I finished school, I couldn't think of anything worse than sitting in an office, so I went to my local training provider and pursued a vocational qualification in aviation. And it changed my life. That's why I love skills. There's nothing more motivating than meeting the next generation of workers who are on the tools, on a worksite, in a TAFE, in a school classroom—anywhere. I studied at a TAFE in Belconnen to get my pilots licence, and that training changed my life, so I not only value TAFEs but know what it's like to study at them. The minister may want to try and attack me as anti-TAFE, but, as far as I can see, only one of us has actually studied vocational education. Skills policy is personal to me, and that's why I'm so disappointed with what we've seen in this bill. I want to start with what we were told would be in this bill by the Prime Minister. In a media release announcing the free TAFE policy to be enacted by this bill, Anthony Albanese claimed: The Albanese Labor Government will introduce legislation to establish Fee-Free TAFE as an enduring feature of the national vocational education and training system, funding 100,000 Fee-Free TAFE places a year from 2027. He backed that in his 'Building Australia's future' speech when he claimed: Today I am proud to announce our Government will lock-in free TAFE and make it permanent, nationwide. We will legislate to guarantee 100,000 fee-free TAFE places, each and every year. I thought this was a big commitment for the government to make. It's a decision to permanently fund a program that has cost the taxpayer around $1 billion over the past two years. Making it permanent would be a huge financial commitment. As soon as the bill was introduced, I went into the official documents, and I was shocked by what I saw. Page 3 of the explanatory memorandum of the Free TAFE Bill states: There is no financial impact resulting from the Free TAFE Bill 2024. This means Labor has not allocated any funding to making free TAFE permanent at all—'no financial impact'. Further, a footnote in the legislation indicates that under Labor, free TAFE courses may not be free for students. So, despite Anthony Albanese promising to make free TAFE permanent, Labor's Free TAFE Bill neither guarantees free TAFE places will be permanent nor guarantees they will be free! We've uncovered that the Prime Minister has badly misled the Australian people about making free TAFE permanent. Clearly, this hasn't been done. The Prime Minister is trying to cash in on TAFE's brand to boost his bad poll numbers, but you can't claim that you're permanently funding 100,000 free TAFE places and refuse to allocate a single dollar. Having uncovered that Labor's commitment to make TAFE free permanently is unfunded, the coalition will oppose the Free TAFE Bill in the parliament. Australian students deserve better than fake pledges on skills and training. The coalition will oppose Labor's free TAFE legislation because it is unfunded. It could permanently increase Commonwealth spending by $500 million a year. It permanently commits the Commonwealth to fund free TAFE before it has even reviewed its existing product. Senate estimates confirmed there has been no review conducted into Labor's fee-free TAFE expenditure to date, which totals almost $1 billion from the Commonwealth. Only the Labor Party would seek to legislate a commitment to permanently fund a program without telling Australians how much it will cost or reviewing it to make sure that it actually works. I'm so disappointed in this, I really am, and I know that colleagues on our side—and, look, I'll be generous, on the Labor Party side—enjoy meeting people who've walked many miles in the shoes of those who are doing skills and training. It actually is something that we all appreciate. But there's a difference between meeting those people who are undertaking skills and training and having walked a mile in the shoes of the people who've done skills and training. As I look behind me in the ranks of the Liberal and National parties, I see so many people—I'm not even going to begin, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta; you know them too—who have lived real lives, have worked really hard and have gained trades and qualifications. Some have gone on to university. Many have run their own small businesses. But when I look at the Labor Party benches, I see people who've never risked a dollar of their own money in a business that might not succeed and who don't understand what it's like to not know what is happening in the next week, the next month or the next year because of the uncertainty they face under this government's cost-of-living crisis. That's why we have to be really careful about every dollar that we spend. That's why we have to say, 'Look, if a billion dollars is being spent on fee-free TAFE, it sounds good, but is it working? What does it actually look like in the real world?' I've heard some horror stories. Mr Howarth 247742 Hear, hear! Ms LEY 00AMN Really. The member for Petrie reminds me of when I was with him only last week. There are people who say that TAFE courses are being put on, but no students are turning up. This is because it's a fee-free product and somebody has decided that it's good to offer it in that particular TAFE at that particular time, but nobody actually asked students whether they wanted to study there. Or you've got hardworking people at Workforce Australia who know that they've got to get long-term unemployed people into work, so they allocate them to a TAFE class, thinking that that's the answer. But maybe it's not the answer, because it might not be the course that that person wants to study. And remember this, and it's a key principle and tenet of the Liberal Party: if you don't pay for something, you don't value it. So, if you're told that your TAFE is free and all you have to do is turn up—you actually have to do some work, and then you have to get a qualification at the end—and if that's all that it is but you haven't paid for it, you don't see it as something that makes a difference to you in your life; you don't see it as something valuable. Your idea of your pathway into a job might be completely different from this one that's been articulated for you by fee-free TAFE. We value the role that industry led training plays in this country, and I've made it clear in my remarks that, having studied at TAFE, I'm not anti TAFE, but we value the fact that we've got private providers who do an incredible job and who have much higher pass rates than the ones that we've been able to find from the government. Their pass rates, their failure rates and their dropout rates under fee-free TAFE, to the extent that they've informed us of those, have been extraordinarily low. It was the minister's own question time briefing that demonstrated that the dropout rate of only 13 per cent is extraordinary. I was quite horrified to hear that, and I then thought that if there's going to be a new policy that comes from this then it needs to have proper evaluation and it needs to have proper consideration. It's not good enough to invest this much taxpayers' money into something that isn't developing the skills and training pathway for the youth of today, because young people of today and those who undertake skills and training are worth much more than this. They're worth a government that understands what they need, what they deserve and how to best equip them for a future in the workforce. Debate adjourned. Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 15

Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024

Second Reading 15 13:19 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I move That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's: (1) rushed, half-finished and last-minute approach to legislating its scams prevention policy; and (2) failure to control homegrown inflation and address the cost-of-living crisis is leaving Australians more vulnerable to scams". The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 establishes a legislative framework to require designated sectors to prevent and respond to scams. The concept of a scams prevention framework is broadly supported in principle by all stakeholders, including the proposed regulated sectors, which would be banks, telcos and digital platforms. Taking action on scams is also something the coalition supports. Scam losses have increased exponentially in recent years, with losses for Australian consumers of $2.7 billion reported in 2023. The latest ACCC data also suggests scam losses have started trending up again since May. That is a huge amount stolen from Australians, often by overseas criminals, and it destroys lives and families. I know there are even people in this place, members of parliament or senators, who have themselves been victims of scams, so Australians must be vigilant. The scams are becoming more sophisticated. We agree there must be a minimum standard in place and a consistent approach to how banks, telcos and digital platforms act. The coalition has acted in good faith and waited patiently for the government to bring this forward. We have not politicised it or drawn attention to the delays. Unfortunately, the legislation served up to us today is rushed and half-finished. It is another example of the government leaving legislating these priorities until the last minute. The most important protections are still yet to be drafted, and it is looking impossible for the full framework to be operational before an election is called. The Albanese government promised sector specific mandatory codes but has not delivered them. The Albanese government promised a simple redress mechanism for consumers but has not delivered it. Delivering the best model to protect Australians from scams should have come ahead of the minister's attempt to save face by rushing this bill into parliament. I will say that there are features of the design that we agree with. Firstly, the whole-of-ecosystem approach is supported. The scam attack chain is complex, and focusing on where there is the most risk across banks, telcos and digital platforms is a sensible idea. Secondly, while consumers should have simple access to redress, I agree a mandatory or automatic reimbursement model is not the right approach. The proposed three-year statutory review will provide a good opportunity to assess whether this model is working, and that is also something we strongly support. I commend the minister for bringing legislation on this issue to parliament today, even if we believe it's a bit late. This is something that the minister clearly cares about. We've had 14 media releases from the minister on scams just this calendar year and a Press Club address which seemed to indicate that this legislation was going to be released, but unfortunately it took another three months to surface. You could describe the minister as a single-issue minister in the sense that, with his singular focus on this, at the expense of broader portfolio responsibilities, there has been a lot of talk but not a lot actually coming through the parliament as Australians have been left waiting for too long for the Albanese government to follow through on many of the announcements on scams. This was an election commitment from the Albanese government. It's unfortunate that, after taking 28 months in government to get their act together, this has now been done in a rushed, half-finished and last-minute manner. Given that this is something that is often spoken about by the government and the minister as a top priority, it hasn't necessarily been treated that way. This delay serves as an example of the government's legislative priorities that aren't often clear and of de-prioritisation of legislation within the Treasury portfolio under the minister's watch. While this legislation has finally made it here into the House of Reps today, the same can't be said of many of the other priorities in financial services. Time is running out. The runway for new legislation has likely already closed, given there will be an election next year. Items like tranche 2 of the Levy financial advice reforms have been too late and are at risk of falling apart. A licensing framework for payment service providers' stored-value facilities and stablecoins is nowhere to be seen. A licensing framework for digital assets platforms seems to have been abandoned, and ASIC is making policy via litigation. Buy-now, pay-later regulation remains stranded in the Senate, leaving CDR, or consumer data right, legislation to languish in parliament for almost two years, and the financial services regulatory grid has completely stalled. The Albanese government is more focused on announcements than follow-through. We've seen it more and more recently with the government's plan for a plan and thought bubble policy announcements completely lacking in detail, dominating rather than delivering on initiatives that they promised prior to the last election which are now 2½ years late. This process has been sloppy, and it serves as an example of the direction that this government is going in. They are already more focused on starting their election campaigning for May next year—we've seen with ministers during question time—rather than governing and getting some of the items through that I mentioned. The government needs to wake up. You're in government, and the election is not until May next year. An announcement is different from follow-through. The work still needs to be done. There are good intentions with this bill, intentions the opposition supports, but good intentions don't always equal good policy-making or good legislation. The consultation on this legislation has been unnecessarily rushed. As I've already said, the government took 28 months to come up with this and then ran a shortened three-week consultation period on the draft legislation. The bill was then turned around for introduction four weeks later, with little of the consultation feedback incorporated as a result. This is complex legislation. These aren't minor amendments without a regulatory burden that can be rammed through without scrutiny. Every stakeholder I talk to is disappointed by the slapdash approach. It's no surprise that a recent freedom of information release revealed that the government gave special treatment to the banks, particularly to the ABA, to conduct special hothouse, targeted consultation sessions. Other regulated sectors claim this opportunity was not afforded to them, and aspects of the final design were a surprise. I don't begrudge the banks for this. They have every right to have input and argue for their interests, but it is the government's responsibility to ensure there is proper, meaningful consultation and that all of the sectors that face significant penalties for breaching this scheme have at least some input. I'm seriously concerned about the impact of the secretive approach to consultation that the Albanese government has made the norm, particularly over the last 12 months. We are seeing this again with the development of the second tranche of the Levy financial advice reforms. The government has started up another hothouse for selected stakeholders in secret, all bound by nondisclosure agreements. As we have seen with this scams legislation, I'm sure that the government will again lob draft legislation on financial advice reforms out for another shortened consultation period and ignore the majority of the advice community that has been excluded. Then the government will again wonder why nobody is standing with them to endorse it. Although the government truncated consultation and some stakeholders couldn't even make a submission in the time provided, the feedback that was provided was critical. The bill has been described as rushed, heavy-handed, complex, unclear and stacked against consumers. For context, I note the bill has three key aspects: (1) enforceable, principles based obligations in the primary legislation which apply to each sector once designated, with the ACCC as a responsible regulator; (2) a regulation-making power for the minister to designate sectors and regulators; and (3) a regulation-making power for the minister to make mandatory, sector-specific codes with prescriptive obligations. So, once this legislation is enacted, the government will have to consult on and make sector designation instruments and the mandatory codes. Despite being Minister Jones's top priority, this bill has been left to the last six months of the term at best and is unlikely to be fully operational before the election. These delays haven't been caused by the opposition. It hasn't been the Liberal and National parties which have caused these delays. We had been given just a week before the debate resumed. A significant amount of stakeholder feedback has focused on the uncertainty created by the use of broad, overarching obligations in the primary legislation which require taking 'reasonable steps'. In previous stages of consultation, the government's focus was on prescriptive obligations contained in sector-specific mandatory codes which clearly outline the practical minimum standards expected for each sector. With these codes still yet to be developed, the government has instead created these principle based obligations with significant civil penalties attached in the primary legislation, which I assume will eventually be supplemented by codes. The regulated sectors say it is difficult to understand how these obligations will be interpreted— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! I thank the honourable shadow assistant minister. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 17 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Forde Electorate: Eagleby Achiever Awards 17 13:30 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde In a wonderful, leafy eastern pocket of my electorate, you'll find the proud and storied suburb of Eagleby, with more than 14,000 residents living there. One of the mainstays of the Eagleby community over the past four decades has been the Eagleby Community Association Inc. Last Saturday night it was my privilege to attend the association's annual Eagleby Achiever Awards. Ably led by President Arthur Joyce, the association received 42 nominations across nine categories. Let me tell you that the number of worthy nominees and recipients from that community is far greater than could be acknowledged in any one evening or in this speech. It was my great pleasure to personally present the Business of the Year award to Cafe in Eagle—an exceptionally worthy recipient and a wonderful little cafe in the Eagleby shopping centre. The first cab off the rank for the awards was the Arts Achiever of the Year award, which went to the Eagle Rock choir from Eagleby State School. Sports Achiever of the Year went to Amulek Ford. Senior of the Year was awarded to the wonderful Sue Bischoff. William Baldock was named Eagleby's Young Person of the Year, while Educator of the Year was Amy Hopewell, and Volunteer of the Year went to Katherine Fludder. Nightlight Outreach homeless service won the Community Organisation of the Year award, and the Spirit of Eagleby award went to Haydon Campbell Pearce. Thank you to all of our wonderful community. Werriwa Electorate: Schools 17 13:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Last week I attended just three of the wonderful schools in Werriwa. First I went to St Francis Catholic College at Edmonson Park for the blessing and opening of their new administration and junior years schoolrooms and library. It was a wonderful day of celebration in the company of Bishop Brian Mascord; Peter Hill, who is the Director of Schools; and the entire St Francis community. Next I went to Malek Fahd Islamic School at Hoxton Park. I was met by the principal, Dr Zachariah Matthews, and the acting head of campus, Ms Tulin Bragg. The occasion was the opening of the solar panels and batteries, which were funded by an Australian government grant. I was so impressed by the year 6 student Zara's explanation of sustainability and its relationship to teaching and the Koran. Again the occasion was a great cause of celebration and excitement. Finally I attended Al-Faisal College at Liverpool for the opening of their stage 2 library building. Thank you to the founder and managing director of the Al-Faisal colleges, Mr Shafiq Khan, and executive principal Mrs Safia Khan Hassanein for welcoming me so warmly. The stage 2 buildings feature lecture rooms, 11 general learning areas and a state-of-the-art, beautiful library. Congratulations to all these communities, and thank you so much for the invitations. Housing 17 13:33 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey As I talk to locals in my community, I hear so many stories from people about their concerns about homeownership. Graham has shared with me his concern for his grandchildren, who are in their mid-20s with well-paying jobs and who have virtually given up on the dream of owning their own home. Right now it feels impossible to get into your own home no matter how hard you work and save. That's why a Peter Dutton coalition government will help speed up the construction of up to 500,000 homes with $5 billion to fund the essential infrastructure that's delaying them, unlocking more homes more quickly. This includes sites such as Kinley Estate, in my community, with funding being used to build critical road infrastructure that will not only help unlock more homes in Kinley but also reduce congestion on our existing local roads in Lilydale and Mooroolbark. To further help first home buyers, we'll allow Australians to access up to $50,000 of their money from their super to buy their first home. It's time to rebuild the great Australian dream of homeownership, and only the coalition has a real plan to get Australians out of renting and into their own homes. Schools 17 13:34 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Public schools in the ACT will receive more Commonwealth funding following a landmark agreement signed by the Albanese and ACT Labor governments today. I was pleased to join with the federal and ACT ministers for education at the Evelyn Scott School in Denman Prospect today to make this announcement and recognise the benefits that will flow to ACT students for many years to come. The new agreement ties additional Commonwealth funding to practical reforms which will help ACT students to catch up, keep up and finish school. It also commits the Australian government to increasing its funding to ACT public schools. The Commonwealth will contribute an extra $110.5 million to ACT public schools from 2025 to 2029, with more than $1 billion in total funding being provided to ACT public schools across the five years. The Australian government's funding increase is conditional on the ACT maintaining its funding share for public schools—something it already does. The new agreement includes practical things like year 1 phonics checks, early-years-of-schooling numeracy checks, evidence based teaching and catch-up tutoring to identify kids who need additional support and to make sure that they get it. This new agreement is proof positive of the benefits of governments at a national and territory level working together and of the importance of education to this government. Raise Our Voice Australia 18 13:36 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Today, I wish to amplify the voices of Ava and Noa, two young people in Goldstein who were part of Raise Our Voice Australia's campaign. The topic was their vision for Australia. Seventeen-year-old Ava said: The Australian story has always been one of resilience and innovation. As we look to the future, it is imperative that we continue to harness an unwavering commitment that has fuelled our past successes. Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said "that real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time." As we envisage the future of Australia, we must keep this in mind. I can't imagine the state of our nation a decade from now, yet I am confident the strength of our democracy, sustained with visionary leaders, will allow us to flourish. Fifteen-year-old Noa had a more pointed message for this place. He said: I dream of becoming a politician. I lie awake envisioning the difference I can make in the lives of Australians. But every time HECS and Medicare are brought up, I'm reminded I am not a citizen. Legally, I cannot become a politician. Never mind that I have lived here for 7 years. Or that my mum works 10-hour days in childcare, nurturing the next generation. Work sponsorship legislation must be amended so that regardless of the employee's salary or age, immigrants can apply for citizenship … He said: 'I don't want to wait a decade for change. Our parliament should act now.' Thank you, Ava and Noa. Hunter Electorate: Local Sporting Champions 18 13:37 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter The Hunter has produced a remarkable stack of professional and elite athletes, and I want to make sure that we support the next crop of our local sporting talent so that our next generation of superstars also comes from the Hunter. Participating in high-level sport comes at a cost, and it's mostly the parents who put their hands in their pockets to get their kids to these competitions. The Local Sporting Champions program provides financial assistance to young people to compete, coach and umpire in their chosen sports. These small grants make a significant difference to the athletes and their parents. I want to congratulate our recent local sporting champions. Aaliyah Kilroy competed in the National Youth Championships for soccer; Hudson Caban went to the Australian School Sport Australia championship for hockey; Jacey Coote competed in the Karate Australia national championships; Valentina Costa swam in the Australian Short Course Swimming Championships and the Australian Open Championships; Phoenix and Leura Russell both went to the 2024 School Sport Australia all-girls Australian football championships; Joel Beashel competed in the 2024 Youth Match Racing World Championship, an international sailing event; and, finally, Drew Kremer went to the Australian Junior Motocross Championships. Congratulations to all of these local sporting champions from the Hunter. Stay committed, train hard and keep doing what you're doing. We'll always continue to support you. Thank you. Housing 18 13:39 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Australians are dealing with an unprecedented housing crisis three decades in the making. Rising interest rates, cost-of-living pressures, soaring building costs and a growing housing shortfall have led to decreasing homeownership rates and a critical shortage of rentals. Many first home buyers are losing hope of ever buying a house unless they can receive financial support from their parents. All levels of government and politicians have to address this issue. Federally, it has been extremely disappointing to see the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens refusing to work with the government and the crossbench on housing reform. At the same time, the Victorian state government has announced sweeping plans to allow very large-scale developments in electorates like Kooyong without giving communities the appropriate reassurance that they need and deserve about how we can increase housing density sensitively, prioritising good planning, inclusiveness, sustainability and local amenities. Every policy lever needs to be pulled on housing. Our communities know that, and they deserve better from their politicians. We have to remember that housing is a human right, and we have to work together consultatively and conscientiously so that the next generation can afford to live in well-designed, sustainable homes in our cities and not on the peripheries, close to their family and close to their friends. South Australia: Croatian Festa 19 13:40 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin This Saturday, 23 November, South Australia's Croatian community will host its annual Croatian Festa at the Croatian Sports Centre within State Sports Park, at Gepps Cross. The Croatian Festa, which showcases Croatian culture, food, entertainment and a spectacular fireworks finale, has become a popular major event in the South Australian cultural calendar. It is a family friendly event, with a range of stalls and plenty of kids entertainment. Croatians have a long history as part of the South Australian community, with sailor Christopher Dabovic being possibly the first to settle in South Australia, in 1854. Notably, Dr Matthew Beovich, the son of a Croatian who migrated in the 1880s, became the longest-serving Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, holding that office between 1940 and 1971. Today, around 10,000 South Australians are of Croatian heritage, and they have very successfully integrated throughout South Australia across all walks of life. From business to the professions, trades and sports, their contribution to South Australian life has been extensive. South Australian Croatians have much to be proud of, and their hospitality and good cheer will be on display at the Festa. For anyone in Adelaide this coming Saturday wanting a family-fun-day outing, I encourage them to go along to the Croatian Festa. Raise Our Voice Australia 19 13:42 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I take the opportunity to share a speech written by 12-year-old Harriet for the Raise Our Voice campaign. She wrote, aptly: Cyber bullying is a real problem that effects many children my age. Social media is a huge part of everyday life … It has many advantages though these come with disadvantages, such as social isolation and risk of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying involves using technology to harass, intimidate, embarrass, or target someone … I believe that we need to have more protection in the online space to prevent cyber bullying. 1 in 3 teenagers in Australia faces cyber bullying … Children who are cyberbullied struggle to concentrate at school, which affects their learning capabilities. Cyberbullying is linked to anxiety, depression & other stress related symptoms such as panic attacks. I believe on each of our social media apps we should have an option to say if we are feeling threatened. Blocking bullies is not enough to save victims from being cyber bullied. Well said, Harriet. I want you to know, Harriet, that your parliament is doing its best by working in this place to try and make the cyber world a safer place for you and all your friends, and we won't rest until we do. Hasluck Electorate 19 13:43 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck People often ask me what I stand for. I stand for mums who want a choice on where their baby is born, be it at home or be it in a culturally safe practice on country or in hospital. I stand for that choice, and I stand for the nurses and the midwives to ensure they have access to Medicare and insurance to stand by the side of those mums and offer that service. I stand for families with children in government schools to ensure they're fully 100 per cent funded. I stand for young people who want to gain new skills and for older workers who want to re-skill by providing fee-free TAFE. I stand for students who want to do teaching and nursing and not hold down two jobs by offering paid practicum. I stand for every single taxpayer who now gets a tax cut, not just for some. I stand for people who are ill, who need access to affordable medicines. I stand for free and accessible education in the TAFE system, which ensures we have a pathway for people working in aged care and early childhood education and that they are fairly paid. These are the things that I stand for. The people in my electorate of Hasluck have no idea what those opposite stand for, because those opposite have opposed these policies. They are absolutely not on the side of all Australians, and I will stand for every Australian. Women's Rights 19 13:45 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to ask: why are left-leaning parliamentarians in Labor and the Greens so hypocritical about the plight of women? Let me be clear: they have had plenty to say in this place and the other about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as it is affecting Palestinian women, yet they are silent about Israeli women who were raped to death on 7 October last year. They are silent about the 101 hostages, including five young women, still being held in underground tunnels by Hamas, a recognised terrorist organisation. I have heard no condemnation of the women-hating regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where women now are prohibited from speaking, praying and singing in public; where young girls are banned from education, married off as teenagers to elderly men, and denied employment as well as the freedom to dress as they please. There has been silence from that side about the fate of the young Iranian woman Ahoo Daryaei, who was last seen walking around the campus grounds of an Iranian university dressed only in underwear. She walked slowly, her actions and steps deliberate and courageous in the face of the abhorrent, misogynistic, violent Iranian regime, where sharia law is the law of the land—a regime supported by the Albanese government and the United Nations. This is a government that proudly sprukes a record number of female parliamentarians. Where are those strong female voices? Where are the— (Time expired) I'Hanson, Mr Kohen, Mitchel, Mr Kia 20 13:46 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My office recently had a plumbing issue that required immediate and expert attention. We were fortunate to receive a visit from local Avoca Beach plumber Kohen I'Anson. Kohen comes from an extensive line of plumbers. Eight members of his family have completed their plumbing trade, which is certainly an impressive lineage of family history. Kohen was able to rectify our plumbing issue marvellously, which the whole team and I were appreciative of. We continued chatting to Kohen and became aware that he and Kia Mitchel, also from Avoca Beach, recently competed in the WorldSkills regional competition for plumbing and heating, hosted by TAFE NSW. The event took place at Wyong during July this year, and a direct quote from WorldSkills, Hunter was, 'Both students competed at a very high standard, with Kia being awarded a bronze medal.' The feedback from clients of the businesses that these young plumbers work for is exemplary, and their TAFE teachers have applauded their efforts. It is fair to say that these two young men have done themselves and the Central Coast proud. Their families are equally as proud of the young men they are and the young men they are becoming. A significant contributor to the success of Kohen and Kia is TAFE. TAFE continues to be there for working families across the nation, and we must never underestimate the power of TAFE and the role that it plays in supporting young people to achieve their dreams. The federal Labor government will continue to fight to maintain TAFE's position as the leading provider of vocational education and training across Australia. Mallee Electorate: Energy and Mining 20 13:48 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee We learnt this week that Labor's fiscal recklessness on radical energy policy will cost taxpayers a mere $642 billion—$500 million more than they have claimed. But in my electorate of Mallee it's worse. Labor are acting like feudal lords. Mallee farmers are being treated like peasants. Farmers thought they had private property rights; however, Labor have pointed at Mallee from their capital city ivory tower and knocked over the safeguards, and—lo and behold—the energy sector raiders have swooped in to carve up Mallee farms and stir bad blood among small local communities. In Mallee alone, over 50 energy projects have been enticed by a proposed 350 kilometres of huge towers to transmit energy south, from Warracknabeal through Bulgana and then north through Charlton and Tragowel. If those 50-plus projects get up, there'll be many more transmission lines than that. Mineral sands companies are also carving up swathes of Mallee's prime agricultural land. Farmers severely doubt mining companies' claims that they can restore the land after they take their chunk of premium topsoil out. Labor are traumatising farmers, who are treated like serfs, all so that Labor can rob regions to buy votes in the cities. Chisholm Electorate: Tertiary Education 20 13:49 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I know how important vocational and higher education is to my community in Chisholm. It's really important to me too, and I'll always fight to ensure that people in my electorate can access the high-quality education that they deserve. I'm really pleased to be part of a government that prioritises education and is taking significant tangible steps to reduce the cost of living for those pursuing an education. We are wiping student debt. We are lowering the threshold for the repayment of HECS and HELP, and this will put money back in the pockets of tens of thousands of people in Chisholm. If re-elected we will ensure that fee-free TAFE is permanent, after we've seen hundreds of thousands of students across the country successfully accessing opportunity through this program. Our community of Chisholm cannot risk the prospect of a Peter Dutton led Liberal government. We know that when they were last in power they made university more expensive and absolutely neglected vocational education and training. They slammed shut the doors of opportunity that Labor has always worked hard to open. Peter Dutton will send our country backwards and deprive people of a chance of success, and none of us, especially those of us in Chisholm, can afford that. McHappy Day 21 13:51 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Saturday 16 November was McHappy Day. This is a day when a percentage of McDonald's sales across Australia go to the Ronald McDonald House charity, which provides a home away from home for families with seriously ill children. I was extremely 'mchappy' when I received the invite from Andrew and Jaide, the owners of the local Maccas in my hometown of Bowen, to be part of the fantastic fundraising event. I was stationed at the drive-through, where I was lucky enough to see a lot of familiar faces coming through in support of this charity. A big thank you to Nicole, who I was paired with, for her patience and help in getting the meals out in record time. Local firies Mitch and Jack, who I can say were a bigger hit with the kids than me, joined in the fundraising action. A huge thank you and well done to store manager Casey, who kept everything running smoothly and even took the time to show me how to swirl a soft serve ice cream. Sam from Ronald McDonald House in Mackay was instore. Sam carries out incredible work to ensure that families with children receiving medical treatment are as comfortable as possible. A huge congratulations to the Maccas team of Bowen. You do fantastic work. Thank you for your support for Ronald McDonald House. You guys rock! Intellectual Disability Health 21 13:52 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Today I met with the senior advocate from the Council for Intellectual Disability, Jim Simpson, and the delightful Ms Laura Naing. Laura is a 27-year-old woman who lives with intellectual disability, and she told me in no uncertain terms that people with intellectual disability deserve better health care. We know that they have poorer life expectancy. We know that they have trouble getting treatment in primary care. We know that their outcomes in hospital treatment are worse than other Australians. It's time for change. The Albanese Labor government has funded the Centre for Excellence in Intellectual Disability Health at the University of New South Wales, but more needs to be done within the health profession. We need to make sure our doctors and nurses are trained to care for people with intellectual disability. It takes a little bit more time and a little bit more effort to look after people with intellectual disability, but they deserve better care. I'm committed to trying to make sure that we continue to improve outcomes for people with intellectual disability in the health system. Laura was a wonderful advocate, and I cannot sing her praises highly enough. She delivered her message very clearly, and I thank her for that. Energy 21 13:54 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Hot off the press from COP29 in Baku, the Australian online website states: … the British government announced that the Australian government was "expected" to join its UK and US "allies" in signing an agreement to speed up the development of civilian nuclear energy and decarbonise industry from March next year. This comes hot on the heels of the Frontier Economics Report1 - Developing a base case to assess the relative costs of nuclear power in the NEM, which has exposed Labor's $122 billion lie. Their modelling shows that the true cost of Labor's renewables plan will be at least $642 billion, and this does not include their plans for my home state of Western Australia. Recently, on the ABC's Country Hour, Jai Thomas, Coordinator of Energy for a new WA government initiative called PoweringWA, estimated the level of investment required for WA's energy system will be 'in the order of $200 billion over the next 20 to 25 years'. The true cost of renewables is becoming clear. Nuclear as part of Australia's balanced energy mix to firm up renewables is increasingly obvious. I look forward to the 16 December Collie hearing of the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy and thank those who've already lodged submissions. I envisage science will prevail and Collie will continue its vital role of keeping the lights on for WA long into the future. Vocational Education and Training 21 13:55 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon A strong vocational education and training sector is critical to ensuring Territorians get a secure, well-paid job. The Albanese Labor government is investing in the skills that the Territory needs by making fee-free TAFE permanent for young Territorians, helping relieving cost-of-living pressures and building Australia's future. Last month, my colleague the Minister for Skills and Training saw firsthand how fee-free TAFE is benefiting young Territorians in Darwin. We visited the Renewable Energy Microgrid Hub for Applied Research and Training, otherwise known as REMHART, at CDU East Arm. This is an innovation hub for renewable energy systems. Training and developing a Territory workforce that is equipped with practical skills is essential for a net zero transformation. I acknowledge the work of Professor Suresh Thennadil and his team at REMHART. We plan to further develop a renewable energy centre of excellence at CDU that brings together CDU, industry and unions in a powerful collaboration to drive skilled jobs across the Territory. There will be a choice next year. There will be no fee-free TAFE under the Liberals; only Labor will keep fee-free TAFE. Bonner Electorate 22 13:57 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I extend my deepest gratitude and thanks to the people of Bonner for yet another fantastic year. Being part of a strong community is one of the most important and rewarding parts of life, and every individual has played a vital role in making Bonner the wonderful community that it is today. Today, there are a few groups that I would like to acknowledge in particular. To the teachers of Bonner, I thank you for your passion and commitment to education, shaping and inspiring our young people. I'm sure it's not always an easy task, but you play a key role in nurturing our community and I'm sincerely grateful for all your hard work and dedication. I'd also like to recognise our local businesses in Bonner. Reflecting on my days as a small-business owner in Carina, I understand how challenging it can be even at the best of times. I also know that your work is crucial to bringing our community together, and I thank you for your continued efforts. Finally, I would like to thank our amazing Bonner locals. I'm so proud to be part of this community and to stand alongside my neighbours and friends. It's my greatest honour to represent the incredible people of Bonner down here in Canberra, and I'm looking forward to all the success that awaits Bonner in 2025. Vocational Education and Training 22 13:58 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Labor is the party of education. Whether through TAFE or universities, we're delivering policies that invest in people and their future while keeping education costs down. Two weeks ago, the Albanese Labor government introduced legislation to make permanent free TAFE a feature of Australia's education system. This guarantees 100,000 free TAFE places annually and creates vital pathways for Australians to gain the skills that our nation needs. Last week, the Albanese Labor government announced a new university study hub in Melton, in my electorate, ensuring that where you live doesn't limit your access to university education. This hub will give local students the resources and support to pursue university studies close to home, creating more opportunities for education and upskilling. These important initiatives come alongside investments by the Victorian Labor government, including funding for new TAFE campuses in Melton and Sunbury. Alongside permanent free TAFE, these projects will deliver world-class vocational education, meeting the needs of both students and local employees. After nearly a decade of neglect under the Liberals which saw TAFE gutted, the Albanese government is rebuilding our vocational education and training sector. While we're making free TAFE permanent, the Liberals are calling it wasteful. The Liberal Party have no vision for education and no plan for skills. Peter Dutton's arrogance is putting Australia's future at risk. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 I remind all members, including the member for Hawke, to refer to members by their correct titles. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 22 CONDOLENCES Coulter, Mr John Richard 22 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the House of the death on 6 September 2024 of John Richard Coulter, a former senator. John Coulter represented the state of South Australia from 1987 to 1995. As a mark of respect to the memory of John Coulter, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having s tood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Nuclear Energy 23 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Overnight, at COP29, the United States and the United Kingdom signed a new agreement for civil nuclear reactor collaboration. The UK Labour government has stated the agreement is 'expected' to also be signed by Australia and it will 'speed up the deployment of cutting-edge nuclear technology to help decarbonise industry and boost energy security'. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm Australia will sign this civil nuclear reactor agreement? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fisher is warned. I don't want people interjecting—and I don't think anyone wants people interjecting—before a minister or the Acting Prime Minister speaks. 14:01 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can confirm that the Australian government will not be signing that agreement. For Australia, pursuing a path of nuclear energy would represent pursuing the single most expensive electricity option on the planet. For Australia, pursuing a path of nuclear energy would be pursuing a path which would see $1,200 added to the household energy bill of each household in this country. For Australia, pursuing nuclear energy would be pursuing a path which wouldn't see any new electricity into our grid for 20 years. For Australia, pursuing a path of nuclear energy would be pursuing a path which would only see, at best, four per cent contributed to the electricity grid two decades from now. Because we do not have a civil nuclear industry, this agreement does not apply to us, pure and simple. Vocational Education and Training 23 14:03 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. What measures is the Albanese Labor government introducing to provide secure, well-paid jobs to help with the cost of living? What is standing in the way of this and other cost-of-living measures? 14:03 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service. Last week I attended the Regency Park campus of TAFE SA, where the government made announcements about a couple of new programs in training, which included more apprentices for AUKUS. This was the next step in a set of policies which was really underpinned by the announcement that the Prime Minister made three weeks ago that, under an Albanese government, free TAFE will be an enduring feature of Australia's educational system—a hundred thousand free TAFE places each and every year from 2027. And already, since we've come to power, 500,000 Australians have taken up the opportunity of free TAFE, and that includes 35,000 in construction and 49,000 in IT. This is accessible education which is generating skills, which is transforming lives, which is building our nation's economy and which is making Australia smarter. But, according to the Leader of the Opposition, all of that is just a waste. Perhaps we should not be surprised, because the Leader of the Opposition has opposed all of our cost-of-living measures, including free TAFE. He said no to energy bill relief twice, he said no to more affordable childcare, he said no to cheaper medicines and he said no to increases in the minimum wage. What is more surprising is that this Leader of the Opposition is teaming up with the other Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, the leader of the Greens political party, and the two of them are having quite the love affair. Off in the Senate, they have worked together to oppose the building of more social housing, they've worked together to oppose a more-business-responsive environmental protection agency and, last night, they worked together to oppose caps on international students. The Liberals and the Greens are working together on immigration. These two are holding hands, walking off into the sunset. They have completely abandoned everything they believe in and they are cooperating simply to maximise the political damage to our country. Every Australian should be clear that, if you vote Liberal or if you vote Greens, here in Canberra it's just the one team, and all those parties over there are utterly committed to their own self-interest. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI On a point of order, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister could just clarify whether or not he is still providing preferences and accepting preferences from the Australian Greens. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The acting Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Minister for Defence Industry is now warned. The Leader of the Opposition has abused the standing orders in a grievous way, and I'm reluctant to do this, but he is now warned. We simply can't have people jumping up. If that was the case, there's no point of having question time. Standing orders are put in place so that we can run this effectively and efficiently, and, if people are going to just take advantage or take the mickey, we're doing the people of Australia a disservice. So there's just far too much noise. Everyone is going to calm down and we're just going to hear from the acting Prime Minister for the remaining 16 seconds. Mr MARLES HWQ Their embarrassment is manifest. Australians should also know that, when they vote Labor, they are voting for a government which is utterly focused on them, utterly focused on their household budgets and utterly focused on their future. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for La Trobe, I'm trying to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You are warned. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call. Nuclear Energy 24 14:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the acting Prime Minister. Did the Australian government make any representations to the UK government for the reference to Australia contained in the press release titled 'UK and US join forces to speed up advanced nuclear technologies' to be withdrawn? 14:08 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the shadow minister for her question. The position of the Australian government has been completely clear: we're not signing this agreement. This agreement is in respect of two countries which both have a civil nuclear industry, and we do not. It's completely clear that for Australia to— An opposition member interjecting— Mr MARLES HWQ I take the interjection. The idea that the reactor in Lucas Heights is about to power cities around Australia says everything about how those opposite have no idea how nuclear energy works. The Leader of the Opposition come up here earlier and said that all we need to do is to get some uranium together and burn it, and, if we burn some uranium, that's how we'll create energy. That's the level of their understanding. The idea that Lucas Heights, which is a research facility which produces medical isotopes, is somehow going to be a reactor which powers cities says everything about how they have no idea what they are talking about. Ms Ley 00AMN The point of order is on relevance. The question was very direct about whether representations were made to the UK government about the title of a press release, and the Acting Prime Minister could say yes or could say no. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, he could say those things, but, under the standing orders, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, he doesn't have to. He needs to remain directly relevant to the policy topic and to the question he was asked. I am sure he will follow the standing orders, just as I am sure everyone follows the standing orders. Mr MARLES HWQ What I am saying is that the Australian government is not signing this agreement. It is an agreement which goes to civil nuclear energy. That means nuclear reactors which provide energy to cities and to electricity grids, and we do not have that in this country. As a result, this agreement is not relevant to Australia. Gender Equality 24 14:11 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How are the Albanese Labor government's policies and reforms helping to close the gender pay gap and supporting women's economic security and equality? How does this compare to other approaches? 14:12 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Canberra for her question, as well as for her continued advocacy for progressing the cause of Australian women. This government is working every single day to make women's lives better, fairer and more equal. We've taken targeted action to improve women's economic security and equality and, of course, to close the gender pay gap. We've increased the pay for early childhood educators. We've secured record pay rises for hundreds of thousands of women on award wages. We've fixed the bargaining system to get wages moving in feminised industries. Under this government, women's average weekly earnings have increased $173.80 a week since May 2022. We've been publishing employer gender pay gaps to hold companies to account and we've reached record highs in women's economic participation. Under Labor the gender pay gap is the lowest it has ever been at 11.5 per cent, down from 14.1 per cent when we first came to office. Yesterday, the ACTU released research that shows that our policies are closing the gender pay gap at a rate three times faster than under those opposite. We're closing the gender pay gap at a rate of 1.3 per cent per year compared to the rate of 0.4 per cent under the coalition. If we had have continued down the path of those opposite and not done the hard work of implementing policies such as making gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act, expanding paid parental leave and banning pay secrecy, the average full-time working woman in Australia would be $1,900 a year worse off than they are now. The research also shows that a whole-of-government commitment to gender pay equality through our national strategy and by putting women at the centre of our economic agenda is making a difference. We've made these changes because women deserve economic security. They deserve economic equality. And we've made these changes because we want to put women at the centre of our economic agenda. And those policies are working. I'm asked about other policies. The Liberals and Nationals have not put forward a single meaningful policy to improve outcomes for women. They've opposed many of Labor's reforms that have delivered those real outcomes for women. It is, frankly, clear that this Leader of the Opposition is a risk to this progress—the progress of women's equality—because we know his record. We know his record of pushing wages down, pushing prices up and not supporting all of the measures that Labor has put in place to make sure we actually closed the gender pay gap. The Leader of the Opposition's reckless arrogance has real costs for Australian women. His agenda is wrong for Australia, and it is wrong for Australia's women. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I called the member for Brisbane, I'll do some quick acknowledgements. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Tasmania, North Queensland, Monaghan, Hon. Mark, Pharmacy Guild of Australia National Council 25 14:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today as guests of the member for Bass are the mayor of the City of Launceston, Matthew Garwood; the CEO of the City of Launceston, Sam Johnson; and the CEO of Regional Development Australia Tasmania, James McKee. In the gallery today there is also a delegation of business and industry leaders from tropical north Queensland, led by Advance Cairns, in collaboration with Tourism Tropical North Queensland and the Cairns Chamber of Commerce. Also joining us today is the Hon. Mark Monaghan, former member for Fong Lim and the 14th Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. There is also a delegation from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia National Council. On behalf of all members, welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Universities 25 14:16 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Students and young people are saddled with billions of dollars of student debt. These debts can be in the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands, of dollars, making it harder for people to get their first home and to make ends meet. If the government can introduce its bill for free TAFE this week, why can't a bill to wipe 20 per cent of student debt be introduced this week as well? Why should young people and students be forced to wait to see the outcome of an election, when the government could work with the Greens to get this done now? Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 You could do it now. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. So will the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Acting Prime Minister has the call. 14:16 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. If the member is going to the legislative productivity of this parliament, that could be improved if the Greens actually supported government legislation, instead of teaming up with their partners here, the Liberals, to make sure that they ultimately oppose everything. But the member did raise the policy—which is an important policy, which was announced by the Prime Minister—which is doing something about the increasing student debt that we are seeing in our country. That policy is removing 20 per cent of the debt that is held by those who have gone through university and have incurred a student debt. That is a step that has been taken—which is opposed by those opposite—to not only improve the cost of living but improve the lives of those who study and to make university and study in this country much more accessible. So Australians know that, when they vote for this government, they are getting a government which is going to be focused on the cost of living, but focused on the cost of living impacts in terms of education. Making sure that fee-free TAFE is accessible to all Australians and reducing student debt—that is the focus of our government. That has been the focus of our education policy. That has been the focus of our Prime Minister. I would encourage the Greens, if they are so fervent in their support of this, to reflect that support in the way in which they behave in this parliament. National Reconstruction Fund 26 14:18 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Why is today's announcement of the first investments for the National Reconstruction Fund for Australian manufacturing and Australian jobs so important, and what risks are there to the future of these jobs? 14:19 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Paterson, who's a huge supporter of regional manufacturing. Today is a landmark day for Australian manufacturing. It's the day that the Albanese government deliver on our promise to back Australian manufacturing—that we are a country that makes things, that we can stand on our own two feet, that we aren't dependent on vulnerable or concentrated supply chains and that, in the process, we can make secure, well-paying jobs in our regions and in our suburbs. Today the NRF announced a $40 million investment in Toowoomba's Russell Mineral Equipment, an Australian success story. Since 1985, they have been making cutting-edge mining equipment, employing 450 workers, exporting 90 per cent of what they make and making a billion dollars of earnings for our country. Overseas investors are always knocking on their door, trying to take them and the jobs with them off our shores. But the NRF, teaming up with private investors, has basically kept Russell Mineral Equipment in Aussie hands. Regional jobs are safe. Dr John Russell, who founded RME, is a proud Australian who says, 'We can do whatever we turn our minds to.' He said, 'The NRF is a blessing for Australian manufacturers.' I'm asked about risks. Well, the risks are all the negativity from that side. I noticed they put out a statement in relation to the NRF; it was less of a statement and more of a ticker tape of criticism and of negativity, wringing their hands about the fact that we're backing in Australian manufacturing—so negative. They boo Santa! Tis the season to be jolly, unless you're a Lib or a Nat. Tis the season to be jolly. You don't have much to be proud about, do you? In office, they saw off 100,000 manufacturing jobs. We created 70,000 of them; they saw off 100,000. They sneered, they goaded and they dared Australian car manufacturers to leave our shores. They wouldn't back the National Reconstruction Fund, and, on top of that, they would not back energy price relief that shielded manufacturers from the worst of energy price rises. They have nothing to be proud about; they have no ideas or plans for Australian manufacturing. They'll always turn up for the photo op, but they're never there to back up Australian manufacturing. Frankly, they want to take Australian manufacturing backwards, and the country with it. We think better can be done, and we are showing how that will happen. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Canning, the member for Fisher was warned in the first question and has continued his interjections, despite knowing the rules, so he'll now leave the chamber under 94(a). I remind everyone there are consequences for actions in this place. So if you get warned—it's a really big tip—don't interject, no matter who you are. The member for Fisher then left the chamber. Defence Procurement: Submarines 26 14:22 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Why did Labor sign up to the AUKUS nuclear submarine program when Australia had no pre-existing Australian nuclear submarine industry? 14:23 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I really do appreciate the question from the shadow minister, but it does worry me that the shadow defence minister of this country doesn't understand submarines 101. But, then again, that perhaps should not be a surprise, because those opposite are the ones who gave us a 10-year capability gap in our submarines, as they were in and out of a deal with Japan and then in and out of a deal with France. It was not until the ninth year of their government that they actually came up with a solution to the successor of our Collins class submarines, and they really only succeeded in that solution by virtue of the fact that were elected out of office a few months later and Labor have been the ones who have been able to deliver it. The answer to the shadow minister's question goes directly to the question of our nation's submarine capability. We know that, in order to have an enduring, long-range submarine capability into the 2030s and 2040s which matches the capability that we in fact had in the 2000s with the introduction of the Collins class, we have to move from a diesel electric powered submarine to a nuclear powered submarine, and we make no apology for that. What is astonishing is that the brains trust over here somehow believe that eight nuclear reactors which will each power a single machine is somehow the basis for them grounding a policy to establish a civil nuclear industry in this country which is intended to power cities and states and, in fact, the entire nation. It is the equivalent of saying that there is a similarity between a coal-fired power station and a lawnmower because they both burn hydrocarbons. It says everything about how they do not understand what is at stake here. The simple fact is this: if this country moves down the path of a civil nuclear industry under this Leader of the Opposition, this country will be embracing the most expensive form of energy and the most expensive form of electricity, and no amount of these questions can escape that fact. An extra $1,200 per household; that's what we're talking about. We're talking about in 20 years' time, and in 20 years' time we will only be talking about four per cent of the electricity grid. That's what their policy amounts to. That's why it's a dog of a policy. Wages 27 14:26 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Treasurer. Why is decent pay such an important part of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to help ease cost-of-living pressures? How does this approach differ from what has failed in the past? 14:26 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Boothby for her great question and an even better representation. Inflation is coming down, wages are going up and cost-of-living relief is rolling out to every taxpayer and to every corner of our country. A million more people are working. They are earning more, they are keeping more of what they earn and participation in work is at record highs. Consumer confidence is still relatively weak, but it's rising. It rose again today, in new numbers today—the highest in a couple of years. It showed that household confidence, in the 12-month economic outlook, has risen almost 11 points since the tax cuts began in July. We know, when it comes to the cost of living, it's far from 'mission accomplished' because people are still doing it tough. But we have made some really substantial progress together. Inflation has more than halved; it's back in the Reserve Bank's target band. The underlying measure has come down a lot as well. I remind the House that those opposite said that it wasn't possible to have inflation moderating substantially and wages growing strongly. Not for the first time, they have been spectacularly wrong. We've got wages growing, we've got inflation falling and that means we are seeing real wages growth in our economy for four consecutive quarters, in the new data that came out last week. As the infrastructure minister pointed out a moment ago, one of the things we are proudest of is that the gender pay gap is now the lowest on record. The ACTU Mind the gap report, released today, shows that if the previous slow rate of progress under those opposite had continued women would be $1,900 a year worse off than they are now. Under this government as well, minimum wage earners have got $7,000 extra per annum and there are wage rises for aged-care and early childhood educators. That's because we see decent wages as part of the solution to this cost-of-living challenge, not part of the problem. But not everyone in here agrees. We know the opposition leader doesn't. We know the Leader of the Opposition is a risk to wages because we know his record of gutting Medicare, coming after wages and pushing wages down. That's why real wages were falling when those opposite were in office—nine years of deliberate wage stagnation because they want Australians working longer for less. This is one of the many ways the opposition leader's reckless arrogance has real costs for real people in real communities. Australians would go backwards under him, and under them. This side of the House has got real wages moving again, but we know Australians are still doing it tough. That's why we're coming at this cost-of-living challenge from every responsible angle, and progress on decent pay is a big part of our efforts. Immigration 27 14:29 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Following the 2007 election, with no mandate, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd massively increased migration under what he called a big Australia policy. Prime Minister Rudd appointed the now immigration minister as the Minister for Population to help deliver his big Australia policy. Acting Prime Minister, is net overseas migration currently higher or lower than under Kevin Rudd's big Australia policy? The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Social Services is warned. No-one is to interject before a minister begins their answer. 14:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I rarely thank shadow ministers for their questions, but I'm really grateful for that one! I'm really grateful, because I'm asked it on the exact day that those opposite committed publicly that they are going to vote to push net overseas migration higher. That's the decision they've made today. Today they made the decision and announced it in a press conference, where you could see him desperately trying: 'Don't give the grab; don't give the grab'—talking about everything other than what he's actually doing. They have decided that one of the areas where this parliament can put some control on net overseas migration—because, let's face it, you don't have control over every lever; part of it, for example, is Australian citizens— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No—the member for Deakin! Mr BURKE DYW Unless you believe that we should control how many Australian citizens come home—is that your view? Do you think we should put a restriction on Australian citizens coming home? That feeds into net overseas migration, but apparently you don't know that. Do you think we should put limits on whether Australian citizens are allowed to work overseas? That's part of net overseas migration. But the one that we can have an impact on, student visas, you've decided to let go sky high. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm just going to get the leader to pause, and we're going to hear from the member for Wannon, who's entitled to raise a point of order under the standing orders. Mr Tehan 210911 It goes to relevance. The former Minister for Population, now Minister for Immigration, was asked a very simple question: is net overseas migration higher or lower than under Kevin Rudd's big Australia policy? It's very simple. The SPEAKER 53517 As the member for Wannon knows, being directly relevant to the question has to be adhered to under the standing orders. The minister was talking about immigration levels and numbers, so he is being directly relevant. He was talking about another topic— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin! You're not helping, either. So, we're just going to take the temperature down. We're going to listen to the answer, and we're going to make sure the minister is being directly relevant to the question he was asked about net migration. Mr BURKE DYW Those opposite apparently don't know what the different constituent parts of net overseas migration are. So, let me just give one of the easiest stats for them to know— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume is really not helping. So, I'm going to ask him to cease interjecting, in light of the remarks I made earlier today. Let's just get through this answer. Mr BURKE DYW I do want to get through this answer. In Australia, over time, net overseas migration has gone up. If you take that 2010 benchmark, in what year was it the highest? When did we hit a record number of visas issued? When did we hit 9.6 million visas issued, the biggest upward pressure you could get on net overseas migration? It was in 2017-18. And who do you think was in charge of overseeing issuing each of those 9.6 million visas granted? It was the now Leader of the Opposition. So, out of full respect to him, that media conference and their decision today was completely true to form. While they've run the opposite rhetoric every time they have had the chance, they have put upward pressure after upward pressure, and this time they've made an announcement that they will vote for more upward pressure, that they will vote to let it rip on however many student visas get issued, however many come in—although I'll say that any immigration minister in the future will have a hell of a time trying to catch up with the number of visas issued by that man. Vocational Education and Training 28 14:35 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government cutting costs for Australians so they can get the skills they need for the jobs they want, and is there any opposition to this? The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B This has been a pattern from the government in questions which I'd suggest to you are not consistent with standing order 98(c). Ministers can be questioned on matters for which they're responsible or officially connected. By definition, the minister is not responsible for opposition. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Butler HWK This is a very common part of questions. The former government made an absolute art form of it, so it doesn't really sit very well in the opposition manager's mouth to object to it now, after nine years of it. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm just going to listen carefully. The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW If I can just refer to page 553 of Practice where it refers to what constitutes matters relating to a minister's public responsibilities, which includes public affairs, which that tag clearly goes to. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business further to the point of order? Mr L6B Mr Speaker, the question was clearly structured to deal with, firstly, what the minister's responsible for, and then opposition. It could not be clearer, on the wording of the question, that what the minister is being asked about is not within his responsibilities. The SPEAKER 53517 Whilst compare and contrast has been a feature of question time for a very long time, certainly as long as I've been here, I'm just going to listen carefully to the minister to make sure. Obviously, he can't have an answer—the manager is correct—simply about alternative approaches, because he wasn't asked about alternative approaches. He was asked about opposition. I hope that's not just going to be one part of what the 'opposition' could be, so I'm going to make sure that his answer reflects on what he's doing and has responsibility for but also that it's not an answer simply about alternative policies or approaches, because he wasn't asked about that. I hope that's clear to everyone, in terms of what the minister can and can't do, and if he strays from that I will have to take action. 14:37 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Thanks for your guidance, Speaker, and I thank the member for Bean for his question. As he knows, Labor is bringing costs down so that more Australians can access high-quality, affordable training. Free TAFE is delivering the training that Australians want and the skills they need to get ahead. This morning, I was so pleased to be part of a ceremony that welcomed our Skillaroos: VET students from around Australia who competed, and competed so well, on the global scale at the WorldSkills event in France. These Skillaroos were also joined by free TAFE students from the Canberra Institute of Technology—students in nursing, early childhood and individual support as well as mechanical apprentices. And I welcomed MPs and senators from across the aisle, including the member for Farrer, the shadow minister, to celebrate our world-class TAFE and VET students. The contribution of these students to building Australia's future simply cannot be overstated, and it was so good to speak with them to celebrate their achievements and to discuss how it's inspiring others. On this point, I spoke with Lachlan from Western Australia, who told me about the importance of fee-free TAFE to him. Labor is listening to students like Lachlan, and Labor is bringing people together, working with all states and territories—Liberal as well as Labor—in putting TAFE at the heart of our skills and training system. Last year, we brought in fee-free TAFE, and half a million Australians have enrolled. We're supporting these Australians by bringing their costs down, and we're opening the doors of opportunity. I was asked if there's any opposition to this, and, shortly after this morning's event, members will be shocked but not surprised to hear that the shadow minister snuck away. She turned her back on these TAFE students, announcing that the coalition will oppose our Free TAFE Bill. Government members: Shame! Mr GILES 243609 It is a shame. But for years, on this side of the House, we have fought against the Liberals' resentment towards public education and against their efforts to undermine TAFEs—and we always will. There will be no free TAFE places under the Liberals, who still call this wasteful spending. They will cut this cost-of-living support. They refused to allocate a dollar towards the hardworking Australians getting the skills they need for the jobs we need. Last time they were in government, we saw the damage their disregard for the VET system and skilling Australians did. They left Australia with the worst skill shortage in 50 years and now, worse than that, they are standing in the way of us fixing it, while slamming the door shut on hundreds and thousands of Australians looking to get the skills they want and whilst we are assisting them with cost-of-living pressures. They are showing arrogance towards the students and recklessness towards the needs of our economy. But as long as there is a Labor government, free TAFE is here to stay. Economy 29 14:40 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question as to the Acting Prime Minister. Acting Prime Minister, what mandate does this government have to increase our population by a projected 1.6 million over the next five years, the biggest intake in Australian history; to rip funds out of infrastructure, creating a housing crisis; and to destroy our economy and the cost of living? Given the Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility for his government's bad decisions, which are hurting the economy and Australian families, will his deputy take responsibility? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. 14:41 Mr DYW Watson BURKE (—) (): I thank the shadow minister for the stream of consciousness. You have to make a decision as to whether you want to take action to contain and start to put downward pressure on the number of people who are arriving in Australia or not. That doesn't involve media conferences; it involves decisions. There is a decision that this government took that we would put restraint on the number of student visas. That's one of the areas that government can quite directly control. I was reminded by a colleague, after the last answer, that those opposite actually were willing to put restrictions on whether Australian citizens could come into the country, but that's not something that we're about to do. If you are not willing to vote for measures that will put downward pressure on net overseas migration, then just acknowledge you're going to let it rip—if that's the actual approach. But if you do as the opposition has decided to do today, which is to think they can run their rhetoric in one direction and their actions in the other, that sort of reckless arrogance gets found out. And this Leader of the Opposition was found out today because today, despite all the rhetoric, he had a decision as to whether or not to act on net overseas migration and he has made an active decision. For anybody out there who might feel that they're missing out on rental accommodation because an overseas student has taken it, just know the Leader of the Opposition wants to make that situation worse. If anybody out there is thinking that because of the rate of immigration they're having trouble getting into a home, just know the Leader of the Opposition has decided to make that worse. And if you decide that you're going to not take the cuts on something like student visas, then the large area of the case load that's left, in terms of where the big numbers are, is skilled visas. Where does it go, if you make the cuts on the people we need to get here to build the homes? You end up with the Leader of the Opposition going down a pathway that hits in both directions. You made this decision; you've got to own it now—too late to retreat. International Students 30 14:44 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen This question is for the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to improve the integrity and sustainability of the international education sector? Are there alternative approaches? 14:44 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Can I thank my friend, the marvellous member for McEwen, for that question. He was at a school in his electorate with his granddaughter, Ava, just last week. Since COVID, international students are back but so are the shonks and the crooks who feed off this sector, using it as a back door for people to work here. We've got to take action to protect the integrity of this sector. That's what the legislation that's in the Senate does. We also need to protect community support for this sector, and 70 per cent of Australians agree that the government should be able to put a cap or a limit on the number of international students that come to our country every year. That's what this legislation that's in the Senate does. We make no apology for working to bring migration back to prepandemic levels. A key part of that is putting a limit on the number of international students who come to this country every year. Up until this week, the Liberal Party agreed with that. In the biggest speech that an opposition leader ever makes in any given year at that dispatch box, the opposition leader got up in May and said that he would 'set a cap on foreign students'. About an hour ago he did a press conference, just out there, where he said, 'We are happy for there to be a cap.' But that means nothing unless you're prepared to vote for it, and this opposition leader has just instructed his team down in the Senate to vote against legislation to put a cap on the number of international students. That legislation doesn't set a number; it just sets a power to create a cap, and you're voting against it. Never in my life did I expect to see this opposition leader get into bed with the Greens on immigration, but that is exactly what is happening. We shouldn't be surprised, because for this reckless, arrogant opposition leader it's never about the public interest or the national interest; it's always about his private and political interest, even if it means getting into bed with the Greens. The opposition leader has talked about the Group of Eight today. Let me remind him: they've put out a statement welcoming your decision to block this. That should tell you everything about what they think that you're doing. I've got a letter from 16 small and regional universities telling us that they want this, and 70 per cent of the Australian people say they want this, but the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens are getting into bed to stop this. Australians are fast starting to realise they can't trust this bloke on anything. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 31 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Greater Whitsunday Alliance 31 14:47 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Kennedy, I want to do one more acknowledgement. I'm pleased to advise the House, as a result of the member for Dawson letting me know, that there's a delegation from GW3: mayors from Mackay, Isaac, Whitsundays and their CEOs. Nine mayors in total. Welcome to you all. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Queensland State Election 31 14:48 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Leader of the House, in the Queensland election the LNP averred, 'Do the crime, do the time,' a flagrant lie; the jails have been full and overflowing for three years, and that a vote for KAP is a vote for Labor—perish the thought! Another lie. Townsville's crime rate warranted KAP detouring from its trademark alternative for how to vote and actually preferencing the Liberals. Oh well, it's a shame—but anyway. The muckraking is dredging up youth indiscretion. Leader, would you agree that LNP's strategies were successful? LNP moral conviction is in the gutter. The SPEAKER 53517 I have some difficulties with that question, only because it is asking for an opinion. It's a very broad question. Mr KATTER HX4 Mr Speaker, can I say we're talking about lying in election campaigns. That was what the question was about. You people did it. You're on the record for doing it. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Kennedy does not have the call. The leader is willing to answer the question. It's barely within standing orders, but we'll give it a go. 14:49 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The question goes to the conviction of people's views when they get to the House. As Leader of the House, with the member Kennedy, who's lobbied me in many portfolios I've had over the years, right back from when I had the agriculture portfolio backing 2007 or even immigration as shadow, I will say of the member Kennedy that what he says outside the House, what he lobbies you with privately and how he votes inside the House are always the same thing. Whether you agree or disagree with the views of the member for Kennedy, he is always fearlessly in support of his electorate and he always has utter conviction in how he votes in this chamber. I can compare and contrast that behaviour, because it would not be consistent with the rogue point of order that the Leader of the Opposition gave today for the opposition to then be voting with the Greens on, of all things, housing, the environment and immigration, and yet they have a unity ticket now all three of those. The member for Kennedy would never do anything like that. But, with housing, environment and immigration, voting Liberal or voting Green gives you the same outcome in this chamber and in the Senate. The reckless arrogance of the announcement today is extraordinary. To claim and to make the case of the connections between immigration and housing and then to decide to vote that there be no cap is reckless arrogance beyond belief. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House will pause. The member for Page on a point of order? Mr Hogan 218019 A point of order of relevance: I think you were very lenient to allow a question to be in order, but the minister is now straying. It's all compare and contrast. It's all about this side of the parliament and out of order. The SPEAKER 53517 To be fair, the question was framed in that way, and I wasn't comfortable with the broad nature of it. As members know, I try and allow all questions in where possible, as I try to give everyone a fair go. Given the broad nature, the minister was happy to answer the question. With the huge relevance issue within the question, it's going to be hard for me to make sure everything is directly relevant. If the minister can— Mr BURKE DYW I accept the caution that's made, because the question actually made no reference to the member for Kennedy but made multiple references to the LNP, so I will stay relevant to that for the remainder the answer! The Leader of the Opposition wants to make it harder for people. He wants to make people worse off. The example today with the announcement in the Senate is part of a consistent pattern from this Leader of the Opposition. Why did they vote 'no' to energy bill relief? Because they want to make it harder for people. He wants to make people worse off. Why are they opposing free TAFE, another announcement today? Because he wants to make people worse off. Why are they opposing the cutting of student debt? Because he wants to make people worse off. Why did they oppose cheaper medicines? Because he wants to make people worse off. For every single element that comes before this House on cost of living, when he has an opportunity to show conviction, he runs a mile. He runs a mile every time, and don't look at what he says. Don't look at the rhetoric. Look at how he votes. On immigration, environment and housing he votes with the Greens, and on cost of living he votes 'no' to helping people every single time. Renewable Energy 32 14:53 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How many renewable energy projects has the Albanese Labor government approved? How will these projects ease the cost of living for all Australians? How do government approaches differ to other proposals? 14:53 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thank you to the member for Bendigo for her question. I know that she is a great supporter of lower power bills for people who live in her electorate and the businesses in her electorate. She supports the $300 energy bill rebate and she supports cheaper, cleaner, renewable energy. I'm very pleased to report that the government has now approved 65 renewable energy projects. That is more than enough to power well over seven million homes across Australia. The most recent project is right up the road from the member for Bendigo: the 250-megawatt Muskerry Solar Power Station. That will produce enough renewable energy to power more than twice as many homes as in the Greater Bendigo area. What is terrific about this proposal that will go ahead is that it was approved in just 20 business days, so, as well as more renewable energy, we have doubled on-time approvals since coming to government. Of course, the renewable energy transition is cracking along under this government. That means that we're already seeing falls in wholesale power prices down to around 16 per cent. What is the biggest risk to this? The biggest risk to this is the uncosted, risky, 20-year-in-the-future nuclear energy fantasy proposed by those opposite. It's going to cost around $600 billion. It's going to take 20 years. It will add $1,200 to bills. One of the things that is truly troubling about it is that it will keep coal in our system for much longer. Because of that, it will add around 1.7 billion tonnes of extra carbon dioxide pollution to our atmosphere. So we've got a real choice. We've got a slow, risky, expensive transition to nuclear or a fast, certain transition to renewables that's already happening under us. You've got $1,200 added to domestic power bills under those opposite, or you've got the $300 energy bill relief under us and cheaper renewables for families and businesses. Economy 32 14:56 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. RBA governor, Michele Bullock, has said that aggregate demand in the economy is still too high and 'what's keeping the level high is population growth'. Given population under Labor has increased by a record 1.67 million— Honourable members interjecting— Mr TAYLOR 231027 can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that this government's Big Australia approach is putting upward pressure on inflation? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No. We're going to do this again because there were far too many interjections. The Treasurer will pause. The Treasurer will just resume his seat. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure—we can't have— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I don't know why this is so hard. Members are entitled to ask their questions in silence and should be shown respect without snide comments on either side. In case you haven't worked it out, I'm not a fan of that. So we're just going to do this properly and invite the member for Hume—because he has earned the respect to ask his question, and I want everyone to show it to him. Mr TAYLOR 231027 My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. RBA Governor Michele Bullock has said that aggregate demand in the economy is still too high and 'what's keeping the level high is population growth'. Given population under Labor has increased by a record 1.67 million people, can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that this government's Big Australia approach is putting upward pressure on inflation? 14:58 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It must be three o'clock! I welcome the question from the shadow Treasurer. I say to the shadow Treasurer and to his colleagues that they need to decide: do they want immigration to be lower or higher? They say they want it to be lower, but then they say they'll vote for it to be higher. They have to make up their mind, as the minister has pointed out to them repeatedly today. I'm asked what the RBA governor has said about some of these matters, and the two most important things that Governor Bullock has said are: first of all, public demand is not the main game when it comes to the outlook for inflation, and, secondly, the government has the right attitude when it comes to inflation. She couldn't be clearer. The Governor of the Reserve Bank couldn't be clearer. The shadow Treasurer could be a little clearer. The reason why his colleagues have been in the Saturday paper saying he has vacated the field and is not providing any direction and is just throwing rocks is that he has provided absolutely no coherent, costed or credible economic policies. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Minister for Social Services is on a warning. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The minister for regional development is now warned. It is completely inappropriate to interject while someone is trying to raise a point of order. The member for Hume has asked his question; now he's entitled to raise a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 It is on relevance. The question was very specifically about the big Australia strategy of this government, with population growing by 1.67 million, and how that is driving up inflation. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was specific, so I'm just going to make sure—I didn't hear exactly what the Treasurer was saying, because I was talking to the Leader of the Opposition about an important matter. But I thank the member for helping me. The Treasurer just has to make sure he remains directly relevant. Dr CHALMERS 37998 As I said at the beginning, if the shadow Treasurer has that view, why is he voting for even higher migration with the position that they've announced on the student caps? They've got to make up their mind. They say they want lower migration, but they're voting for higher migration, and that's because they put their own political interests ahead of the national economic interest. I went through the things Governor Bullock has said about the government's policy and how it relates to inflation: the right attitude, helpful; two surpluses; and the like. The government has been clear. Those opposite haven't been clear. The reason those opposite are saying of the shadow Treasurer that he's vacated the field and is not providing direction and is just throwing rocks is that he has no coherent, credible or costed alternatives. So, to learn what they think about the budget and inflation, we've got to go to the Liberals' deputy leader, who said today, about free TAFE, 'Remember this: it's a key principle and tenet of the Liberal Party that if you don't pay for something you don't value it.' The reason this is relevant— The SPEAKER 53517 Just pause a moment. I don't want the Treasurer straying into alternative policies and approaches unless he is making it directly relevant to his answer. So, I can appreciate where he's going, but I'm going to listen carefully. Otherwise, I'll have to sit him down. Dr CHALMERS 37998 When it comes to budget settings and demand, the Liberals' deputy leader has said, 'If you don't pay for something you don't value it.' And here we draw a direct line between the approach they're taking on fee-free TAFE—voting against it—and what this opposition leader did when he came after universal Medicare, when he came after universal health care. The point I'm making is that the reason we know that these characters are a risk is that we know their record. They voted against education caps, they voted against fee-free TAFE and they went after universal Medicare last time, and that's why they are a risk to household budgets and to inflation. (Time expired) Trade 33 15:02 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question as to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening our international trade relationships to benefit Australian farmers? 15:02 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank our great member for Gilmore. She is a terrific supporter of Australian farmers. She knows how important they are to our country and how respected they are in our country and indeed around the world. Here at home our agriculture sector employs hundreds of thousands of people. The total value of agriculture, fisheries and forestry production has increased by around 47 per cent over the last 20 years. Indeed, it hit a record level of $100 billion in 2022-23. And our Aussie farmers continue feeding the world through $76 billion worth of agriculture, fisheries and forestry exports annually. We have the globe's best produce—and the world knows it. That's why it was such an honour to represent Australian farmers last week at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation minister's meeting. Indeed, for more than three decades APEC has been vital for promoting open and inclusive rules based trade and practical market oriented regulatory reform in our region. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Leader of the Nationals is not going to just give a running commentary, all through the answer, alongside the deputy leader—to continually be back and forth and back and forth. We're not going to have that for the remainder of the answer. It's unbecoming. Ms COLLINS HWM Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm surprised they're not supporting our farmers. I mean, it was very clear, amongst the 21 member economies of APEC, where the Prime Minister and I met with a number of our counterparts, that Australia is considered a critical partner globally, not only for trade but for helping the direction of the rules based order that our trade relies on. We punch above our weight internationally, and I'm proud to be part of a government that has restored our international standing. Since the election, the Albanese Labor government has been working successfully to strengthen our trading relationships across the APEC region and indeed around the world, and of course it's ensuring more trade with more trading partners. And this means more jobs here at home in Australia. Today, one in four jobs is dependent on our trade—one in four jobs in this country. It also means more opportunities for Aussie farmers. We've seen our hard work pay off through the stabilisation of our relationship with our largest trading partner in China, where we inherited, of course, from those opposite $20 billion in trade impediments. We have removed most of those, delivering big wins for wine, grains, red meat and seafood, and in the past year these wins have now seen record-breaking exports of agricultural products to China. We've delivered a new free trade agreement with the UAE. Indeed, that's our first in the Middle East region—and I talked about that in this place just a few weeks ago. Importantly, we recorded 88 market access achievements to open, improve, maintain and restore access, including 10 new markets. We are now exporting over 70 per cent of our agriculture, fisheries and forestry production to 169 markets globally. This is our highest and most diversified trade ever. Regional Australia: Medical Workforce 34 15:06 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the health minister. The rural doctor shortage crisis is having devastating consequences for the health of our residents in central-western New South Wales. Gulgong no longer has any doctors, practices in communities like Mudgee, Molong and Canowindra have closed their books to new patients, and it takes two months to see a doctor in Wellington. What are you doing to fix his appalling situation, and will you personally visit our region and meet with local doctors and concerned residents to see the shocking effects this crisis is having? 15:06 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for his question and his interest, obviously, in his community broadly but particularly the challenges in delivering good-quality health care in regional Australia. We've had a couple of discussions about this already. Let me say a little bit about what we're trying do to address, frankly, a real shortage of doctors in rural Australia. We've delivered more doctors over the last couple of years. The last two years have seen the biggest increase in doctor numbers in a decade. Now, that's not fixing every problem in every single community, but more doctors, more bulk-billing and more urgent care clinics are starting to turn around the challenges that we inherited. But we know that there are a range of different levers we need to pull. We put in place in our first budget a range of increased incentives for doctors to practise in communities like the member's community—a range of dollar incentives that are very significant and particularly reward doctors moving to regional Australia with the skills that we need. They might be emergency management skills, they might be mental health skills or they might be obstetrician and gynaecologist skills. We've also, through the minister for education, put in place very significant HELP debt relief for medical and nursing graduates who move to regional Australia. Depending on the level of regionality, they will have very significant reductions in their university debt or student debt. We've put in place a number of single employer model trials, including in New South Wales, to try and deal with the industrial disadvantages that GP registrars face in regional communities compared to their hospital based equivalents as well. The bulk-billing changes that we put in place 12 months ago are benefiting regional Australia more than our cities. We know that about 40 per cent of the more than five million additional free visits to a doctor that took place over the last 12 months happened in regional Australia. We know there is more to do. We've got GP incentive funds that are seeking to plug some of the holes that the member just referred to. I met with a terrific delegation from North Queensland earlier today, where that has been able to address the sorts of challenges the member has talked about. I'm more than happy to sit down directly with the member, as I have done with, for example, the member for Kennedy to deal with the doctor shortage in Cardwell and Mission Beach in Queensland. If the sort of approach that we took there can help with the member's community, I'm more than happy to sit down with him, and I'll reach out soon. Health Care 35 15:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How are Medicare urgent care clinics making it easier for Australians to see a doctor, and are there any threats to the continued success of these clinics? 15:09 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Blair for his question. He knows that a big part of our plan to strengthen Medicare was to roll out a network of Medicare urgent care clinics. They are open seven days a week, with extended hours and, very importantly, fully bulk billed. We promised to open 50 clinics last year and we opened 58. We promised to open 29 more clinics this year, and all 29 will be open by the end of next month. Already 900,000 Australians have gone through these clinics since last June. One in three of them are kids under the age of 15. One in three are visiting during the weekend, and every single one of them are fully bulk billed. Last week I was delighted to visit the Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic with the member for Blair. It was open pretty early, and already it has seen 12½ thousand people from the member for Blair's electorate, taking real pressure off the emergency department of the local hospital there. We're told that semi-urgent and non-urgent presentations to that ED are down by 25 per cent. But it's not just relief for the local hospital; those patients are getting top-quality care in a timely fashion, completely free of charge. I have literally page after page of positive Google reviews for the Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. I only have time to name a couple of them, and maybe I'll table the rest of them. Esther said: Went in on a Saturday night and saw someone within 10 mins, out the door in 20. Happy and friendly staff. … This is a great substitute to the ER or waiting days to see a GP. Kerry said: Went in for a suspected broken foot. I was seen by triage within 15 mins … and had my results back all within an hour … Great service to take the pressure of the ED. I could go on if standing orders allowed me to. I could go on. We promised the Australian people we would strengthen Medicare—we would make it stronger. We're delivering more doctors, we're delivering more bulk billing and we're opening more Medicare urgent care clinics. While this is making a real difference, including for the people in the member for Blair's electorate, we know there is more to do. But we also know that those opposite in the Liberal Party pose a direct threat to that progress—a very direct threat. Just this morning, yet again, the shadow Treasurer was on the radio saying that our investments to strengthen Medicare and deliver cheaper medicines would be on the chopping block under a Dutton government. Bulk billing would go back into freefall under those opposite. Medicines will become dearer, not cheaper, and the Medicare urgent care clinics will close. That's what you'll get from the Liberal Party. Mr Marles HWQ I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 35 STATEMENTS Personal Explanations 35 15:13 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? Ms WARE 300123 Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Ms WARE 300123 Yesterday, the member for McEwen issued a social media post claiming that I was asked questions about robodebt deaths and responded in a certain way. This is disingenuous. The post followed a speech I gave on Services Australia in the Federation Chamber. I made no reference to robodebt. However, there were a number of aggressive interjections and shouting by the member for McEwen during my speech, such that the Deputy Speaker called 'order'. I further note that the member for McEwen chose not to interject during a speech substantially similar to mine given by the honourable member for Casey—a male colleague. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Bowman will withdraw that remark. Mr Pike 300120 I withdraw. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 35 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 35 15:14 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom In accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to multiple overdue questions in writing, question 730 and question 734. Speaker, I ask that you write to the Treasurer and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and seek their explanations as to why they have not chosen to answer my excellent questions in writing within 60 days. 15:14 The SPEAKER 53517 I shall do so, as the standing order provides. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Presentation 36 15:14 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 36 15:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's risky and expensive plan to rely wholly on renewables to meet Australia's energy needs I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:15 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax There was some encouraging news last night coming out of COP29. I'm not sure if everybody read the media release from the UK government, but it talks about a new deal being signed to speed up advanced nuclear technologies. That sounds pretty good. In the media release, it talks about the importance of nuclear energy to speed up the deployment of cutting-edge technology to decarbonise industry and boost energy security. And here's the best thing of the lot, the last paragraph. For those who haven't read it, it said: The new agreement will come into force from 1 March 2025. It is expected to also be signed by Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, China, Euratom, Switzerland and—I'm not sure if I can do a drum roll; can I, Mr Speaker?—Australia! How good is that? Congratulations to the Albanese Labor government for committing to sign a deal for nuclear energy with our allies in AUKUS and a string of other nations. Isn't that fantastic? I think the Albanese have come to the realisation that, when it comes to a decarbonised electricity grid, history shows that five of the 10 fastest decarbonisations come from nuclear energy. I think the Albanese government have realised that, with the exception of Australia, all advanced economies in the G20 either use nuclear energy today or are moving towards it. I think they have come to realise that all the major banks in the world are now out there seeking deals to back in, to finance, nuclear energy plants. I think maybe they found out that the biggest tech companies, whether it be Google, Amazon, Microsoft, are looking at nuclear energy to power their futures. So I got excited because I thought we would be signing a deal to join the rest of the world when it comes to nuclear energy. But then I felt a bit sad. I felt sad because the government seems to have changed its mind. The government has put out a set of comments in response to the Guardian. The Guardian asked the government to 'please explain', and the government said, 'No, Australia is not signing this agreement, as we do not have a nuclear energy industry.' It goes on to say, 'We will not be signing up to this agreement.' This is extraordinary. You would think that, when we're talking about pulling out of a deal that has just been announced by the UK government in one of their press releases, the Prime Minister, the foreign minister or, at the very least, the climate change and energy minister would make a statement. But, true to form, true to the cowardly, weak performance of the Albanese government, guess who made this announcement on behalf of the Albanese government. A spokesperson. A spokesperson made it. When something tough from the Albanese government has to be said, out comes that mystery person—the spokesperson. Seriously! Here's the second most concerning piece of information that came from the Albanese government—the first, of course, being that they are now pulling out of this agreement. When they talk about Australia's engagement, through ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, with the Gen IV International Forum, which is an international forum that looks at advanced nuclear technologies, they refer to Australia now having observer status. Where this is important is that Australia has not been an observer. In this international forum, Australia has had full membership. We find out from the mystery spokesperson that Australia's role in this international forum—since 2017, by the way—has now been demoted. What country demotes its own status in an international forum? The Albanese government does—from membership status to observer status. I thought I'd better check out what this is about, and I did. I went to the Gen IV International Forum's annual report of 2023. It's very clear in here, because it says Australia is a member. It makes it very clear. The first paragraph of appendix 1 says: Australia continues to be a committed and cooperative member of the Generation IV International Forum … Do you know what else it says about the Australian government's view on nuclear energy, no less? It says that the Australian government continues to recognise that nuclear energy is a mature technology, delivers reliable electricity, has zero greenhouse gas emissions, has low life-cycle emissions and has the highest standards of safeguards, safety and security. Mr Josh Wilson 265970 Sounds terribly expensive. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Aha! I'll take the interjection from the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy. You can always sniff a rat when the Socialist Left of Labor start sounding like economic rationalists. Now the argument from Labor is: 'Oh, yes, nuclear energy—tick, tick, tick. But the economics don't stack up.' You can just imagine, of course, that when the Prime Minister was over there meeting with President Biden he was explaining that the economics don't stack up with the US's plan to sign this agreement. I'm sure he said the same to Chinese President Xi Jinping. I'm sure he said the same to Prime Minister Starmer from the UK, showing him those intelligent memes from the Labor Party to demonstrate that the economics do not stack up for nuclear energy. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has been on record many a time suggesting that the real cost of Labor's plan to deliver a net zero electricity grid is $122 billion. When you're looking at the pathway to a net zero electricity grid, you have to compare one pathway to another, and we will be showing all the economics before this next election. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Before the member leaves after having a giggle, he should listen to this one. The team from Frontier Economics, an independent body, costed Labor's plan. Did it cost $122 billion? I give it to you once, twice—are you going to interject? No, he doesn't. Guess how much it really cost? It cost $642 billion. Now guess how many times more expensive that is than what the minister told us. It is five times more expensive—that's how much. Before you leave the chamber, member for Solomon: it is five times more expensive than what your minister told you and the rest of Australia, which is not true. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Sorry. I want to stop [inaudible]. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Are we able to stop the clock? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The clock is still going, and you're wasting your own side's time. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Are we able to stop the clock? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You've got 35 seconds left. Go for it. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Let me, in my 35 seconds, point out some of the reasons it's five times more expensive. Firstly, there's the hidden cost for transmission lines—$62 billion. The current asset base is $26 billion. They're going to add another $62 billion and they haven't told the Australian people. They have a shadow carbon price. It's worth $70 now. Gillard introduced it at $24. It's going to be over $400 by 2050. This is the secret cost of their plan, and this is why it's going to be a complete disaster under this Albanese government. Tell the truth— (Time expired) 15:25 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Today's matter of public importance debate is brought to you by the outfit that can't be bothered to have a national energy policy. They couldn't be bothered to have a national energy policy for the 10 years they were in government. They don't have a national energy policy now. The shadow minister for energy was challenging me to 'tell the truth'. When are we going to learn the details of their nuclear scam? He just said, 'Before the next election.' It's previously been said to be before the end of the year. The clock is ticking. There's never been an opposition that's been given as much licence as they have in relation to this ridiculous policy. He's just had 10 minutes, and we still don't know when the reactors are going to be delivered, who's going to build them, how much they'll cost to be built and how much they'll cost to operate. We don't know anything about the one single idea. There is no policy; there is just a fantasy. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 You clearly haven't read the policy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Fairfax, no more interjections please. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 The outfit that never bothered to have a national energy policy in their entire 10 years of government and doesn't have a national energy policy now has never seen a dodgy scare campaign that it doesn't want to grab with both hands. This is an outfit that loves nothing more than a cocked-up, made-to-order independent report from its mates at Frontier Economics. Does it ever listen to expert advice and analysis? No. Does it ever give respect to organisations like the Australian Energy Market Operator? No. But Frontier Economics—the same crew that developed Tony Abbott's direct action plan?—yes please; come in, spinner. And how did that go? We inherited high and rising prices from those opposite, including energy prices, and we've done two things: we've taken action to provide relief, and we've taken action to set Australia up for a better future. We've taken action to deliver a cheaper and cleaner energy system in the long term. What has the coalition done? They've obstructed every single piece of cost relief that has been designed to help Australian households that are doing it tough, and they've obstructed every bit of reform that we have pursued in trying to clean up their awful mess. They obstructed the gas price caps at the end of 2022. They've obstructed energy price relief on every occasion that we've tried to deliver that to Australian households and, of course, every single bit of reform that we've come along with after a decade of neglect, after a decade of no national energy plan—a decade in which energy generation in Australia went backwards by one gigawatt. And the only thing that the former minister for energy was prepared to do in the face of high and rising prices and in the face of decreasing energy supply was to come along at the last moment and try to hide from the Australian people the fact that energy prices were rising in the shadow of an election. We will continue to focus on supporting Australian households and supporting Australian businesses, and we will focus on creating a cheaper, cleaner and more secure and self-sufficient Australian energy system. That will have direct benefits to households. That will have direct benefits to businesses. But of course it has other benefits, too, because the world is going through a clean energy transformation, and there are opportunities for us, with our comparative advantages when it comes to wind, solar, storage and other forms of green technology. We have to get these for the benefit of businesses in this country, for the benefit of export and for the benefit of Australian workers. What we have done has seen electricity prices fall. Indeed, they've fallen 12.3 per cent since June 2023. Without the direct energy bill relief that we've supplied, they would be 15.4 per cent higher now. That is relief to Australian households that those opposite opposed. Every time people get their bills and see the relief that we've delivered, they should know how much worse it would be if those opposite had their way. We know that building a cleaner and cheaper energy future requires more renewables and storage because it's the cheapest form of new energy generation, and, frankly, Australians know that, because one in three Australians have home solar PV. It delivers cheaper energy to them. Last week, for the first time, we crossed four million households in Australia, out of 11½ million households, with solar PV. We have the highest penetration of solar PV in the world because it allows people to have access to cheaper energy. That technology has become more efficient over time—a lot of it with Australian innovation built into it—and it's become cheaper. In fact, solar PV for households has become 85 per cent cheaper over the last 10 years. We are now working to extend those benefits to more Australians, particularly to those who face the most disadvantage. We have the Social Housing Energy Performance Initiative, which is delivering the benefits of solar and batteries to social housing tenants around Australia. I was glad to be in South Australia when we announced that program earlier, and I've seen a couple of community batteries that have been opened in South Australia, where, in each case, 300 social housing tenants are getting the benefit of virtual power plants to bring down their energy prices, on average, by $550 a year. That's the kind of work that we are focused on. That's the kind of better future we are trying to build for Australians. The shadow minister was part of a do-nothing government that gave Australia high energy prices, energy insecurity and a reduction in energy generation. Now those opposite, after having done nothing for 10 years, are only in the game of fearmongering and obstruction and dodgy made-to-order reports. While those opposite try to deceive and scare Australians with the daft renewable energy slogan that we hear so often, the Australian community know that they're looking at what is in effect an obstruction-only coalition, a fearmongering-only coalition and, unfortunately, a nuclear-only coalition. The shadow minister was talking before about some of the things that are true about nuclear technology. It's mature. It's been around for 70 years; it's not a new technology. It has never been able to address its biggest flaw, which is its unbelievable, eye-watering cost. I just talked about solar energy getting cheaper—85 per cent cheaper in the last 10 years. Nuclear energy has got more and more expensive over time. The capital costs have become more expensive. The operating costs have become more expensive. We know that, if those opposite got the chance to inflict nuclear energy on the Australian community, it would take 15 to 20 years, it would cost $600 billion and it would cost every Australian household $1,200 or more per annum. That is the reality of nuclear energy. It is slow to deliver. It is inflexible, uncommercial, uninvestable and uninsurable, not to mention dangerous and risky. And it is in decline worldwide. The shadow minister tries to tell a story that suggests that actually nuclear is going big elsewhere. It is not. Nuclear energy peaked as a proportion of global energy in 1996. Twenty-eight years ago, nuclear energy peaked as a proportion of global energy, and it has been falling since then. The number of reactors worldwide peaked in 2002. Twenty-two years ago, the number of reactors peaked. There are fewer now. Last year, globally, the world added 440 gigawatts of new non-hydro renewables, and nuclear energy generation went backwards by one gigawatt—plus 440 gigawatts of new renewables and minus one gigawatt of new nuclear. If you look at the United States, which is currently the largest generator of nuclear energy, they added 39 gigawatts of new renewables last year and no new nuclear. That is the reality. China added 217 gigawatts of new renewables and only one gigawatt of new nuclear. That is the reality of nuclear worldwide. It is in decline. It is not growing. As a proportion of energy it is lower than it was 28 years ago, and in countries like France and the US it's at a 25-year low. One of the things that they have promised is that there will be small modular reactors for some communities in Australia, including Collie in Western Australia. There is no such thing as a small modular reactor. They don't exist. The poster child of the modular reactor world was the NuScale modular reactor, which the shadow minister himself was deeply in love with. It began by claiming in 2019 that it would deliver in 2024—that it would be operative this year—720 megawatts for $8 billion. In 2023 the revised projection was going to deliver one-third less power for $14 billion in 2029. It revised its initial estimates by saying it would deliver one-third less power for 75 per cent more cost and a five-year delay. And then—tick, tick, tick, boom—it disappeared altogether. It crashed and burned and it took $900 million of US taxpayers' money with it. That is the kind of nutty project that those opposite would like to inflict on the Australian community. 15:35 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay It is extraordinary to know that our representative at COP29, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, has turned his back on our closest allies, possibly after confusing them when the UK put out that media release, as the member for Fairfax highlighted. I will just read some quotes from the Australian, where it says that the UK and the US expected Australia to sign the agreement, as well as 'willing parties, including Canada, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, China and Switzerland', but, through a statement from his office, Mr Bowen totally rejected the invitation. I was wondering what he was doing at that time that was so much more important than responding to our closest allies' invitation. 'Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear energy industry.' 'Nuclear power is outlawed in Australia. We will continue to work closely with our international partners to reach net zero.' I think we declined that invitation to work closely with our international partners. 'Our international partners understand that Australia's abundance of renewable energy resources makes nuclear power'—he goes on and on and on, but he declined the invitation. But here he argues that 'Australia is much sunnier than the UK'. What a great reason to say no to our closest allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, some of the world's leaders in civil nuclear energy. They know nuclear is a future for defence, for industry, to power homes and to lower emissions. The minister is refusing to engage with our allies, and it's quite an embarrassing approach for our nation. Every day in parliament since the Albanese Labor government was elected, we've fought back against this silly renewables-only approach because it is harming Australians, who believed in that $275 promise—and now where are we on that? Not a peep, not a word—just a broken promise. It's a pity that the minister isn't here today to take part in the battle of ideas on our nation 's future to have lower energy prices. He is at COP, but he's not responding to invitations, so we don't really know what he's doing, because he's sending out his spokesperson to do his work for him. We need a consistent, reliable and cheap energy system. Unfortunately, as we've just said, he is missing in action. I also want to talk about gas, because this is the form of energy that every single manufacturer across Western Sydney is desperately crying out for when I go speak to them. They were confused as well by this government and the minister on the approach to gas. The market operator has noted that more gas is needed to ensure that lights don't go out, but Labor is constantly chipping at the knees of our gas companies. Gas is needed to heat our homes, to cook our food and, as I said, to heat our heavy industry. Without gas, our sovereign capability will fade away. In the face of growing tensions in our region, we need to ensure that we can rely on energy sources that keep the lights on and power our businesses. The Leader of the Opposition and I attended a brickworks at Austral recently, and they needed gas desperately to produce bricks that are needed to build the homes that will get us out of this housing crisis. Mascot Steel, in Emu Plains, needs gas to fabricate steel to ensure that we do have sovereign capability in this country. Pandrol, in Blacktown, needs gas to make parts for our railways, again ensuring that we have sovereign manufacturing in Australia. Our railways are the lifeline for many state transport networks when parts are needed. These are just a few examples of where gas is needed in Western Sydney alone. This is why we're backing gas, along with nuclear energy, along with so many other countries around the world. In fact, as we've just heard, we've been invited to join them. Households in Western Sydney are paying $1,000 more on their energy bills. As the member who spoke previously stated, people are actually paying more, and they're lining up at those foodbanks and are struggling like never before. Ideology over practicality on energy is failing Australia. In fact, this government is failing Australia every step of the way when it comes to energy affordability. 15:40 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Yet again I have to stand in this place and speak on a motion moved by those opposite that just doesn't make sense. But it's a pleasure to rise today to speak on this matter of public importance, because renewable energy is an issue of vital importance to Australia's future energy security. I must admit, I'm baffled by the opposition—their renewables policies and their obsession with nuclear power. It's as though they've been watching too much sci-fi, imagining a future powered by reactors that, let's be honest, will take decades to come online and will cost taxpayers an absolute fortune. I've had the joy of spending time with the shadow minister recently, and I'd be the first to say that he's not a terrible bloke. But let's call it for what it is: he doesn't give a stuff about facts; he doesn't give a stuff about regional Australia. Here's the difference between you and me, champ: this isn't a political game to me. I'm a former coalminer who lives in one of these regions. I actually care about the future energy needs and the future of our region, because they're my mates and they're my family. I actually think people in the regions deserve facts on this nuclear dream of his. It's a costly nightmare for the regions and for the taxpayers. But let's look at the facts, because someone in this chamber has to. Building a nuclear power plant in Australia will take at least 20 years, even if everything goes smoothly. Meanwhile, coal-fired power stations like Callide and Tarong are closing as soon as 2028. That's a gap we just can't afford in terms of jobs and energy security. Electrical Trades Union Secretary Michael Wright told a committee: 'No worker engaged in a coal-fired generator anywhere in the Hunter or more broadly in Australia will be able to transition straight into a nuclear generator. It is simply not conceivable.' The committee has heard from experts telling us it will take eight to 10 years just to get a regulatory framework in place for nuclear energy in Australia. The shadow minister's own US based experts let slip this week that it will take at least 12 years to build a single nuclear reactor. That's 20 years lead time before we see a watt of electricity for their nuclear fantasy. I notice he's just left the place; he didn't want to hear this. So, that's mid-2040s. And what's the price tag for this? The best estimate is tens of billions per reactor—and that's before we account for cost overruns, delays and the massive subsidies required to make it remotely viable. We trust the experts. We have crunched the numbers. Replacing a fraction of Australia's retiring coal-fired generation with nuclear will cost $600 billion. This is money we simply don't have. The experts of the Smart Energy Council predict that Dutton's seven nuclear reactors will provide only 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy mix in 2050. Instead of spending billions on nuclear power that won't come online until the 2040s or 2050s, we could invest in renewables and storage solutions, firmed up by gas, that are cheaper, faster and ready to deliver now. But here's the kicker: the opposition hasn't provided a single detail of their nuclear plan—sorry: policy, or so-called policy. All they have provided is a list of sites. They haven't told us how many generators they will be putting into each site, just that it will be a multiple. Where's their plan for waste disposal? Where's their funding model? The shadow minister can't even answer these questions, because he hasn't done the work. And do you know why? It's because he doesn't give a stuff about regional communities, who will be left holding the bag when the costs blow out. The opposition's lack of detail is, frankly, insulting to Australians, who just want answers. It's easy to throw around buzzwords like 'clean' and 'reliable', but when you dig beneath the surface, their nuclear plan is little more than wishful thinking. Australians deserve better. They deserve leadership that prioritises solutions, not delays. They deserve policies based on facts, not fantasies. Most of all, they deserve an energy strategy that delivers affordability, sustainability and jobs, not a nuclear black hole that will leave us all poorer. We care about creating jobs now, not decades down the track, so those opposite should stop drinking the nuclear Kool-Aid and get on with the job of powering Australia's future. Ignoring facts does nothing to provide cheap and reliable energy to Australians. Those opposite misled the Australian people on energy prices, and now they're misleading them about our energy policies. Peter Dutton can't be trusted on energy, or on anything else for that matter. Have a good, hard look at yourself, Mr Dutton. 15:45 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook The member for Hunter talks about being misleading on energy. I'd just like to remind the member that this is from a government that promised $275 off power bills. There are people in my electorate who are paying a thousand dollars more after that promise, so they've already been misled. The member for Hunter also talked about affordable and sustainable energy. Labor is failing Australia on both of those measures. Labor has failed to bring down energy prices. Since Labor were elected and took government, prices are more than 20 per cent higher. Labor is failing to adequately decarbonise the grid, when no expert believes we're on track to reach 2030, 2035 or 2050 carbonisation targets. Labor's plan means higher prices and risks rolling blackouts, and Australians know this. They know it because they feel it. Every time they look at their bill and every time they struggle with the cost of living, they know this plan is not delivering what it promised. And why are prices going up? Why are we on track to miss our targets? It's because there isn't a real plan there. They don't know what it will cost. AEMO and the nuclear inquiry admitted that they didn't know what it would cost. They admitted their plan doesn't cost the actual Labor plan. What they can cost is narrowly prescribed. For the first time we've had someone research the entire cost. Frontier Economics, an independent organisation, has modelled it to be $640 billion. That's more than $25,000 for each Australian. This is because Frontier has looked at it and has said: Most of these costs— many of which are yet to be incurred— are treated by AEMO and NEM governments as "sunk", even though the majority of these projects are yet to be developed. They went on to say: Customers and taxpayers will, of course, pay for these projects irrespective of how AEMO classify them. They also said: This is likely to be an underestimate of the costs given the propensity for project costs, and particularly transmission projects, to blowout … Australia is now being left behind the rest of the world. Of the G20 countries, there are only three nations with no plans to build nuclear reactors, and of these three nations—the other two being Germany and Spain—we are the only market that does not import nuclear energy. Microsoft, Amazon and Google are now investing billions of dollars. Figures given to me by the Parliamentary Library show that Canada, the US and Korea—all countries with nuclear power as part of their mix—have much lower prices compared to Australia. In Canada it's US$127, in the US it's US$137, and in Korea it's US$151, whereas in Australia it's US$212. The US Department of Energy recently released a report that modelled the Californian grid. California is a state on the Pacific Ocean. It has lots of wind and lots of inland land with lots of sun. They looked at what it would cost the Californian grid to be on solar and wind. Then they looked at what it would cost for the Californian grid to be on solar, wind and nuclear. What did the US Department of Energy find about introducing nuclear into a solar and wind grid? It found prices would go down by 37 per cent. With all this new information, and understanding that we have an energy plan that pre-dates the advent and the take-off of AI, which has seen some of the most environmentally conscious companies in the world—Microsoft, Google, Amazon—invest billions of dollars in nuclear, what have we done? We've actually reneged on and exited from an agreement with our closest allies, the US and the UK. On this agreement, we were talking about where nuclear is at in the world. Well, last year at COP-28, 31 countries signed up to triple nuclear energy—a 300 per cent increase—by 2050. Then they followed that up this year, announcing that we along with France, Korea, Japan, Canada and Switzerland would be joining a collaborative research group to share research and intelligence on nuclear energy. What is the downside for the Australian people in being a part of that? But no sooner had the US and the UK announced this than, embarrassingly, Australia reneged on this—reneged from this information, reneged from having facts and reneged from having a mature debate. I'm also part of the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy, and we've heard a lot of testimony, most recently from a Green, Tyrone D'Lisle, who challenged Peter Dutton in 2013—and I quote him from last week in the area where he's from in Queensland—who said: "I came to look at the scale of the climate challenge and what would be required to genuinely address it … we just won't be able to achieve it unless we include technologies like nuclear energy"— (Time expired) 15:50 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck 'Risky and expensive' sounds like a good working definition of the coalition's half-baked nuclear plans to meet Australia's energy needs. You can add to that 'useless', unless you plan on going to sleep like some sort of Rip Van Winkle for the next 20 years or more—20 years of paying a fortune to build nuclear power stations. And who will pay? Taxpayers are expected to pay for this coalition's plan. The member for Fairfax is not a good listener. He certainly didn't listen to his own leader, Peter Dutton, when last year, on 2 March, in a sit-down interview, he said: 'I don't support the establishment of big nuclear facilities. I'm opposed to it.' The member for Fairfax certainly did not listen to the advice from the CSIRO about the terrible costs of nuclear energy, which have put out that for a single large-scale reactor in Australia, at around $16 billion and 20 years to build, multiplied by the number of reactors required—according to the coalition's only piece of detail provided—would be about $600 billion that taxpayers would have to pay. The member for Fairfax isn't listening to people like the executive director of the International Energy Agency, who was unimpressed and advised Australia to prioritise our untapped potential in solar and wind power. He's certainly not listening to the coalmine operators, because if he did, he would hear that generators will be decommissioned by the early 2030s. In fact, in WA the coal-fired power plant at Collie is expected to reach its end of life by 2027. So any nuclear power in Australia—assuming that the legislation that has banned its use is revoked by the Liberals, assuming that we could find experienced, skilled nuclear physicists and engineers needed to be able to commission such a facility, and assuming that we've got all the regulations in place, the planning and the community support—would, at the earliest, happen by the mid-2040s. So the economics are junk and the reality of the policy—or the plan, because it's really not a policy, is it?—is junk, because you've got this massive gap between the end of life of our existing coal facilities and their supposed solution instead. I have a thought for the member for Fairfax: if he thought that his party room was united around this, surely he has to think again. He only needs to look to his left and he'll see the coalition's National members, who would dearly like to have this nuclear bomb go away, especially in their electorates, with an election coming. The member for Fairfax could then look to his right, and he'll see an LNP member who additionally knows that the Liberals and the Nationals have only ever talked about nuclear energy in opposition, never while they were in government. They did nothing on this policy while there were in government, and they've certainly done nothing on this policy today. It's a policy in name only. The member for Fairfax could look behind him, and he should. He should start looking behind him more often, and there he will find more than one LNP member who understands that our energy future is a renewable energy future and that they really just wish that their party would get onboard with this transition and bring this debate to where it needs to be: in the future and not stuck in the past. The LNP simply hasn't thought it through together yet, and the coalition isn't fond of thinking things through. They literally love just the talk. They lump renewables together as if they were all the same thing. With a casual use of that word, they dismiss the possibilities of wind, solar, hydro and geothermal power. Australia has all these energy sources to work with, to work out and to balance. It will take work, and work has already begun and is bearing fruit with the installed renewable capacity generating power for some 3½ million homes. We've approved 60 renewable energy projects which will power a further seven million homes. The only risk with regard to renewable energy is not taking action. By building nuclear power stations, apparently all the other problems along the way will eventually go away and everything will be fixed. What do we do in the meantime, in the 20 years it will take one to get up and running? We keep them out of government and focus on our renewable pathway the whole way. 15:55 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls It's always good for members, particularly first-term members, to go back to their maiden speech and have a look at the values and principles and ideas that they came to this place with. I did that in relation to a number of issues like this one. I said at the time: Climate change is a complex challenge for our country … we as a planet need to reduce our emissions. The need to act is not in question. How we do it, without causing huge economic damage to our nation and its people, is the question. It is the how, not the if. Done in a reckless manner, with unrealistic time lines out of step with our global competitors, we could face a situation where industry moves emissions overseas. Australia's economic strength would be reduced but global emissions would not. It's a reality we need to face. I also said that I think we need to keep our mind open to the range of technologies that can get us there, and: … just transition means that the justice, human rights and dignity of those most affected by any change need to be protected, and often these are people in regional areas. As far as their renewables-only energy policy goes, Labor has been saying for years that the price tag for their plan to achieve a net zero electricity market is $122 billion; that is applying their approach. That's now been exposed as wrong by a report done by Frontier Economics, who estimate that it will now cost not $122 billion but at least $642 billion. We've got to have a serious conversation about that in this place. Not only that; the system will have real instability as a result of having too much intermittent power generation. The questions that have been asked about the renewables-only plan, at the top of my mind, have not been sufficiently answered: How is renewable energy going to be firmed? What happens to renewable energy facilities at end of life—and end of life for a lot of these projects is estimated to be between 25 and 35 or 40 years? How much does the decommissioning cost? How much does the rebuild cost? How does that impact the system cost? What happens to the components that cannot be recycled? The stakes are really high in this debate. Writing in the Australian yesterday, respected columnist Robert Gottliebsen said: … nothing in the nation's history matches the looming renewable energy conversion financial disaster. He points out, as many others have, that, due to the lifespan of renewables, after 2050 we might have to scrap everything and start again. The minister is fond of saying that the sun and the wind might not send a bill. I advise the minister that, whilst the sun and the wind might not send a bill, the panel installers, the turbine manufacturers and the decommissioning operators all will send bills—big bills—and they will potentially send them every 30 years. I'm amazed that we have an ideological and not a pragmatic approach to the best way to get to net zero. Nuclear is acknowledged the world over as the only existing technology—with the exception of hydro, but that's geography specific—that can deliver net zero emissions energy 24/7. Why, when almost every other developed economy is increasing nuclear, are we being too pig-headed to embrace it? It can't be on safety grounds because the government has agreed to AUKUS—so we'll have nuclear reactors moored in Australian harbours, metres away from Australian naval personnel. Now they are starting to argue that it's on cost. Well, if the cost is so prohibitive, why are our economic competitors embracing it? Now that we have a real comparison with the true cost of Labor's renewable plan we can have a more honest discussion about which is the best way to go. And the real cost for the renewables-only plan is well over $600 billion. The 'mere' dispatchability of the power 24/7 needs to be considered as well. Renewables can't do that, but nuclear can. This was just reported today: The Albanese government has rebuffed an invitation from allies the United Kingdom and the United States— amongst other countries, and a generous invitation, I might add— to join a global movement to speed up the spread of civilian nuclear energy … Talk about being out of touch with the world! The blinkers are on, and their heads are in the sand. But that's the high-level energy debate. What about the poor Australian who was promised their household electricity bills would be reduced by $275? That's not going to happen in the next six weeks, so we're not going to get there in 2025. Their bills have soared, and not only have their energy costs increased; the renewables-only policy of Labor threatens to move their places of employment and omissions offshore. That's bad for Australia's economy and bad for global emissions. 16:00 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence This MPI talks about risk. I'd call it Risky Businessactually, and it's like a scene from the movie because today the member for Fairfax slid into the chamber in his socks, his air guitar firmly in hand, to live out his great nuclear fantasy—to let go of reality and to let his feelings, not facts, take control. He is definitely playing that old time rock'n'roll, trying to sell a policy drag kicking and screaming from decades ago which will take decades more to actually work because it hasn't been thought through. Just to clarify, I'm not saying the member for Fairfax is anything like Tom Cruise. He and his colleagues are more like Tom and Jerry, beating science over the head with an oversized mallet because it doesn't match their policy, making statements to say Australia is wholly reliant on renewables when there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that and playing a cat-and-mouse game with the Australian people, which I'm happy to lay out in front of you today. I note the member for Fairfax liked to do a bit of reading when he walked into the chamber at the start of the MPI. It was so important that he actually left the chamber during the member for Hunter's rebuttal speech—absolutely amazing! I want to start with the opposition's famous nuclear policy, 'Our plan for zero-emissions nuclear as part of a cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy future'. That's their policy; it's six pages of nothing. It was announced on 19 June 2024. Yes, that's a bit over six months ago. Like the people that I met in Nanango last week for a committee inquiry hearing in Queensland, I am feeling a little bit miffed that they didn't get the opportunity to get a bit more detail, given that it's been six months since the announcement of this policy. I want to go to a couple of points in this policy. It's got a little bit of information in it, albeit not a lot. It says, 'A balanced energy mix'. We're being told that we've got a renewables-only policy plan, but this is directly from the Liberal and National parties' policy: This means our energy mix today of renewables + gas + coal will shift to a future energy mix of renewables + gas + nuclear. That's really interesting. Where will they be built? Well, those opposite have identified seven locations, saying: These are the only locations in scope and the Coalition has ruled out all other locations. That's part of their policy. Can you believe that? They haven't done any geoscience whatsoever. They haven't been out there and done site surveys, but all other locations are ruled out. That ponders the question: what happens if one of these sites gets ruled out after a geological site survey because it's not stable? Mmm. Then we'll go from seven locations down to six or five. And we're only talking about four per cent of the energy mix required by 2050 possibly being supplied under this policy. It just beggars belief! I'm going to go to another part in this. It's interesting reading this. I encourage, if you can find this—it is really difficult to find this policy. This is the first announcement policy paper that was delivered back on 19 June 2024. It took my staff quite some time to be able to dig up the original policy because it had gone missing on their website. I'm not sure why you would hide something that you are so proud of, but anyway. The timeline for establishing a civil nuclear program in Australia, including building two establishment projects, is 10 to 12 years from the government making a decision to zero-emissions nuclear electricity first entering the grid. Why is that important? First of all, the experts that we've heard from have clearly told us that, in the best case scenario, it is 10 to 15 years for the construction phase. When you look across the globe, that is clearly what the timelines are showing—that 10 to 15 years, closer to 15, is actually the more reliable. But we heard from another expert, Clare Savage, who has extensive— (Time expired) 16:06 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As much as I like the member for Spence, as per many of the other contributions from those opposite in this debate, there was little substance in his response to this debate. Let's have a look at what we're actually talking about. We're talking about the Frontier Economics report and their assessment that Labor's energy plan will cost in the order of $652 billion and will be a disaster in the making. It would cost five times more than what the government has previously admitted to. That is an enormous cost to the Australian economy, but it got me thinking. I remember reading a piece of research done not so long ago on an economy in Europe that has decided to follow the path that those opposite in government wish to pursue, so I thought I'd dig that little piece of research out. This was a piece of research done by a professor of civil engineering from Norway's NTNU, and it was an assessment of the consequences of Germany's switch away from nuclear power, in this case, as their affordable and reliable source of base-load power, to their ambitious green renewable energy target, under their energy turnaround policies. It was interesting to read that the analysis by this professor suggests that somewhere in the order of $330 billion of costs to the German economy have resulted from this switch away from nuclear power to their so-called green energy revolution. That is an enormous cost. If those opposite—actually, I will correct the record. It's some 600 billion euros that it's cost them, and that doesn't cover all the costs. But that covers things like construction costs, expensive grid upgrades, subsidies et cetera, and what has the German economy got to show for it? Some of the highest energy prices in the world. This is the path that those opposite want to take us down. Here's a real-world example of your policies in full action, and I would estimate that the cost will be far greater than the $642 billion that Frontier Economics outlined in their report. We had this government come to the last election saying they were going to lower electricity prices. Well, that has not happened. When I talk to my businesses across my electorate, particularly those that use gas—I was speaking to one the other day—their gas bill has gone from $125,000 to $350,000, a 180 per cent increase. They're talking about closing their doors as a consequence. When you look at that $642 billion figure, I'd say that's just the bottom end of the range when we take in the broad economic costs of higher electricity prices, higher gas prices and our inability to then compete in a global marketplace and manufacture the goods that we need in this country to have a degree of sovereign capability and sovereign reliability. The interesting thing in the real-life example of Germany, as I've outlined, is they still need nuclear power via the umbilical cord from France. We don't have that luxury. We're a standalone economy. (Time expired) 16:11 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I feel like sometimes there's a lot of negativity in this place, so I'm going to start with some positives. I will start by saying that I am a proud member of the Albanese Labor government and I'm proud to be part of a government that accepts the science of climate change. Not only do we accept the science of climate change; we are acting on climate change. One of the first things that we did when we came to parliament was legislate a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. I am proud that Australia can be a part of the renewable energy transition. Let's just think about it for a moment. We live on a desert continent. We have rich geological resources under the ground, and a lot of those resources are actually critical minerals that we need in the renewable transition. Not only are we rich with resources under the ground; let's look above the ground. We are a desert continent. We have ample amounts of solar and wind resources, and what do Australians want? They want cheap, reliable electricity. We are really unique and well positioned to be a part of this renewable transition. One of the statements that I disagree with is this language calling them 'wholly renewables'. The truth is it's renewables plus energy storage plus energy firming. One of the types of technology we use with renewable electricity is pumped hydro. This is where you pump water basically up a hill when the renewable electricity is working and then, when renewable energy is not, like when the sun is not shining, you let the water basically go through a turbine, and then you have cheap electricity that is available at the drop of opening a tap. There are also these things called batteries. I'm not sure if the coalition has heard of batteries. I know that, when I grew up, we had the phones where you used dial-up. The things that we have now are mobile phones, which use batteries. So many people are using batteries as a part of their lives, and we use them because it means that we can have energy when we need it. You know what? That's what we want to do with renewables. We want to have the ability to store energy so we can use it when we need it. When the opposition talks about baseload electricity, I hate to say that, but it's, like, so 1990s. It's a bit like dial-up internet. I don't know if people remember the days when you would try and connect to the internet to chat to someone on MSN. You'd do that beep-beep-beep-beep-pshhh—and then you actually got to speak to a friend! The truth is we're not doing dial-up internet anymore, and that's because we have hot spots in our phones. The thing that we see with renewable energy is that we have the opportunity to be able to do energy cheaper, cleaner and in a new way. I'm just amazed at how antiquated the coalition is. But then, if I think about it, 'coalition', 'coal'—yes, okay. They're putting the 'coal' back in 'coalition'! Ms Plibersek 83M That's right. Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Thank you. One of the things that the member for Hasluck was talking about earlier was around half-baked policies. I think it's really interesting that they had 22 energy policies. I know that climate change action killed a few leaders, and that was pretty traumatising, but what I would say— Mr Howarth 247742 You weren't even here. You don't know. Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 No, I wasn't here. But do you know what happens in this place? Everybody watches, right? Everybody watches. Everybody's listening. Mr Howarth 247742 You're an expert! Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 I'm not going to say that I'm an expert, but I will say that I am an engineer that worked in decarbonisation for 12 years, and I am very proud to be a part of this government. One of the things that the member for Hasluck talked about was half-baked policies, and it made me think about yellowcake. When I'm talking about yellowcake, I'm not talking about sponge cake; I'm talking about uranium. It is an intermediate product that's used in uranium processing. The thing that I would say is that the people of Australia don't want to eat your yellowcake. They don't want to eat your uranium policy. The truth is that they want clean, reliable electricity that's affordable. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 45 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 45 Report 45 16:16 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitledInquiry into the Department of Defence annual report 2022-23. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 by leave—On behalf of the joint standing committee, and as the chair of the Defence Subcommittee, I present the committee 's report entitled Inquiry into the Department of Defence annual report 2022-23. This inquiry examined Australia's assistance to Ukraine, the Defence health system, Defence's capability assurance mechanism, artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons and armaments manufacture, procurement and inventory. Australia is facing an increasingly complex and rapidly evolving strategic environment with rising tensions and reduced warning time for conflict. Responding to these challenges, Australian statecraft and diplomacy is investing in Indo-Pacific partnerships while deepening engagement across South-East Asia and the Pacific and with our allies around the world. A cornerstone of our approach remains our unwavering support for Ukraine, a commitment endorsed by our Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in fact, this government and, importantly, the federal opposition. This bipartisan support is critical not only to Ukraine's immediate needs but also to the need for a stable rules based international order. As the conflict in Ukraine endures, it is clear that Australia's support must be carefully coordinated and sustained for the long term. Our Department of Defence and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are already doing vital work managing and coordinating this assistance. However, there is currently no central point of contact for communication and clarity of responsibilities for Ukraine, our partners and particularly the Australian public. To address this shortcoming, the subcommittee has recommended in this report the creation of a whole-of-government mechanism—a dedicated one-stop shop, if you like—to streamline Australia's support efforts. This will ensure that we are more efficient and effective in our assistance in the future. We must also be strategic about the equipment we provide to Ukraine. The subcommittee believes it is crucial that a Ukraine lens be applied to the decision-making process around the retirement of equipment from military service. Identifying items of equipment well in advance of their retirement will allow more effective planning while providing more appropriate time to ensure Australia's ongoing compliance with international agreements and treaties. Furthermore, transparency is essential. Public discussions about the potential gifting of military hardware like the Hawkei vehicles and Taipan helicopters have lacked some clarity. The subcommittee recommends the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publish a summary of their decision-making processes, enabling the public to understand the rationale behind these decisions and increasing trust in our actions. In addition to military support, Australia's training contributions to Ukraine through Operation KUDU have proven highly successful. We are committed to expanding this operation, continuing our support for the training of both Ukrainian forces and civilians to enhance their resilience. On the diplomatic front, the subcommittee believes there is a strong case for reopening Australia's embassy in Kyiv. Given the long-term nature of the conflict, a physical diplomatic presence would not only strengthen our bilateral ties with Ukraine but also align us with 70 other nations that have already reopened their embassies. Alongside this, the subcommittee has recommended the posting of an Australian military attache in Kyiv to provide crucial support for logistics, for equipment and for training efforts on the ground. Turning to domestic matters, we must also address the significant workload facing Defence and its health services contractor in providing healthcare services to over 60,000 personnel across various Defence units. The subcommittee heard evidence that while efforts are being made to address challenges in the healthcare system, staffing shortages and delays in medical appointments remain ongoing concerns. We urge both Defence and its contractor to investigate these issues urgently and take the necessary steps to ensure timely service delivery that meets the needs of our personnel. The subcommittee is also concerned about Defence's oversight of its health services contract, particularly the workforce fill rates and performance targets. Despite ongoing efforts, these issues persist. The subcommittee believes continued attention and remediation are essential. Additionally, the shortfall in recruitment health assessments is affecting Defence's ability to meet its recruitment targets. We therefore call on Defence to work closely with its contractors to address these shortfalls. Looking at the broader picture, the subcommittee reviewed Defence's capability assurance systems and is confident that they are well documented and effective. However, the subcommittee recognises that the cyber and space worthiness systems are still in development, and the subcommittee has recommended that these areas receive urgent attention. The shortage of skilled testing and evaluation personnel was identified as a key vulnerability. This gap could hinder the development of critical defence capabilities, and we have urged Defence and the defence industry to prioritise investment in training and retaining these highly skilled personnel. The 2023 Defence Strategic Review and the 2024 National Defence Strategy provide a clear roadmap for addressing these challenges. And again, the subcommittee is confident that with a focus on minimum viable capabilities, timely delivery and allocated funding, Defence will be able to meet its objectives and build the integrated force of 2031. Australia finds itself in a rapidly changing strategic environment, facing an elevated risk of state-on-state conflict. To meet these challenges head on, the Australian government, in collaboration with our AUKUS partners, is prioritising the development and acquisition of asymmetric capabilities, including autonomous weapons systems. These technologies will empower the Australian Defence Force to project influence effectively across a full spectrum of responses, ensuring our capacity for impactful and proportionate action in any scenario. As we look to integrate these advanced capabilities, it is essential that we assess the full range of artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems to ensure they meet the unique requirements of our defence strategy. However, we must also remain committed to the principle that all new capabilities be fully compliant with international humanitarian law. The subcommittee acknowledges that rapid advancements in AI and computing will continue to shape the future of weapon systems. To guarantee the reliability and functionality of these systems, Defence must establish robust test and evaluation frameworks, ensuring systems are thoroughly validated before deployment. Additionally, we must address challenges such as automation bias and ensure our personnel are trained to understand the limitations of these new technologies. The subcommittee heard evidence on the application of international humanitarian law, particularly article 36 of the additional protocol to the Geneva conventions, in regulating the use of AI and autonomous systems in modern warfare. The subcommittee is confident that existing legal frameworks remain sufficient to govern these advancements and that state responsibility will continue to apply in situations where individual accountability is unclear. Australia remains committed to contributing to international discussions on AI policy, and we must stay informed of evolving international law and policy developments. As such, the subcommittee strongly urges Defence to continue adhering to the requirements of article 36 of the Geneva conventions and other relevant international obligations as we develop, acquire and deploy new defence technologies. Australia's future defence capabilities will be shaped by innovation. But we must always ensure they align with our legal and ethical obligations. This balance will safeguard our national security while upholding our commitment to international law. Finally, as we strengthen Australia's sovereign defence capabilities we must address our reliance on international supply chains, particularly around munitions. The subcommittee has recommended sourcing more components domestically to reduce supply chain vulnerabilities in times of conflict or other disruptions. Additionally, a transparent reporting framework for guided weapons explosive ordnance stockholdings has been recommended, which will allow progress to be tracked and Australia's self-reliance in munitions production to be enhanced. While challenges remain, the subcommittee is confident that Defence's ongoing efforts to improve its systems and capabilities will position Australia's defence for long-term success. By strengthening domestic industries, improving transparency and staying agile in response to emerging threats, we can ensure that Australia's defence remains robust and resilient, securing our national security both now and into the future. In conclusion, I thank, firstly, the deputy chair, Andrew Wallace MP, and other members of the subcommittee for their final contributions to this inquiry. I also extend my thanks to Julian Hill for his critical contributions to the inquiry as the former chair of the subcommittee. I also thank the secretariat, Wing Commander Julian Baesjou and committee secretary Kate Portus for their advice and their support to the subcommittee in the past year, and all the witnesses and contributors to this inquiry—including the significant support from Defence in briefing the subcommittee and supporting its site visits in Queensland and Victoria. I commend the report to the House, and I move: That the House take note of the report. 16:28 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher by leave—The Australian parliament has long enjoyed a generally bipartisan approach when it comes to the operation of its intelligence and security as well as defence mechanisms. I thank the new chair for his services; being a former defence minister of some repute, coming back into this scene is probably like pulling on an old glove! I also thank the member for Bruce, who I have enjoyed a very good working relationship with over the last eight years. I wish him well in his new job, but not too well! I've previously served as the chair of this subcommittee, and I now serve as the deputy chair. I'm also the deputy chair of the PJCIS. From both vantage points I'm able to see how important it is when the two parties of government are able to work together with collegiality and consideration. After all, members and senators, no matter their political party or their professional background, should share the same primary objective, and that, of course, is to protect Australians and secure their future. As the deputy chair, I regularly meet with defence contractors, suppliers, policy experts and veterans. Over the last two years, those meetings have exposed the worrying trend and a disturbing truth that Australia is in a more precarious position than ever. We know that Australia is facing the most geopolitically unstable period since the end of World War II. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and an axis of resistance and terror are set on sowing discord and dismantling democracies, including our own. But what makes Australia's position so precarious isn't the strong alliance mobilised beyond our borders. It's the weak leadership we are seeing within the corridors of the federal government. Whether you look at personnel, procurement, policy or partnerships, you'll find the Albanese government lacking in the courage and conviction necessary to lead Australia forward. This has been a consistent trend when it comes to space and defence, where we are light-years behind our competitors and counterparts, thanks to this government's mismanagement in that regard. As Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Hamilton of Space Operations Branch at Defence Space Command said: Space is fundamental to our warfighting ability, and losing access to space would significantly degrade it. We often take our access to space for granted; unfortunately it's not guaranteed. In defence circles, we often talk about holding the high ground as being imperative to military operations, and space is the ultimate high ground. The reality is that, under this government, Australia's space and defence capabilities have been denuded. Labor removed space manufacturing from the national manufacturing agenda. In an affront to our US allies, Labor slashed funding for the $1 billion National Space Mission for Earth Observation. What about defence project JP9102? This would have delivered Australia's first sovereign-controlled satellite communication system, shoring up our space defence surveillance and observation capabilities for a generation. For those of you who might be listening to this around Australia, this was our opportunity to build and launch Australia's first sovereign owned and controlled satellite—our first. Madame Deputy Speaker Chesters, do you know how many satellites the United States has? It has 1,800. Do you know how many the People's Republic of China has? It has 1,200. Do you know how many Australia has? None. We had an opportunity to build and launch our first sovereign satellite, and just a few weeks ago this government announced the cutting of that project JP9102. This government broke its first funding commitment through the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator, putting innovators on notice that Labor can't be trusted. Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit in on the AIDN symposium, and I listened with some attentiveness to the CEO, Brent Clark, talking about how this government is on a go-slow with the appointment of contracts for the defence industry. He gave the salient warning to this government that, unless and until it pulled its finger out and started awarding contracts to Australian defence industry contractors, next year, in 2025, when AIDN does its policy symposium, the theatrette of the Australian Parliament House would be full of Australian Defence Force officers, but there would be nobody from Australian defence manufacturing. That is utterly unacceptable. Australian defence industry contractors are bleeding. They are dying a death by a thousand cuts. What this government doesn't seem to understand is that, unless there is cash flow, small to medium-sized and even large contractors will not be here this time next year. Many of them won't be here at the beginning of next year. They are dying a death of a thousand cuts. I would plead with the Acting Prime Minister, the defence minister of this country, to ensure that money is pushed out the door. On the one hand, the defence minister talks about how we are in a perilous situation—the worst geopolitically strategic environment since the end of World War II—and yet we are not putting money out the door to feed Australian defence industry contractors. It just beggars belief. The chair, very appropriately, talked about munitions productions. Let's talk about NIOA. Here's an Australian success story in the heart of regional Queensland. They've supplied our defence personnel and Australian industry with munitions for over 50 years. The coalition backed them as part of our ambition to establish a world-class defence industry. But, instead of getting behind Australian defence manufacturers and existing manufacturing infrastructure, this government chose to pop the champagne on a deal worth over a billion dollars in taxpayers' money to subsidise a foreign company—namely, Thales. Thales is a French company, partially owned by the French government, now competing with an Australian family owned business—no value for money, no transparency, no accountability. Add to that the delay in the defence industry plan. What about the mismanagement of the Henderson precinct project? And, of course, this government dropped the ball and delayed material support for the people of Ukraine. They are presiding over a skilled workforce crisis, meaning that the skills we need to deliver AUKUS in cyber, construction and practical trades will be in short supply just as we need them most. After pledging to boost our defence workforce, the government's consistent pattern of indecision and divisive politics has seen a decrease of 4,747 ADF personnel. To respond to the shortage of defence personnel, they're just lowering the target instead of upping their efforts. Shrinking the target doesn't excuse the Albanese government for their failures. The reality is that Australia's defence is at breaking point, putting lives and livelihoods on the line, and this Prime Minister just doesn't care. Small and medium enterprises dotted across regional Australia are fighting to stay afloat. Groundbreaking Australian researchers and world-class manufacturers are clinging on to the hope that our part-time defence minister doesn't wake up tomorrow and cancel their contracts. Before I finish, I do want to thank all of those who provided submissions to the committee and I want to thank once again the new chair, the outgoing chair, the secretariat and our outgoing defence adviser, Julian Baesjou, who's done a sterling job over the last 12 months. BILLS 48 BILLS Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 48

Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024

Second Reading 48 16:38 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The regulator sector says it is difficult to understand how these obligations will be interpreted by the regulator or by AFCA when consumer redress claims are made. This is particularly difficult when the prescriptive content of the codes that will sit alongside and inform these principles are still unknown. The Customer Owned Banking Association, COBA, summed up these concerns well, saying, 'The complexity of these obligations evidences why the codes must be created before designation, as key details on how to comply with the principles will be within these codes, without which our members will lack clarity in how to meet their obligations under the framework.' Stakeholders have also raised significant concerns about the risks of being compliant with a mandatory code that's still in breach of the primary legislation principle. On this point, the ABA has said that in some cases there is no assurance that these requirements would effectively reduce scams, and the breadth of certain terms in compliance requirements may create uncertainty that could hinder large-scale investment aimed at preventing and detecting scams. To address this issue, some stakeholders have encouraged greater use of the targeted codes, with the primary legislation being focused on enabling the framework rather than it being a pseudocode containing its own potentially conflicting obligations. It seems like the government hasn't been able to get all the work done and has resorted to this stopgap approach so that it can look like it's delivered on its commitment. On this point I also question why the government has not been able to bring forward and consult on the designations and codes alongside the primary legislation. It took almost 18 months to even put forward a model for scams prevention and 2½ years to finally bring forward legislation, and it's not even enacting the full framework; it's just enabling legislation. The framework relies heavily on delegated legislation, but everyone has been expected to wave this bill through and hope for the best. Significant detail is missing. The government managed to do this when it brought forward the buy-now pay-later legislation. It still hasn't passed, but the regulations were available for consultation before its introduction. I wonder if this wasn't possible because the work simply hasn't been done in 2½ years. Where are the mandatory codes? There is already a code-making power in the Competition and Consumer Act for the government to prescribe mandatory industry codes. These existing codes include the Franchising Code of Conduct, the Unit Pricing Code and the Dairy Code of Conduct. The minister could already have mandatory scams codes in place with this act. Instead his choice to overengineer for the sake of having a bill to wave around in parliament and to squeeze another announcement out has delayed action—that's the concern here. The minister himself admits he doesn't get given enough drafting resources, but he still decided to use the most drafting-intensive and slowest approach to make these codes. This process has been back to front, and consumers have waited too long as a result. Even more bizarre is the regulation impact analysis that has been tabled with the explanatory memorandum. According to the government's explanatory materials, there are 'regulatory compliance costs of around $228.8 million in the initial year of operation and $88 million for each year ongoing'. However, this compliance burden appears to be grossly underestimated, based on some of the costing assumptions that have been used. Here are a few of the strangest. There's 1.1 full-time equivalent staff required for a major bank to uplift antiscam activity and governance improvements. I was talking to a guy from ANZ today who told me they currently have 400 full-time people on scams—you know, the bank with the little hawk or the eagle on the ads—1.1 full-time equivalent staff, with this legislation? Come on! There's a $40,000 initial technology investment required for a major bank to comply with the info-sharing and reporting obligations, and $20,000 ongoing; a $40,000 initial investment in staff for a COBA member bank, a smaller bank, to administer antiscam activity and governance improvements, and $10,000 ongoing; and a $100,000 initial investment for a major telco to uplift antiscam activity and governance, and $50,000 ongoing. When the Assistant Treasurer spoke at the Press Club, he said that this framework will not be the bare minimum. Well, based on these assumptions, it looks a lot like the bare minimum to me. A short conversation with any regulated entity would debunk these assumptions immediately. Either the government expects minimal uplift and investment from these regulated entities, or it is cooking the books by understating what the real compliance costs will be. I only mention this because we all know that, when there are compliance costs in place, they all get passed on to every user. This isn't just an oversight; this is a document signed off by the minister and tabled in parliament with the explanatory memorandum. Impact analysis is important, and an accurate estimate of regulatory costs guides the parliament's consideration of legislation. These are ultimately costs that get passed on to consumers, as I said a moment ago. I hope that the Office of Impact Analysis does not sign off on this document as compliant without first a hundred per cent checking this. The minister and his department should go back and come up with costings that have accuracy, and issue a replacement explanatory memorandum. Feedback from both industry and consumer advocates points to the complexity arising from the lack of clear liability rules and an apportionment mechanism for situations where multiple entities across different sectors are involved in a scam. Uncertainty about liability and apportionment is likely to create a chain of suing and countersuing between entities to apportion liability for consumer redress. This could result in confusion and delays for consumers seeking redress, who will typically not have full visibility of a scam attack chain and the reasonable steps undertake by each entity. While AFCA has been designated as a single door for external dispute resolution, stakeholders expressed concerns about how its decisions would work in practice and whether it would be creating an expensive and convoluted process without an improvement in consumer redress. Under the proposed model, there could be a protracted examination through an external dispute resolution body of different companies' relative roles in the scammer's attack to determine possible redress. Some stakeholders speculate this could take years to resolve and for consumers to be reimbursed because of the complexity of the scam attack chain. I understand changes have been made to the final bill to allow for rules or guidelines to be made around ensuring consumers have sufficient information to make a complaint and how liability should be apportioned. However, again, significant matters have been left to be dealt with in a delegated legislation which is yet to materialise. As this will outline how key aspects of this framework will operate, this information should be available alongside the bill. Under the bill, entities face serious penalties if they do not report all actionable scam intelligence to the ACCC. The broad definition used for 'scam intelligence' means this reporting obligation could inundate the ACCC with an unprecedented volume of reports about scams without a clear mandate for what they will do with it—for example, publishing it or sharing it with regulated entities. Stakeholders have said this obligation will create a significant compliance burden and potential privacy issues without a clear connection to scam prevention or reducing consumer harm. On this issue, the Customer Owned Banking Association has said it is 'concerned with the legislation's complexity and the regulatory burden that could be created, especially for smaller banks,' particularly the various reporting obligations. As it stands, there is the potential to lead to a regime focused too much on reporting rather than on protecting customers from scams. I appreciate changes have been made to the final bill to attempt to address the breadth of the reporting obligations, but, as it has only been a week since this bill appeared, it's difficult for stakeholders to advise whether they will make a meaningful difference to the compliance burden. Stakeholders recommend the ACCC share a more manageable set of actionable reports with the National Anti-Scam Centre to use that information to develop a public, searchable database of known scams that consumers and companies can use to investigate whether something is a scam in real time. Forty-four million dollars has already been allocated to the National Anti-Scam Centre in the federal budget for a technology bill. This spend is vague, and I hope it is being used towards this kind of initiative. I also note the good work of the banks existing information sharing initiative, the Australian Financial Crimes Exchange, or AFCX, which already facilitates the secure sharing of scam intelligence between banks. It is important the reporting obligations do not unnecessarily duplicate industry-led initiatives like this. Under this bill, regulated entities face significant maximum civil penalties because the penalties regime has been aligned with the existing penalties regime in the CCA for serious competition law offences. I note that some stakeholders argue that this is disproportionate and that the civil penalty regime should be restricted to apply only to serious breaches or that there should be a clear list of matters which can attract a pecuniary penalty. The severity of potential penalties compounds the broader concerns about the vague principles based obligations in the primary legislation, serving the standalone obligations rather than being guiding principles for future mandatory codes. The current design of the framework and the potentially disproportionate penalty regime increases the risk of regulator entities being more focused on compliance and minimising potential liability than on acting quickly and flexibly to address emerging scams or provide consumer redress. On this point the Business Council of Australia said the proposed legislation is rushed, heavy-handed, complex and unclear. It is a prescriptive approach that reflects a compliance mindset rather than seeking to improve practical approaches to stopping scams. The Communications Alliance said: … telcos are subject to as many four concurrent enforcement mechanisms, and could face penalties even when they comply with sector-specific codes – creating a 'quadruple jeopardy' of liability. I am also concerned the broad operation of the framework and the disrupt principle in particular could have a chilling effect on the seamless digital experience consumers have had come to expect from their digital banking and digital platforms. For example, delays and blocks to payments, freezing of accounts, additional verification processes and mandatory scam questionnaires are likely to become commonplace frictions. While these could be valid reasonable steps to prevent a scam, they will also create a broader inconvenience and frustration for many Australians. I note the final bill now includes a safe harbour protection from liability in relation to losses incurred because of disruption activity. However, the inclusion of this acknowledges that consumers and businesses will inevitably be disrupted in a way that could cause some losses. There is also a risk it will exacerbate the existing issue of debanking, which has worsened under this government and could be used to restrict banking services unnecessarily. Unfortunately, the government doesn't have a great track record with compensation schemes. The compensation scheme of last resort serves as a cautionary tale of good intentions gone wrong. It became a mess under the Albanese government's watch, with costs blowing out due to the design of the scheme and excessive administration costs. The CSLR recently admitted the 2025 levy will likely exceed the $20 million subsector cap for financial advice. It was originally supposed to be $10 million. This means financial advisers are set to be slugged with an even bigger levy than this year. This scam scheme includes similar cost-recovery elements and an underestimation of the compliance costs, as I outlined before, but I hope we don't end up with a similar mess that needs to be mopped up because it has been rushed through with minimal consultation or scrutiny. I hope this won't be a CSLR 2.0. I also note this framework relies heavily on leaving matters to be determined in future delegated legislation. I must warn that giving this minister broad regulation-making powers is risky when you look at what recently happened with accountants and bookkeepers. They know this more than anyone. After the minister was given powers to unilaterally vary the tax agent's code of conduct, there was a massive pushback right around the country from these people—some of the most trusted people that there are, particularly for small and family businesses and sole traders. This minister made a determination which was widely criticised through a grassroots advocacy campaign and a united call for it to be scrapped from the leading accounting professional bodies. I won't talk too much more about that. I hope the minister has learned from this experience and does not use the same approach when making the many designations, codes and rules required for this scams prevention framework to be fully operational. The regulated sectors must put a lot of faith in the minister to get this right, and I hope this isn't another example of regulation by decree with no notice or consultation. The looming election should not mean that the designations and codes are also rushed and not properly consulted on, like this bill. The success of this framework will depend on these mandatory codes being well designed and effective. As I mentioned earlier, a whole-of-ecosystem approach makes sense. The scam attack chain involves different sectors, and a coordinated approach is important as scam attempts become more sophisticated. However, the government's scams policy does nothing to address the law-and-order issues associated with scams. Scams are typically perpetrated by transnational criminals, and Australia is viewed as a honeypot by these criminals. Fighting scams can't be left to banks, telcos and digital platforms. Other countries take these criminals on; that's very important, and that's something we should be doing too. The policy response to scams cuts across multiple portfolios and isn't something that Minister Jones, or even myself as his opposition shadow, can tackle from just the Treasury portfolio. It means ministers need to be talking to one another and getting their departments involved, which doesn't always happen in this place. I will briefly mention the unclear role of the National Anti-Scam Centre. Despite pouring millions of dollars of funding into the National Anti-Scam Centre, it has zero mentions in this bill and seems to play no part. It isn't very clear how this funding is being used by the ACCC. Education and advertising on scams should be a key focus for this spend. I also note that the National Anti-Scam Centre has not published a quarterly scams report for the last two quarters since May. Scams reporting data, buried on the ACCC website, indicates that between May and September this year scam losses have started trending back up. I must ask: why is the minister taking credit for a downward trend in losses in 2023 but hiding this spike over the last six months? Why, with the huge additional resources provided to it, is the National Anti-Scam Centre not publishing quarterly scams reports for this period, yet this bill makes banks, telcos and digital providers report straightaway? In conclusion, as I have said before, if there are sensible reforms which will help during Labor's cost-of-living crisis and doing-business crisis we want to see them come into parliament and be legislated as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the list of promised reforms in the Treasury portfolio, which is running out of runway before an election, has ballooned. Even the minister's top priorities like this are being left to the last minute, with rushed consultation processes and unexplained delays becoming the norm. The department and drafting resources are constantly scapegoated by this government, but it is becoming clear there is a lack of direction and leadership from the top. Unfortunately, the Albanese government's approach to legislating its scams prevention policy has been slapdash, half-finished and left to the last minute. The theatrics we saw yesterday in question time from the Assistant Treasurer show us that this government is running out of time. The minister should be a little bit embarrassed that this work has been left too late. Something as important as this should not be rammed through without scrutiny because the government can't manage its legislative agenda or has prioritised other things. The bill was panned during consultation and many concerns that were raised—so many that I can't cover them all today—have not been fully addressed. The Assistant Treasurer's take-it-or-leave-it approach to this bill is disappointing. I assure stakeholders that this bill can't get any worse; it can only get better. I hope that, through a committee inquiry process, there will finally be proper and meaningful consultation on this bill, all stakeholders will have their voices heard and this bill can be improved and legislated. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the amendment seconded? Mr McCormack 219646 I second the amendment, and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 52

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

Second Reading 52 16:59 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina This bill is totally political in nature. It is very much formed to be a political wedge to put privatisation on the agenda for the 2025 election. That is what Labor is doing. When Labor introduced its legislation establishing the National Broadband Network, it specifically contemplated a situation in which it could be sold. The act outlines a staged process under which the government's NBN Co stake can be sold down. Let's hear what some key stakeholders have had to say about this latest situation. Ziggy Switkowski, former chair of NBN, former chief executive at Telstra and Optus has said: The decision to hold NBN in government ownership is fine for the short term, say this decade. … But beyond that horizon why do it? It feels like the ban on nuclear power - why do it? Paul Budde, telecommunications industry analyst, said: 'Even if sold at the most recent valuation of $20 billion, that would still represent an enormous loss for taxpayers and would be a political disaster. Finding a buyer, even from overseas, would be difficult.' I do have a bit of a problem sometimes with overseas buyers, particularly for our strategic national assets. I can well recall in the first year of the Abbott government when there was a proposal put forward to sell off GrainCorp. Indeed, Archer-Daniels-Midland, the American owned company, which had a less than desirable track record in some of its corporate doings in the US, was going to buy, essentially, all the silos and all the infrastructure that my late father, Lance, and all the other wheat growers had paid for many times over. What would that do to Australia? It would determine how much wheat, how much grain, we would grow. In particular, it would determine the price. Heavily subsidised US wheat growers would get an advantage over Australian wheat growers, who grow the best hard wheat in the world. Our wheat growers will be put at a disadvantage, and we don't need that, particularly when Canada produces a lot of wheat, particularly when the world markets are crying out for our wheat. Why should the price of our wheat be determined around a boardroom table in Illinois, America? It is just not right. I stood against it then and I know that we made the right decision. When it came to foreign investment we changed the rules, when we came to government, particularly in relation to agricultural assets. With this particular bill, I must say, we do have an Americanisation of the NBN. Recently I got fibre to the premises at my home and— Mrs Elliot DZW Did you? Mr McCORMACK 219646 I didn't actually ask for it even when I was Deputy Prime Minister. I didn't want to get forward in the queue. I wanted to wait my turn. Quite frankly, ADSL2 was working just fine and had worked just fine, even when I ran a small business from home—a rather successful media company, I might say. Mr Gosling 245392 Must you digress? Mr McCORMACK 219646 I do digress, Member for Solomon. I was alarmed to see 'FTTC' on the paperwork for the NBN, 'fibre to the curb'—curb, c-u-r-b. This is Australia. Kerb, which is the gutter along the—sideway; call it what you like, along the bitumen, out the front of your house, out on the street—is k-e-r-b. Somehow we get all this Americanisation thrust upon us. I appreciate they're our closest security partner, as they should be, and all the rest. But, when NBN and other companies are doing these sorts of programs and putting in place these sorts of glossy brochures, here's a tip: get it right. Spell it right. Use the Australian English version, not the one from America. Now, as I said, this is a stunt from a desperate and failing government. It very much is. They want privatisation to be on the agenda for the next scare campaign. They did so in 2016. Who will ever forget the bombardment of advertisements, particular to younger families, about Mediscare. It worked a treat, unfortunately. But they seem to forget their own shoddy record of privatisation. In the 1990s the Treasurer's idol, Prime Minister Paul Keating, privatised not only Qantas but also the Commonwealth Bank. You could argue that governments aren't there to run banks and airlines, and that may well be the case. But the government can't then try to bring on these scare campaigns at the eleventh hour, just prior to an election, so they can then allege—and they will, wait for it—that under the new provisions people will be paying more for the internet and people will be paying more to download and upload data. Let me tell you, this is what is coming. Our position as the coalition will be to oppose the bill. We're not proposing a sale. We are very much economic rationalists and economic adults, unlike those opposite. They want to just politicise everything, as they always do. We will take the responsible approach and will do it in a way that is best for the consumer and best for the Australian public. Australians desperately need help with the cost-of-living crisis—a cost-of-living crisis brought about under Labor, a cost-of-living crisis that Labor did not even acknowledge or recognise until after the Voice vote was lost. They cared way more about a divisive referendum that cost $450 million and did nothing but create divisions within this country. They were not talking about the cost of living then; they seem to have caught up now, but sometimes it's too little, too late. They're running around scaring everybody with proposals such as this, scaring everybody by saying that they will manage the economy when in fact they have not. We'll take this bill in the usual way. It's a farcical approach from the Albanese government. If you look at their record in so many aspects, the Prime Minister has mentioned NBN only six times in the parliament this year, most recently on 3 July. That was quite some months ago. The sixth time was about how NBN's Sky Muster satellite was helping Indigenous communities, which was on 3 February 2024. Then all of a sudden, in the second-last week of sittings of federal parliament for 2024—who knows when the election is, but it is just around the corner—we find ourselves with a debate such as this plonked on the table and of course the urgency to debate it, the urgency to pass it and the urgency for Labor to pretend as though they're getting on board with policies that matter to Australians. The policies that matter to Australians are the costs of living. The policies that matter to Australians are the prices of groceries. The policies that matter to Australians should be around the cost of fuel, because every time people go to the bowsers they're paying more and more. Every time they get their energy bills they're higher and higher. That is what the general public is talking about. That's the barbecue stopper. It's not the ownership of the NBN at the moment; it is making sure that, if they are in regional Australia, they have connectivity and they have mobile phones which actually have service. I mentioned yesterday the situation at Ardlethan and Kamarah, where farmers are being forced to climb silos—the Grinter family had to do just that to get reception, to get a bar on their phones—so they can make an urgent call because there is a medical crisis. This is simply not good enough. When Labor brought out their latest round of mobile phone tower installations and infrastructure, they put them all in Labor electorates. They came to the election saying they would be far more transparent, far more accountable and far more honest in their dealings when it comes to funding initiatives, particularly in regional Australia, and what did they do? They had a spreadsheet which was all red, all Labor. I say shame on Labor just for that. It's all well and good if you're in a Labor seat and have got one of the mobile phone towers but not good enough if you're in a coalition seat. We hold more regional seats than Labor, and we missed out unfairly, unjustifiably. I don't know how Labor members can come to the dispatch box, come to the microphone and argue that they are being more accountable when it comes to funding such as that, particularly for regional areas. This is just another scare campaign. It's just Labor trying to get their house in order prior to the election. Shame on them. 17:10 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The creation of the National Broadband Network flowed out of the botched privatisation of Telstra under the Howard government. Telstra was privatised by the Howard government starting in 1997, selling off 49 per cent initially and then selling Telstra into minority public ownership in 2006. That meant, when the Rudd government came to office and called for tenders to build the National Broadband Network, Telstra, then under majority private ownership, produced an extraordinary document. Asked to show how it might build a national network serving 98 per cent of the population, Telstra turned in a desultory 12-page letter which wasn't compliant with the requirements at the time. That meant Telstra had to be removed from the request for proposals process, and then the National Broadband Network flowed. We can only imagine how much more straightforward the process of building the National Broadband Network would have been if Telstra had worked constructively with the government in 2008, but it was not possible, largely because of the decision that the Howard government had made to privatise Telstra. This bill matters to Australians because by keeping the NBN in full government control we ensure ongoing regulatory oversight of NBN wholesale pricing, keeping broadband affordable for Australians. It's also important because the NBN is crucial national infrastructure. There are cybersecurity and national security imperatives that require strong government oversight and which are best ensured by ongoing government ownership. Any future sale of the National Broadband Network would be likely to involve foreign ownership, raising serious national security and sovereignty risks. Those opposite have argued in their talking points that the bill is unnecessary because no future government would possibly privatise the NBN. That flies in the face of the way in which the coalition has behaved in the past. The sale of Telstra deprived the government of leverage to roll out fibre broadband, leading to the National Broadband Network. The botched privatisation of Medibank Private by the then Abbott government in 2014 took away an important public owned competitor to hold private health insurers to account. That meant we saw the largest player in private health care move into private hands, taking away any ability of the government to better hold that sector in check. Medibank Private as Australia's largest private health insurer then operated very much as you would expect an oligopoly player to operate. We saw under the coalition government an NBN Co submission to increase wholesale prices on their core products by three per cent over the CPI. The aim of that was clearly to bolster their income streams in preparation for sale. That move was rejected by Labor. It was rejected by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Labor recognised the risk of the measure which the coalition was putting in place, clearly readying NBN Co for a potential sell-off. We've seen a range of prominent economists say their views on privatisation have shifted because of a series of botched privatisations. In 2016 ACCC chair Rod Sims said he had been a strong advocate of privatisation for 30 years because he believed it produced enhanced economic efficiency. But he said he had now shifted his views and was, as he said, 'almost at the point of opposing privatisation' because the sales of assets had not been done in the long-term interests of taxpayers. Mr Sims pointed particularly to the sale of the Port of Newcastle and the bundled sale of the ports of Botany and Kembla, clearly done in order to maximise the sale price rather than to maximise long-term competition. Another former chair of the ACCC, Allan Fels, said of privatisation, 'Everyone was only interested in revenue.' As he pointed out, the Sydney Airport Corporation was privatised with first rights to bid for a second airport in Sydney. That effectively led to adverse outcomes for consumers. We've seen the current ACCC chair, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, pointing out the dangers of privatisation, again using the example of the ports industry. In a speech a couple of years ago, Gina Cass-Gottlieb said, 'Australia's container ports are regional monopolies, and, in the absence of appropriate regulation, they can extract monopoly rents from users with no alternatives.' Ms Cass-Gottlieb pointed to Port of Melbourne, which was privatised in 2017, and noted: … the Essential Services Commission of Victoria was tasked with monitoring pricing. In two separate reviews in 2020 and 2021, the Essential Services Commission found that Port of Melbourne had exercised market power in setting land rents and engaged in significant and sustained non-compliance with the state's Pricing Order. So successive chairs of the ACCC have pointed out the risk of botched privatisations of the kind that coalition governments seem to favour so much. John Quiggin, an economist at the University of Queensland, has pointed to a number of international examples of botched privatisation: the British government's privatisation of the rail network, partially reversed with the renationalisation of Railtrack under the Blair Labour government; the sale of council homes under Margaret Thatcher, which led to a massive rundown in British social housing; and the privatisation of Thames Water, privatised under Prime Minister Thatcher and stripped bare by its private owners. As Professor Quiggin puts it: The simplest explanation is that politicians saw privatisation and private infrastructure as a way to get access to a big bucket of money, which could be spent on popular projects without the need to raise taxes. This was a fallacy, refuted many times over, but resurrected just as often in zombie form. One of the worst privatisations that history has seen is the sell-off of Chicago's parking meters for $1.1 billion over 75 years. Just 15 years after the sale, the owners had fully recouped their investment plus $500 million and still had 60 years left on the deal. Chicago was left with a situation in which it was paying compensation costs to the new private owners. Every time there were parades or street maintenance, or bike lanes or outdoor seating were put in, the private owners would need to be paid out. It's yet another example in which privatisation has not delivered for citizens. As Clayton Barr noted in a speech to the New South Wales parliament, the privatisation of the Port of Newcastle was said to have been done by the New South Wales Liberal government with no restriction on shipping container terminals. That was shown to be a complete fabrication. He notes the privatisation of the Land Titles Office, in which the then Liberal government promised that employees would be offered a four-year protection for their employment. Twelve months after that sale, 30 per cent of the workforce was gone—a decision which, according to Mr Barr, cost New South Wales Treasury books more than $100 million each year. He pointed, too, to the New South Wales privatisation of Ausgrid, for which multiyear protections were said to have been put in place for workers, but in fact the new privatised owners stripped out the profits, sacked the workforce and allowed reliability to decline. Ausgrid workers were left jobless, and the state, according to Mr Barr, ended up losing close to $2 billion every single year. The continued failure of Liberals to understand the way in which privatisation can operate against the interests of consumers comes down to their overriding faith in the power of free markets to always do better than the government. Yes, there are certain instances in which privatisations can produce efficiencies, but that judgment needs to be made on a case-by-case basis—based on evidence, not on blind ideology. The privatisation of monopoly assets without appropriate regulation has in many cases been disastrous for Australian taxpayers. It has seen Liberal governments place short-term windfall gains ahead of the long-term interests of Australians. The range of privatisations that we've seen under Liberal governments have returned billions of dollars into government coffers in the short term but at the cost of tens of billions of dollars to consumers in the long term. A botched privatisation of a monopoly asset is effectively to put a tax on future taxpayers, who miss out on the benefits that flow from competition. In the case of NBN, it is difficult to see how you would privatise it and have an appropriate system of regulation which would constrain a newly privatised monopoly of that kind. It would then potentially go on to extract monopoly rents from users in the same way in which we have seen it happen in the case of ports, in the case of electricity grids and in the case of parking metres. Without appropriate competition, these privatised monopoly assets behave in just the way our economic textbooks would lead us to believe. So it is important that the House pass this bill, because Australia for decades has seen too many examples in which Liberal governments have failed to apply sound economic analysis to privatisation decisions. We know that those opposite are often too hasty in their blind love of markets and too slow to think about the issues of competition which need to be taken into account in any privatisation. A greater role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in considering privatisation decisions may well be warranted in the future, to provide a check on any conservative state or territory government that might look to privatise a public monopoly asset in a way which is against the interests of consumers. We've seen another example in the case PEXA, an e-conveyancing monopoly which was privatised by state and territory governments. It garnered significant revenue in the short term but at the cost of higher e-conveyancing fees in the long-term. The interoperability reforms which would allow e-conveyancing to be a competitive market have the full support of the Albanese government and are something which state and territory governments should prioritise in order that people buying a home get a better deal. In conclusion, since this is the last sittings block of the parliamentary year, can I acknowledge my staff who have worked with me over the course of the year, Georgia Thompson, Bria Larkspur, Isha Singhal, Angella Fernando, Kal Slater, Iris Eagar, Toby Halligan, Meg Thomas, Frances Kitt, Tori Barker, Maria Neill, Felicity Wilkins, Louise Negline, Bronwyn Asquith, Ashish Nair, and Nick Terrell; my departmental liaison officers, who have served variously in my office through the year, Brooke Gay, Lizzie McAnulty, Joshua Lovett, Hailey Ward, Vijay Murik; and my volunteers, Lilli Stawyskyj and Geoff Robertson, for their help. Each of us in this place benefits from our parties, for those of us who are fortunate to represent major parties. For me, it's Australia's oldest and greatest political party, the Labor Party, and I do want to acknowledge the extraordinary team of volunteers who have helped me throughout the course of the year, and whose help I hope I can count on in next year's election. Finally, I also want to thank my wonderful family for the huge support that I get from them. I'm looking forward to spending more time with you over the Christmas break, and apologies in advance for the days out on the hustings in next year's election. 17:25 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As much as I like the member for Fenner and as much as I could agree with some of his comments, he went through a litany of privatisations in his contribution but he forgot to include the myriad of privatisations that have occurred under state Labor governments over the past 30 years, particularly in Queensland. The only state government in Queensland that has privatised any state assets is the state Labor government. People should never forget that it was state Labor in Queensland that privatised a myriad of assets, including toll roads, which Queenslanders are now paying for more than ever. So, when I listen to the member for Fenner and the other contributions from those opposite, I find their recent conversion to the notion that privatisations are bad quite interesting, because the piece of legislation that we're talking about is actually a Labor piece of legislation that was put in place when they created the NBN back in 2011. So I suggest that they maybe go and have a discussion with the former communications minister, Stephen Conroy, to find out why this was inserted into their own bill in the first place back in 2011. This is nothing more than a political stunt. It's what you do as a government when you are facing difficulties and headwinds in other areas and you don't want to deal with those issues or face up to your shortcomings as a government, because they are myriad and plenty. I know the member for Hume at the table could list an extraordinary list of their failures, and we would find that the government has an incredible talent for misdirection. We know the Australian people are facing a cost-of-living crisis, yet what do we see this government doing? Nothing—or, at best, fiddling at the edges, to be gracious to them. They are failing the Australian people abysmally, and then they come into this place and introduce a piece of legislation such as this, which is just a pure, pathetic, political stunt. It says everything you need to know about this government. As I said, this was passed back in 2011 when the current Prime Minister was a member of cabinet. If the Prime Minister is so exercised about these couple of clauses in the current legislation that prevent privatisation, why did he not oppose them back in 2011 when this bill was actually passed to create NBN Co? He didn't, because he didn't believe it was necessary; they thought it was appropriate. It went through the government's cabinet process to be the law of the land today. This is purely a distraction from their failure to deliver for the Australian people, and it's straight out of Labor's misinformation handbook. It brings to mind the 'Mediscare' campaign of 2016. It's what they do. It's what the government does. They don't want to talk about their record because they have no record to hang their hat on, so they find or invent some scare campaign to distract from their lack of contribution and performance when dealing with the issues that are actually facing this country. So we stand here today dealing with an obstinate inflation rate of 3.4 per cent. We stand here today with the average mortgage holder paying $35,000 a year more on their mortgage. We stand here today with people's electricity prices, food and groceries, fuel, transport and energy all having increased by double digits. Yet what do we see this government doing? Putting into this House a bill that is just a political stunt to divert from their failure to deliver with the cost-of-living crisis facing everyday Australians. The interesting thing about this bill is that it actually fails to deal with the nearly 14 per cent increase in NBN prices since October last year. That's another impact on people's cost of living that the government is failing to deal with. When I talk to businesses across my community, they talk to me about their struggles to pay ever-increasing energy prices, particularly gas. I used the example earlier today of a business whose gas prices have gone up 180 per cent in the past 12 months, and they're thinking about closing their doors. But every business I speak to is struggling with energy costs, rental increases and increases in the cost of inputs into their business. They are very conscious of the fact that Australian families are struggling. They are trying to work out as a business how they cover their cost increases yet keep prices at a level that is affordable to everyday Australians. They're struggling with that, because if they have an overdraft or a loan, just like a household, their interest costs on those loan facilities have gone up quite substantially. Many a small business owner in this country also has a mortgage on their home, so they get hit doubly. Yet they are the very people that we want to be successful and prosper, because they are the ones that employ Australians, they are where our innovation occurs, they are where our new ideas occur, and they are the people that make stuff that generates wealth for this country. Just like our farmers, just like our miners, our small business community works extraordinarily hard every day, not just to put food on the table for their families, but to put food on the table for every single person they employ. And they generate enormous wealth and opportunity for this country as a result. They are the things that we should be speaking about in this place. Yet we stand here debating a bill that is nothing short of a political stunt. As I said before, we've seen NBN prices go up some 14 per cent in the last 12 months. But we also see that their satellite business is failing to keep up with new and more flexible and adaptable entrants, such as Starlink. Two years ago, the NBN had 120,000 satellite customers, and Starlink had virtually none. Today, NBN has 85,000 satellite customers and Starlink has 270,000. What has the government done about that? Nothing. Over the same time, the NBN brownfield business and existing homes has lost almost 100,000 customers. They're haemorrhaging cash. But this bill does nothing to address those fundamental structural issues in the operation of the NBN. Why are we not here talking about that—how we make the NBN more cost-effective and more effective for providing the genuine service we want the NBN to provide to Australians? And we all want the best internet possible for Australians, because we know that increasingly we are spending more and more time online. Sadly, that's probably not in the best interests of our community, because we spend time talking to each other online rather than face to face. I know from talking to some of my former colleagues in the financial industry that one of their great bugbears is that new employees tend to want to email or text people rather than actually sit down with customers and have a face-to-face discussion. But as I look at this bill and much of the other stuff that this government does, it's not, as I say frequently in this place, about listening to what the government says; it's about looking at what they do. Nine times out of 10, these are two completely and utterly different things. And as we've seen over the past 2½ years, it's the Australian people who pay the price for this government's failure to deliver on their promises and deal with the issues the Australian people are facing each and every day. To borrow somebody else's phraseology, I think it's a fair question to ask—and I have this discussion with people in my electorate all the time—'Are you better off today than you were 2½ years ago?' The simple answer is that the Australian people are not—full stop. This bill, this political stunt—that's what it is, a pure political stunt—does nothing to assist or improve the lives and livelihoods of the Australian community, which is suffering under a Labor induced cost-of-living crisis. We should, rightly, not support this bill. 17:37 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand The National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 will ensure that NBN Co remains in public hands. It enshrines into law the Albanese Labor government's commitment to retain public ownership of the NBN and prevent the coalition from selling it down the track—and we know they want to; they've said it before. Nothing is off the table when it comes to the coalition funding its expensive and uncosted nuclear power plants for this country, so there's no doubt NBN will be part of that story, and this government will make sure that does not happen. The NBN is vital for northern Australia, where slow and patchy internet connection restricts the region's ability to reach its full potential in a modern Australia. Many communities in the north are underserved by telecommunications providers because of higher costs and lower population density. That means people in the north sometimes suffer connectivity blackspots and network congestion. This government is taking action to address these problems, because these problems limit how the people of the north are able to run a business, access education, and connect with friends and family around the world. While the most recent Australian Digital Inclusion Index, the 2023 index, shows that the difference between states and territories has narrowed, the Northern Territory still ranks the lowest. That is simply not fair, and it must change. The importance of digital connectivity to the Northern Territory and northern Australia is why the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum has made this a focus issue to address. I re-established the forum to work together with the Queensland, Western Australian and Northern Territory governments to drive social and economic outcomes right across northern Australia. At our first meeting, in 2022 in Darwin, it was agreed that digital connectivity is one of the 14 pillars for achieving the forum's goal of supporting livable, safe and healthy communities in the north. Digital access and affordability has been at the top of the forum's discussions ever since, and we have been taking action. The Albanese government is addressing the forum's concerns by delivering fast, accessible and reliable internet access right across northern Australia. We're doing that through our $2.4 billion investment in the NBN fibre upgrade program, which includes better services for 236,000 households right across the north. It will swap slow copper wire with fast fibre cable and give northern Australia speeds of up to one gigabit per second. The coalition, as we know, bought over 60,000 kilometres of copper, enough to wrap around the planet 1½ times—a dreadful waste that shows again how they choose to live in the past. The Albanese Labor government is rolling out a better connectivity plan for regional and rural Australia worth $1.1 billion. It includes $480 million for the NBN fixed wireless and satellite upgrade program to switch 120,000 homes from satellite connectivity to fixed wireless. It will upgrade over 2,300 towers and boost internet speeds to up to 100 megabits per second. The Albanese Labor government is also working with remote First Nations communities across northern Australia to deliver free community wi-fi by the end of the year. This is a game-changing program. It's a $20 million program that includes the Gangan community in the Northern Territory, the Kowanyama community in Queensland and the Mindi Rardi community in Western Australia. Free wi-fi in these remote communities in the north will boost opportunities for education and jobs and improve access to services and information. The north deserves the same internet speed and access that the rest of the country enjoys, and this government is determined to bridge that digital divide to ensure northern Australia gets the same digital connection that the rest of Australia expects. The NBN is nation-building infrastructure and is essential to the health, safety and prosperity of northern Australians just as it is for the communities in the south. All across Australia, communities rightly expect and deserve high-speed broadband for our modern digital economy. In my electorate of Brand in Western Australia, families rely on fast Internet as a part of their daily lives. We rely on it every single day. Kids need for their schoolwork or for catching up with friends. Homes need it to run household appliances like solar panels. In my house, of course, we need it to be able to stream music and videos. Business depends on the internet for orders, payments, management and communication systems. It's integral to modern life. The Albanese Labor government understands how important fast and affordable internet is to Western Australians and the people of Brand. Seven years ago in 2017, a long time ago now, I hosted then shadow minister Rowland in crisis talks with residents frustrated with the lack of internet coverage in the suburb of Baldivis. I heard one story of a child having to go to McDonald's to study, because it was the only place around with reliable wi-fi. I launched an online petition for better internet connection in Brand that received nearly 600 signatures, but the coalition government at the time refused to fix it. The opposition sat on their hands, but this government is rolling out fast and affordable internet to Baldivis and, indeed, the whole Brand electorate. The $2.4 billion NBN fibre upgrade program will give an extra 1.5 million households access to full fibre, including 50,000 homes in Brand. It will swap slow copper wire—you know: the stuff that's going to go around the planet 1½ times. It will swap that outdated technology with fast fibre cables so the people of Brand can enjoy speeds of up to one gigabit per second. We're rolling out fast fibre internet in Brand so more Western Australians can enjoy the benefits of the NBN in the outer suburbs. The Labor government also launched the School Student Broadband Initiative in February 2023 to provide free internet for 30,000 families across Australia who can't afford home broadband. It's narrowing the digital divide by ensuring that all students can get online at home to do their homework. It's helping families with the cost of living by saving them thousands of dollars through a free NBN connection. While the opposition's NBN forced a child in Baldivis to study in McDonald's, the Albanese government is helping every student access fast internet at home. It's an excellent program, and I urge everyone who hasn't seen it, and needs it, to apply and get involved. It's free internet for your kids to do their schoolwork. The other Albanese Labor government is able to deliver upgrades to the NBN because it is in public hands. It means we have the levers we need to plan ahead for the ongoing digital transformation that's sweeping through homes and businesses across Australia. But the NBN isn't safe from privatisation, because there's nothing we know of that the coalition won't privatise, and we know that the NBN is certainly on their hit list. The former coalition government even asked the ACCC to let the NBN significantly increase its prices to fatten it up for a sale. The NBN already has a monopoly and selling it would risk future hikes in prices and drops in services and quality. The Albanese Labor government will keep the NBN in public ownership to safeguard Australia's long-term economic and security interests. The government started this process in 2022 by issuing an updated statement of expectations that confirmed a strong intent to keep NBN Co in public hands. After a decade of uncertainty under the former coalition government, Labor has provided the NBN with the assurance it needed to continue improving the network, while keeping prices affordable. This bill will give all Australians even more peace of mind, by enshrining this commitment in law. This bill makes it clear that keeping the NBN in public hands is non-negotiable. It also removes all provisions in the NBN companies act relating to a sale of NBN Co. This will support ongoing upgrades to the network and keep up with rapid technological change. It will ensure strong regulation of NBN wholesale pricing to keep broadband affordable for all Australians. Labor established the NBN as a secure and reliable digital backbone to provide fast and affordable conductivity for every Australian. Now, after a decade of wasted time from the coalition, the Albanese Labor government is making that goal a reality. We'll also keep the NBN in public hands so broadband stays fast, affordable and accessible for all Australians, including the people of Brand, right across all the suburbs of Rockingham and Kwinana and all of Western Australia as well. When Labor takes Australia forward, we need to stop the coalition from trying to take us five steps back, which is every single time they get their chance. I'm proud of a government that puts people first and will put the NBN first so that people can ensure they have the access they need to digital technologies to ensure their future is made right here, in Australia. 17:47 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I rise to speak on the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. The biggest question about this bill before the House is: why? I think it's ruse. I think it's a distraction. I think, with this legislation, the Albanese government is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Respected political commentator Chris Uhlmann summed it up as basically a scare campaign dreamt up in a tactics meeting. With a customary flourish, he described the bill as 'a bill to ensure that something that's not likely to happen won't happen'. Ziggy Switkowski, former chairman of the NBN and a former executive at Telstra and Optus had this to say: 'The decision to hold NBN in government ownership is fine for the short term, say this decade, but beyond that horizon why do it? It feels like the ban on nuclear power—why do it?' I've asked that question before today—why do it? Nobody quite got to the nub of the issue as well as my friend on this side of the House the member for Fadden did. He made a statement in this place on 9 October, the week that this was introduced, and called it one of the greatest political smokescreens to have ever been created in the history of this place. He said: The NBN bill introduced today is a shameless stunt. The Prime Minister walked out of the chamber at 8 pm last night having given his apology to the Australian people at 7.59— the apology relating to his comments about people with Tourette's— and thought, 'Well, that day didn't go well.' I suspect he'd been playing Jenga over the weekend and was inspired to be a destructor actor— this is according to the member for Fadden— So he picked up the phone to some of his ministers, wanting to know what they had in the drawer. He phoned his friend Minister Giles first, but we know he had absolutely nothing to offer. He phoned the Minister for Education, but all the Prime Minister got— according to the member for Fadden— was a long-winded story and then had to hang up. He phoned the Minister for Communications, and she said, 'Well, I've got this Mediscare kind of thing about the NBN and public ownership and creating a false story about how it might be sold and that sort of thing.' The Prime Minister says, 'Bingo!' The National Broadband Network Companies Bill 2010 was introduced by none other than our current Prime Minister, who was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport at the time. In the second reading speech he said: These bills enshrine in legislation the policy commitments the government made in its NBN announcement … and provide clarity and certainty … to NBN Co. Ltd, industry and the wider community. Presumably, when the bill passed back in 2010 it cemented that very clarity. He said that the bill: … sets out arrangements for the eventual sale of the Commonwealth 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. …   …   … There is no longer a requirement that NBN Co. Ltd must be sold within five years of it being declared built and fully operational. Rather the time frame for any sale is left to the judgment of the government and parliament of the day, enabling due regard to the role the NBN is playing, market conditions and any other relevant factors. I'm just interested in what some of the members of the then government said about this NBN bill at the time. Senator Stephen Conroy made a statement on 25 November 2010. He said: The Bill also sets out ownership arrangements. The Gillard Government remains firmly committed to selling its stake in NBN Co after the network was fully built and operational, subject to market conditions and security considerations. Senator Collins, a year later, said: The bill also creates a power for the Governor-General to make regulations concerning future private ownership and control of NBN Co Limited, and establishes other relevant reporting, governance and enforcement mechanisms. The government, back then, made it clear that future governments could make decisions and make regulations regarding the future of NBN. So, while they yell across the chamber, 'The coalition government wants to sell the NBN,' and, 'They privatise everything,' it was the ministers in the then Gillard government who were talking about selling it. Nobody in this place has been talking about the NBN. The Prime Minister hasn't been talking about it in this term, as far as I can ascertain. He's only mentioned the NBN six times in parliament this year. And no-one has been talking about a change to policy on ownership. It seems to me that it's the basis of a scare campaign and a distraction—that we will privatise the NBN and drive up prices. This would be worth a bit of chuckle if we could just focus on that stunt and the shambolic approach of the current government. They rushed to introduce this legislation to head off something that they legislated in 2010. So desperate are they to create a political distraction that they are introducing amendments to legislation that their own side passed in 2010— Mr BIRRELL 288713 when our current Prime Minister—as the member for Hume quite rightly reminds us—was in cabinet. The cruel irony is they're saying they're doing this because of the cost-of-living crisis that we're experiencing. They created it and we're feeling it—especially people in rural Australia. They haven't got inflation under control. The interest rate cuts look like a long way away. There are higher prices for energy, higher prices for food, and higher prices for services and mortgages. Where are the interest rate cuts? There are higher prices for rent, and productivity has nosedived. I would have thought a government that was committed to helping out Australians would be focusing on policies to help those things. There's the price of food. You help the price of food by helping farmers do their job, not by taking the irrigation water away, killing their export markets, and making them pay ridiculous fees like the biosecurity tariff that they have to pay. The cost-of-living crisis that's with us is as a result of the government's policies, and all we get from those opposite is a sort of scare campaign: 'Look over here! Look over here! They're going to privatise the NBN one day. We'd better change our own legislation, which we put together in 2010, to make sure they don't do it.' And we're not even in government! NBN costs have actually gone up under the current government. We've seen six million families impacted by NBN price rises of up to 14 per cent since October last year, so NBN is one of the many things that have gone up during this government's term. The NBN 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. This bill, as I said, is a distraction. We could be talking about many things. We could be talking about how to increase productivity for our businesses. We could be talking about how to better structure IR so that small business, which is the backbone of our economy, isn't smashed by burdensome regulations. We could talk about our agricultural businesses: how we can provide them with more irrigation water to grow the food, to make it cheaper for Australians at the checkout and to continue with our great agricultural exports. We could be talking about all sorts of other things. We could be talking about cheaper child care—which they do talk about, but there are so many places in regional Australia where you can't get a place. It's no good it being cheaper if you can't access it. It seems to me that the current government's strategy—and I've noticed this in question time over the last couple of weeks—is to call the opposition leader names. I remember when I was a kid at school and I was in the schoolyard. You would be having a bit of an argument with your mates, or maybe the bullies were trying to tease you. You knew when they started calling you names that they didn't have a proper argument anymore. I can hear the tactics committee: 'Let's try and get as many references to the arrogance, recklessness and anger of the opposition leader. Let's try and get them in every answer to a question.' I reckon that symbolises a government that has run out of puff and doesn't have any more policy ideas. I reckon we need to get to an election—hopefully sooner rather than later—so that the Australian people can think about all of this—these distractions of policy, this NBN into the ether. People out there are being smashed via their household budgets. You've got to help them out. You've got to talk about policy, not just have this two-stage policy: 'Let's try and scare everyone in relation to nuclear energy, and let's try and paint a picture of the opposition leader as angry, reckless and arrogant. Let's call him as many names during question time as we can, and that will substitute for real policy that helps get the cost of living down.' The disastrous— Government members interjecting— Mr BIRRELL 288713 Well— Mr Josh Wilson 265970 They're your policies. Mr BIRRELL 288713 This NBN bill is emblematic of a government that is not focusing on the real concerns of Australia and a Prime Minister who is looking to distract from his own shortcomings, because it came after he made a very unfortunate comment in question time. The Australian people want us to get back to looking at some real policy, not these distracting stunts, and I invite those opposite to start doing that. 17:59 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to express my very strong support for the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024, which was introduced by the fabulous Minister for Communications. That's because in the 21st century the digital landscape is transforming how we interact with one another, how our economies grow and how people live and work. Access to the internet is no longer a luxury. It is a necessity, part of everyday life, and it underpins almost every aspect of our lives. The bill before us today is not just a legislative proposal; it is a commitment to the future, a future where connectivity is a right not a privilege. It is a bold step toward ensuring that all Australians, regardless of their geographic location or socioeconomic status, have access to reliable and affordable internet services. And, I have to say, I would have thought this was particularly attractive to members representing the regions, as I do. In an age where digital access is essential for education, health care and economic opportunity, we must ensure that our broadband infrastructure is owned and operated in the public interest. We know that in our digital economy those that are left without access are left behind. During the pandemic we witnessed firsthand how critical connectivity was for remote education and accessing health care. That's why it's stunning to see members from the National Party opposing this bill. By committing to public ownership we are ensuring that these essential services are not held hostage by the profit motives of private corporations. Truly, I think most people in Australia are on board with this. We just need those opposite to open their ears and listen to the arguments. We are also making sure that the NBN workforce have job security. Workers can breathe a sigh of relief knowing their jobs won't be on the chopping block because of privatisation. This bill reaffirms the Albanese Labor government's dedication to public ownership, prioritising the needs of our citizens over profits. We want to make it clear that under the Albanese Labor government the NBN is not for sale. We know how important the NBN is to driving national productivity. And we know how important it is for the transactions that Australians do every day to access health services, to interact with government and to connect with families and friends. It is for this reason that we have made this decision. It's not a complex question here. You either want to keep the NBN in public ownership or you don't. The bill will make amendments to the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 and other small changes to the NBN act and to the Telecommunications Act. These changes will include incorporating new wording to make clear that keeping the NBN preserved in public ownership is an explicit requirement. This builds on the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to retain the NBN in public ownership, to keep broadband affordable and to complete building a world-class fibre network on top of the government's commitment to keep protecting the NBN from privatisation through the statement of expectations issued in 2012. Public ownership fosters accountability and transparency. By keeping our national broadband network in public hands, we can ensure that decisions are made with the community's best interests at heart. This transparency is vital for maintaining public trust. Australians deserve to know where their taxpayer dollars are being spent and how decisions about their connectivity are made. Public ownership will mean that the NBN will be accountable to the people it serves, and writing it into law will further enshrine that. Let's have a look at the record of members opposite, the coalition, in their rolling out of the NBN, because communities in my electorate of Newcastle have told me very loud and clear that the job of upgrading the NBN is not complete. When the NBN was first proposed by Labor back in 2008, it was envisaged to be a transformative project, one that would connect Australians, boost our economy and position us as a leader in the digital age. However, what we witnessed over the next 10 years, under the coalition's decade of denial and delay, was a litany of mismanagement and unmet promises that left many Australians disappointed, angry and frustrated. Just as they sold out Australia on the privatisation of Telstra, the coalition sold out Australia again on the botched implementation. Those opposite rolled out a second-rate NBN that relied on the old copper network, instead of Labor's super-fast fibre-to-the-premises NBN. Their decision to pivot from the original fibre-to-the-premises model to a multitechnology mix has had significant long-term ramifications that the Australian public are paying for again and again. As a result, millions of Australians have been left waiting for access to reliable internet that many in urban areas take for granted. Many communities were left with inadequate service, speeds that were once promised fell very short and the reliability of the connection was often inconsistent. In regional and rural communities, the digital divide was further exasperated, limiting opportunities for education, business and connection. Those opposite rushed out this second-rate NBN, perhaps in order to declare it complete so that they could put it on the block for sale, selling out Australian consumers and regional communities like mine. Residents and businesses in my community were particularly hard-hit by this botched rollout. Only the 2,800 homes and businesses in a very select area of Mayfield were lucky enough to get the real NBN. Everyone else in Newcastle had to put up with this second-rate version that relied on an old copper network. Residents in places like Hamilton, who had good access to good-quality ADSL, were at the top of the former government's rollout list, whilst the people of Kotara, who could not access even low-quality broadband, were left in the dark. Residents in Stockton, Adamstown, Merewether and other places are to this day feeling the impacts of this botched rollout. Access to high-speed broadband is an essential service, and it's a shame that the former coalition government could not see that. We must learn from these failures. As we move forward, we need a renewed commitment to providing high-quality accessible internet for all Australians—and this means the mistakes of the past and the futureproofing of the NBN. This is something the Albanese Labor government has been working hard to do. We are committed to fixing the dodgy rollout we saw under the previous government which continues to have long-term consequences. Our government has been consulting widely on regional telecommunication services and has received feedback from communities, particularly in rural and regional Australia, that there is strong support for the NBN. This legislation has been introduced to ensure that it is owned by those who it belongs to—the Australian people. This is in addition to what we've already done, including investing $2.4 billion to expand full fibre across the NBN. That will give access to an additional 1.5 million premises, including 660,000 rural and regional communities—so it is literally gobsmacking that any regional member would speak against this bill. We are rolling out free NBN broadband services to up to 30,000 families under the Australian government School Student Broadband Initiative; delivering fibre upgrades so that more than nine million homes and businesses can access the fastest broadband speeds on the NBN; from September next year, boosting download speeds by up to five times the current speed at no extra wholesale cost—so a household or small business with a 100-megabytes-per-second plan in 2024 will benefit from 500 megabytes per second in 2025; and rolling out more fibre into a fixed-line network, upgrading the fixed-wireless network and planning for our future needs. That's the focus of the Albanese Labor government. 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—not that we're hearing any thanks from those opposite for ensuring their communities are getting access to properly effective and efficient broadband. Fixed-wireless upgrades are on track to be completed by the end of this year. This work has seen over 2,300 towers upgraded, speed capability boosted on Fixed Wireless Plus and two new fixed-speed products available. The NBN is on track to deliver our plan for 90 per cent of houses and businesses to have gigabyte access by the end of 2025, and this work is in addition to the fixed-wireless upgrades and has seen over 70,000 kilometres of new fibre being rolled out. Because of our strong investment in the NBN, Australians are now taking up fibre upgrades in record numbers, which is leading to better customer experience and fewer faults and technicians. By maintaining public ownership, we can continue to prioritise investment in our underserved areas, ensuring that everyone, no matter their postcode, has access to high-quality internet. Moreover, public ownership allows us to focus on long-term goals rather than short-term profits. Keeping the NBN in public hands will provide the NBN company the certainty needed to continue delivering improvements to the network while keeping prices affordable. The NBN is not just about connectivity. It is about building a foundation for innovation and economic growth. When focus shifts from profit margins to public service, we can invest in the future. This means expanding the network capabilities, upgrading technology and preparing for the demands of tomorrow's digital landscape. Government ownership is essential to delivering our strategy for a more connected Australia, including rolling out more fibre in the fixed-line network and planning for the transition to the next-generation satellites and modernising universal service obligations. We must consider the global context, of course, when talking about the importance of a good national broadband network, and we know that across the world there have been some very inspiring examples of successful public broadband initiatives. In countries like Sweden and Finland, where public investment in infrastructure has been prioritised, we can see some of the fastest and most reliable internet services available. In the United States, several municipalities have taken it upon themselves to build their own broadband networks. Cities like Chattanooga in Tennessee have demonstrated that public ownership can lead to faster, more reliable services at lower costs than those provided by other companies. I think the point here is really that there are many, many more examples I could point to, but Australia must not continue to fall behind. Our place in the world depends on our ability to stay connected. By passing this bill, we're positioning ourselves as a leader in digital infrastructure, ensuring that we can compete in the global economy and foster homegrown innovation. The NBN is much more than a utility; it is a catalyst for economic growth and technological innovation. It supports business. It creates new industries and connects our workforce with the rest of the world. From online education to telemedicine, from startups to large corporations, the NBN is a vital resource in the modern economy. We know there is more to do to get the NBN to the world-leading stage that the Albanese Labor government envisages. That is our ambition for the Australian people, and that is why this bill is so important. This bill is not just about maintaining ownership of the NBN, as important as that is; it is about protecting a vital public asset that serves the interests of all Australians. It's about equity, accountability and ensuring that every Australian can access the opportunities that a reliable broadband network provides. It's a testament to the Albanese Labor government's values and our vision for an inclusive and equitable society. The NBN is a lifeline to the future of our nation, and keeping it in public ownership is essential to continuing to provide modern, accessible, affordable communication services for all Australians. Let us continue to invest in it, protect it and improve it. That's why I am supporting this bill today. 18:14 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies If I were to stand in this place, express a fear about a future government banning Anzac Day and then present a bill that said, 'This will stop a future government doing that,' I would be laughed out of this place because I'm not taking it seriously. If I were to say that I'm scared and worried about a future government banning Christmas and 'here's a bill to stop a future government banning Christmas,' I would be rightly laughed out of this place. If I were to say, 'I'm worried about a future government legislating to kill all firstborn males, and here's a bill to stop it,' I would quite rightly be laughed out of this place. And that's all this is—this is a joke by the Labor government on the Australian people. It's a joke that goes for six pages and is designed for one purpose: to be put on a tile on social media or a DL in your letterbox. So, to Australians watching, if you get one of those DLs in the next few months or you see it pop up on an ad, know that this government is not treating you with the respect that you deserve, because the other thing you are getting your letterbox, other than a DL that has this rubbish on it, is your increased power bills, your increased insurance, your increased gas. And there is nothing coming from this government to address those problems. Instead, they sat around in a tactics meeting with empty pizza boxes thinking: 'What are we going to do? What's some issue we can manufacture to scare people—not to inspire people but to scare them?' On that I would like to reference the Prime Minister's own words. The Prime Minister, in 2012, in a Press Club speech, said this about an Australian opposition leader: In Australia we have serious challenges to solve and we need serious people to solve them. Unfortunately, Tony Abbott is not the least bit interested in fixing anything. He is only interested in two things; making Australians afraid of it and telling them who's to blame for it. Those words were given at the Press Club in 2012 by the now Prime Minister. They were so inspiring they had featured in a Hollywood movie 17 years earlier, when Aaron Sorkin had Michael Douglas, acting as the American president, say this—and it might sound familiar: We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. Well, the person who came up with this bill knows that we have serious problems to solve and that we need serious people to solve them, but that person is not one of them. He's interested in two things: making you afraid of it—that the NBN might be sold—and telling you who is to blame for it. That is the only purpose. So, when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese channelled Aaron Sorkin in the Press Club in 2012, he needed to heed his own advice. This is not a serious bill. What we have been asked to do by this Labor government is to amend its own bill. Many speakers before me have referred to these particular quotes, but they are worth repeating. In a media press release by the then minister, Stephen Conroy, headed 'Government committed to the sale of NBN Co' he said: Senator Conroy said the Gillard Government remained firmly committed to selling its stake in NBN Co after the network was fully built and operational, subject to market conditions and security considerations. That was on 22 November 2010. Three days later, in a speech on the original National Broadband Network Companies Bill given by the member for Grayndler, the Prime Minister, then the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, he said: It also 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. So we had a Labor government with the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport committing to the sale of the NBN, and we've been asked to take this government seriously on this joke of a bill which is designed for one purpose—to scare people and to be put on material on their screens and in their letterboxes. This government has a choice and, instead of sitting around in tactics meetings about what goes on tiles and DLs, they should be turning their minds to solving real problems that Australians have. That's what a serious government would do. That's what a serious Prime Minister would do. If you wanted to help Australians, you would cut back bloated government spending. We saw recently that government spending in the June quarter had blown out to 27.3 per cent of GDP. If we carve out the COVID period and we go back to the norm, pre-COVID, it was averaging 22.5 per cent. Think about that: 22.5 per cent of GDP was bumped up to 27.3 per cent by this government. That is totally unsustainable and is directly contributing to inflation in this country. So, instead of shoving a DL through a letterbox, they should be answering to the Australian public for why government spending is increasing inflation and increasing everything, including the interest rates on their mortgages. It's as if you want to scare and distract, instead of actually solve problems. Whenever we raise that issue the government says, 'What services are you going to cut?'—like there's no waste or bloat in the federal government. Of course there is. Of course there is, but this government is not the least bit interested in finding it or cutting it. It is throwing taxpayers' money away—and not just that of taxpayers now but of future taxpayers: our children and our grandchildren, who will be forced to wear this debt. If a serious government wanted to help Australians, it would also do things like bring energy down and have energy security for this country and seriously consider support for a civil nuclear industry. A non-serious government—a joke of a government—would do other things. They wouldn't engage in that debate seriously. They'd produce memes of three-headed fish, and that's what we saw from this government. It's not a serious government. They're not the least bit interested in solving serious problems. If you wanted to help Australians, you would make sure that our migration was proportionate to our capacity to deal with it—at all levels, federal and state. Instead, through the term of this government we have seen net overseas migration go to 1.5 million people. I'm from the great state of Victoria and we have that temple that is the MCG. It holds 100,000. Net overseas migration in this term of parliament has been 15 of those—15, in a country of 27 million people, with a housing crisis and a cost-of-living crisis. Now, the government may claim: 'We can't really pull the levers to fix that. It's not in our control.' They may have that debate, and we heard some of that in question time, but what we hear when we have debates about migration is members on the other side standing up and accusing us of engaging in dog whistling for even suggesting that there should be a debate. That's not the sign of a serious government; it's the sign of government that's more interested in the lines. It's more interested in DLs and more interested in tiles. It's not the least bit interested in solving problems. If you wanted to really help Australians, you would make sure that our nation is secure. At the same time as we have seen public servant positions grow by 26,000, we have seen the full-time ADF drop by 5,000. As a proportion of our full-time ADF, 5,000 is one in 12. Imagine 12 ADF members sitting around a table. There's one missing on every table. Each of those people were supposed to bring the capability that keeps this nation secure. But if you wanted to scare and distract, you wouldn't fix that problem. You wouldn't talk about the monumental delays in ADF recruiting. Instead, you'd come up with a silly bill that's more of a talking line. That's all you would do. If you wanted to actually help Australians, you would address the scourge of online gambling. Despite the Murphy report sitting on the desk of the minister and the Prime Minister, we keep going for month after month and week after week of this government doing nothing. If you wanted to actually help Australians, you would back in free speech. You would back in free speech, because it is the fundamental right from which all others flow. Free speech isn't just about talking; it's about thinking. It isn't about narrative; it's about truth. It's through free speech that we get to have the contest of ideas. With open hearts and open minds, we actually get to see if our ideas hold water. If they don't, and if we actually have an open mind and an open heart, we will move further to the truth. That's what you would do if you were serious and wanted to help people. Instead, we have this government producing its mad bill, where it wants us to move closer to being a technocracy where particular people are carved out, including us in this place or academics or journalists. 'But, ordinary Australians, you're not allowed to have free speech—not you. You will be governed by your betters.' That's not the sign of a serious government that believes in things. If you actually wanted to help Australians, you would address the cost of food, which has risen by 12 per cent; you would address the cost of housing, which has risen by 13 per cent; you would address the cost of rents, which have gone up 16 per cent; and you would look at insurance, at 17 per cent through this term. And the cost of gas, which people use to cook their food and which we need for our industry, is up 33 per cent. But, instead, this non-serious, joke of a government comes in and waves around more spending on the symptoms and not the cause. That's all we get from this government—increasing the very thing that's fuelling inflation and at the same time saying, 'Don't worry about that. Here's a little bit of help. I'll throw some more of your money back at you and say I'm fixing it.' It'll increase your bills by $100 but then say, 'You're fine. Here's $10 more. Don't worry about it. It's all good.' A serious government would look at the causes of inflation, not the symptoms. A serious government would address bloated government spending, because we know that that is the singular cause of increasing inflation in this country, and the RBA has told us that. If you wanted to actually help Australians, you would seriously look at productivity in this country. Flatlining productivity has led to six quarters of negative GDP growth per person. That's the only measure that matters. It's the only measure that matters. Instead, to avoid a technical recession, we've seen this government crank the levers they say they don't control to prop up net overseas migration to be able to say, 'How good are we? We've avoided a technical recession.' Well, avoiding a technical recession has nothing to do with how people feel—nothing to do with the real, lived experiences of Australians, who are begging for inflation to come down; who want this government to control its spending, because they're controlling theirs; and who want to make sure that they're not leaving their children a worse future than they inherited themselves. A serious government would address those problems. A joke of a government would introduce bills like this. Very soon, Australians will go to the polls, and they will give their assessment of this government. They'll ask, 'In these really tough times, were they focused on the things that mattered to me and my family and my community, or were they more focused on themselves?' They'll have to ask, when they get that DL through the letterbox or they see that tile on Instagram or Facebook, 'Is this all you did?' I think, as many others have asked, they will ask themselves, 'Am I better off than I was three years ago?' The answer to that is an absolute no. 18:28 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore We know that Australians living in regional areas like my electorate of Gilmore are struggling with cost-of-living pressures, so the last thing they need is for our National Broadband Network to be sold off, pushing up their home internet bills and risking their privacy. Small businesses in my electorate are doing it tough as well, and they can't afford for the NBN to be sold, hiking up their communication costs and risking the stability of their connectivity. Gilmore has been hit hard by a series of natural disasters, including flooding, ferocious storms and the devastating Black Summer bushfires. In times of emergency, it is crucial for residents and small businesses on the New South Wales South Coast to have access to reliable internet to stay connected with family and friends and, of course, emergency services during their time of need. That's why I support this Albanese government's position to keep NBN Co, the company that operates our National Broadband Network, in public ownership. By keeping the NBN in full government ownership, we can continue to support the upgrade of the network and ensure ongoing regulatory oversight of NBN wholesale pricing, keeping broadband affordable for all Australians. A potential sale of the NBN risks significant price hikes and a reduction in service quality, particularly in rural and regional areas like Gilmore. I have continued to lobby for upgrades to communications infrastructure in my electorate, and this government has continued to deliver. I am working hard to ensure that people in Gilmore can access more-reliable internet and phone coverage, helping them to stay connected and run successful local businesses. The Albanese government is delivering on its commitment to improve mobile coverage for regional Australians, with new mobile phone infrastructure being built at Jamberoo, Kangaroo Valley, Termeil, Lilli Pilli, Worrigee and Benandarah. We're expanding mobile coverage and improving communications resilience to improve connectivity in regional areas. The Albanese government is narrowing the digital divide in rural and regional Australia, including by improving mobile phone and internet coverage and ensuring that our communities stay connected with family and loved ones. While I continue to advocate for better mobile and internet services and this government continues to roll out improved telecommunications infrastructure in my electorate, we have those opposite looking to sell off the NBN. The sale of this important public asset would spell disaster for regional areas like Gilmore. We've seen the mess the Liberals and former New South Wales treasurer and transport minister made when they sold off publicly owned assets, including Sydney buses. The Liberals' privatisation of Telstra was a terrible policy outcome, leaving regional communities hostage to the monopoly market power of Telstra. They sold out Australia on the privatisation of Telstra, and we cannot let that happen again with the NBN. It's so important for the electorate of Gilmore to have reliable, quality internet and phone service in order to prevent a repeat of the loss of communications that the region experienced during the 2019-20 bushfires. Resilient power and telecommunications are essential services, especially during bushfires. That's why an Albanese Labor government is replacing the timber power poles in my electorate with more resilient composite poles to better protect emergency radio networks, ABC radio and television, mobile services and more. We've improved the resilience of power infrastructure in South Durras. South Durras narrowly missed being impacted by the Currowan fires, underscoring the need to better prepare for future bushfires and take sensible mitigation matters where appropriate. This government has relocated power cables to the local NBN fixed wireless tower underground and also replaced 30 timber power poles between South Durras and the Princes Highway with composite fireproof poles. The main benefit for a community in having composite power poles installed is electricity reliability. Unlike traditional timber power poles, composite poles are immune to termite damage. They don't rot, and they are much more resistant to the effects of fire, which means the power is more likely to stay on. In the 2019-20 bushfires, the fires totally destroyed the timber poles, but the composite poles that had been installed, made of fibreglass, were still standing. I worked closely with Durras Community Association President Dr Trevor Daly and members who raised their concerns with me almost immediately after the fires subsided. Dr Daly said that the power pole replacements and other critical infrastructure upgrades would better protect the Durras community during future bushfires and other emergencies. He said upgrades of key infrastructure for improved emergency resilience are vitally important for at-risk coastal communities like Durras and are essential for protecting lives and homes. Maintaining electricity, mobile phone and internet access is essential for residents to be able to receive emergency warnings, keep track of nearby bushfire fronts and maintain communications during fires, storms and all types of emergencies. We know that one of the most terrifying things about the bushfires was that we lost power, impacting on water supply, food safety, health and of course communications. No-one wants to see that repeated. The sale of our NBN could make internet access unaffordable and inaccessible for many Australians in regional areas who are already facing cost-of-living pressures, including pensioners, students and low-income earners. I will continue to work hard to ensure local villages right across the South Coast are better protected should the worst happen again, with a key focus on affordability, reliability and resilience in power and telecommunications. I will always fight to ensure our communities are better prepared for the future, and that includes fighting to keep the NBN in public hands. I have listened to my local community and have committed to practical measures that will improve the resilience of local infrastructure to ensure they can remain disaster ready. Since the bushfires I have been on the job with Telstra, working on improved disaster resilience projects, including improved battery backup at mobile phone towers, additional mobile cells on wheels—also known as COWs—to provide mobile coverage to communities in times of need and the rollout of 5G technology. I have collaborated with NBN Co to include thousands more homes and businesses are included in the fibre-to-the-premises upgrade plan, which will further provide some battery backup should the power go out, absolutely crucial in times of disaster. I am also pleased to be delivering on fixing mobile black spots along the Princes Highway between Batemans Bay, Ulladulla, Benandarah and Termeil. The 2019-20 bushfires made crystal clear that quality mobile coverage is critical for our community during disasters. Investments in the 2024 budget totalling $1.3 billion over four years will see an upgraded national broadband network, with fibre upgrades providing regional families and small businesses with access to world-class, high-quality broadband. We want to ensure NBN stays in public hands because quality broadband unlocks digital opportunities and enables remote work and education, particularly in regional areas. The NBN improves access to telehealth and boosts economic productivity and participation in regional communities. Those opposite want to decimate that by selling the NBN, just like they have continued to recycle public assets over the past decade. There is no better example of the former government 's failure on the NBN than in regional Australia. Under the Liberals my electorate of Gilmore was hampered by second-rate internet and held back from the world of opportunity that high-quality connectivity brings. The pandemic was a very difficult time, but one thing it did was free up the possibility of remote working. However, working from home proved frustrating for many people in regional areas, such as the New South Wales South Coast, due to substandard internet connectivity. Under the Liberals we saw a huge digital divide where some suburbs in Gilmore had fast, reliable internet services while those next door were stuck with a second-rate system. They were victims of the coalition's second-rate NBN which, when we were elected, was $28 billion over budget, nearly double the cost, four years behind schedule and backflipping to copper. In stark contrast, since coming to government the Albanese government has worked hard to address inequality by delivering fibre upgrades so more Australian families and small businesses can access world-class, high-quality broadband. I'm pleased to say many people and communities in my electorate have benefited from the Albanese government's upgrade to full-fibre NBN. We are rolling out a world-class, high-speed broadband network, with more than $3 billion in NBN fibre and fixed wireless upgrades being delivered on time and on budget across the country. We've installed more than 70,000 kilometres of new fibre and upgraded over 2,300 fixed wireless towers. In regional areas like mine, faster and more reliable fibre connection supports our economy, local families and small businesses. This government's investment ensures we are receiving all of the technological benefits the NBN has to offer across business, health, education, social recovery and more. The Albanese government is delivering a more connected, protected and vibrant nation from our suburbs right through to our most remote communities. We are making key investments to enable the NBN to reach its full potential, with around 80 per cent of regional and remote premises and 93 per cent of Australian homes and businesses to have access to high-speed plans by late 2025. The NBN is critical infrastructure which reaches to more than 12.4 million premises across Australia, with over 8.6 million homes and businesses connected. The fibre and fixed-wireless upgrades we took to the 2022 election are being delivered on time and on budget in towns and villages throughout Gilmore. This means that residents and businesses on the south coast can take advantage of the faster speeds, which are increasingly important in a digital society and economy. As a former TAFE teacher, I know how reliable access to the internet is essential for students, whether they're at school, TAFE, university or studying remotely. This government's School Student Broadband Initiative is providing thousands of struggling families with a free home broadband connection so they can reach their full potential. Whilst many students can access the internet through school wi-fi, connecting the internet at home to support remote learning and homework is a serious affordability issue for some families. We are relieving some of the barriers to students fully participating in educational opportunities and giving them the tools they need to succeed in the classroom and beyond. The pandemic really demonstrated how important it is for students in regional areas to be connected to quality internet at home. Not having internet at home shouldn't be a barrier to a quality education. I want to see our kids reach their full potential, and having an internet connection at home can play a big part in that. I'm proud to say that more than 18,000 families have been connected to free internet until the end of 2025 through our School Student Broadband Initiative. Reliable internet via the NBN is so important for people who live in regions like mine. I'm proud to be part of a government that takes digital inclusion so seriously, and I don't want to put it at risk. We know how hard our businesses, individuals and the economy have been hit by online security breaches and cyberscammers. We know ordinary Australians are tightening their online security, because they're understandably scared of cyberattacks on their businesses and hackers getting hold of their personal information or accessing their bank accounts, and of course there is the increasing risk of AI scams. Keeping the NBN in government hands means we can put stronger measures in place to protect against scams and cyberattacks. The NBN is crucial national infrastructure with cybersecurity and national security imperatives requiring strong government oversight. This is best delivered through ongoing government ownership. By keeping the NBN in public ownership, the government can also reduce potential harms from gambling-like content in computer games and can tackle exposure to age-inappropriate content online. The sale of the NBN could wipe out all the progress we've made on First Nations digital inclusion by providing affordable and reliable internet access to remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Any future sale of the NBN by the Libs would likely involve foreign ownership, raising potentially series national sovereignty and security risks as well as inevitable price hikes. Only by keeping the NBN in public ownership can we continue to deliver an affordable, reliable internet service for all Australians. 18:43 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker In due course I will get to what are perhaps the most farcical six pages of proposed legislation that I have ever encountered in the 11 or so years I've had the privilege of being in this place. But, before I do, I think that sometimes we assume a level of knowledge in our contributions which can perhaps be unhelpful for those who are following the debate or seeking to, so I just want to start with some basics and make a point which I don't think has been made. I think some of those opposite might be interested in understanding the shift in position that they have adopted—one which I say is welcome, but the reality is that those opposite have shifted their position in relation to this proposal. The NBN Co is an unlisted public company limited by shares, incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001, and is a Commonwealth company for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. NBN Co was established in 2009 as a government business enterprise by the Australian government which is its sole shareholder. Under the legislative provisions, there are two shareholder ministers for the purposes of the NBN. It is a government business enterprise which operates, as it should, at arms' length to government but is wholly owned by government. It might not be surprising to learn that the shareholder ministers are the Minister for Finance of the day and, of course, appropriately, the Minister for Communications. One thing these shareholder ministers can do is issue a statement of expectation. They can't operate the company. They're not directly responsible for decisions day to day. What they can do is issue a statement of expectation. That statement of expectation is to effectively say, 'We, the shareholders, expect the following,' and that's the way that shareholder ministers might exercise some intention in relation to the operation of government business enterprise. This nation has had a long list of finance ministers and a long list of communication ministers, and this is when I say that those opposite might not be cognisant that this bill represents a change in approach for those opposite, one which I say is welcome. As I said, I will get to arguments around how this correlates to their proposal, particularly in the 2016 election to create the campaign around 'Mediscare'. But not so long ago, in fact in December 2022, the shareholder ministers—the Minister for Finance, Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher, and the Minister for Communications, the Hon. Michelle Rowland—issued a new statement of expectations to the NBN Co. That's perhaps not unsurprising having come to government and being shareholder ministers responsible for such a large and important government business enterprise. However, what is interesting is that the statement provided: The Government will keep NBN Co in public hands for the foreseeable future to provide the Company with the certainty needed to continue delivering improvements to the network while keeping prices affordable. To go back a step if I could, what the responsible ministers, the shareholder ministers, of the now government, who came in here and so proudly proclaimed that they urgently need to pass this bill to 'stop those nasty tories from selling off the NBN', had to say in the statement of expectations was, 'The government will keep the NBN Co in public hands for the foreseeable future.' Why the qualification? Well, the reality is that those opposite had a different plan. They've now adopted this approach, and fair enough. But it's a point that has been missed—that this is a substantial change. Of the two parties of government to come into this place and do battle, one of them, it would seem, had a plan to sell the NBN, and it's not 'those filthy tories', as those opposite would suggest. It wasn't us. I'll tell you, there aren't many conversations that take place around coalition tables that I'm not privy to, and, like Anthony Albanese, who's barely mentioned the word 'NBN' in the time he's had the privilege of sitting opposite, I can tell you nobody in the coalition is spending their time considering or, indeed, planning for, the sale of the NBN, like those opposite would have you believe. I'll tell you what we've been focusing on from day one, and it wasn't the Voice. We weren't focused on that from day one. From day one, we came into this place worried about cost-of-living pressures and worried about the creation of the working poor. That's been our focus, not what those opposite would have you believe. I can't help but to think about how we came to this point. As a former criminal barrister, I would always spend a lot of time thinking about motive and, in particular, what might have motivated my clients to act in a particular way and what, indeed, the prosecution would be thinking about my client's motives. I can't help but bring that methodology to most everything I do in this place, and so, when I heard those opposite were going to present a bill to the parliament—which, by the way, spans a gargantuan six pages only because it's in size 14 font and has been formatted as a way to save lots of white space—I thought to myself: 'What's motivating this? It's come like a bolt from the blue,' and then I thought: 'Hang on a minute. We've got the Prime Minister under a bit of pressure.' You might recall that the Prime Minister was having to answer questions around whether he had accepted upgrades or, indeed, sought to solicit upgrades, and that was running pretty hot, I'd like to think. I reckon the tactics team, the hardheads within the Labor Party, were like: 'You know what? We've got to go to the drawer.' When I say 'the drawer', you know what I mean—the drawer labelled 'distraction'. They went straight to that drawer. They pulled it out, and, unfortunately—to be fair, they've been under a bit of pressure lately, and there have been lots of things pulled out of that drawer. I don't think anyone's replenished the drawer, so they've looked up on the wall, and someone's seen reports from the 2016 election congratulating themselves on what a fantastic campaign that was. The then Leader of the Opposition probably didn't think it was that a good campaign on the morning after, but, in any event, there were a number of people interested in the sophrology and the campaign strategy, thinking it was a fantastic campaign. And one of the shining lights of that campaign was 'Mediscare'—this idea that the coalition had some sort of plan to sell off Medicare. I laugh even now about it, but we shouldn't, because it was pretty serious at the time. We had older constituents calling us. At one stage I thought it might have been called 'granny scare' because older constituents are reliant on Medicare because they're at that phase in their life where they're in need of lots of medical assistance. They were literally crying on the phone to me saying, 'Why would you plan to do this, Tony?' Night after night, I was explaining to people that this was just a horrid scare campaign by those opposite. How anyone could think that you could privatise an entity responsible for giving away or at least transferring large sums of public resources and public funds, I don't quite understand. It's one of the most significant line items in the federal budget. But, in any event, those opposite were very successful in prosecuting that campaign. It's one of the reasons I think—not the only reason, but one of the reasons—why the then opposition came very close to attaining government in 2016. Back to the hardheads. The hardheads are in Labor Party central thinking: 'Gee, we're in trouble. The Prime Minister's approval ratings are falling off the cliff. He's not so much marching us off the cliff but asking us to run to the cliff. We need to do something about this. We've got a nervous backbench, and first-term MPs are worried about being introduced to the Chairman's Lounge, Aussies and the benefits of flying business class around Australia; they're worried about losing these entitlements. We have got to take action.' They would have said: 'We need something like 'Mediscare'. What can we say to those filthy tories? Wait a minute. The NBN. Let's just run fibre scare. It's not 'Mediscare'. Let's run fibre scare.' So into the parliament comes a bill to seek to protect the NBN from privatisation in circumstances where no-one—not even the Prime Minister—was talking about this, certainly no-one on the opposition benches. Were this a serious proposal, it wouldn't have been laughed off by the fourth estate, as it has been. Rather than become the distraction that they were hoping, it's really become a joke, and it's now emblematic of what's happening to those opposite. While Australians— Mr PASIN 240756 I appreciate the member for Kennedy. One day I might have the privilege of answering your questions in question time, but not now. Australians are worried about cost-of-living pressures. We've got Australians having to say to their children, 'Look, I would love to enrol you in that sport, but we can't afford it.' We've got Australians taking decisions about how much underinsurance they factor in because they can't afford to pay the full insurance bill. We've got Australians talking to their councils about having to enter into payment plans. We've got Australians who leave the energy bill in the envelope on the fridge for fear of opening it. We've got Australians walking down the aisles of supermarkets, avoiding quality fresh fruit and vegetables because they're expensive. We've got other Australians, dual-income Australians, lining up at Foodbank in unprecedented numbers—the working poor I mentioned today. We've got other Australians having to get onto the bank and say, 'Can we enter into a special arrangement regarding our mortgages because we're currently paying up to $45,000 more in interest than we were two years ago?' We've got Australians struggling with all of these pressures, which, by the way, for those opposite—I'm sure they appreciate it—are feeding into the mental health stresses that are operating on individuals and families. And while we're dealing with those circumstances as a nation, while we're dealing with a flat-out crisis, with a cost-of-living crisis, with a housing crisis, those opposite, instead of sitting around at head office and working on how they can deal with this homegrown inflation crisis, are thinking about how they can hoodwink the Australian people into thinking that something that has absolutely no veracity can be sold to the Australian people. Fear is the strongest motivational force. Aside from consistency, fear is the strongest force effectively anywhere in the world. Those opposite have decided that they are going to take 'Mediscare' and make it 2.0, but this time it's got to be 'fibre-scare', doesn't it? It's got to be 'fibre-scare', because we're going to sell it. You heard the contributions from those opposite: 'They'll just sell it, and we're going to stop them selling to those nasty internationals.' I mean, please! A note to the Prime Minister, who is not in the country—there's a surprise; he's often away: Come home. Focus on the cost-of-living pressures. Help Australian households, families and businesses with this crisis. It's your challenge. When we had ours during COVID we stumped up and acted in their best interests. 18:58 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The Albanese Labor government remains firmly committed to keeping the NBN in public ownership, ensuring that it serves the interests of all Australians. The NBN is too vital to be gambled with, and it's too critical to our digital and economic future to fall into private hands. Our decision to retain the NBN in public ownership is grounded in the very hard lessons of the past. The coalition's reckless push to privatise Telstra left regional Australia at the mercy of monopoly market power and stunted broadband growth nationwide. Labor in contrast believes in a connected Australia. It's why we launched the NBN in 2008 as a public asset—to ensure reliable, affordable high-speed internet for all Australians. Labor laid the foundation for a government owned broadband network designed to propel Australia into the digital age. This vision was championed by former senator Stephen Conroy, the first minister for communications responsible for the NBN. His foresight and his dedication were instrumental in ensuring the NBN's effective establishment and initial rollout, laying the foundations for a network that would provide equitable access to high-speed internet across the nation. Despite successive Liberal governments' efforts to undermine the NBN and divert it from its original purpose, former senator Conroy's leadership remains central to its enduring success. You might allow me the indulgence, Deputy Speaker Goodenough: I disclose that I worked for former senator Conroy for a long period of time—six years—during the period of the NBN's initial rollout. You can commit some fairly serious crimes and go to prison for less time than I worked for Stephen Conroy—and, with the greatest of respect to Stephen Conroy, you can have a more enjoyable time while you're there! I would have to say of former senator Conroy that he was entirely, and sometimes painfully, visionary about the role of the NBN not just as a piece of technology but as an opus of critical economic infrastructure that would build Australia's economy and allow Australia to continue to grow and to explore new economic opportunities and take those opportunities to the world, and I think that vision has borne out much more rapidly than anyone initially thought might be the case. The importance of the NBN for periurban and regional communities like mine cannot be overstated. These areas are hubs of growing families, small businesses and essential industries. However, they often face unique challenges in accessing the same level of services enjoyed in metropolitan centres. Reliable, high-speed internet is one way we can combat that disadvantage by connecting communities like Hawke to critical services such as health and education. In health care, the NBN is enabling a revolution in how services are delivered to periurban and regional areas. Telehealth consultations are now a lifeline for patients who would otherwise need to travel long distances to see a specialist. High-speed internet makes it possible for doctors to provide timely, accurate diagnoses via video consultations. This connectivity reduces wait times, lowers travel costs and ensures that, where possible, families in Hawke have access to world-class health care without leaving our community. Similarly, the NBN is transforming education. High-speed internet has unlocked access to a wealth of online resources—virtual classrooms and remote learning opportunities. Students in Hawke can now participate in interactive science experiments, collaborate with peers across the country and even attend advanced courses offered by institutions in urban centres—all from their local school or home. This connectivity ensures that all Australians, no matter where they live, have the tools they need to compete and to thrive. When Labor first envisioned the NBN, it was about more than faster internet; it was about building a fairer, more connected, more prosperous Australia. For periurban and regional communities like Hawke, where I live, the NBN is not just a utility; it is a driver of equity and opportunity. It breaks down barriers to essential services, fosters innovation and strengthens the very fabric of our communities. By keeping the NBN in public ownership, we ensure these vital benefits continue to flow not just for today but for the generations to come. Labor's vision for the NBN is a vision for a stronger, more connected nation where all Australians, no matter where they live, can access the opportunities that they deserve. Today the NBN has made remarkable progress. Over 12.4 million premises are ready to connect, with 8.6 million homes and businesses actively connected. Ninety-seven per cent of the fixed-line network can now access speeds of at least 50 megabits per second, with over nine million premises enabled for gigabit speeds. By the end of 2025 90 per cent of Australian homes and businesses will have access to gigabit speeds—a testament to our commitment to world-class connectivity. These upgrades matter. They reduce fault rates and technician callouts, meaning fewer disruptions for households and businesses. Since coming to office we've rolled out 70,000 kilometres of new fibre and have $480 million in fixed-wireless upgrades on track to be finished by the end of this year. Over 2,300 towers have been upgraded with speeds now capable of up to 100 megabits per second, including new fixed-wireless products offering speeds of 250 and 400 megabits per second. It's not just about speed; it's about economic growth. Economic research estimates that a faster, higher-capacity NBN will boost Australia's GDP by $400 billion between now and 2030. Every increase of one megabit per second in average broadband speed is estimated to add 0.04 per cent to our GDP, with the benefits felt even more profoundly in remote communities where faster broadband generates up to 16 times the GDP uplift compared to metropolitan areas. Labor's vision for the NBN extends to those who need it most. Through our School Student Broadband Initiative over 18,000 families now have free internet until the end of 2025, ensuring our young Australians are not left behind. For rural and remote areas our Sky Muster Plus satellite service now offers uncapped data plans and maximum speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, expanding opportunities for education, work and social connection. Affordability and reliability are at the heart of our public ownership commitment. Since 2017 communications prices in Australia have decreased by nine per cent even as CPI rose by 22 per cent. This stability has been achieved because we've kept the NBN under government control, preventing price hikes intended to prepare for privatisation—hikes the coalition would have readily endorsed. Labor has invested in an NBN that works for every Australian and we've made it affordable for every Australian. We rejected the coalition's proposed price hike and instead chose to make broadband accessible to the masses. Unlike the coalition, we will not gamble with our nation's digital infrastructure by selling it off. The coalition, through their early legislative steps, prepared the NBN for sale and even supported increasing wholesale prices to bolster income streams for a future private owner. The NBN is too essential to be anything but a publicly owned asset. Beyond economics, it's critical for our national security and our cyber-resilience. Government oversight ensures that our network remains protected from potential foreign ownership and from the associated risks to sovereignty. This bill also sends a clear message about the role of government in ensuring equitable access to essential services. The National Broadband Network is not just a utility. As I said before, it is a social equaliser. By keeping the NBN in public hands, we are prioritising connectivity for every Australian regardless of where they live or their personal financial circumstances. A publicly owned NBN means that families in rural and regional Australia, who have long faced the double burden of higher costs and inferior services, can finally expect to be treated equally. This is a government taking action, not leaving outcomes to chance or profit motives. This legislation also reflects the evolving role of digital infrastructure in our daily lives. The NBN is no longer just about providing internet for entertainment. The internet is the foundation for telehealth, remote work, online education and smart agriculture. Farmers in our regions use it to monitor weather patterns and improve crop yields. Students rely on it for virtual classrooms and access to global educational resources. Start-ups and small businesses depend on fast, reliable broadband to connect with markets worldwide. The Albanese government understands that safeguarding the NBN is about safeguarding Australia's future competitiveness and opportunities for innovation. We must not forget the risks of doing otherwise. Privatising the NBN, as those opposite have toyed with in the past and I daresay are toying with as we speak, would turn this essential service into just another for-profit enterprise. We've seen where that leads: costs rise, services decline and those in less-profitable areas are left behind. Australians are still grappling with the consequences of Telstra's privatisation, and we cannot allow history to repeat itself. The National Broadband Network is too vital to be sold off and sacrificed for short-term fiscal gain or political expedience—or, in the case of those opposite over their term of government, to plug budgetary black holes. It's also worth addressing the economic impact of public ownership. Keeping the NBN in public hands isn't just about protecting consumers; it's about securing long-term returns for our nation. A publicly owned NBN continues to generate value for Australian taxpayers while ensuring that services remain accessible and affordable. This is a government making sound, future focused investments, not hollowing out essential infrastructure for short-term political wins. Lastly, this bill is about protecting Australia's sovereignty and security in a digital age. A publicly owned NBN ensures that critical infrastructure remains under Australian control, safeguarding our national security interests. In an era when cybersecurity threats are increasing, this Labor government is ensuring that one of our most important assets is protected, managed and operated exclusively in the national interest. The Albanese Labor government believes that the National Broadband Network belongs to the Australian people—every family, every worker, every business. It is a fundamental pillar of equity, economic growth and national security. By keeping it in public hands we ensure that it serves everyone, not just the special few. That is what good government does: it builds a fairer, better future for all Australians. 19:13 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I have the privilege, I think, of being the only historian in the parliament—in the House or in the Senate. My published work was published by the Murdoch Press, the big boys on the block, so I can speak with some authority on the history of our country. I was brought up in a country where the wool industry had carried Australia for some 200 years. In 1990 it was still the biggest export earner that this country had. Mr Keating deregulated the wool industry. He's a free marketeer. He believes in private enterprise running and owning everything. As a result of this deregulation of the wool industry we now effectively have no wool industry at all. We still have some fat sheep, but there is no wool industry now at all. To take my own state electorate, we had 3½ million sheep. I doubt whether we've got 100,000 sheep there now. In the cattle industry, our cattle number is down eight million. The wool industry has gone completely. The cattle industry has gone down from 32 million down to 24 million, the herd, so one wonders what the hell is going on out there. Well, nothing is going on out there. That's what's happening. The sugar industry, which worked Australia out of the Great Depression, is the third- or fourth-biggest agricultural earner and about the 12th-biggest earner of export income for Australia. All of the sugar mills were Australian owned: 23 of them were farmer owned; three were Australian corporate owned. Now all 23 mills—three have closed—are foreign owned. You've wrecked the wool industry, you've wrecked the sugar industry and you've been an absolute disaster for the cattle industry. Notice I'm not saying Liberals or Labor, because both of them have been heavily involved in the disasters that have occurred and taken place in agriculture in Australia. Let me switch to the electricity industry. We don't necessarily represent people like me, just rural industries. I speak with authority because I was the electricity minister in Queensland, and when the government fell in 1990 to the so-called socialists, the ALP, the price of electricity for a household was $640. There's no justification for electricity being over $700. I should know, because I was the minister. Not only was I the minister but I was also the minister that put the first standalone solar system in Australia. In 1983, when most of you weren't even born, we put the first solar system in. I know the industries backwards, and being a mining man I know the cost of mining and processing silicon into solar cells. The great tragedy of this is—I can't speak with authority for the other states—that in Queensland there is no justification for anyone paying over $700 for their electricity, and they're currently paying $3,200 for their electricity. For those people that put solar panels on their roof and get electricity from solar, we're going to cut down 500 million trees in Australia to have solar electricity. I don't know that that's a good trade. About five million acres are going to be denuded and turned into an industrial wasteland of rotting glass and aluminium. The honourable minister Plibersek knows we have algae ponds from coal-fired power stations which can absorb all the CO2—you need a lot of land and a lot of water to do it—and you'll make, on the figures I've seen, more money out of the algae then you'll make out of selling the electricity. We are talking tonight about the communications system of Australia, and it's an essential service. There were two people who died on a cattle station I own, 250,000 acres. They died on the boundary, and if there had been a telephone service then one of them would have survived. There were three cattle boys, my father and his two brothers. I come from a family that went out on a stagecoach in the 1870s or 1880s to the middle of nowhere, and that's where we've always lived. Of the three cattle boys, two died as a result of the tyranny of distance. If we're talking here tonight about communication systems, then we're talking about the tyranny of distance. My Uncle Norman got injured in a motorcar accident and then again in rugby league. If the plane had been in Cloncurry, he would've got to Brisbane in time and his life would've been saved. But the plane was in Longreach and, by the time it came back to Cloncurry and then went to Brisbane, it was too late and he died. My father had cancer and he was supposed to get an operation, but there was an airline strike. He was in no condition to drive down, so the airline was the only way of getting there. He wouldn't jump the queue, so he waited 3½ months, and by the time he got down there the cancer had got away and he died. So two of the three Katter boys died as a result of the tyranny of distance. We were trapped during the wet season. It was an all-dirt road to Brisbane then. My father, rather foolishly, tried to drive it in the wet season. That was a very bad mistake. We all nearly perished. We were sitting in the car with our rosary, saying prayers, and my father had third-degree burns because he tried to walk for help. By some miracle we were rescued. But if we had had the telecommunications we have today, that would not have occurred. The danger would not have existed. Where I come from, it is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. Ernie Camp represents one of the biggest shires in Queensland, the Burke shire, right up in the north-western corner of Queensland. Ernie's wife said that they're just driven off their heads because of the lack of telecommunication speed with their computers. John Nelson is one of the leading cattlemen in Australia. He's probably one of the 30 or 40 biggest cattlemen in Australia. I said, 'If you had your choice of what you want, what would it be?' I thought he'd say 'water' or 'freeholding' or something like that. He said, 'Proper internet speed.' There are two people—they're two of the most prominent people in outback Australia—and both of them are saying 'internet speed'. There's the Liberals and the Labour Party. The Labor Party likes to pretend that they don't want to privatise everything and that it's the Liberals who want to privatise everything. But if you actually have a look at privatisation, they did most of the privatisation, not the Liberals. I'm sure the Liberals would've if they had been there, but Keating hadn't left much in the cupboard for them. There was nothing much for them to sell. Of course, we all know the reason why Christine Holgate was sacked. It was because she wouldn't sell Australia Post. In fact, the mortal sin was that she wanted to turn Australia Post into a people's own bank. Heavens! The people of Australia owning their own bank and controlling money! Oh, what a communistic outlook she had! So they had to sack one of the greatest businesswomen the country had ever produced—or ever will produce, probably. We're talking about the government. They're claiming that we don't need a universal service obligation, which is the amendment that I have proposed. I have highly skilled people, one of whom was a senior counsel adviser producing documentation for the NSW government and is definitely no slouch. She can't actually find anywhere in where a statement that there is a responsibility for a universal service obligation. I can't conclude my speech without mentioning Ben Chifley, the Prime Minister without peer. He is easily the greatest Prime Minister the country has ever had. He was a protege of the great 'Red Ted' Theodore. Chifley eradicated tuberculosis in Australia. He gave us the Snowy Mountains Scheme, which doubled agricultural production in Australia and gave us a secure electricity supply for all of Australia, up until now—and I emphasise 'up until now'. He gave us, as a secondary industry, the Holden motorcar as well. What a fantastic contribution to the Australian nation! Of course, he's in the history books. Now, Kevin Rudd will also be in history books because he gave us the NBN, the best communication system anywhere in the world. No-one can ever take that away from Kevin. He also gave us the NDIS, which I think may be the most marvellous thing I've seen done since I've been here. It's had a lot of teething problems, but that's natural. Going back to the NBN, all I can say is that we're a long way from where we should be, when there are people like Ernie Camp's wife—Ernie Camp's family, like my own, have been there since the 1870s, I think, maybe longer—and one of the 20, maybe 30 or 40 biggest cattlemen in Australia both saying to me that the problem is communications. So I urge the government to accept the amendment we are proposing so that there's a universal service obligation. When it was proposed in the Liberal and National party room that we were going to privatise Telstra, I left with my feet. I was still in the party room then. I left with great anger. A man I had immense respect for, John Howard, assured me that I had no worries and that there would be a universal service obligation. Well, as much as I love John and respect him, I sure would like to put the number of complaints we've had about telecommunications. I had a quick glance, and something like 200 complaints have come into my office this year. That's the universal service obligation! It's a joke. You're moving now into an area where we've got no guarantees. If you say it's going to provide a wonderful service for everybody, why don't you put it in the legislation? It is silly to think that Mary Thomas, living in Julia Creek, is going to sue Telstra, but at least give her the chance to sue Telstra, please, with a universal service obligation. If you're saying that you're giving it, where is it in the legislation? Where is it in the regulations? Minister, whether you're responsible or the minister that may be primarily responsible, would you please tell the parliament and the people of Australia where the universal service obligation is, and, if it's not there, would you please accept our amendment? I think I have some locus standi here, representing about a tenth of the surface area of Australia, with one of the biggest electorates in population in Australia, ironically. So I think I have some locus standi here. Having come from a family that has suffered and lost so much as a result of the tyranny of distance I think also qualifies me to state: where is the universal service obligation? When we were bogged to the eyeballs in the motor car, the sun came out and the rain went away and we had about 17 hours to survive. You can take some water out of the radiator, and we had a fair amount of water with us. But my father tried to walk for help. He ended up with third-degree burns and was hospitalised for almost a week, recovering from heat stroke. He was trying to save our lives whilst we sat in the car with our rosary beads, saying prayers. I won't say how we were rescued. But, if we'd had a mobile telephone, that terrible situation could have been avoided— (Time expired) 19:28 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I take the opportunity to thank you for my 2025 calendar, which arrived today. And in that 2025 calendar I'm going to mark 2025 as the year that we roll out more fibre broadband to Ashfield—I'll mark that in the calendar—and more fibre broadband to Bassendean in my electorate. I'll mark in the calendar that we put more fibre out in Bayswater, after years and years and calendars and calendars of failure when it comes to the National Broadband Network under those opposite. You would have marked the date of 20 December 2010 in your calendar, Deputy Speaker, because you would know that was the day that those opposite, under their then leader Tony Abbott, said: … do we really want to invest $50 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money in what is essentially a video entertainment system? That's where we've come from. If we were to go forward a few years into the calendar and look at 9 April 2013, that's when the leader of those opposite told us: We are absolutely confident that 25 megs is going to be enough, more than enough, for the average household. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Queensland State Election 73 19:30 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert In Queensland, the people voted with their feet. They decided to pick a new state government. They were tired of the hollow promises given to them by the Labor government. The Labor government had failed the people of Townsville. They spoke about fixing crime, and then crime wasn't an issue. They said, 'We'll do more to support you,' but never showed up. The people of Townsville—they voted. They voted for three LNP members, and those members have been out there in the community now. They're out there listening, working and delivering for our community, because, last night, tonight, tomorrow night, a month ago, someone's house will be broken into, someone will be held up in the street at knife point, cars will be stolen, people will feel like prisoners in their own home. This has been a continual circle of events that have happened throughout Townsville. People want to feel like they're supported. They want to be able to wake up in the morning and know that their property is still in their house. They want to make sure that they're not being robbed on the street. Crime is the No. 1 issue that plagues the city of Townsville, and that's why, in the state election, all three of the Labor MPs were replaced by Liberal National Party members. It is horrible, the things that my office gets told every single day by those who are just trying to live their lives. It is terrifying. Every time I leave Townsville and come to Canberra, I think about my wife and my two children that are behind and the high crime that plagues our street. Now, under a David Crisafulli Queensland state government, laws will be put in place. We will see adult crime get adult time. We will punish bad behaviour. We will lock up repeat offenders. We will make sure that these disgraceful criminals are off our street. We will make sure that our community is safe, because that is what a good government does. That's what the government prioritises. They don't run around and make hollow promises or say things like, 'Crime is not an issue in North Queensland,' when it has been the No. 1 issue for as long as I can remember. The same thing will happen in the coming months. The people of Australia will be able to make a decision. Do they want to stay with a government that hasn't prioritised them federally, that talks about the No. 1 issue being the cost of living but took a referendum to the people without tackling the cost-of-living crisis, spending $400 million, not putting the people first, allowing criminals to be let out of detention—rapists, murderers, paedophiles—because the minister was overseas in the UK at the time spruiking about how good the Voice to Parliament would be instead of being back here in Australia doing his job? They've had a couple of little reshuffles and moved some problem ministers out, but the same problem is still there. The Australian people aren't being put first. Or do they want a government led by the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, and his team that will put the Australian people first every single day? We've heard the Labor government say that the Leader of the Opposition is too tough, then he's too soft, then he goes too far and then he doesn't go far enough. These are more fear and smear campaigns coming from a weak, tired first-term Labor government. The Australian people deserve a government that will stand up for them every single day and that will put their needs before anything else—not another referendum that they were told not to have. Tackling the cost-of-living crisis, making sure that you are better supported, putting you first—that's what a Dutton led coalition government will do. Pearce Electorate: Community Events 74 19:35 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce It is that time of the year when I would like to take a moment to talk about the Pearce community and the achievements and challenges we have faced together over the past 12 months. This is a time for introspection and anticipation as we embrace the opportunities that lie ahead in 2025. To our remarkable students, I extend my congratulations on a successful year. Your hard work, resilience and dedication have brought you this far, and I have every confidence that you will continue to shine brightly in the days and years to come. As we approach the hot summer season, I extend my sincere thanks to our three Surf Life Saving clubs: Quinns Mindarie, Alkimos and Yanchep. May your summer be safe and successful. The commitment you show in keeping our beaches safe is invaluable, and we deeply appreciate all that you do. Our community thrives because of individuals like you who dedicate their time and effort to ensuring the safety of others. Your vigilance allows families and friends to enjoy our beautiful coastline with peace of mind. With the 12-month anniversary of the devastating Mariginiup bushfires upon us, I'd like to acknowledge: our dedicated Wanneroo, Quinns Rocks and Two Rocks volunteer bushfire brigades; our Wanneroo Volunteer Fire Support brigade; and our Wanneroo-Joondalup and Two Rocks SES units. With the hot summer months ahead, your readiness and resilience are crucial in protecting our community. Thank you for your unwavering dedication. It is truly inspiring to see how you work effectively together, often putting in long hours under challenging conditions to safeguard our homes, families and pets. Your selflessness does not go unnoticed, and it is a testament to the strength of our community spirit. I would also like to remind everyone in our Pearce community about the annual Wanneroo Christmas Day Lunch, which I initiated. This event is not merely a meal; it is a wonderful opportunity for us to come together, share joy and support those who are in need and alone during the festive season. Thank you to the churches and the Mindarie Rotary club for coordinating past events, and I wish the new organisers of the event every success at their new venue this Christmas. A huge thankyou to Irene McCormack Catholic College for hosting this event in previous years. To our local sports teams and committee groups, I congratulate you on your hard work for the past winter season. I wish you continued success in your upcoming endeavours. Your contributions enrich our community spirit and foster connections among us all. Let us not forget the special time ahead for our churches and places of worship. May this season bring peace and joy to all congregations as they celebrate together. The faith that flourishes within our communities plays a vital role in nurturing the values of compassion, kindness and understanding that bind us together as one community. To those that have lost loved ones over the past year, I wish you comfort and peace during what can be a challenging festive season. Please know that it is okay to reach out for support when needed. You are never alone in your grief. Our community stands ready to lend a listening ear or a helping hand. Let us lean on one another during these times. I'd like to thank all the principals, teachers, staff and parents for supporting our students through the 2024 school year. As we look forward to the new year, I'm pleased to welcome our new school principals and teachers who will be joining us. Your fresh perspectives will undoubtedly enhance the educational landscape, enriching the lives of our children in ways we can only imagine. I'm also excited about the opening of the new Eglinton Beach Primary School, where children can build lifelong friendships while receiving a quality education. As we reflect on the past year, filled with both triumphs and trials, let us also look forward with hope and determination. We must continue the tradition of engagement by connecting with one another, whether through local initiatives or community events where everyone feels valued and heard. In closing I want to sincerely thank the Albanese Labor government, whose No. 1 priority is helping Australians with the cost of living, including delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, cheaper child care and expansion of paid parental leave, as well as making sure Australians are getting a fair deal at the checkout. Together we will continue to put our community first, supporting our family, our friends and our neighbours as we move into another promising year ahead filled with joy, good health and new beginnings. Barker Electorate: Mount Gambier and District Saleyards Transformation Project 75 19:40 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Here in my hands I hold the names of people who want to see the Mount Gambier and District Saleyards Transformation Project become a reality. Saleyards for a region like the Limestone Coast act as a hub for economic activity. I'm not sure that those opposite understand this concept, so I'm going to make it as simple as I can: livestock is bought and sold at this facility; it's a trade centre; it's a meeting place; and it acts as the central business district for farmers, livestock agents and processors. It's an incredibly important piece of infrastructure to a regional community like the Limestone Coast, who rely so heavily on livestock production. The Mount Gambier saleyards gross more than $150 million in sales, selling approximately 85,000 head of sheep and 65,000 head of cattle per year. Every person living in and around Mount Gambier benefits from a successful day at the saleyards in one form or another. Whether you're directly employed in agriculture or not, when you live in a region like the Limestone Coast, infrastructure that supports our farmers to do business supports the entire population. Even the South Australian premier gets it. This is what he had to say: … the Limestone Coast has huge potential in terms of growing its economic output … The major upgrade of the saleyards could provide an increase of an estimated 20-30% of weekly fat market sales … Increased sales means more opportunities for primary producers and local businesses … Add all that up, and it means more jobs. Sheep farmers in WA have been trying to explain basic economic concepts to Labor for some time. The Albanese Labor government can't seem to grasp the economic impacts of the live sheep ban. In fact, the Prime Minister himself seems to find the decimation of an entire industry a joke. Let's not forget about the Prime Minister's remarks during a discussion with Indonesian President-elect Prabowo Subianto concerning beef exports: 'When we had dinner, beautiful Australian beef—not the live export—we made sure it was dead.' Those comments had the Western Australian premier, Roger Cook, calling on him to apologise. Of course he didn't, but in any event it's not particularly tactful when the farming families are staring down the barrel of financial ruin thanks to the Prime Minister's decision to shut down a lawful and ethical industry. I think it's also worth pointing out to those opposite that the chances are that the beautiful piece of meat the Prime Minister enjoyed that evening passed through a saleyard somewhere at some point. In fact, maybe it passed through more than one prior to landing on his dinner plate. Saleyards are important not only economically, as a vital part of the supply chain, but also socially. It's a bloody tough gig being a farmer: drought, disease, flood, frost, commodity price shocks, workforce issues, fuel prices, land prices, energy prices—the list goes on and on. While farmers aren't traditionally renowned for talking about their feelings, one thing's for sure: talking to a farmer over the rails or at the saleyards can help, so much so that the BlueWren Connections study undertaken in 2022 found that saleyards are a vital tool in combating mental health issues and reducing the risks of social isolation experienced by farmers. Saleyards provide a place of wellbeing and informal counselling and mental health regulation through mateship and connection. The Mount Gambier and District Saleyards, a community owned and operated facility, has sought federal government funding to undertake these once-in-a-generation upgrades that are essential for the long-term sustainability of the facility—a facility that means so much both economically and socially, as I've already pointed out. Now, the current infrastructure is ageing. The project has bipartisan support at a state level, with both Liberal and Labor parties pledging funding for this project prior to the last state election. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that, had Labor not scrapped the coalition's highly successful Building Better Regions Fund when round 6 applications were under consideration, this $15 million project would be well on its way to finalisation today. Instead, we had a new fund—Growing Regions. As if to provide a kick in the guts to farmers in my electorate, this project was rejected whilst Labor retained $93.4 million of that fund, unspent. The Australian agricultural industry is one of the most innovative and resilient in the world, but if we want to exceed $100 billion in farmgate output by 2030 we need to see a lot more federal government support. Hundreds and hundreds of people have signed this petition calling on Minister King to do the right thing with Growing Regions and fund the Mount Gambier saleyards. Robertson Electorate: Volunteers 76 19:45 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The electorate of Robertson is home to many tremendous not-for-profit organisations. I am pleased to report to the Australian parliament that approximately 19 organisations from my electorate on the New South Wales Central Coast have been successful in receiving up to $5,000 thanks to the federal Labor government's 2023-24 volunteer grants. The 2023-24 volunteer grants supported the work of local community organisations by enabling the inclusion of vulnerable people and promoting awareness to increase participation in volunteering. Grants of between $1,000 and $5,000 were available to assist eligible not-for-profit community organisations to support the efforts of their volunteers. As members of parliament, we understand how important it is that our communities are supported by volunteers. We frequently meet with constituents in our respective electorates and listen to the phenomenal work our dedicated volunteers fulfil. Without these amazing people, our communities, suburbs, towns, cities, states and this great nation would not be able to function. Just recently I recognised the spectacular volunteers at the Ettalong Baptist Church who run the Ministry of Leftovers, caring for vulnerable people on the peninsula. And there are the brilliant volunteers of the Avoca Beach Rural Fire Brigade, who respond to emergencies all across the Central Coast. The following organisations have been successful in receiving a volunteer grant: Terrigal Rugby Club; Avoca Beach Rugby Club; Avoca Beach Rural Fire Brigade; Terrigal Wamberal Rugby League and Youth Club; MacMasters Beach Surf Life Saving Club; Central Coast Figure Skating Club; Killcare Wagstaffe Rural Fire Service; Umina United Soccer Club; Gosford Kariong Junior Rugby League Football Club; TKT Ocean Beach Netball Club; Umina Bunnies Junior Rugby League Football Club; Killcare Surf Life Saving Club; Avoca Beach P&C Association; Central Coast Junior Rugby Union;    Volunteer Marine Rescue Terrigal;    Southern Spirit Cricket Club; Green Point-Terrigal Community Centre; Care4Coast; and the Peninsula Touch Association. It has been an absolute pleasure meeting with every single one of these worthy recipients and learning about how these organisations will be putting their funds to good use, supporting and raising awareness of their volunteers. For example, the Green Point-Terrigal Community Centre, managed by the formidable Marie Leadbitter, will use its $4,000 for supporting its 20 volunteers to undertake first aid training as well as mental health training. Both are incredibly important skills for volunteers to possess in community centres. I thank the incredible team at the Green Point-Terrigal Community Centre and all the phenomenal volunteers for their work supporting our great community. Another organisation I wish to shed light on is the remarkable volunteer marine rescue base in Terrigal. The marine rescue base has been successful in receiving $1,000 from the volunteer grants program, with these funds going towards strengthening the capabilities of the base and its volunteers. The marine rescue base will purchase several cutting-edge battery systems which will ensure continued operations of the base during a power failure caused by weather events and disasters. When I met with the marine rescue base, including unit commander Shaun Smith, they were a group of incredible men and women, young and experienced, dedicated to helping their community during emergencies on our waterways and in our oceans. It was fascinating gaining insight into the operations of the base and listening to the stories about rescues that have occurred up and down the Central Coast. I look forward to continuing to support all marine rescue bases across the electorate of Robertson, and I thank each one of its volunteers for their selfless work. This month I was also able to meet with Laura Day and Deirdre Flanagan, representatives of the Avoca Beach Public School P&C association. The P&C association have been successful in receiving $2,300 from the volunteer grants program. Laura and Deirdre informed me that the association has already used the funds to purchase a new shade gazebo, which will assist and support its volunteers during school fetes and other fundraising events. They also mentioned that crucial repairs will completed on the school's several barbecues, which will enable them to put them back to good use during school events. The federal Labor government is committed to supporting the nation's not-for-profit organisations and their volunteers, and I want to commend all of the successful recipients across the electorate of Robertson that I have mentioned this chamber here today. I know that I and my office look forward to continuing to identify and support more organisations across the Central Coast, because volunteer organisations and these not-for-profit organisations are the backbone of our community and will always have my office's support. Energy Infrastructure 76 19:50 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Of all the debates in this 47th Parliament, one that has consistently frustrated my community of North Sydney is on the role the federal government should be playing in decoupling our economy from the fossil fuel sector and breaking the hold of that industry on most of our energy generation. You see, my community understands that, as a nation, we have abundant natural resources that can be harnessed to generate the energy we need, but, currently, energy storage is a missing piece of the puzzle. Yet, despite a significant amount of advocacy from both within and outside this parliament, the Labor government has failed to deliver. With cost-of-living pressures now dominating almost every single conversation, the truth is this government could help a significant number of households slash their energy costs whilst also setting them up for long-term sustainability simply by committing to the rollout of a national home battery subsidy scheme. Not only would such a scheme provide almost immediate relief to across the country; importantly, it would help us meet our renewable energy targets whilst providing security from blackouts and supporting Australian industry and jobs. The idea is so obvious, in fact, that over 8,000 everyday Australians, including many from my community, recently signed a petition organised by the public advocacy group Solar Citizens calling on the government to prioritise the delivery of affordable household energy storage. Overwhelmed by the response, the team from Solar Citizens have invited the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, to accept this petition and discuss ways to make home energy storage more affordable, yet on multiple occasions the minister's office has declined. As a consequence of this refusal, I stand here to encourage the minister to accept this position and listen to the cause of both energy experts nationwide and thousands of everyday Australians to establish a federal home battery subsidy scheme, because, for many homes and our wider economy, batteries just make good micro- and macroeconomic sense. In the broader context, solar panel use across our country has soared, currently accounting for around 11 per cent of Australia's electricity supply, yet frustratingly, as feed-in tariffs—that is, the amount households are paid for excess solar into the grid—have dropped, excess energy generated during the middle of the day is not being leveraged. This is all while electricity costs have kept rising. The missing piece in the puzzle, then, would seem to be storage capacity. With rooftop solar and home battery systems making so much sense, it's hard to understand why the federal government is not moving this direction. The Clean Energy Council recently calculated that households with a standalone battery could save over $900 per annum on their energy bills, while those with an orchestrated battery could save nearly $1,200 each year. At the same time, the integrated systems plan modelled by the Australian Energy Market Operator has shown that we need around eight gigawatts capacity of consumer energy storage by 2030. While eight gigawatts sounds like a lot, the truth is this could be achieved if roughly an additional one million homes had not just their solar panels but batteries installed to accompany them. Clearly, consumers are ready to embrace this opportunity where they can afford it, with over 250,000 households already installing batteries across Australia to date, including a record 57,000 doing it just this past year. Yet the kicker in that participation is that this opportunity seems to be very much determined by a household's own financial capacity, and this is where I see we need the federal government to step in to ensure equity for all. Some states are attempting to leverage this moment, with the former Queensland government's vastly oversubscribed Battery Booster program showing just how solar households are ready to get involved, while the NSW government battery rebate has shown how a battery subsidy scheme can be made available using existing energy related initiatives. No matter which way you cut it, upfront costs are still stopping everyday Australians from realising these savings, and the absence of a cohesive federal policy is sorely felt. To be clear, it wouldn't be difficult for the government to step in here, as the member for Indi has shown in her Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2023. Including home batteries in the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, as proposed by the member for Indi and called for by numerous climate energy experts, simply makes sense. Ultimately, the embedding of all the small-scale devices, from rooftop solar panels to electric vehicles, into our energy mix will be pivotal in meeting our 82 per cent renewable target by 2030. The truth of the matter is that not all the good ideas have to come from the government, and I really call on the minister and the government to listen to the people who signed the Solar Citizens petition, to listen to the experts who have been advocating for this and, for goodness sake, to step into a space that is calling for you. African Youth Initiative, Hawke Electorate: Veterans, Hawke Electorate: Neurodiversity 77 19:55 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The African Youth Initiative, based in Melton, is an organisation making an extraordinary difference to the lives of young African Australians across Melbourne's west. During a recent visit, I had the privilege of meeting with members of this remarkable organisation, which is committed to engaging and empowering African youth in our community. Through their valuable programs, the African Youth Initiative focuses on skill development, self-expression and confidence building. These are key foundations for young people to thrive. These programs not only provide essential skills but also foster a sense of identity, belonging and pride among young African Australians. By creating these opportunities, the African Youth Initiative is equipping its participants to succeed in life and become active contributors to their communities. I want to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt thanks to co-directors Aken and Robiel, as well as Sobur and the extraordinary team of volunteers who give their time and energy to this vital cause. Your hard work and dedication are setting a shining example of how grassroots organisations can create lasting positive change in our community. It was a great privilege to recently host the Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh, for a community roundtable in Melton. Alongside Alice Jordan-Baird, Labor's candidate for Gorton, we were joined by representatives from the Melton RSL Sub-Branch and other local veterans organisations. This roundtable was an invaluable opportunity to hear directly from those on the ground about the challenges and opportunities in supporting veterans across Melbourne's west. We had meaningful discussions about the services and programs available to those who have served or are currently serving, and about how we can better support the families of veterans in our community. These insights reaffirmed the vital role played by local service organisations in ensuring our veterans feel recognised, respected and supported. Our veterans have given so much to our nation and their sacrifices should never be forgotten. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary work of groups like the Melton RSL, the Melton sub-branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association, the Naval Association, the Partners of Veterans Association, the Bacchus Marsh RSL, the Ballan RSL, the Sunbury RSL, Sunbury sub-branch of the National Servicemen's Association and the Young Diggers. These organisations provide critical services, a sense of community and unwavering support for veterans and their families in our community. My deepest thanks go to Andrew Jeynes and the team at the Melton RSL for hosting us on this occasion and for their continued commitment to the veterans of our region. Their dedication ensures that those who have served our country are never forgotten and always supported. I recently had the privilege of hosting a roundtable in Hawke, bringing together local practitioners, service providers, school leaders and community groups to discuss how we can continue to enhance support for children with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other neurodiverse conditions. It was a constructive and collaborative discussion focused on identifying opportunities to strengthen and expand the services available to families in our community. The roundtable included valuable contributions from organisations such as Mambourin, Pinarc Disability Support, Keeley's Cause, Western Health, ForHealth, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and Melton Specialist School. These groups shared their expertise and ideas for ensuring that neurodiverse children have access to the resources that they need to thrive. The dedication of these organisations and a commitment to supporting families is inspiring. Their work demonstrates the power of community collaboration and a shared vision for creating inclusive and supportive environments for all children. I'm deeply grateful to everyone who participated in this roundtable for their insight and passion. Together, we're taking important steps towards ensuring families in our community feel supported and connected to the services that they need. Debate interrupted. BILLS 78 BILLS National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 78

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

Second Reading 78 20:00 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm pleased to speak on the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. The National Broadband Network was first dreamt up as a policy by former Labor senator Stephen Conroy in the lead up to the 2007 election. It was an ill-thought-through, careless and lazy piece of policy. I was so frustrated by it that I wrote a book, Wired Brown Land?, about the broadband battles in Australia. The book came out in 2009, and I'm often asked, 'How did it sell?' Well, for a book about telecommunication economics, extremely well! My central point was that the policy that then Senator Conroy devised dismally failed because it sought to get Telstra to do something that it did not want to do—namely, to build a national fibre-to-the-node network for $4.7 billion and give its competitors access to that network. An even more ill conceived policy was then dreamt up by Stephen Conroy and Kevin Rudd. Notoriously, the details were sketched out on the back of a beer coaster on a flight on a government jet. Under that policy, the commitment was to spend what was supposed to be $43 billion on a fibre-to-the-premises network. If you go back and look at what was promised in the 2009 media release and press conference by Kevin Rudd, Stephen Conroy, Wayne Swan and Lindsay Tanner, just about every aspect of what they promised has been a manifest failure. As a result of this policy, some $30 billion of taxpayers' money has been spent, and the value for money taxpayers have received has been absolutely appalling, in stark contrast to the frugal Kiwis, who managed to get a national fibre network for a total taxpayer commitment of NZ$1.5 billion. In the nearly 15 years I've been in the parliament, and having taken quite an interest in this issue, I've spoken many times on stupid pieces of legislation associated with Labor's National Broadband Network, yet the bill before the parliament today achieves an unenviable distinction. It is the most stupid, pointless, empty, nakedly political, entirely useless piece of cynical performative-gesture politics that Labor has managed to serve up in its nearly two decades of deeply undistinguished policymaking on the National Broadband Network. In the time available to me I'd like to make three points: (1) Labor's record on the NBN is hopeless, (2) the policy framework on future ownership of the NBN was established by the Rudd government under Stephen Conroy as minister—and, indeed, it was his then representative in the House, the now Prime Minister, who explained what that policy framework would be, and (3) the bill before the House today which proposes to change that policy framework—which, for some 15 years, Labor has thought was absolutely fine—is a naked, meaningless, cynical and empty political stunt, and the coalition will be voting against it. Let me start with the proposition that Labor's record on the NBN is hopeless. As I've already indicated, the plan they announced in 2007 completely failed because Telstra's then management team refused to cooperate. So they announced another plan in 2009. Kevin Rudd promised that his government would build a National Broadband Network that would serve 90 per cent of homes with access speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, take eight years to complete and cost $43 billion. None of this was achieved. Let's judge what Labor delivered by the time it left office in 2013 against what had been promised in NBN's 2012 corporate plan. Labor promised 286,000 premises passed by June 2013. NBN Co fell a full 100,000 premises, or almost 40 per cent, short of its target, and, of the premises it claimed, many were designated as so-called service class 0 or service class 1, meaning they could not actually provide a service at all. Labor was systematically dishonest about what the NBN was delivering. And the man who was communications minister at the time is Australia's current Prime Minister, the man who just loves being upgraded to seat 1A. Let me remind you what happened. In August 2013, during the election campaign, the then Minister for Communications, the member for Grayndler, stood in front of a big red button and announced that broadband was now available to 5,400 homes and businesses in Sydney's western suburbs: 'It's fantastic to see that the NBN fibre network is now available,' he said. What he didn't say is that close to 1,000 of these were service class 0, and 98.6 per cent of these homes had no fibre connection to them. By the time of the 2013 federal election, NBN Co said it had passed 209,000 premises, but close to 80 per cent of these had no fibre going into the home. It was not fibre to the premises; it was fibre to the press release. When the coalition took over responsibility for the NBN we set about fixing the problem in a methodical way. Our 2013 strategic review recommended using a combination of rollout technologies—the multitechnology mix. Had we continued with Labor 's model it would have taken up to five years longer to complete the rollout and would have cost billions of dollars more. If we'd stuck to Labor 's plan then, when the pandemic hit and millions of Australians moved overnight to working and studying from home, Australia would have been in a dreadful mess. But, thanks to the coalition's work, the NBN was ready for the challenge, with 98 per cent of premises around the country—over 11 million—able to connect in early 2020. I've said it before and I'm very pleased to say it again: as the communications minister when the pandemic hit Australia, I am enormously proud of the efforts made across Australia's telecommunications sector. NBN Co, Optus, Telstra, TPG, Vodafone, Aussie Broadband and a whole range of other companies came together to keep the network operating when Australians desperately needed it, and that was critical to the way our nation was able to get through the pandemic. Let me turn now to Labor 's policy framework on NBN ownership. This is the framework developed by Labor and legislated in 2011. It carefully sets out the steps that, in the judgement of the Labor Party, would need to happen before the NBN could be sold by the government to private owners. Let me quote from the minister's second reading speech in this place on the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011: The first bill in the package, the NBN companies bill, obligates NBN Co. Ltd to limit its operations to, and focus them on, wholesale-only telecommunications. It also 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. The bill also creates a power for the Governor-General to make regulations concerning future private ownership and control of NBN Co. Ltd, and establishes other relevant reporting, governance and enforcement mechanisms. As such, the bill deals with arrangements for both today and into the future. I remind the House that these are not my words; I'm quoting the words of the then minister, the member for Grayndler, now the Prime Minister. He went on to say: Taking into account the recommendations of the implementation study on the NBN, the Commonwealth will retain full ownership of NBN Co. Ltd until the rollout of the NBN is complete. He then went on to say: After the communications minister has declared that the rollout is complete, the productivity minister may direct the Productivity Commission to undertake a 12-month inquiry into a number of matters. These may include the regulatory framework for the NBN, and the impacts of a sale of NBN Co. Ltd on the Commonwealth budget, consumer outcomes and competition. Within 15 sitting days of the Productivity Commission inquiry report being tabled, a parliamentary joint committee on the ownership of NBN Co. Ltd is to be established, according to the practice of parliament, to examine the report of the Productivity Commission inquiry. This joint committee will report to both houses of parliament within 180 days of its appointment. After it reports, the finance minister may, by disallowable instrument, advise that conditions are suitable for an NBN Co. Ltd sale scheme. As is clear from this extensively quoted material, the minister of the day laid out a clear framework which needed to apply before the National Broadband Network could be sold. He did not say the NBN could never be sold. Instead, he set out a comprehensive series of steps which would need to occur before the parliament was given the opportunity to consider an instrument, prepared by the finance minister, advising that conditions were suitable for an NBN sale scheme. Of course what this means is that under the existing legislation, unless both houses of parliament agree, no sale can occur. As I have informed the House, the minister who explained these required stages to the House so carefully and thoroughly in his second reading speech is, of course, the member for Grayndler, the current Prime Minister, enthusiastic recipient of air-travel upgrades and keen real estate investor. Let us be clear: there is a comprehensive framework in the legislation, developed and passed by the Australian Labor Party, setting out all the things that would have to happen before the NBN could be sold. Critically, one of those steps involves the tabling of a disallowable instrument—that is, an instrument which can be disallowed by a majority vote of parliamentarians in either house. No privatisation could occur unless there was majority support for it in the parliament. That has been the policy setting since 2011—the policy settings devised and implemented by the Australian Labor Party. Given the realities I have just explained, any reasonable observer would ask: what is the possible point of the bill which is before the House now? Given that privatisation of the NBN could not occur unless a majority in both houses of parliament agreed to it, what possible additional work does the bill before the House do today? The answer is clear. It does no substantive or real work at all. That is why I say this bill is the most stupid, pointless, empty, nakedly political, entirely useless piece of cynical, performative gesture politics that Labor has managed to serve up in its nearly two decades of deeply undistinguished policymaking on the NBN. That is why the coalition will be voting against it. This is not the first time the current Prime Minister and his communications minister have tried on this particular stunt. Similarly, in the lead up to the 2022 election, they tried to bring on a big political fight about whether there was some difference between the parties about the future of the NBN. On 17 November 2021, this dynamic duo issued a media release containing this ringing commitment: 'Labor will also keep the NBN in public hands.' It attracted virtually no attention then and it's not attracting much attention now. This is a non-issue. The existing legislative framework, introduced in a rich irony by the current Prime Minister in 2011, sets out very clearly what has to happen before the National Broadband Network could ever pass out of public ownership. It cannot happen unless there is majority support for it in both houses of parliament. If the member for Grayndler and the member for Greenway had any capacity for shame left, if they had any self-knowledge at all, they would be curled up on the floor in writhing agonies of embarrassment at having brought forward this ludicrous bill. I say, for the third time, this bill is the most stupid, pointless, empty, nakedly political, entirely useless piece of cynical, performative gesture politics that Labor has managed to serve up in its nearly two decades of deeply undistinguished policymaking on the NBN. I say to anybody who is listening tonight, you should be very cross that the Prime Minister and the minister have wasted the time of the national parliament on this ludicrous joke of a bill. I am very pleased to say the coalition will be having nothing to do with this useless bill. 20:14 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—It is Labor governments that build. It was a Labor government that made the decision to build the National Broadband Network. Then we saw, time and time again, the Liberal Party and the National Party try and block it. We've known that time and time again when it comes to the builders versus the blockers. We heard just then from the Manager of Opposition Business—the ironic Manager of Opposition Business—who gave us a lecture on 'stupid and pointless'. I think there was nothing more stupid and pointless than choosing copper over fibre. That was the stupid and pointless decision that the Liberal Party made back in 2013. Again, that's why I have no trust when it comes to how those opposite will seek to ruin, wreck, damage and destroy the National Broadband Network for the future. It is essential that we legislate to keep it in public hands. The Australian people have invested in the National Broadband Network. The Australian people rely on the National Broadband Network every day for education, for their jobs and to enjoy the great joys of living in Australia. We know the privatisation record of those opposite. I know it was the WA Liberals who wanted to privatise Western Power, sending power prices through the roof for Western Australian households. I opposed that, and the Western Australian people backed us on that. We know that the Liberal and National parties sold Medibank Private. They sold it out. Then we also had a grand plan to privatise the Medicare payments threshold. They got to the idea of privatising the Medicare payments threshold because the now Leader of the Opposition couldn't get his plan for a GP tax through. He got so angry and so aggressive that he decided instead to go and try to privatise the Medicare payments. That is why it is essential that we keep the National Broadband Network in public hands, where it belongs. This bill, the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024, will make sure that this critical infrastructure, which reaches some 12.4 million premises in Australia, stays in public hands. It is too important to be put into the hands of a private operator or to be sold off to fill some Liberal Party or National Party debt black hole in the future. We know that, currently, 8.6 million homes and businesses across Australia are connected to the National Broadband Network. They connect because of the security provided by a public provider. We owe it to them to give them that security for the future. This legislation will make a difference. It will remove the legislative framework that would enable the privatisation of NBN Co. It's time to stop that option being on the table. We've been through such a journey in this country. Back on 18 June 2007, we saw the Howard government—of which the now Leader of the Opposition was a minister—dragged kicking and screaming to finally come to a plan where they were going to give $900 million to Elders and Optus to develop an internet network for the regions. After so long doing nothing, they finally said they would do something. They also promised that they would deliver 'a state-of-the-art broadband network with coverage for rural and regional areas'. Again, what we saw was a number of experts come out and blast that $1.9 billion package. Again and again, we saw the then Howard government, of which the now Leader of the Opposition was a key member, try to play catch up, because that's what it was. It was Labor that in 2007 said, 'We finally need national action for this technology of the future to connect Australians, to connect families—to connect people—to one another through this incredible technology,' which, again, is now relied on by some 8.6 million households and businesses across this country. Mr GORMAN 74519 I will take the interjections from those opposite. They come in here and tell us how much they wish broadband services could've improved if only they'd been in government for almost a decade and if only they'd taken that opportunity! Rather than trying to trash the NBN, which is what they spend all their time doing, they went through these outdated technologies of copper—copper didn't work when it rained and when there was electrical interference, and, at best, it would give you 25 megabits per second—because they couldn't bring themselves to ever admit that fibre was better. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that. When those opposite last came into government and were developing their policies, this was the dominant view of the Liberal and National parties. We had then opposition leader Abbott tell former opposition leader Turnbull he wanted him to 'demolish' the government's National Broadband Network. That was their stated policy goal—to demolish the National Broadband Network. Then the former Leader of the Opposition, who became a future Prime Minister, Turnbull declared the NBN would be the absolute focus of this with that goal to destroy it. I'll just remind the Australian people how much the Liberal Party and the National Party struggled to understand the importance of broadband. What we saw was then opposition leader Abbott describe it as 'essentially a video entertainment system'. I dare anyone opposite to say that in their electorates today. It is so much more. It is essential for small business. I stand up for my small businesses, and I know they need the NBN. If you want to sell it off, if you want to sell it out, if you want to stick them with copper, by all means do it. We then had the tech genius the then Leader of the Opposition tell us, 'We are absolutely confident that 25 megs is going to be enough, more than enough, for the average household.' Tell that to practically anyone in Australia today. We then had the network explained to us by the then Leader of the Opposition, who said, 'All those people sending messages from their iPhones and Blackberries, all those people sitting in airport lounges using their computers, they don't rely on fixed line services.' I hope that in the 10 years since those opposite have learnt that actually wi-fi eventually does connect to the fixed line service. The fixed line service and the backhaul network, of which the National Broadband Network is an essential part, do matter. Again, those opposite said they wanted to axe the National Broadband Network and get it out of the way. We had the then Leader of the Opposition come out and say, 'The National Broadband Network is a luxury Australia cannot now afford.' But we know that was completely the wrong call. We couldn't afford the delays in action and the copper obsession of the Liberal and National parties. And then they promised probably the biggest lie of all, which was, 'I want our NBN rolled out within three years, and Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to make this happen.' Not only did it not roll out in three years; Malcolm Turnbull was definitely not the right person to make it happen. But now we are making progress again on getting fibre and fast broadband to the people and small businesses of Australia. Earlier this month we reached the milestone—and this is something we can all celebrate—of nine million Australian homes and businesses being able to make the switch to ultrafast NBN. That means that 90 per cent of people on the fixed line NBN network can get access to up to one gigabyte of data per second by the end of 2025. Compare that to the measly 25 megabits a second that was being offered by the Liberal Party and the National Party: it is a significant improvement. When I think about what that means to some 82,000 households and businesses in my electorate, I know it means they now have the benefits of fibre broadband. I know because it was the story of my household even. We were on the coalition's old copper network. It was so unreliable that we couldn't use that network. Now, thankfully, we're on the fibre network. I know that benefits families in Ashfield, Bassendean, Bayswater, Bedford, Coolbinia, Dianella and East Perth. They are all getting access to fibre NBN, but it does not stop there. Eden Hill, Embleton, Highgate, Inglewood and Joondanna are all getting access to fibre NBN, something they were denied by those opposite. Leederville, Maylands, Menora, Morley, Mount Hawthorn, Mount Lawley, North Perth, Northbridge, Osborne Park and Perth are all getting access to fibre NBN, as well as Tuart Hill, West Perth and Yokine. It means that families get not only the benefits of fast broadband but the benefits of saving, on estimates from the National Broadband Network itself, more than 100 hours and $2,580 in travel costs a year. What we know now is that the average home has some 22 connected devices on average. That, again, means that the 25-megabits-per-second unreliable copper that those opposite tried to sell for so long does not do the job. If I think about what that really means for families, where you've got students we're not just trying to act by cutting their HECS debt or giving them access to fee-free TAFE; we're trying to give them the tools of learning for the 21st century, giving them ultrafast broadband. When it comes to supporting small businesses and people who are starting new businesses, again, the tool and the access to start that new business is ultrafast broadband—whether it be at your business or home. When it comes to people who might be looking to spend more time with family and friends, we've got the great benefits of being connected through videoconferencing, which doesn't require as much travel—as I just said, reducing and saving up to 100 hours, and reducing people's carbon footprint. It makes a huge difference. Again, what I know from my constituents is that they want broadband. Ms Ware 300123 Not in Bundeena. Mr GORMAN 74519 Indeed, what I'm hearing from some of those opposite is that people in their electorates want ultrafast broadband too, and I would hope that those members opposite go back to their electorates and say: 'Did you know that the reason it's taken so long is because the Liberal and the National Party made a mistake. We made a mistake by backing the wrong technology.' Ms Ware 300123 I'm going back to my electorate and saying that the Minister for Communications will not give them the NBN in Bundeena. Mr GORMAN 74519 They made a mistake by backing the wrong technology, by choosing the technology of copper rather than the technology that was always going to be right, which was fibre. They make this mistake a lot of times; they look to the technologies of the past rather than the technologies of the future. They looked to copper rather than fibre. They look to nuclear rather than renewables. They are always looking for the technologies of the past rather than the opportunities of the future, and what we want to make sure is that, as we get more investment— Mr Hill 86256 Deputy Speaker, this is getting ridiculous. You need to deal with it. She's got a problem; if she can't stop talking, she should leave the chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! Mr GORMAN 74519 I don't know why some of those opposite are so exercised about trying to keep an essential public service in public hands. I don't know what is that they dislike about public services. Mr Hill 86256 They just love privatisation. Mr GORMAN 74519 They love privatisation; they tried to privatise the work that was being done in Centrelink. They tried to privatise Western Power, in my great state of Western Australia. Deputy Speaker, I note that my power bills and your power bills—my constituents and your constituents have cheaper power bills because that privatisation of Western Power did not go ahead. Again, I think there are real benefits in keeping the National Broadband Network in public hands where it belongs. It is absolutely essential infrastructure. I don't want to see it sold off to some overseas conglomerate. I don't want to see it sold off into the private market where they care more about profit than making sure that every Australian gets the quality service of broadband, which is now essential for people's learning, essential for their work, essential for their social connection and, more and more often now, essential for their safety as well. We know that many medical devices can now be very effectively enhanced by access to fast broadband, giving people more insights into their health and their health needs. When it comes to keeping the National Broadband Network in public hands, I think most Australians will say, 'Yes, that's right.' We saw the sell-off of Telstra and how that held Australia back when it came to making sure that we had the technologies of the future. We took the brave decision, and I want to commend what the member for Kennedy said—that former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will be remembered as a visionary for backing this technology and for backing this initiative, to make sure that Australians do have access to ultrafast broadband. We're cleaning up a decade of confusion, delay and copper wires strung across the country. We're putting the fibre in, we're getting it done and we're keeping it in public hands. 20:29 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I have seen some weird things in this place in my short time here but this desperate move by the Albanese government is right up there, taking a podium place in the super weird and unnecessary category of legislation coming before the Australian parliament this term. Last sitting period the government, literally apropos of nothing, ran into the chamber at 9.01 on 9 October to present this bill, the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. There followed the strangest of second reading speeches, first from the Minister of Communications and then from the Prime Minister himself—with a hitherto unrecognised passion for telecommunications policy—in which he lauded the NBN and its importance to the Australian community like he'd just discovered the internet. There followed a question time in which almost every question from the government to itself went to the ownership of the NBN and the desperate, urgent need to safeguard the future of the NBN. What? Where on earth did this come from? Has there been a raging debate about the public or private nature of the NBN? No. Is the NBN about to go broke, and it needs a public bailout? No. Is there a secret plan on either side to sell the NBN? No. Is there a problem of any sort to solve with the NBN being in public or private ownership? No, there is not. I can tell you what the problem is that this Albanese Labor government is trying to solve for. It's the truly terrible political freefall situation in which the Prime Minister finds himself as we head into an election year. It has been a truly terrible few weeks for the Prime Minister—in fact a terrible few months, in fact a truly terrible end to 2024 and, let's be honest, an entirely terrible term of parliament. In his speech on this bill, the Prime Minister talked about all the things the NBN is able to do to help this country get ahead and achieve. And I agree, having served on the board of the NBN from July 2018 until I resigned to seek preselection to stand in the 2022 federal election. I agree with the Prime Minister wholeheartedly. The NBN has greatly facilitated banking, health and education. But for the coalition government changing to a multitechnology mix back in 2013, the NBN would never have been finalised in time to get this country through the COVID-19 pandemic. The PM didn't mention the difference the NBN has made to entertainment, with all the high-quality streaming into our homes and the exceptional Australian content we are now able to see on our hand-held screens—except that's not what it did. As an aside, you see—I note the irony—on the morning that the Prime Minister rushed in here to present this supposedly urgent legislation, I was meeting with Screen Producers Australia, representatives of Hoodlum Entertainment, Archipelago Productions, the Film Television and Radio School, Fremantle Australia, Ludo Studio, Media Stockade, New Town Films, the National Institute of Dramatic Art and Roadshow—great, great Australians who have contributed over decades to our best Australian content, like Bluey, Neighbours, Wentworth, HeartbreakHigh, Grand Designs—I love that show—and RedDog, Happy Feet, Muriel's Wedding, Mao's Last Dancer and The Castle. They explained to me the crisis confronting their industry. Two years ago they were promised a local content quota for the streaming corporations, which was going to take effect on 1 July 2024. Here we are, two years since that promise was made, and the sector has heard precisely nothing from the Albanese government—no action, no support for our local screen industry and, frankly, no sign of support between now and the next election. Yet somehow—somehow—saving the NBN is the most vital thing to the Australian economy. It can be pulled from the blue—urgent, urgent, urgent—and drafted overnight. The NBN must be saved! Why, you may ask. The minister and Prime Minister have been keen to tell us this legislation will ensure NBN prices are more affordable for consumers. What? I'm sorry, you just couldn't make this stuff up. NBN prices since this government was elected have gone up. Back in October 2023, NBN announced significant changes to its pricing. Lighter use packages got cheaper, and prices for NBN 25 and NBN 100 got cheaper—excellent—but prices for the much more popular NBN 50 package went up. So now some six million Australian households are paying up to 14 per cent more for their NBN packages with one of the retailers. Did these changes result from careful pricing, planning and direction from the Albanese government? No. They happened because the NBN finally settled its special access undertaking with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Earlier this year, on 1 May, the NBN said in a press release: Like many other businesses in Australia and worldwide, nbn has been impacted by higher input costs of materials from suppliers. The wholesale prices that nbn charges to retailers in FY25 will increase by approximately 4.1 per cent, on average, across nbn's range of wholesale services. This reflects the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index … over the twelve months to the December 2023 quarter. The NBN's prices road map is influenced by the CPI, and we all know this government's record on the CPI. Under this government, monthly CPI reached a peak at over eight per cent in December 2022, and almost two years later we are finally seeing an inflation rate with a two in front of it, consistent with the Reserve Bank of Australia's inflation target of two to three per cent, but core inflation, the figure that matters most and on which the RBA makes its decisions regarding interest rates, remains at 3.5 per cent, higher than all of our major trading partners—higher than the US, the UK and Canada—and the IMF predicts it will remain at 3.6 per cent in 2025, higher than its forecast for Germany at 2.1, the UK at two, Canada and the USA 1.9 and France, Italy and Japan at 1.8. The rest of the world is already seeing interest rate relief—but not here. Therefore, it should be no surprise that a record number of small businesses are failing. On the same morning as the Prime Minister and minister for communications rushed in here with their urgent bill, the Australian had an article which read as follows: 'Company insolvencies have hit record highs, with more than 6,600 firms faltering in the six months to September, fuelling warnings small businesses are struggling to stay afloat amid high inflation and interest, increasingly complex regulations and cyberattacks.' Australian insolvency statistics revealed by ASIC reveal company insolvencies capturing firms entering external administration for the first time hit 11,053 in 2023-24, swelling overall insolvencies since the 2022 election to 22,800. Well, I've got some good news for those 22,800 companies that have gone broke since this Albanese government was elected: the NBN is going to stay in public hands. I'm sorry to break the news, but the NBN is in public hands and it has been since the legislation was passed to create the NBN in 2011. This government has done nothing—literally nothing—to bring NBN prices down either between 2011 and 13, when they lost power, or since their return to the Treasury benches in 2022. Nor—news flash—could it, lest it want to risk being found to be a shadow director of the NBN board. If anyone today is wondering why the Albanese government is doing this—is it something clearly thought through, carefully planned? Did they have a long-term goal to remove the otherwise even-longer-term possibility of maybe one day privatising the NBN, the process for which is set out in the Labor government's own act of 2011 in part 3 of division 2, called 'Ownership and control of the NBN Co'? That part provides for the NBN to be privatised if and when: (a) the Communications Minister has declared that, in his or her opinion, the national broadband network should be treated as built and fully operational; (b) the Productivity Minister— And, by the way, this government doesn't have one, which is just as well given it's the weakest productivity level in six decades. … has caused to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament a report of an inquiry by the Productivity Commission; (c) the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Ownership of NBN Co— News flash: that doesn't exist either. … has examined the Productivity Commission's report; (d) the Finance Minister has declared that, in his or her opinion, conditions are suitable for the entering into and carrying out of an NBN Co sale scheme … Again, news flash for the Albanese government: while condition (a) has been completed, none of (b), (c) or (d) are either underway or even in contemplation by either side of government. There was no imminence to a sale. This is pure posturing—and mightily convenient financial posturing, if I may say so myself. You see, three months ago the NBN repaid the last tranche of public loan to the Commonwealth on 30 June. In its financial report of 13 August this year, the NBN announced: The company refinanced the remaining balance of $5.5 billion relating to the $19.5 billion Commonwealth Government loan in full by 30 June 2024. NBN Co's capital strategy remains focused on funding network investments and maintaining a strong liquidity position. So riddle me this: the Albanese government lets the company fully repay that loan to the Commonwealth, which it did by seeking more advantageous loan terms on the private market at the time, and in doing so the Albanese government boosts its budget coffers, reinforcing its ever-so-persistent, Liberal-light, 'we're so responsible with the budget' rhetoric, and then, money in the bank, declares the NBN will always be in public ownership. Thanks, NBN, for repaying the debt, but if you don't mind, we'll just keep the title deeds. What an absurd, indulgent, 'Look, an eagle,' tactic from this lot. I knew these guys were in trouble politically, but this desperate move shows you just how deep that trouble is. At 8.59 am on 9 October, when the minister ran into introduce this bill, no-one was talking about privatisation at the NBN. It has been a long-standing option—an eventual plan—one for which the NBN had been carefully, diligently and responsibly managed to keep that option open, ensuring it was run efficiently and effectively with the best of private sector know-how in its leadership and board ranks to ensure the best use of this public investment in a dynamic and constantly changing telecommunications market. This was a Labor Party plan and, in 2010, the then Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, issued a press release which said: Senator Conroy said the Gillard Government remained firmly committed to selling its stake in NBN Co after the network was fully built and operational, subject to market conditions and security considerations. Labor then put the sale provisions into the 2011 act. When the Labor Party dreamt up the NBN back in the 2000s, it was a one-size-fits-all fibre to the node to each and every Australian home—no matter the distance, no matter the need and no matter the use case. When the Abbott government was elected in 2013, the NBN was a shambles, with less than 50,000 homes connected to the grid. Today the NBN, thanks to coalition policy, provides a plethora of internet solutions to the best the places where they are suited. The multitechnology mix sees Australian homes and businesses served by fibre to the home or premises, fibre to the building, HFC, fibre to the curb, fibre to the node, fixed wireless, Sky Muster satellite, and shortly, LEO satellites. As a result of coalition government policy, the NBN is largely complete, providing fast internet across this enormous nation—a territory larger than the USA and larger than the European Union landmass. Labor's record in the NBN is truly appalling and needs some exploration here. You might remember the original plan from that side of politics was for rolled-gold fibre to every single home, paid for by you, the Australian taxpayer. When the Abbott government was elected, there were barely 50,000 homes connected to this Rolls-Royce version of the NBN. Labor's plan was indulgent, expensive and illusory. When a full review was undertaken, after Labor lost the 2013 election, it was found their decadent plan was going to cost the Australian taxpayer $73 billion—back in 2013 figures. The coalition government's review of the planned rollout was summed up beautifully by an AFR editorial in 2013: Who would have thought? It turns out that a massive government-run telecommunications monopoly that was built from scratch and which aims to push other competitors out of the market is very expensive. As things stand, the grand monument dreamt up by the Rudd government's telecommunications minister Stephen Conroy will leave Australia with close to the highest broadband prices in the developed world. That was the model we inherited. By the time the Albanese government was elected in May 2022, the build had been finished for two years, and more than eight million Australian homes were connected to the NBN. On 9 October, the Prime Minister came into this chamber—breaking with all common practice—to give a speech about this bill. In it he said: Prime Minister Gough Whitlam once said that his definition of equality was every child in Australia having a quiet room in which to study and a desk with a lamp to read by. That was in the 1970s. In 2024, every Australian child needs to be sitting at their desk with access to the NBN. Gough Whitlam turned this country into an economic basket case. It seems the Prime Minister is determined to do the same. 20:43 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra The National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 is a really important bill, which reaffirms this government's commitment to the public ownership of what is one of Australia's most critical infrastructure assets, the NBN. I just don't know where to begin with some of what I've heard from those opposite while I've been sitting here waiting to speak. The member for Flinders has just said that there's something wrong with the Prime Minister saying that, in this day and age, every Australian child should have a place to study with access to the NBN. I think that is an excellent thing for us to aspire to. But what we've heard from those opposite is that they just don't get vision. They don't get nation-building. They don't want people to have things that they don't pay for, if they can't afford them. That's what this is really about—the idea that every Australian would have had access to fibre-to-the-premises broadband as was originally proposed by the absolutely visionary plan under the Rudd government that was the NBN, and that those opposite absolutely trashed in 10 years in government, among other things that they've trashed—because they just don't get it. They're not vision people. They don't want to see Australia leading the world. Part of the point of the NBN when it was initially proposed was the ubiquitous nature of fast broadband and that the fact that it was to be ubiquitous—that everyone was to have access to it, that everyone would have this very fast broadband—would revolutionise the way we delivered services and provided access to things like education and health care for people in regional and remote areas, the people that those opposite always claim to be representing. But, anyway, here we are. This bill is an important bill that makes clear that keeping the NBN preserved in public ownership is an explicit requirement. It removes the current conditions for terminating government ownership by repealing most of part 3 of the NBN act, because Labor is the party of the NBN. As I said, the NBN was a visionary idea under the Rudd government. It was established and began to be rolled out with the goal of a fully connected Australia. The original vision for a fibre-to-the-premises connected Australia was trashed by those opposite when they came to government, and it has been left to the Albanese Labor government to clean up their mess—as it has been with so many policy areas. But make no mistake: those opposite would jump at the first opportunity to sell this important asset if given the chance. The speeches that I've heard in the short time I've been here make it very clear that they don't understand the NBN and would take the first opportunity to trash it. Just like they did with Telstra, just like they did with Medibank and just like they did with the Australian Public Service, the coalition are addicted to privatisation and outsourcing, with the Australian public always paying the price. What we're doing today is ensuring the NBN's future. Commitment to public ownership is vital for the NBN to deliver the services Australians rightly expect. Let's look back at the history of the NBN under those opposite. The Liberal Party's handling of the NBN stands as a stark reminder of how critical it is to approach significant national infrastructure with vision and with commitment to the public interest—vision and commitment to the public interest. I know that's difficult for those opposite. Under the negligence of the coalition, the initial vision for a world-class fibre based NBN was undermined. Instead, they opted for a multitechnology mix that left Australia lagging behind our global peers in both speed and reliability. This was an approach that resulted in increased costs, blown-out timeframes and outcomes that fell well short of what Australians were promised and what we deserved. Despite claiming that their strategy would save money and accelerate the rollout, the reality was an NBN fraught with issues—delays, unexpected costs and widespread dissatisfaction among users. The Liberal Party's poor decision-making left the network underresourced and underperforming, impacting businesses and households alike. What should have been an enabler for economic growth and digital participation became a source of frustration for millions of Australians. Their governance also demonstrated a willingness to prioritise privatisation over public benefit. This is what they always do. In 2020 they declared the network built and fully operational, a move that set the stage for its eventual sale. They even supported NBN Co's push to raise wholesale prices by CPI plus three per cent, a policy that would have hit Australians hard, undermining affordability in favour of profit-driven motives. It took the intervention of Labor and the ACCC to protect consumers from these proposed price hikes. The coalition's legacy is marked by missed opportunities and the weakening of what could have been an unparalleled national asset. That is what's so sad about this: the inability of the coalition to embrace a vision for Australia to lead the world, which is what we were trying to do with the NBN, and for all Australians to share in that—for everyone to have a chance to have the fastest possible broadband that would revolutionise the way we did things. Instead they prioritised short-term gains and ideological commitments over long-term strategic investment, and the Liberal Party left Australia playing catch-up on connectivity and digital capability. Our government is committed to reversing this legacy and ensuring that such missteps are not repeated. We stand by the principle that the NBN must remain in public hands, fostering upgrades, innovation and affordability for all. It's not just about restoring what was compromised; it's about moving towards a vision for a more connected, just and secure future for Australia. This stance is driven by the need for continuous upgrades to the network, regulatory oversight of wholesale pricing and, most importantly, the delivery of affordable broadband for all Australians. We're delivering on the NBN's promise of equity and access to the digital economy. In 2022 the Albanese Labor government underscored this commitment through the updated statement of expectations for NBN Co. Our directive was clear: public ownership is the cornerstone that will enable us to extend more fibre throughout the fixed-line network, lay the groundwork for a transition into next-generation satellite technology and modernise our universal service obligations. These steps are essential for a more connected and inclusive Australia—one that leaves no community behind, whether they be in the heart of our cities of the vast expanses of our rural and regional areas. Improvements to the network are ongoing. Just last week I was pleased to hear that further upgrades will begin shortly in my electorate of Canberra—and this is something Canberrans have speaking to me about. When we were in opposition last term, people were disgusted with the access they had to the NBN and how far it fell short of what was promised. I'm proud that we are fixing that, including here in my electorate. The fibre upgrade program has been bolstered by the government's $2.4 billion commitment over four years to provide an additional 1.5 million fibre-to-the-node premises with access to full fibre. As a result, 90 per cent of premises in the NBN fixed-line footprint can place an order for gigabit capable services by the end of next year. In our recent announcement, 37 ACT suburbs have been announced for inclusion in the fibre upgrade program. These include Ainslie, Braddon, Bruce, Cook, Dickson, Garran, Griffith, Hawker, Kaleen, Lyneham, Macquarie, Narrabundah, Reid, Turner and Yarralumla here in my electorate of Canberra. Providing faster speeds for Canberrans is part of the publicly owned National Broadband Network. I think a lot of people in this place don't understand that Canberra is a real community with real needs as well. I know a lot of those opposite love to trash Canberra because public servants live here, and they hate them too. But it's really good that we are getting improved access to the NBN because we don't have it either, because what those opposite, in government, did to the NBN—10 years of neglect and trying to destroy it—affected us here in the nation's capital as well. I am pleased that we are addressing that and that those suburbs are getting what they should have got a long time ago thanks to the Albanese Labor government. The NBN is a Labor legacy worth protecting. It is crucial to remember that the NBN isn't just an infrastructure project; it's a strategic asset intertwined with our national security and cybersecurity needs. Ongoing government ownership ensures the NBN's operations align with national interests, protecting Australia from the significant risks foreign ownership could pose. To sell off the NBN would be to jeopardise this oversight and expose Australia to serious sovereignty and security concerns. In this bill before the House, we reaffirm that the NBN is not just a commodity to be sold; it's a vital public service that underpins our economy, social fabric and national security. The reaction to this bill by those opposite is very telling. It demonstrates yet again their ideological obsession with privatisation. I remind the House again, because it bears repeating, that the former coalition government, under the member for Bradfield, initiated measures in 2020 to prepare the NBN for sale, declaring it 'built and fully operational'. Having been here for the member for Bradfield's contribution to this debate, just a few speakers before, it is obvious that these are people that would destroy the NBN if they ever got back into government. They have a complete disdain for it because, as I said, it was a visionary nation-building project and was about universal access for all Australians—and these are things that don't sit comfortably with their ideology. Their readiness for privatisation included supporting a proposal from NBN Co to raise wholesale prices by CPI plus three per cent, a move aimed at boosting revenue streams before a sale. This would have had significant repercussions for consumers, especially in terms of affordability. Labor, alongside the ACCC, firmly rejected this proposal in order to safeguard Australians from unnecessary price hikes. That would have been a disaster. We need only look at history to see the consequence of privatising public telecommunications infrastructure. The Howard government's sale of Telstra service is a cautionary tale. Promises were made about maintaining service quality at affordable prices, but those promises were never met. On top of that, the sale left the government without the leverage to spearhead the rollout of fibre broadband, necessitating the Rudd government's launch of the NBN project. This bill did not appear out of thin air. Our ongoing consultations with communities across rural and regional Australia have sent a clear and consistent message. People want the NBN to remain under government ownership. They recognise that only with public oversight can the network continue to deliver modern, accessible and affordable communications services. Keeping the NBN in public hands is not just a strategic decision; it is a commitment to prosperity and connectivity for every Australian. It is about ensuring that the digital divide narrows and that no-one is left in the dark, disconnected from the opportunities that the modern world offers. Yes, to the member for Flinders, we do believe that in an updated version of Gough Whitlam's vision every child should have a place to study with a lamp on. We do believe that every Australian student should have the NBN—they should have access to reliable, fast broadband—because, if they don't have it, how will they ever keep up with their peers? How will they ever have the same opportunities if they don't have access to these things? And how will we ever deliver those things if we don't keep it in public hands, if it's not about building our nation or about a strategic asset to benefit all Australians that we regularly update and improve? The Albanese Labor government will always stand firm when it comes to public ownership of the NBN. We will continue to safeguard the NBN from those who would seek to sell it off. The NBN is an essential tool for Australia's economic resilience, social equity and national security. Labor will not repeat the liberal mistakes of the past when it comes to privatisation. Instead, we will build on the promise of a connected, secure and inclusive future for all, because that is what Labor governments to. When we come into government, we bring vision. We bring the hopes of Australians, who rely on governments to ensure that they have the best chance, that every Australian has a chance at a happy, healthy, fulfilled life. Public education, universal health care, decent wages—these are things that you can thank Labor governments for. While we're talking about Gough Whitlam, I just came from a forum where we celebrated 50 years since Gough Whitlam protected the Great Barrier Reef. But those opposite say he left Australia an economic basket case. Well, where would we be without the vision of Labor governments? A place I don't want to see. 20:58 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I'm also pleased to be speaking in favour of the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 and support any move to keep the National Broadband Network in public ownership. Last night, when I thought I might be speaking on this bill, I listened to the member for Fadden liken this debate to a Seinfeld episode. The truth is that the previous government did want to sell off the NBN and that those opposite have form when they eye off critical public infrastructure. The truth is that the whole Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's approach to broadband was like a decade-long episode of Utopia or The Thick of It. But it's Australians who have paid the price for their negligence over the last 10 years. As a government, we are determined not to make the same mistakes as former coalition governments, who have mismanaged communications policy in Australia for decades. It comes from that starting point of not actually caring—thinking that these debates are about nothing when they are actually critical to the Australia not just of the now but of the decades to come. As much as they protest and try to airbrush history, the Liberals have shown a pathological desire to sell off critical assets. We know that the former coalition government had taken the initial legislative steps to prepare their NBN for sale, including declaring the network built and fully operational in 2020. I wholeheartedly support this bill and the goal of providing a solid foundation for communication policy in this nation long into the future. When John Howard was swept from office in 2007, he left Australia as a broadband backwater. For those that remember, the privatisation of Telstra was a terrible policy outcome driven by ideological zealotry. Crucially, the sale also deprived the government of strategic levers to drive the investment necessary for Australians to fully access reliable high-speed broadband and the productivity and digital inclusion benefits that delivers. Of course, that was a government that had no understanding that this wasn't just to be an entertainment vehicle. This was to be a vehicle that was to transform workplaces and the way we deliver services. It's understandable that, when governments lack vision, they don't understand why you need to invest in the future. Of course, Labor's decision in 2008 to deploy a government owned national broadband network rightly took a long-term view of the needs of Australian consumers and taxpayers in a changing world. The NBN was built by Australians for Australians. It belongs to all Australians, and it belongs in public hands. The NBN is an essential piece of national utility infrastructure, helping people connect regardless of where they live or work. It doesn't care for what postcode they might be under or what region or state of the country that they live in. This was initiated by Labor with a positive vision for the future, delivering equity, access and opportunity combined with sound, long-term economics. It meant that Australians would enjoy world-class connectivity, carrying the digital economy for decades to come. What happened next? Enter the neoliberal wrecking ball of the Liberals, who attacked public ownership and any policy idea associated with it. Just as they sold out Australia on the privatisation of Telstra, the coalition sold out Australia again. They abandoned fibre and instead deployed an almost absurd copper alternative for $29 billion. By May 2022, when the Albanese government was elected, the coalition's second-rate NBN was $28 billion over budget—nearly double the cost—was four years behind schedule and backflipping to fibre. As I said before, the former coalition government had taken the initial legislative steps to prepare their NBN for sale. This was their game plan. They also supported an NBN submission to increase wholesale prices on their products by CPI plus three per cent to bolster their income streams in preparation for the sale. It was Telstra all over again. Fortunately this was rejected by Labor and the ACCC. For those members that genuinely seek to represent regional Australia, they should be cognisant that, in government consultation on regional telecommunication services, there has been strong and clear feedback from communities in rural and regional areas that the National Broadband Network should stay under government ownership. We've had quite a number of speakers who've gotten up and, whilst it's connected, have talked about challenges around mobile coverage and about dealing with black spots. There are challenges across the country. There are significant parts of my electorate where we're still working through those issues. It beggars belief that the same people who are effectively making these arguments don't support the NBN remaining in public hands. Keeping the NBN in public ownership is essential to continue to provide modern, accessible and affordable communications services in Australia. The Albanese government understands this, and it's delivering its vision for a world-class, high-speed broadband network. Over $3 billion in NBN fibre and fixed wireless upgrades are being delivered on time and on budget. More than 70,000 kilometres of new fibre has been rolled out and over 2,300 fixed wireless towers have been upgraded. Whilst today's debate about this bill is about our vision to secure the long-term policy settings of the nation, I would like to flag that I will continue to work with the NBN to better outcomes for households and businesses in my electorate of Bean. Much has been achieved, but there is still more to do, and I will not rest until we get the results that Bean deserves. It is good to see that suburbs like Gordon, Banks and Conder in the southernmost parts of the electorate of Bean are amongst the suburbs that can now access these higher upgrades that are happening right around the country. The rollout of the NBN has correlated with downward pressure on the cost of communications in Australia, with an overall nine per cent decrease in communications prices from 2017 to 2024 compared to a 22 per cent CPI growth over that time. It is only by keeping the NBN in public ownership that that vision can continue to be delivered, and only the Labor government has committed to this vision. But it's not just the government that supports this policy; consumers support it, and not just the regional consumers I talked about before. The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network CEO, Carol Bennett, is on the record as supporting it. Workers support it. Shane Murphy, the Communication Workers Union national president, has publicly backed this move. These are the workers who work with this infrastructure every day. The industry representatives support it. For example, Optus interim CEO Michael Venter has said his company supports this initiative. The Albanese government's position on the NBN is clear. In 2021, we made an election commitment to retain the NBN in public ownership, to keep broadband affordable and to complete building a world-class fibre network. In 2022, we formalised this commitment in a new statement of expectations for the NBN, and we have now introduced legislation to enshrine this position in law. Labor understands the NBN is not just something that earns a rate of return; it's a critical piece of social and economic infrastructure. Under Labor, the NBN will be affordable, it will be reliable, it will be fast and it will be safe in public hands. I support this bill and the important goals behind it. It will be of great benefit for the nation and the electorate of Bean, which I represent. To make this clear again, on this side of the House we strongly believe that the NBN needs to stay in full government ownership to support the ongoing upgrades of the network and to ensure ongoing regulatory oversight of NBN wholesale pricing, keeping broadband affordable for Australians. We know what happens when you privatise assets like this. As I said, the government made this commitment clear in the updated statement of expectations issued to the NBN Co in 2022. Government ownership is essential to delivering the strategy for a more connected Australia, no matter what postcode you live in, including rolling out more fibre in the fixed line network; planning for the transition to next-generation satellites, which, of course, are going to be critical for parts of my electorate, like Norfolk Island; and modernising universal service obligations. The NBN is crucial national infrastructure for cybersecurity and national security imperatives, requiring strong government oversight. This is best delivered through certain, ongoing government ownership. Any future sale of the NBN would likely involve foreign ownership, raising potentially serious national sovereignty and security risks. As I mentioned before, the former coalition government had taken the initial legislative steps to prepare the NBN for sale, including declaring the network built and fully operational in 2020—one of the great works of fiction of our times. So when the member for Fadden talked about this debate as being a Seinfeld episode, a debate about nothing, it's not true. We know what their intent is. We know what would occur if they had the capacity to have control over the fate of the NBN again. The sale of Telstra under the Howard government was a prime example of the coalition making promises on prices and services for telecommunications that were never delivered. The sale of Telstra also deprived the government of leverage to roll out fibre broadband in Australia, necessitating the Rudd government's establishment of the NBN in 2008. Keeping the NBN in public ownership is essential for continuing to provide modern, accessible and affordable communication services for all Australians. This is a message that I get time and time again from constituents across the electorate of Bean, whether they be in the deep south, in the suburbs of Conder and Banks, in the Molonglo Valley, in the new suburbs out near Stromlo, or on Norfolk Island. My constituents are clear, and in accordance with their wishes I support this bill and I support the important goals behind it, which will be of great benefit to the nation. I'm so proud to be a member of a government with a minister for communications as strong and as effective as the minister we have, a minister who is delivering to everyone right across our country, including all of my constituents in the electorate of Bean. 21:12 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I speak in support of this bill, the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. I'll keep my remarks relatively brief because I appreciate the lateness of the hour and because all of my colleagues have effectively made the points that I would otherwise have made. I commend the member for Bean, who has just spoken, for outlining much of the history of the NBN and for again putting forward the very strong case for why it should remain in public hands. But let me just make a few observations about government or public assets and their privatisation more broadly. Firstly, I can recall, from day one, when the NBN was mooted as an important piece of national infrastructure to be rolled out, that the opposition at the time never had their heart in it. They were opposed to it from day one, and quite frankly when they came into government they made that absolutely clear by rolling out a second-rate NBN using the copper wires et cetera that we've spoken about time and time again. They did that I think for two reasons—and it's not just because they wanted to save money. Firstly, they wanted to get it finished off as quickly as possible so that they could then sell it off and get some money back into the coffers. Secondly, I genuinely believe that many members of the opposition did not really understand the significance of the NBN for the future of our country and future generations. It is not just another piece of government property; it's actually an essential national asset, just like our highways, which connect people from one city to another. The NBN has done even more than that, because it has become crucial to the way we operate as a society today. As I get around the community, one of the things that come back to me time and time again, particularly in the midst of cost-of-living debates, is: 'Why can't the government put a cap on these prices, and why can't the government control this other price? In fact, why were those assets ever sold off in the first place, because they are so important to everyday living?' Indeed, there is a growing sentiment that I'm detecting out there in the community that essential services should always be owned by the government and remain as government assets. In fact, years ago there was some survey done—I'm talking probably 20 or 30 years ago—where we went through a period not only here in Australia but across the world where public assets were being sold off by governments to private entities. That proved in the end to not have been a very smart decision—again, it happened across the world—and there was a trend, particularly in Western countries, to buy back those assets. I'm sensing the same mood right now. The reality is that the sale of public assets in the past may have provided some instant cash for the government of the day—and I hold governments of both persuasions to account with respect to that; I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but I'm talking about past governments—but in the long-term the public has paid dearly for it, because, firstly, the price of the services provided by those public assets has ultimately gone through the roof, and, secondly, in very few cases have they been properly maintained, and in reality, when they are not properly maintained, it always comes back to the taxpayer or the government of the day to pick up the cost of that unfunded infrastructure, which ultimately builds up over time. The argument that the private sector can provide services at lower cost than publicly owned entities is also a fallacy. It never truly eventuates. Quite frankly, if there is a problem with the government's management of a particular entity, the answer is not to sell the entity off but rather to look at what the problem is and get management to perhaps change its direction or whatever the case is. What we have seen—I will use two or three examples—is that over the years those assets that were sold off ultimately ended up charging prices that were unrealistic. The first example I want to use is the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth Bank was sold—I think it was in 1996 that the last part of the sale went through—for about the same amount of money that the Commonwealth Bank now makes in profit each and every year. But, even worse than that, the other three big banks are making similar massive profits. Last year, the four major banks together made just under $30 billion of profit. The benefit of having the Commonwealth Bank at the time wasn't just because of the services it was providing; it also acted as a regulator for the other banks in terms of the interest rates and the fees that were being charged. It set a standard that the other banks had to compete with, and in order to do so they had to maintain the same level of charges and fees that the Commonwealth Bank did, so everybody benefited, and that's why the massive profits were not made. The other matter with respect to the sell-off of those assets is that, where they are sold off, more often than not it is foreign investors who come in and buy them. Many of our energy suppliers today have foreign owners, so, if there is a profit to be made, the profit is not spent here in Australia; it is usually shipped off to an overseas country, where it is used to benefit that country and the owner of those assets. So it is not even as if we're selling them off and ensuring that the profits made are then respent in our own country. The reality is that the same applies to Telstra. Telstra made $1.8 billion in profit last year. Yes, if it were government owned, perhaps the profit would have been lower, but the fees and charges would also have been lower, so again, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, people would have been able to cope a lot better. Importantly it would also enable the government of the day to ensure that the fees being charged were affordable for the broader public, whereas now, whenever someone says, 'Energy prices are too high,' or, 'Telstra prices are too high'—or whatever other private asset—the response is, 'Well, that's the free market in operation, and governments really can't do very much about it.' I've listened to some of the debate from members opposite, and I do not understand what their problem is with the government retaining ownership of the NBN. Because it is such a crucial piece of infrastructure and it is a monopoly service, it is important that, firstly, it's a reliable piece of infrastructure that the Australian people can have confidence in. It must be secure because if it's not it can totally disrupt the whole operations of this country. It must be affordable because everybody needs it. It's no longer a luxury or a commodity that people can choose to have or not have. The reality is that we cannot operate today without it, so it must be affordable. And it must be secure, and the only way we can best guarantee its security is if it remains in government hands, where the government can have oversight over exactly what is happening to it, who has got access to it and what needs to be done to ensure all that security continues. I will finish on this: I thank the minister, who is sitting at the table, for this legislation. From day one, when the sale of it once it was complete was talked about—or that a sale might happen—it was something that did not sit comfortably with me. When the Albanese government made the decision that the NBN would remain in public hands, I thought, 'That is a decision that makes a lot of sense and provides confidence and security to the Australian people.' It is a decision that I would have thought the Australian people would get behind, including—but it seems this is not the case—members of the opposition. This is a decision that will be supported by the Australian people very broadly. This is a decision I believe they will be calling for. The last thing they would want to see is such an important piece of infrastructure sold off to a private investor, possibly a foreign owner. With those comments, I support this legislation. 21:22 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway The National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 reaffirms the government's commitment to ongoing public ownership of the National Broadband Network and to remove existing conditions that create a pathway to privatisation of this vital national infrastructure. The bill commits to keeping the NBN wholly owned by the Australian people, including a new section, 43A, to make clear parliament's intention that NBN Co will remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth. The bill removes current conditions that, once satisfied, would enable a future government to privatise the company. The Albanese government's position on the NBN has been clear for more than three years. We took to the last election a commitment to keep the NBN in public ownership, to keep broadband affordable in Australia and to complete building a world-class fibre network. In 2022 we formalised this commitment in a statement of expectations for the NBN, and through this bill we are enshrining this commitment in law. The government's position has broad support in the community across consumer groups, regional representatives and the telco sector. The shadow minister admitted in his speech on this bill that the opposition has been on notice since at least 2021 that the government was committed to keeping the NBN in public ownership—so they have had at least three years to come up with a position. I'm happy to stand corrected, but we heard over 20,000 words spoken by the opposition on this bill but not the seven words that Australians want to hear: 'We support keeping NBN in public ownership.' The member for Bradfield, the person who declared the NBN was 'built and fully operational' in 2020—the first step in a sale process—finally admitted what we suspected all along: the opposition are not supporting this bill because they don't support keeping the NBN in public ownership. Only a Labor government will keep the NBN owned by the Australian people to continue to deliver affordable, accessible world-class broadband for Australia. I thank all members for their participation in the debate on this legislation. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day. Debate adjourned. House adjourned at 21:25 NOTICES 92 NOTICES Presentation 92

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 95 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Economy 95 16:00 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan People are really struggling to make ends meet while big corporations make record profits, dodge taxes and drive the very inflation that's hurting so many. Last financial year, Qantas, a company we once owned as a public asset, raked in $2.47 billion in profit and paid no income tax, and they're not alone. Virgin Australia, Canva, Domino's, AGL and over 1,000 other corporations also dodged paying their fair share. Almost one-third of big businesses in Australia contributed nothing. While corporate profits have surged, the share of national income going to wages and small businesses has declined. From December 2019 to June 2023, large corporations pocketed an extra $100 billion in profit above their pre-pandemic margins. It's not just the obscene size of these profits that's the problem; it's that they're driving inflation. Even former Liberal finance minister Mathias Cormann, now head of the OECD, has acknowledged the link between corporate profiteering and inflation. Those least responsible for inflation are being smashed by interest rate rises and corporate profiteering, while those most responsible get tax write-offs or handouts in the form of subsidies. It's a cruel joke. Instead of tackling these corporate profits, the Reserve Bank has increased interest rates 13 times since 2022—the most in over 30 years. The idea is to reduce household spending and thereby cool inflation, but that only works if inflation is driven by consumer demand. In reality, it's actually being driven by corporate greed. How is it fair that Qantas can exploit pandemic losses to dodge tax while nurses and teachers, who kept this country going during COVID, pay more tax? Nurses contributed more income tax last year than Qantas and Virgin combined. And teachers? They outdid the entire oil and gas sector, whose petroleum resource rent tax contributions actually fell by 6.5 per cent last year. In fact, the mining and energy industries have long been some of Australia's worst tax dodgers. If we're allowing corporations to extract resources and profit here, it should be for the benefit of all Australians, not just their shareholders. Look at Norway. They take 55 per cent of revenue from oil and gas, and that funds free university, smaller class sizes and a massive sovereign wealth fund. Yet Labor and the Liberal and National parties refuse to close the tax loopholes that let big corporations keep bilking ordinary Australians. Macquarie Electorate: Small Business, Hawkesbury Community Kitchen 95 16:02 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie 2024 will not be a year that small businesses remember as one of their easiest. It won't be a year they say things cruised along, because it's been a hard year for many, in a difficult economic climate. Yet businesses in the Hawkesbury, Blue Mountains and Emu Plains have continued to employ local people. They've continued to support other local businesses, and they've continued to donate to local sporting and community organisations. They've been heroes. While some businesses tell me that the best they've been able to do is hang on and survive, others say they've thrived. Either way, in recent weeks many have celebrated at the Local Business Awards for the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, as well as at the ALIBI Awards, and the Women with Altitude awards are still to come. Congratulations to all the nominees, finalists and winners. In a challenging year, we hope that $350 energy relief and the energy-efficiency grants for small businesses have helped in a small way, but, as someone who was in business for 25 years, I know it's really hard to get your head around the range of support that is available. I want to make it easy, so I have put together a guide for all the support that's available from the federal government, specifically for small businesses, whether that's cybersecurity help, digital marketing training—all free—or grants to expand or help in a crisis. It's available from my office, it's a no-frills guide, and I want as many small businesses to access that as possible. Sadly, people sleeping rough in cars or in precarious living situations isn't new. We all know it's not right, and as a government we've prioritised new social and affordable homes, stepping into this space that has been left pretty much vacant for the last decade. Whether it's the Veterans' Acute Housing Program, which has $30 million to support veterans and their families experiencing or at risk of homelessness, or other programs under Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund, we are working with states and community housing providers to deliver thousands of social and affordable homes. In just the first round of these programs, the Albanese government is directly supporting more social and affordable housing than the Liberals and Nationals did in their entire nine years in office. But there's still a need for services on the ground, and I was very pleased to join volunteers at the Hawkesbury Community Kitchen to celebrate their work and present them with certificates of recognition on behalf of their board. For 33 years, this group has been providing meals and working in teams. I want to congratulate their new board, led by the chair, Stuart Rivas, on their commitment to serving the Hawkesbury community. I thank the Richmond Club and others for their support, too. Elphinstone, Mr Dale Brendon, AO 96 16:06 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon In recognition of outstanding contributions to the mining industry and unwavering commitment to Tasmania, Dale Elphinstone in the electorate of Braddon was recently inducted into the prestigious United States National Mining Hall of Fame. This achievement is made even more extraordinary as he is the first inductee from outside the USA. Dale Elphinstone is indeed an incredible individual and a pioneer of the industry on the north-west coast of Tasmania. He is probably the most grounded bloke I know. He is a bloke that left school at 14 to do a diesel fitter's apprenticeship in the local Caterpillar dealership. Many years later, he owned that dealership. Some years after that, he owned all the dealerships. Through hard work, through vision and through concentrating those efforts at a target, he was able to achieve great things. The Elphinstone Group now employs more than 2,900 people internationally. They have a combined annual revenue exceeding $1.5 billion, and they operate in 10 countries. The crazy thing about all this is that this driven individual achieved all this without an arts degree. He did that with drive. He did that with determination. He did that because he prioritised what was important. And, to Dale, people are important—the people that he surrounds himself with, that he has on the production lines and that he has in his R&D. 'The process, the people and the professionalism,' he always says. He has a saying, and it's a saying that I often repeat to school graduates as I visit the schools. It goes along the lines of 'You just gotta wanna,' meaning it doesn't matter where you come from, your position in life or what you have or have not got. The point is that if you 'wanna' then you'll get there. That determination encompasses and embellishes the life of Dale Elphinstone. I congratulate him on all that he has done. He's been a great contributor in philanthropic activities along the coast, even donating an MRI machine to the local hospital. So he is a bloke that's giving back. Not only has he given back in his manufacturing process, but he has given many people the opportunities that they need. If I could sum Dale up, that saying he has, 'You just gotta wanna,' should be written on every school leaver's report card as something to achieve. Well done, Dale, and well done, the Elphinstone Group. Banking and Financial Services 96 16:09 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway The Albanese government is taking action on unfair debit card surcharges. In August, I hosted a cost-of-living forum in my electorate with Stephen Bali, the state member for Blacktown. We wanted to engage with the local community to provide updates on Labor's energy bill and cost of medicines relief and to hear their concerns and ideas. At the forum, I met Alexis of Stanhope Gardens, who raised concerns with me about excessive debit card fees. I took Alexis's feedback to my ministerial colleagues here in Canberra and made her case. I'm pleased to say that Alexis and all consumers in my electorate will now get a better deal under the Albanese government thanks to our clampdown on unfair and excessive card surcharges. Staggeringly, analysis by the Reserve Bank shows that Australians lose nearly $1 billion a year in surcharges. This means families, pensioners and students in Greenway alone could be paying up to $6.4 million annually just in surcharges. It is unfair that payment providers and banks are slugging small and medium businesses with excessive fees for transactions. We need better outcomes for businesses and better outcomes for consumers. That's why our government has tasked the Reserve Bank with finding solutions to ensure that small businesses and consumers benefit from lower costs and our government has made clear our preparedness to ban debit card surcharges. This is an important issue for households right across north-west Sydney. It's why I've launched a survey on my website to hear firsthand how debit card surcharges are impacting residents. I encourage locals to take part. I'm also pleased to report that the Albanese government is ensuring the future of cash. For many people, cash is more than just a payment method. It's a lifeline and a backup during digital outages, which we have seen so many times, particularly during natural disasters. Labor will mandate that businesses must accept cash for essential items, and there will be appropriate exemptions for small businesses. My No. 1 priority is easing the cost of living for the good people of Greenway, and Labor is taking important steps as a government to ensure this. Bowman Electorate: Native Title 97 16:11 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman The people of my electorate in the Redlands are concerned. They're concerned about the ongoing cost-of-living crisis and about their increasing bills, but they're also concerned about a quiet legislation change that Labor have made that now threatens to pile on the cost-of-living pain even further. Currently, the Redland City Council are engaged in a drawn-out court battle regarding a native title claim over much of the Redlands. Unfortunately, this case threatens to add to the cost-of-living pain in the Redlands because of the Albanese government's ideological decision to abolish Commonwealth funding to respondents in native title cases. It means that Redland City Council—and, more importantly, its ratepayers—will be forced to foot a significant legal bill likely to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Native title determinations are not new. I trust the courts to be able to sort fact from fiction and what can be legitimately claimed as native title and the places where native title has been extinguished. The entire community will benefit from this determination when it's finally made, and there's a hearing set for September next year. But, as the court process has dragged on, Redlanders pay even more, and the legal costs continue to grow. Figures from the Parliamentary Budget Office revealed that in the last decade there was a huge funding discrepancy between Commonwealth money given to support claimants against the money that's provided to assist the legal obligations of defendants. Over the last decade, the federal government has provided $1.028 billion to native title claimants but only $9.78 million to respondents, such as local governments, farmers and other organisations. The current native title claim in the Redlands is the first of its kind as the court determines native title over 3½ thousand council owned or managed lots. This isn't some far-west mining area or a pastoral lease; this is a claim over parks, playgrounds and nature reserves in the suburbs. Redland City Council deserve some financial support as they come to grips with this complex and unprecedented claim. The Albanese Labor government's removal of this respondent funding means that Redland City Council will not receive a single cent to support the defence that they're mounting on behalf of the community. At the same time they're presiding over a cost-of-living crisis, the Albanese Labor government continue to work against the interests of Redlanders who are simply trying to defend these community assets and keep them in public hands. I call on the government to listen to the voices of Redlands residents and reinstate native title respondent funding. Lalor Hero Awards 97 16:14 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Last Thursday evening, I hosted the 10th annual Lalor Hero Awards. These awards recognise the invaluable contributions locals have made to our community through their acts of volunteerism. Much of the diversity and vibrancy of our community can be attributed to their work, and they deserve to be celebrated. It is always a pleasure to join a group of people from my community who give up their time to follow their passion and imbue their passion in the next generation or give up their time to support and help our growing community. Many incredible volunteers within our community were nominated for the award this year. Thirty-six locals were recognised as Lalor Hero Awards recipients this year and were celebrated by almost 200 other locals and former Lalor Hero Awards recipients who attended to help commemorate this special occasion. I was joined by my good friend and colleague in the federal parliament the member for Higgins, who came down for the evening. She shared with me her thoughts about what a fabulous and vibrant community we have and assisted in talking to the volunteers and hearing their stories. And some of those stories were incredible. We celebrated the efforts of locals from cultural, community and food bank organisations, environmental advocates, emergency services heroes and volunteers in local sports. They really are the backbone of our community. Ten years of the Lalor Hero Awards is an incredible milestone to have achieved. It wouldn't be possible without our hardworking community, who continue to nominate new volunteers each year. I want to thank them. I look forward to many more Lalor Hero Awards recipients and to ending the year by presenting the schools with their Julia Gillard and Lalor Hero Awards winners. That kicked off with the first presentation on Friday, where I attended Thomas Carr College to honour recipients Sarah Taylor with the Julia Gillard Award for 2024 and Mahalia Smith with the Lalor Hero Award, both year 11 students and both thrilled to be acknowledged for their contributions to their school community across their many years at the school. I'll be celebrating our schools and celebrating our students across the next month. We've got another week sitting in Canberra, but then I will be out at school graduation ceremonies, talking to students and their families and celebrating our young people and their achievements and contributions to school communities and their academic excellence but most importantly the way they give to and support others in their community. Hinkler Electorate: Bundaberg East Flood Levee, Harberger, Ms Paula 98 16:17 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to put on the record my concerns about the debacle that is the Bundaberg East flood levee. I wrote to the then Minister representing the Minister for Emergency Management in November 2023 asking exactly how much money would be committed to the project from the federal government. It is $57 million from them, $57 million from Queensland and $60 million from something called 'DRFA efficiencies'—I don't know what that means, but I'll assume it means cuts by the then Queensland Labor state government—for a total project cost of almost $175 million. My concerns with the project have been on the record for a long time, and they remain. The most current engineering proposal suggests that there will be multiple 365-kilowatt pumps to lift the water over the wall. It will be for around a one-in-100-year flood. It will still be wet on the inside of the wall because the pumps simply can't be big enough to get all of the water out. There will be an impact on the people of North Bundaberg and elsewhere. To my great surprise the minister responded by saying there will be no housing resumed as part of the levee project. I'm sure that will be great news for those individuals who have houses and businesses on the west side of the proposed wall. I'm not quite sure how that works. I want to congratulate Mayor Helen Blackburn. Mayor Blackburn and her council have said that the Bundaberg Regional Council will not be utilising ratepayer money to maintain this proposed levee. That will have to come from somewhere else. I think that is a very wise decision. There were 5,000 residents who signed a petition calling for this project to be reviewed, and I would urge the new Crisafulli government to listen to the community, talk to the engineers and look at whether this is actually a viable option. The figure of $175 million is actually more than we committed to the Hinkler regional deal. The people of this region will get a wall which will protect a number of houses, potentially, assuming that it works and the sluice gate closes and there aren't problems and you can get diesel generators big enough to start 365-kilowatt pumps. The priority, in my view, has always been an escape route for the people of North Bundaberg. I think that should continue to be the priority. There are options to fund that. I just want to move to a different matter, and that is to congratulate one of my EA staff, Paula Harberger, who has advised that she will be resigning to move across to the new successful state candidate for the LNP who won the seat of Hervey Bay. Congratulations to Paula. She will be the office manager there, I would assume. She is a great local with lots of local knowledge and a very detailed understanding of how state governments work. This is a great pick-up for David Lee, the new member for Hervey Bay, and I congratulate them both. I want to place on the record my thanks and appreciation to Paula for all of the hard work that she did for the people of Hervey Bay while working in my office down at the bay on Torquay Road. We all live and die by our staff, and I have some of the best. It's unfortunate to lose one, but I congratulate her on her promotion. McArthur, Mr Geff 98 16:20 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise today to recognise an extraordinary individual whose dedication, skill and passion have left an indictable mark on our community and the culinary industry at large. It is my great honour to celebrate chef Geff McArthur. Geff recently achieved the remarkable milestone of 50 years in the culinary profession, a fete deserving the utmost recognition, respect and admiration. Geff began his journey exactly 50 years ago, remarkably on his own birthday, thus making this achievement even more special. Over the course of his half-century career, Geff has navigated the rigorous demands of professional kitchens with excellence, consistency and unwavering commitment to his craft. His journey started at the esteemed Summit Restaurant in Sydney, and he has since worked across South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, contributing to a variety of restaurants, clubs and pubs, building a legacy that speaks to his immense talent and love for his work. For the past seven years, we in the Hunter region have been privileged to have Geff as an integral part of both the Bellbird Hotel and the Huntlee Tavern. What began as a simple holiday visit to Bellbird turned into a permanent stay, and it's safe to say that everyone in our community is grateful that he decided to make the Hunter his home. Geff's contributions go beyond the flavours and dishes he brings to our tables. He embodies a spirit of dedication, resilience and community service. Known as the 'Master Yoda' of the culinary industry, Geff's wisdom, creativity and ability to inspire his colleagues is unmatched. His work ethic is nothing short of legendary. He's known for stepping in on days off to support the team, often without being asked, simply because he wants to see his colleagues succeed. His actions on Father's Day, when he stepped up to handle the dinner service after a full day of work despite staff shortages, speak volumes of his character and dedication to the craft. Geff's career has seen him cook for notable figures, including Princess Anne, Tim Fischer, Mel Gibson and Nicole Kidman. But his true impact lies in the countless meals that he has prepared for families and individuals in our region and the joy he has brought to our community through his culinary art. As we celebrate Geff's 50-year career, I want to acknowledge his impact on the Hunter Valley. His presence at both the Bellbird Hotel and the Huntlee Tavern has elevated these establishments and made them the cornerstone of our community. On behalf of the people of the Hunter Valley, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Geff McArthur. May he continue to inspire and enrich our community for many years to come. I look good to getting down to the Bellbird Hotel and having a beer with him and maybe even a parmie—hopefully one that you cook, but I'll be happy with any chef there. Thank you for all you've done, Geff. Cheers! Have a good one. Durack Electorate: Resources Industry 99 16:23 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack It was my absolute pleasure to welcome the Leader of the Opposition and, I am confident, our next prime minister, the Hon. Peter Dutton, to the Pilbara recently. As we all know, everything is big in the Pilbara, and Mr Dutton's visit was certainly no exception. From the moment he arrived, Mr Dutton was thoroughly impressed by the vibrant Karratha community and the dynamic businesses and industries that make the region such a special place. Mr Dutton didn't just observe during his visit; he truly engaged. He connected with the locals and took the time to talk to a wide cross-section of the Karratha community, which illustrated the rich diversity and unique spirit that defines the fabulous Pilbara. Yes, the Pilbara is well known as the beating heart of Australia's resource sector, but the Leader of the Opposition's visit showed that this region is much more than just mining. It's about the strength of our communities, the dedication of local businesses and the drive to make the Pilbara an even better place for our families to live. During our visit, Mr Dutton toured several local businesses, including the fabulous Pilbara Bakehouse, an industrial bakery renowned across the region. We had the opportunity to visit Corps Group, a family owned earthmoving business that covers a lot of ground across the Pilbara and elsewhere. These businesses represent the resilience, innovation and dedication of Pilbara locals, and they deserve to be recognised. We also toured some of the impressive projects that form the fiscal background of this nation. A stand-out was our visit to Rio Tinto's impressive iron ore operations at the Dampier port, where we saw firsthand the scale of WA's export activities. Thanks to Simon and his team for being such good hosts. We also visited the team at Woodside, which is another pillar of Australia's economy. Peter Dutton's visit demonstrated genuine engagement, unlike our fly in, fly out Prime Minister who recently visited my hometown of Geraldton for just one hour for a quick photo-op. How disrespectful to the people in the mid-west community! It is further evidence that our Prime Minister has walked away from WA. He has failed to face our farmers and our pastoralists, whose very lives and futures he is destroying. What a contrast! Thank you so much to the Leader of the Opposition for showing true commitment to my remarkable electorate of Durack, and thank you to the Pilbara community for their very, very warm welcome to Peter Dutton. When our leaders take time to really engage, they strengthen our communities and the future of our nation. Swan Electorate: Infrastructure 99 16:26 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Today I want to talk about Swan, its future and what it looks like under a Labor government. Thanks to Labor, Swan's future is looking bright not just for some but for everyone. Let's start with the new bridge. It's not just any bridge. It's Perth's newest pedestrian and cycling bridge, Boorloo Bridge, which is opening on Sunday 22 December, just in time for Christmas. We're planning big community celebrations for this opening. In my mind it's a party to christen this super exciting new landmark. The iconic bridges will carry the name Boorloo Bridge, honouring the Whadjuk Noongar culture and Perth's rich history. People in Swan and surrounding areas in Perth have been watching the bridges take shape every day, in particular Gerry Prewett, who is an avid walker and who has been taking photos regularly and sharing them with the community. Soon people will be able to enjoy the great new places and spaces the bridge will provide. They will be able to pause, rest and enjoy. The bridges will also make for a quicker and safer route for people to get in and out of the city. Honestly it is stunning; it is really impressive. I'm sure that it is not just Perth locals will use the bridges; people from all across the world will come to Perth to walk across these new bridges. This is possible thanks to Labor's focus on improving active transport and making Perth a super exciting place to visit. This project wasn't just about a bridge; it was also about jobs. Around 700 people were employed to bring the bridge to life, thanks to funding from the Albanese and Cook Labor governments. Let's talk about the train line. Metronet is changing Swan for the better. During construction, the raising of the rail has created 4,300 jobs for locals, and now we're seeing the next big step. The state and federal governments have unveiled a final master plan for the spaces elevated under the Metronet Armadale line. It's a really long park, so it's called Long Park. It's six hectares of new public open spaces, and here's what's coming: four new playgrounds, one of which will be called Puggle Park, two nature trails and play spaces, two youth plazas, skate parks, fitness parks, dog parks, and walking and cycling paths. There will even be spaces for pop-up cafes and community events. This is going to see space that has been wasted in the past being activated and opened up to the community. I can't wait to see it come to fruition. Swan is better because of Labor. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 100 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 100

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

Second Reading 100 16:29 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise today to address the government's proposed changes to electoral funding which, if this legislation is enacted, will profoundly alter the fairness and accessibility of our democracy. Since I was elected, my Independent colleagues and I have been calling for meaningful electoral reform. We want more transparency; we want more fairness in government. For almost three years, we have called for legislation ensuring both real-time declaration of significant donations and truth in political advertising to be in place at the next federal election, but the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 will not provide that. Five days ago, the government announced this electoral donation reform bill. It says that this is the biggest electoral reform in 40 years. It is a 200-page document that the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor government have been working on together for six months. My Independent colleagues and I first saw it five days ago. I was elected member for Kooyong by a community which demanded politics done differently—more transparently, more equitably and with a stronger focus on integrity. These reforms fall short of those values. They fall short of the contract that I made with my constituents to try and improve our governance. Instead of addressing systemic inequalities in our electoral system, this bill will consolidate the advantages of the major parties and the incumbents. It will silence independent, emerging voices. The government's proposal to impose restrictive donation caps, while ostensibly aimed at reducing undue influence, will have significant consequences on the ability of challengers to fund competitive campaigns. The caps would disproportionately benefit incumbents and established parties who already have the advantage of name recognition, entrenched donor networks and of associated entities, which are sometimes worth millions of dollars. There is an alternative approach. My colleague the member for Curtin has proposed a more fair donation cap of $1.5 million, which would secure sufficient resources for challengers if they're able to fundraise to that extent, whilst still safeguarding against undue influence. This was a thoughtful proposal which deserves due consideration. In presenting this bill to the House yesterday, with the stated intention of ramming it through both houses in this fortnight, the government has ensured that due consideration has gone out the window, along with due process, evidence based analysis and community consultation. It's worth remembering, too, that donation caps do not prevent cash for access payments to ministers and shadow ministers. They don't prevent the $10,000-a-head dinners held by coteries. They don't prevent the hidden in-kind donations. They're unlikely to limit the effect of those entities which account for a third of the cash which flows into the coffers of the Liberal and Labor parties. The proposed spending caps pose a similar challenge. Caps on spending benefit MPs who are already in parliament over candidates who choose to run against them at elections. Incumbents have access to a funded car, an office and a comms budget. New candidates have none of these things. These caps will allow parties to concentrate their spending on target seats, enabling them to outspend Independent candidates in those seats. Similar legislation in New South Wales and Victoria has already been shown to decimate Independent representation. It has been shown to shore up the significant advantages of the flagging, bloated and tired major parties. The most superficial reading of this legislation reveals loopholes which will no doubt be exploited by the parties—for example, the ability to have other entities advertise on one's behalf, or to fund unlimited, non-individually branded party advertising in marginal electorates, siphoning money away from safe seats. There is, theoretically, a limit on spending in each electorate, but ads that promote parties don't count. Taxpayer funding for political parties will increase significantly under this legislation, from $2.91 per vote to $5 per vote at the next federal election. You will pay more for less choice. Australia does love a duopoly. We see it in our supermarkets, and we see it in our aviation industry. These parties would like to see it in our politics as well. It feels like this legislation should be going to the ACCC, not the Senate. The parties will be able to spend up to $91 million at every election—just remember that!—even though this piece of legislation purports to put a cap on spending. The legislation gives incumbents funding to cover their paperwork and their reporting requirements, but it offers nothing to new candidates, although the requirements for donation reporting and compliance will be much more strict in future elections for new candidates, including Independents. The bill includes three pages of exempted gifts. You don't have to declare bequests, loans or subscriptions and you don't have to declare the parties' levies on their members' wages. I'm sure this is all entirely legitimate. The problem is that all of these big, expensive changes will primarily benefit established parties, not people who operate outside the major political parties. They're not great for Independents like me, but for people with incumbency there are already entrenched advantages. The problem is that this legislation will make it much harder for new Independents to be elected. This is not the democracy that Australians want or expect. As we consider these sorts of reforms to our own system, it's worth reflecting on international examples. In the United States the influence of political action committees and super PACs offers a cautionary tale. These entities allow for virtually unlimited donations, often from anonymous sources, resulting in a system in which financial power too often equates to political influence. This approach has fostered an electoral environment in which a small number of wealthy donors and organisations wield disproportionate influence. It can overshadow grassroots participation, and it distorts the democratic process. In Australia we have long prided ourselves on avoiding these pitfalls, but the reforms proposed in this legislation risk introducing their own version of imbalance. They will restrict challenges while entrenching the power of the major parties. In contrast, countries like Canada have succeeded in imposing donation caps and requiring full transparency of contributions. In doing so they have helped preserve trust in the electoral process. Similarly, New Zealand's MMP system encourages diversity in representation. It ensures that smaller parties and Independents do have a voice in shaping government policy. These examples remind us of the importance of designing electoral systems that balance fairness, transparency and inclusivity. The government claims that increased public funding will compensate for the limits on private donations, but greater reliance on public funds risks a system in which parties can become overly dependent on government subsidies, potentially discouraging grassroots engagement and local fundraising efforts. In a cost-of-living crisis, many Australians are, very understandably, going to resile from increasing the funding that they are providing to political parties. The administrative support allotted in the bill equates to $30,000 per year per incumbent. For the parties, that is more than $2 million a year each—from taxpayers to political parties—to help them with their administrative costs, with no consideration of the economies of scale afforded by the centralised party structure. It's just a question of more taxpayers' money flowing to the major parties. The reforms also fail to address the influence of union funding. As significant donors to the Labor Party, the unions wield considerable sway in our political system. Recent reports linking certain unions to questionable practices only highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the area. Ignoring this issue undermines the credibility of the government's reforms. If we are serious about addressing undue influence, we cannot selectively apply this principle. Transparency has to apply across the board. Electoral reform should strengthen our democracy, not weaken it. Australians want a system that fosters participation, encourages diverse viewpoints and ensures that all voices have a fair chance to be heard. This legislation will benefit the major parties, leaving Independent candidates—especially new candidates—out. It is a stitch-up. Best practice systems are subject to independent external scrutiny and review. The government has told us that this is the most comprehensive electoral reform in 40 years. We're told that the government has been working on this legislation with the Liberal-National coalition for six months. It was first shared with the crossbench five days ago. We have been denied the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny and evaluation of its complexities. Complex pieces of legislation are customarily subjected to detailed committee review. Yesterday the crossbench tried to have this legislation referred for committee review. This was blocked by the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to undergo detailed scrutiny. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to be analysed and evaluated in detail and at length by academics, the media and the experts. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party do not want this legislation to undergo community evaluation. It's not that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and the National Party are not interested in what Australians think about this legislation. It's just that they don't want Australians to know about it. This legislation will not affect the 2025 election. There is absolutely no reason to push it through with this unseemly haste, unless the government doesn't want the public to recognise exactly how poorly the major parties are behaving with this bill. The thing is that the public is not stupid. In 2022, one-third of Australian voters voted for Independents and for small parties. In 2025, when the Australian public are deciding who they trust to represent them, we will encourage them to remember this cynical political manoeuvring, this sneaky collusion, and the disrespect that it shows them. 16:41 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) is of the opinion that the bill: (a) should not proceed further until referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, to inquire into the intended and unintended consequences, with a report due to the House by the first sitting day of 2025; (b) creates an unfair playing field, giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates by failing to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and failing to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, a vehicle and marketing budget whilst imposing a spending cap on candidates; (c) provides disproportionate yearly administrative assistance funding to major political parties, and fails to account for any economies of scale; and (d) entrenches political party advantage over independent candidates by imposing a spending cap on individual seats while still permitting additional party advertising under a party's $90m national cap; (2) requests that: (a) an assessment of realistic administrative compliance costs under the bill be undertaken; and (b) a cap be placed on administrative assistance funding to political parties to accurately reflect administrative compliance costs; and (3) notes that in the midst of cost of living pressures, the Government is giving itself and other parties substantial increases of public funding instead of prioritising increased support to Australians who are doing it tough". I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. To say that this is a sad day for Australian democracy is an understatement, and I can only say shame, shame, shame on every member of Labor and the coalition that is going to support this legislation. At a time when the cost-of-living pressures continue to rise, our two major parties have struck a deal to entrench their duopoly through providing themselves increased funding in our elections and diminishing the opportunity to be challenged. This bill—and it appears to have the coalition's support—is highly beneficial to the major parties and smacks of a dirty deal designed to cement their duopoly. What is telling is that currently on the speakers list for this legislation there are no government or coalition MPs prepared to come in this place and speak on behalf of this bill. Beyond the assistant minister and shadow minister, no-one would want to be on the record speaking on behalf of this bill. How could you go back to your electorate and tell them your priority is to get more public funding for yourselves instead of getting support for those in our community doing it tough? What's clear in the process of this is it's a completely bad-faith manoeuvre by the government and the coalition. This bill should not be rushed through the House. It requires proper consideration of the consequences and the effects it will have. It's a major piece of electoral reform, and there are likely to be long-ongoing issues. For all of the MPs in this place who repeatedly beat their chest and say, 'We are for integrity and transparency and accountability'—and we always see one side saying the other side is so much worse—what we see on this bill is they are all as bad as each other. I urge the government: do not proceed, like you are at the moment, with this second reading vote; instead, refer this bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into the unintended—but, I would say, likely intended—consequences of this bill, and that is set out in detail in the amendment that I have moved. This bill should not proceed without it going to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It creates an incredibly unfair playing field. It creates advantage in so many ways that I'll go into in more detail, and it provides, to political parties, disproportionate support that is completely removed from any realistic cost assessment and real, actual expenses. We need, and the Australian people deserve, an assessment of realistic administrative compliance costs. This should be done and should be a direct correlation with what is proposed to come out of the public purse and go into political party coffers. At a time right now, when cost-of-living pressures are so serious, the hubris and the audacity of the political parties in putting this forward are staggering. The minister has described this legislation as the biggest reform to electoral law and processes in 40 years and yet proposes to ram it through within barely a couple of days of the legislation being public, because you wouldn't want too many people to actually have an opportunity to analyse it before you embed your advantage and pass bad law. We should not be voting on this bill until it's been properly scrutinised by the joint standing committee. The Australian people are entitled to due diligence in respect to such major reform. I've moved the amendment highlighting the unfair playing field that the bill creates by giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates. This bill fails to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and fails to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, vehicle, marketing budget, while imposing a spending cap on candidates. I would challenge most members of the major parties in this place. Have they even read this legislation? I doubt they would have the audacity to vote for it if they had actually read it. Instead, this bill provides disproportionate yearly administrative assistance funding to major political parties and fails to account for any economies of scale for the major parties. Instead, it entrenches political party advantage over independent candidates by imposing a spending cap on individual seats while still permitting additional party advertising under a party's banner up to a $90 million national cap. I will get to the administrative funding in more detail, but the bill should adequately reflect the administrative compliance costs. To do this, the government should undertake an assessment to understand the realistic administrative compliance cost of this bill. For the benefit of the public, I want everyone to understand just how much money the government and the coalition are proposing to pay themselves. Once this bill takes effect, under the numbers currently in the parliament, Labor are proposing that for their compliance costs they should be paid $2.7 million per year from public funds. The Liberal Party is proposing they should be paid $1.5 million per year for compliance costs. The Nationals are proposing $540,000 per year. No wonder no-one is in here disputing or arguing against this largess that is coming to the political class. Nothing in the process around this bill has been authentic or in good faith. The government has rushed the bill through the House. It is proposing to do so with very little consultation, with such a short period of time of actual visibility on the bill. There was no exposure draft provided and no active engagement from the government with the crossbench or even the public. The government is proposing to debate a large and significant reform to electoral rules within only one day. It's not only poor practice; it's bad faith governance. Reform is desperately needed for political donations. While some measures in this bill will strengthen the system, and many people in this place have argued for them for many years, they are completely overshadowed by the bad faith actions the government is undertaking and elements of this bill. The true impact of this bill without proper consideration and without a joint standing committee having the opportunity to analyse it will simply not be known, and the unintended consequences will very likely be very grave from a point of view of fair competition and open field when it comes to our democracy and our elections. It's clear the objectionable elements to the bill are the spending caps on individuals compared to the national spending of parties, the donation caps and the introduction of gifts. But it's hard to even choose parts to object to in this bill because we know the devil is in the detail, and we've had little over 24 hours with this bill, which is more than 220 pages long with an explanatory memorandum that does not even provide enough detail on the context and the reasoning of these specific changes. The bill introduces three types of caps that will create a very unfair and uneven playing field. First, the bill imposes a cap of $800,000 spending on individual candidates in the electorate. I agree that it sounds like a lot of money, but the spending cap only relates to the campaign spend and does not account for the incumbent access to government offices, staff, vehicle, marketing budgets that are already paid for. So, whilst a new challenger and candidate will be expected to pay for all that and need do it, for them it has to come out of their $800,000 budget. For an incumbent, that's okay—you can get that extra. The proposed amendments favour an incumbent not just through those advantages of votes and time spent and presence in the electorate but through that expenditure budget as well. Under these rules, an independent candidate will be outspent before they even reach the starting line. Secondly, while the spending cap for individuals only applies to a specific seat, political parties get a national cap of $90 million to spend. This means that they will allocate their resources and advertising under that national party cap. It's clear that they are not going to allocate the full $800,000 to 151 seats in an election. They will pick and choose which seats they think are winnable, which ones might be safe and which ones might be marginal. Then they will blanket those electorates with additional advertising under that national cap. We can see a challenger will be limited to $800,000, but a political party candidate will have that $800,000 cap plus any additional amount that can be used from that $90 million cap. So it is clear that there will not be an even spend when it comes to political campaigns and it will disproportionately impact marginal seats, especially if they are trying to fend off a challenger. We know the major parties already run national television brand campaigns that have mass reach to voters across all electorates. They run centralised campaign offices, databases and infrastructure. But an Independent taking on a major party candidate must set up from scratch. There is just no accounting for that. On top of that, a major party candidate will be able to channel up to $800,000 into seats which they want to win or which are under threat, bombarding them with social media, billboards and leaflets, and they're all designed by head office to stamp out the voice of a challenger. Then, when we look at the donation cap of $20,000, it is clearly unfair because it is likely to further limit democratic participation and unfairly impact an individual candidate compared to existing legacy parties, who can transfer over their war chest accumulated through their nominated entity provisions. No-one has disputed that there is something wrong when our elections have someone like Clive Palmer putting north of $100 million into an election, but there is also something very wrong when established political parties can just transfer over their war chest accumulated with dark money that has not been disclosed and then try and come into this place and say, 'Everybody should be limited to a cap of $20,000 donations.' Under the provisions in this bill, nominated entities give the political parties bodies that they can use to make unlimited contributions to the parties, including for electoral expenditure. While each registered party is limited to one nominated entity, many parties are actually composed of several registered parties, each of which can access funds through a different nominated entity. The devil is in the detail because there are provisions in the exceptions for gifts that allow for transfer of assets between those various entities from federal to state and the different nominated entities. One example is the Cormack Foundation, which funds the Liberal Party. It is estimated to be worth some $120 million. I don't think that's going to fall under a cap of a donation of $20,000. So is this going to be an even playing field? Not on your life! The other iniquity in this the bill is the provision relating to administrative assistance funding, which will provide additional funding to existing MPs without making any equivalent allocation to new challenger candidates. New administrative costs may not be able to be spent on campaigning but can provide much-needed funding for assistance with policy proposals and volunteer management alongside compliance costs under the bill. If anyone is wondering, 'What does that really mean?' an existing incumbent MP, including me, will be entitled to a $30,000 admin fee. But a challenger has to just bear the cost of compliance—the daily reporting and all those aspects—completely out of their campaign cap. There is no allocation for them to receive repayment for that administrative cost or that support. That is an incredibly unfair playing field. As I said, before even getting to the starting line a challenger is already being penalised and disadvantaged by the system. On this, I should note that the government has resisted again that there be more scrutiny on this, and it's resisted in all briefings any notion that there be an administrative assistance funding to new challengers or that such administrative assistance funding should be capped in relation to what the major parties are going to receive. They are proposing just a linear extrapolation of the numbers of members of the current parliament. For any number of MPs in a political party, that just keeps adding lots of $30,000 to that political party. Every year, what you're going to see—even non-election years—is that the public purse will pay political parties at a time when their support is waning. The Australian people are saying: 'We don't trust you. We don't like you as our choice. We want more competition and diversity.' The political parties, rather than evolve to actually reflect and represent the issues and concerns of the community, are turning to: 'How can I rig the game to help myself from the public purse?' It is outrageous. The very real economies of scale that exist in relation to compliance are just ignored. That is why my amendment seeks that that be specifically assessed. You have to forgive the cynicism, but, at a time when Australians are struggling under cost-of-living pressures, the hubris of the major parties to come in here asking for this gross imbalance of payment is just staggering. There simply is not enough time to say all the things that are wrong with this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Is there a seconder for the amendment? 16:56 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I second the amendment. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 is a disgrace. The transparency is good but too late for the next election. There's an argument for some sort of donation cap so no individual has too much influence on an election, but those bits are being used as an excuse to push through a huge increase in taxpayer dollars to current politicians and complicated spending caps that will lock in the major parties and lock out future Independents. This is the two parties colluding to stop future political competition. It's outrageous that the government and the opposition are rushing this through the parliament with no scrutiny, despite saying it's the biggest change to our electoral system in 40 years. The experts agree. This afternoon, the Centre for Public Integrity, the Australia Institute, Transparency International Australia and Australian Democracy Network have put out a joint statement saying that they're united in the view that the government's proposed bill should not proceed in its current form other than the donation transparency part. These are organisations that are interested in safeguarding our democracy, not furthering a particular political interest. They have no vested interest, and they are saying this should not go ahead. I want to talk about how we got here and pick out a few of the high-level problems with it. If I had triple the time, I still could be listing problems, and that's after only a few days of seeing it. Firstly, on the history, we've seen a consistent decline in support for the major parties over the last 40 years. At the last election, we saw the lowest primary vote for majors, with one in three voting for minor parties or Independents. The will of the people is changing. They want something different now. This is a threat to the major parties. Parties are machines designed to win, not to lead, and challenging the concept of a safe seat means that they would actually have to represent their communities. But, like any institutions, the parties have a strong immune system and are fighting to retain power and fight change. This bill is a desperate attempt to arrest that trend. I sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which conducted the inquiry into the 2022 election, and I was the first Independent to sit on that committee. They took months to approve my appointment, and, by the time I was allowed to join, they'd heard almost all the evidence about donation reform, so I didn't have the opportunity to ask many questions. But I went through the evidence and gathered all the evidence from the experts who didn't have a vested interest—the academics, the think tanks and the democracy organisations. Much of their evidence did not make it into either the majority report or the opposition's dissenting report, so I put them together in my additional comments. I then put that together into a piece of legislation and provided a path that the government could have taken to show that it was respecting the will of the people and the integrity of our political system. I put together the restoring trust bill last August, which had the support of the crossbench in both houses and the fair and transparent elections bill in February this year, which was introduced by me in the lower house and by David Pocock in the Senate, and which would have had enough support to pass in both houses. The government has stated for a long time that its policy is real-time disclosures above $1,000. That was in my bill. It was also in many other private members' bills from other crossbenchers who want to see greater transparency. The government had a path to address transparency throughout this parliament. On any sitting day of this parliament, we could have had greater transparency about political donations, but the government said it couldn't deal with this without also addressing other issues, such as banning lies in political campaigns. I engaged in good faith with the minister, providing a pathway to good reform without it being a major party stitch-up. There was very little actual engagement with the minister, other than some lip-service meetings and certainly no sharing of draft legislation. The minister and his office said that drafting was very complicated, and that was why it was taking so long. He did also say that he wanted to get bipartisan support, and he was condescending about the concept of multipartisan support, and showed no understanding that the will of the people and the make-up of the parliament have changed. I suspected that we would get a stitch-up by the major parties presented at the last minute to lock in advantage, and that's exactly what we've got here. If the major parties want to rebuild trust and regain their vote share, this is not the way to do it. Voters can see through this cynical, self-interested approach. There are a few good things about this bill. We've finally got some progress on donation transparency, but it's too late for the next election, so you still won't know who has funded your candidates when you're voting at the next election. I am actually okay with the idea of a donation cap. I don't think anyone should have a disproportionate influence over an election. I proposed a cap model linked to one or two per cent of total public funding as a way of linking the cap to prevent outsized influence. This legislation includes a cap of $20,000 a year. Is that too low or too high? I wish that that was the sensible debate that we were having now—talking about what the donation cap level is. We can talk about it. No doubt there is an appropriate amount. But that is not the debate we're having because there are so many terrible things about this bill. I want to go through nine of the worst things about this bill, and I'm sure I could find more if I had more time. The first two relate to process. This is being rushed through parliament. We are changing who can get into our parliament without any public scrutiny. It's a fundamental change. The government said it is the biggest change in 40 years, and it's really complicated. It's 224 pages of an interconnected web of donation caps, spending caps, increased public funding and transparency frameworks. It needs two types of scrutiny: what it is meant to do, so we can look at the intended consequences of the legislation, and what it actually does, so we can look at unintended consequences. It's not getting either of those things. The CPI, the Australia Institute, Transparency International Australia and the Australian Democracy Network said this afternoon: Legislation that will have such significant consequences for our democracy must only be passed after a parliamentary inquiry has had an opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise its provisions. To do otherwise is not in the interests of the Australian public. My second problem is that the issue of transparency has been separated from banning lies in political advertising. This undermines the government's excuse for delay, in terms of saying that we can't do transparency unless we do truth at the same time. Banning lies in political campaigns is being introduced as a separate bill as a fairly performative measure, knowing that it will be kicked into the long grass. If the government actually wanted to reflect the will of the public and not the parties, it would add the transparency provisions to the second piece of legislation banning lies, and debate that. My third and fourth objections relate to public funding. The third one is that taxpayers are paying more and getting less choice. There's a huge increase in funding here. The experts today that I mentioned earlier say these laws include more than $40 million in additional taxpayer funding of political parties and candidates, most of which would go to the major parties. It goes up from about $3.50 a share to $5 a share. In terms of the numbers, it may be $40 million or it may be more; we haven't had enough time to go through and look in detail. But no matter how you look at it, it's a massive slap in the face to Australians during a cost-of-living crisis.   This has the effect of locking in major parties and incumbents. Funding is based on how many votes you got at the last election, so there is no funding for new challengers. It just increases the barriers to entry. The government thought that, because I and other crossbenchers now have incumbent advantages, we would be fine with it. But I'm not here to protect my political career. I'm here to improve our democracy, and this does not do that. Creating extra hurdles to stop new challengers is absolutely unacceptable. It does not reflect the will of the people. To add insult to injury, the major parties can tap into this funding in advance of an election, based on what they expect to win. The fact that this is possible shows that this is a reliable revenue stream to protect the status quo and creates another hurdle for challengers. This legislation includes a huge increase in what we call admin funding. That's $30,000 per MP and $15,000 per senator, every year, for administrative purposes. There is no relationship between this extra funding and the actual increase in administrative tasks. It's clearly designed to get the coalition on board. It translates to $17 million in extra taxpayer funding in each term, three-quarters of which goes to the major parties. There is not, as anyone in business knows, a linear relationship between the number of people and an overhead like administration. The ALP currently has four people to meet the admin needs of 104 parliamentarians. It does not need another $6 million a year to do that. I haven't seen any proof or even attempt to show that this is the right amount of money, and it's shameful that voters should be expected to fork out millions for parties' headquarters. In South Australia, they've increased admin, but they capped it at 10 MPs because it's indefensible to say that the admin costs go up significantly with every additional MP. New challengers get nothing for their administrative costs, despite needing to set up a compliance framework from scratch. My objections 5, 6 and 7 relate to spending caps. This sounds good, but it's not a level playing field, so it locks in the status quo. Our democracy experts, in their statement today, have said The bill would also entrench major party and incumbency advantage, and further disadvantage independent and challenger candidates in elections. When I was drafting my own legislation on this, I tried to find a spending cap that worked, but it was impossible. If we address transparency and donation caps, spending caps become obsolete. If 5,000 people donate $200 each to a campaign, why shouldn't the candidate be allowed to spend that, if that's come from people below a donation cap? The fifth objection is related to that, as a sitting MP, I have incumbency advantages, so I now benefit from part of this legislation. There's a spending cap of $800,000 in a division, but that doesn't count incumbency advantages like an office, a car, a team and a budget in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. None of these count towards the $800,000 cap, but a new challenger has to fund all of those things. My sixth objection is that the spending caps don't account for party advantage. There's an outrageous exemption to the divisional cap for party advertising. Ads that say, 'Vote Liberal,' or 'Vote Labor,' don't count towards that cap. Governments will say that they're caught by a $90 million cap. Yes, but we know that parties use their money strategically. They can allocate the money so that they can double the spending of a challenger easily and still remain inside this cap. This is not a level playing field. The best way to deal with this issue is through transparency and donation caps. If they're structured properly, spending caps are not necessary. Nominated entities are my issue No. 7. There's a weird, little exclusion for parties to have a nominated entity. This is where you can keep your wealth, if you've got some, without having to account for where it's come from historically. But any new party that were to start wouldn't have access to this hidden wealth source. The ALP and Libs have huge assets, possibly $100 million for the Cormack Foundation, which would be the Liberal Party's nominated entity—we don't know, because there's no transparency. But that's not available for new challengers. The last two problems relate to transparency. On balance, more transparency is a great thing. Bring it on! I've been asking for it since the beginning of this parliament, but it won't start in time for the next election. So, given the government has claimed that it's had a policy of a $1000 threshold for many years, it has left it until the very last minute, and now there's no time to implement it. It's hard not to be cynical about that. Now that none of this reform can be implemented before the next election, where is the urgency? The only thing that's urgent here is the two parties colluding to change the rules to protect themselves before the inevitable happens—voters get wise to it, and their decline continues. I will declare all donations on my website in real time like I did last time. Every politician should do this as a bare minimum to be taken seriously by their community. No voter should cast their precious vote without knowing who is funding the candidate they're voting for. I challenge every MP to do the same thing, whether you're in a party or not. Tell your community where you're getting the money from. There are also so many exceptions to the definition of 'gift'. I won't go into it now, but this clearly needs scrutiny because it is full of loopholes. In summary, this bill is a travesty. It addresses a cynical anticompetitive oligopoly play as reform, which is being fed to an unsuspecting public. There are huge problems with the process it's gone through. There are problems with the massive increase in public funding, which locks in the status quo. There are problems with limiting spending in a way that creates a very uneven playing field for new challenges. The transparency reform is too little too late, and it's a huge disappointment. Australian voters will not be taken for granted. They will not be taken for voters. And if the major parties ignore their desire for greater choice and push this through with no inquiry, Australians will remember and punish them with their most effective tool—their votes. I do not commend this bill to the House. 17:11 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Competition is good for democracy, just like it's good for supermarkets and airlines. It drives better performance, encourages accountability and ensures no-one takes their position for granted. When politicians know they can lose their seats, they work harder, listen more carefully and prioritise their constituents. Support for the major parties is at an all-time low, and communities across Australia are embracing a new era of representation with MPs that finally represent the community values. There is no such thing as a safe seat yet. I've been told that by many people across this parliament, from all sides. I think this is a great thing, and that's what my community thinks. Since the 2022 election, I've spoken to these members and senators. They admit that they are working harder than ever before because they know that, regardless of how safe their seat has been for generations, this time it could be contested and they have to truly represent their communities. It's a win for democracy, and it's a win for the Australian people. It is against this backdrop that the government has introduced its so-called Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill, described by the minister as the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years. I agree that Australia's electoral reforms are in dire need of reform. Nobody wants to see Clive Palmer spend more than $100 million on one election, and nobody wants to see Australia head down the route to the US. Our current resume for disclosing the donations lacks transparency and timeliness. The $16,900 disclosure threshold is too high. It doesn't capture the business forums and corporate memberships, and donations aren't required to be made public until more than a year after an election. There are also no requirements for political advertising to be truthful, even when paid for by public money. And there are structural inequalities and inequities in the design of our electoral laws, which mean that not all candidates are treated equally. Whilst I, and other Independents, rightly had to declare the cost of our 2022 election campaigns, our major party opponents were not required to do the same. We will never know how much they spent. I agree with the government that there is a real need for reform. It is something that I have been calling for since before I was elected. Such reform should be guided by four principles. Firstly, it should improve transparency so voters know who is funding elections before casting their ballots. Secondly, it should reduce financial influence so that you can't buy an election regardless of whether you are using private or public money. Thirdly, it should level the playing field to promote competition, free speech and the right to association. Finally, it should improve trust in our political system or certainly not undermine it. Unfortunately, this bill completely fails on the first three principles and the way that the government is trying to ram it through the parliament without consultation or proper scrutiny absolutely undermines trust in the fundamental system of electoral reform. As the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International, the Australian Democracy Network and the Australia Institute said in a joint statement earlier today: 'This bill should not proceed in its current form because it would entrench major party and incumbency advantage and further disadvantage Independent and challenger candidates. Legislation that will have such a significant consequences for our democracy should only be passed after a parliamentary inquiry has had an opportunity to properly, thoroughly scrutinise its provisions. To do otherwise is not in the interests of the Australian public.' I completely agree. Let's start with the process. This bill is more than 220 pages long. It has been described by the minister multiple times as a hugely complex reform that has taken month and months to draft. It's the biggest change to our electoral laws in over 40 years and it won't even take full effect until July 2026 and yet there has been pretty much no opportunity for proper scrutiny. The bill has been written behind closed doors by the major parties, with no public consultation. My team and I first saw the draft on Friday and we were briefed on the bill's contents just two days ago. No version of the legislation was made available to the public until it was introduced to the parliament yesterday at lunchtime. Let me be honest. I know that this reform is complex. I know that it is very difficult to get electoral reform right and meet all those criteria I laid out. I recognise that complexity. I recognise that no form of the bill would probably make me completely happy and there would always be compromises. But, if nothing else, the way that the government is trying to ram this through the parliament really is the most egregious of its acts. It is deeply undermining of any trust that we should have in the government when it says that it is trying to do this for the right reasons. It is absolutely unconscionable. The government has said it intends to pass the legislation within the sitting fortnight. It intends to take it, as I understand it, to the House tomorrow to be voted on. They're ramming it through in the last two weeks of the year. For so-called generational reform this is an absolutely staggering and unconscionable lack of transparency and scrutiny. When the crossbench yesterday called for a committee inquiry as a standard practice for legislation of this length and complexity, Labor voted against that and most of the coalition didn't even turn up to the vote. The government has said, 'We are open to amendments and discussion on some of these items,' but I can't even get the drafters to do drafting amendments because they have to be put into the House so quickly. The government say: 'We care about expert opinions. We care about hearing from experts.' Some of those experts I mentioned earlier we have been speaking to to try and understand things like how the nominated entities work. They can't give me a clear answer. The minister's own new chief of staff can't give me a clear answer on some of these absolutely incredibly important points of law. I'm speaking on the bill and we're expected to vote on it, probably, tomorrow. This is absolutely unconscionable. If the bill is so great, the government should be open to scrutiny. The fact they are not tells you that they have something to hide. It tells you that this bill is a stitch-up between the major parties, designed to entrench their incumbency and lock out new entrants. Let's go through the bill's aspects now in detail, one by one. Let's start with transparency. Whilst the process has been shocking, I do acknowledge there are some positive aspects to the bill. I welcome the lowering of the donation threshold to $1,000 and requiring donations to be disclosed in closer to real time. I also cautiously welcome the expanded definition of 'gift', which will now include business forum memberships and cash-for-access dinners. These are changes I have long advocated for and will mean voters know more about who is funding campaigns before they cast their ballots. However, I note two major concerns when it comes to transparency. Firstly, the reforms will not be in place when voters go to the polls in 2025. The public will still have no idea who is funding their elections. This is despite the crossbench offering on multiple occasions during this parliament to support the passage of transparency measures like this. We could have got this done a long time ago. It is Labor's choice to delay this implementation, and it shows extreme cynicism that they've chosen to combine them with sweeping and controversial changes in the bill. It is wedge politics at its worst. My second concern is that there are a huge number of exemptions to the definition of what constitutes a donation or a gift in this bill. Indeed, there are more than three pages of exemptions in this bill, including subscriptions, levies, loans and much more. I asked the government to explain the rationale for each of these exemptions. I'm still waiting for an explanation, and, again, I'm meant to vote on this bill tomorrow. Some may be perfectly legitimate, but it is impossible to be sure. It is impossible to consider the various implications with essentially 48 hours notice, and it is another reason why we need a committee inquiry. Let me move to concerns about public funding. Beyond the poor process and lack of clarity over these carve-outs, I have four concerns over the substance of this bill. The first is the massive increase in public funding for politicians. Under this bill, public funding per vote will increase from $2.91 at the last election to $5.00. The Australia Institute estimates that at least three-quarters of this will go to the major parties. Incumbents will be able to claim their funding in advance, according to as yet unspecified set rules determined by the minister. On top of this, each sitting MP will receive an additional $30,000 per year for admin support, and senators will receive $15,000. This is in addition to the existing nearly $3 million in allowances for staff, travel, communications and administration that we all already receive. Unlike in South Australia, there is no cap on how many MPs or senators from each party can get this $30,000 rebate, meaning that 85 per cent of this funding flows to the major parties. And, at a time when many Australians can't pay their rent, this bill is a multimillion-dollar subsidy to the major parties. The increase in public funding is estimated to be at least $70 million compared to 2022, and the vast majority will be funnelled to Labor and the coalition. Worse still, this increase in public funding creates a huge structural advantage for incumbents against new challengers—as if there weren't enough of those already. The minister argues that the $30,000 admin allowance is necessary to help cope with the burden of the new disclosure regime. But what about the compliance costs for a new Independent challenger? Don't they face exactly the same obligations? They do. But apparently they just have to get on with it. The minister also argues that each MP should get this allowance, that there are no such things as economies of scale and that every MP has to carry out the same task so they should get the same admin funding—except, in fact, they don't. Yesterday evening we heard, from the chief of staff of the minister, that the major party MPs won't even have their own campaign accounts; they won't be responsible for tracking their own spending and what donations they receive. Head office will do that for them, but they still need that $30,000 admin allowance each, and Independent challengers get absolutely nothing. There's no justification for this. And, worst of all, because the government has reneged on its promise to include truth-in-political-advertising laws alongside these reforms, taxpayers will be funding more to fund election ads that tell lies. My second concern for this bill relates to donation caps. While I support limiting donations, the way that the caps have been designed creates a significant advantage, once again, for the major parties over Independents. A single donor can give $20,000 per year to an Independent, but they can give $180,000 to the Labor Party by donating to each of the eight state and territory branches as well as the national party. This disparity grows even larger over a parliamentary term. An Independent can receive up to $80,000 from a donor across four years, but Labor can receive $720,000. This is a ninefold advantage. For challengers, who typically only begin fundraising the year before the election, this gap is even wider. Because they're not running a party operation for the whole political cycle, they miss out on multiple opportunities to collect donations, meaning they could be eligible to receive 36 times less from each donor than the Labor Party. This means they will start their campaigns with enormous fundraising deficits. This disparity around caps is compounded by the treatment, under this bill, of so-called nominated entities. This is my third key concern. It's widely known that over many years the major parties have established vast fundraising vehicles based on historical property holdings and business ventures. The Victorian Liberals' Cormack Foundation is reported to have assets of more than $100 million. In the same state, Labor's special cash cow is an entity called Labor Services and Holdings, and the Nationals have something called Pilliwinks Pty Ltd. Electoral reform that levelled the playing field would treat donations from these entities just like donations from everyone else and cap them at $20,000, but it's not clear what is happening under this bill. Instead, the feedback I've received from several experts suggests that donations from nominated entities may be exempt from the caps. If so, each party branch—that's nine for Labor and eight for the Liberals—would be able to nominate a different entity which was exempt from the rules, locking in unlimited donations from these historical fundraising vehicles. Can Independents set up their own vehicles? No, not really. Because a cap on donations to nominated entities applies, new entrants will never be able to set up the nominated entities of equivalent size to those of the major parties. A major party advantage would once again be locked in. The government may dispute this interpretation, but the provisions of this bill are so complex, particularly when it comes to nominated entities, the experts can't tell me if they are sure, and the chief of staff for the minister can't tell me either. My final concern relates to spending caps. On paper, there are $800,000 spending caps for individual candidates. That seems reasonable, but when you unpack how these rules are applied, it's clear they create a structural bias towards the major parties. While an independent candidate is limited to spending $800,000, a Liberal or Labor candidate can not only spend $800,000 but also benefit from their party's advertising for the Senate, which can be up to $9.2 million in New South Wales, as well as from their party's spending on national advertising, which can be up to $90 million overall. When these streams are combined, major parties have the ability to outspend independents in marginal seats by a significant margin. Let me give you an example. The Liberal Party in Wentworth could line every street with corflutes saying, 'Vote 1 Liberal,' and it would not count towards their candidates' $800,000 cap. But if I said, 'Vote 1 Allegra Spender, Independent,' it would be captured. For new challengers, this is even more dire. There is no acknowledgement in this bill that new entrants need to spend heavily to build name recognition, credibility and a support base, whereas a major party could turn up for just a few days before the election and probably get a 30 per cent primary vote without anyone even knowing their name. Labor and Liberals claim that this bill will get the big money out of politics. This is simply not true. What this bill will do is lock in massive amounts of public funding for major parties by kneecapping their opponents. (Time expired) 17:27 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. Any legislation to deliver electoral reforms must strengthen democracy and not just the political fortunes of the major parties. The Greens have long advocated to get the influence of big money right out of politics to stop democracy being for sale. We've long supported donation caps, transparency, spending caps and limits on lobbying access and pay-for-policy outcomes. But if there remain loopholes in these bills for electoral reforms that only the big two political parties can use, then this is a rort, not a reform. For years, the Greens have championed reforms to clean up our democracy, including getting big money out of politics and addressing the incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system. One in three voters across the country chose to vote for someone other than a major party at the last election. This is critical. Less than a third of the country voted for the government; a bit more than a third voted for the opposition; and about a third voted for someone else—Greens, Independents and others. There is a really strong and growing desire amongst the Australian population for more voices to be represented in parliament. Because, as the cost-of-living crisis gets worse, as the climate crisis gets worse, people get that we can't keep voting for the same two parties and expect a different result. The trends are very clear, and it is the will of the people. Everyone in this country who votes deserves to see their vote result in representation in parliament, and this will be our measuring stick for what constitutes good reform. Eighty per cent of voters believe the proposed changes to Australian electoral laws should be reviewed before they are introduced to parliament, according to polling published by the Australia Institute yesterday. Rushed legislation is very often bad legislation. The government said, when introducing the bill, that this is the largest reform in 40 years to the foundation of the way our democracy works. If it's the largest reform in 40 years, then it's worth making sure that we've got it right. It's the usual practice of this place that, when bills are brought here, a committee of one house or the other or both scrutinises that legislation, especially when, as the government says, it's the biggest reform in 40 years. When bills are allowed to go through that process they're very often improved. Not only that, but you often find flaws in the bill that were unintended—or, in this case, perhaps intended to ensure that the two-party system gets some life support. For such extensive reforms, an inquiry is all the more important. Why the rush? When these changes don't even come into effect for years and will affect not this coming election at all but the one after that, there's absolutely no reason to race this through without an inquiry. And, frankly, it always makes me very suspicious when the two major parties get together and say: 'Just trust us. We've got to rush some legislation through. Don't worry about reading the fine print. We've just got to rush this through before the end of the year.' You've always got to worry when it comes towards Christmas time in this place because that's when Labor and the Liberals want to put a lump of coal in your democracy stocking. That's when they try and rush through legislation that is very often designed to benefit them at the expense of everyone else. For a very long time, the Greens—together, in recent years, with Independents and other crossbenchers—have been arguing strongly in this place that the rules around who gets to fund and, in many instances, own politicians need to change; that we need greater transparency; and that we need greater disclosure. There are some good measures in what the government is proposing; in many respects that's because they've picked up measures that we've been advocating for a long time. But there's a lot more in the bill as well. There's a new so-called nominated entity rule, which seems to allow the war chests of the major parties to be grandfathered in and then spent nationally under the extremely generous $90 million national spending cap. These are bodies that the old parties have established and had running for years and that have lots and lots of money and lots of assets. They are things that challengers will never have the capacity to access. They're the things that smaller groups will never have the capacity to access. They're the things that Independents may never have the capacity to access if it's just about funding their own campaign. But as we saw in Victoria, with similar legislation, what the two major parties do is pull up the ladder behind them. They say, 'We're going to get to keep these big organisations that we've set up that aggregate the money and funnel it in, but we don't want anyone else to have it.' In the short time that we've had to look at this bill, it seems to be following the Victorian path, where they're happy to write laws that will allow the big money to stay in politics for them but then say to others: 'If you want to challenge one of us who are in a seat, you've to play by different rules. You won't have the same access that the major parties do.' They're wanting to cut off opportunity for new political entrants, people seeking to be elected, people who think that they could fight on a level playing field. One of the other ways they do it, as previous members have explained, is that they saying they're putting in spending caps, and people think: 'That sounds alright to me. A lot of money gets spent on the election, and wouldn't it be great if less gets spent.' But what people need to realise is that, for a challenger running in a seat, if they're not part of a party, they're going to be subject to a spending cap that affects them. But, if they are trying to oust someone who's a member of one of the major parties, while that individual gets the same spending cap, their party can spend within $90 million on top that to put as much advertising in that seat as they want. So they can put up signs saying, 'Vote 1 Labor,' or, 'Vote 1 Liberal,' and it won't count. They've given themselves a loophole. It's a spending cap for people who want to challenge the incumbent, but if you are a major party incumbent, you don't have to play by the same rules. Head office gets to put in as many ads as they want in the electorate and spend as much money as they want, and, as long as it just has the major party's name on it, it's not counted. It's not counted. No wonder they are so keen to rush this through. We, in the Greens, want big money out of politics. We've been arguing for that for years. But it can't just be that the government says, 'Old big money is allowed to stay in, but we're going to push out new money from people who want to challenge us.' And that's what the government is doing. That's what Labor and the Liberals are doing here. The largess from the major parties is going to be allowed to carry on pretty much unhampered. One of the other things that's really strange and that tells you volumes about why they are doing this is that one of the other reforms that they said they were going to act on in this parliament and that people have pushed for, for ages, is truth in advertising laws, but they are not rushing those through. They are saying, 'Oh yeah, that's an important part of the package that came out of it.' It's not important enough to take priority in parliament. People will have different views about whether that's good legislation or not, but it speaks volumes that the thing that the government most wants to get through is something that's going to benefit just them and the opposition. The onus is really on the government to explain why, for what they are calling the largest reform in 40 years, they want to bypass the standard practice of this parliament. I haven't heard a thing about why this legislation needs to be rushed, especially given it's not about this election but the next one—not a thing. That ought to ring alarm bells. As I said before, we are in a situation in this country where, if you go back to just after World War II, something like 98 per cent of people voted for the two major parties. I stand to be corrected exactly, but it was something like that—98 per cent in the fifties and sixties. Fast forward to now and that figure is closer to 68 per cent. People are crying out for new voices in parliament. The government of the day could approach this reality, the shifting will of the Australian people, by saying, 'We better have a listen to what the third of the country who are voting for someone else are saying and maybe lift our game and put forward policies that are better.' They could put forward some policies that are better or listen to why it is that people are deserting the two major parties in droves. Or they could do what they've done here, which is to say, 'We'll just try to change the rules of the game to shore up our diminishing vote.' That's basically what they've done. By racing this bill through without an inquiry, it sends the message to the public that the two major parties just want to rig the rules because they don't have the courage to implement policies that are actually addressing the pressures that people and the planet are facing. Why are we seeing this big shift, with people voting for more Greens, Independents and other parties and moving away from the two major parties? As cost-of-living pressures get worse, as parents say, 'My kid might never be able to afford a home in the way that I could when I grew up,' as people say, 'I'm putting off a family because I'm struggling to pay the rent and think I'll never get a mortgage, and I've got a massive student debt,' as people say, 'I'm looking at the planet burning, cars piled up in Spain, heading towards another terrible summer here, seeing the climate crisis hit us right now, and Labor has just approved 28 new coal and gas projects while the Liberals want to do even more,' it is no wonder that people are increasingly getting the fact that we can't keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result. They're sending more and more of us—third voices—into parliament. In the face of that, people want change. People are crying out for change. Yes, that change might not happen overnight. We might not be able to fix all the big structural problems overnight, but it will happen when we have more voices in parliament pushing for the things that people want to address—not the two major parties feathering their pockets, listening to big corporations and donors and only advancing their own interests, but listening to what the people actually want. This is an attempt to ensure that the will of the Australian people is not represented. Instead of just doing better, Labor and Liberal are trying to change the rules to rig the system in their favour. People understand that this parliament should be about the public interest, not about vested interests. We should be making decisions about what is going to address the big problems this country is facing so that everyone in this wealthy country of ours has what they need to live a good life. In a wealthy country like ours, no-one should be going without. There is a reason that parents are getting so distressed at the fact that their kids are not going to be able to enjoy the same quality of life as they did, having a home and living a debt-free life. These are the things that we need to fix, and it's because Labor and Liberal are not fixing them that people are looking for other alternatives. So fix them. Fix those problems and ensure that, in this wealthy country of ours, everyone has what they need to live a good life. Don't rig the rules of the game, Labor and Liberal, to try and advantage yourselves. Just fix the problems. 17:41 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein We've all heard that Australians have lost interest in politics, that they see all politicians as cynical and self-interested. Indeed, in a recent Australian Reader's Digest survey on Australia's most trusted professions, politicians won the wooden spoon, ranking last—just below journalists. As a former journalist and now standing here in this place, I get it when people question my choice of job, yet last Thursday night, in my electorate of Goldstein, more than 800 people turned up at a community townhall event at the historic Kingston City Hall in Moorabbin to join me to discuss the issues that matter most to them. In recent months I've had multiple full Politics in the Pub events, where we've discussed everything from housing to women and the economy, the renewable energy transition, US politics and Australia's place in the world. It is therefore a lazy trope, I think, to say that people aren't interested in politics. These people are passionate about the issues they care about—climate change, housing affordability, the cost of living, student debt, early childhood education and care, just to name a few. They want to be heard and they want to be part of the solution to these problems. They believe in a type of politics where they're included and respected. They want a seat at the table. Imagine their disappointment and exasperation when, a few days later, they woke up to the news that the Albanese Labor government had apparently done a deal with the coalition on its electoral reform bill that all but locks in the major party duopoly that voters, at best, are drifting away from and, at worst, loathe. Their cynicism would have only grown when they found out that the government dropped this huge and complex piece of legislation late on a Friday afternoon and then demanded that it be hustled through the parliament in a mad rush this week. Even sending it to committee inquiry was a bridge too far. The legislation isn't even set to apply until 2026, and—by the minister's own admission—it proposes the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years. Surely that warrants scrutiny. Given the ridiculously short time we've had to study this bill, with no exposure draft beforehand, it has been impossible to fully scrutinise this legislation, which I guess is entirely the point. The bill ensures that Australian politics remains a cosy table for two, and it makes it clear to ordinary Australians: you're not invited. The Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition—the Coles and Woolies of Australian politics—are engaging in lockout politics. It's politics as usual for the Canberra cartel. The minister says this bill is getting big money out of politics, but actually it's replacing donor money with taxpayer money, which then embeds the incumbents. Rather than banning big money, the bill guarantees big money to the big parties. Let's be clear: they think this will be a short and noisy process—that they'll pass it and everyone will forget about it. Well, we'll see about that. The expenditure caps in this bill are a clear attempt by the major parties to game the system. The expenditure on creating or communicating electoral matter targeting a division is capped at $800,000 per calendar year. 'Targeting' means naming a candidate or including their likeness or expressly mentioning the division, so a poster or billboard with my photo or name on it, mentioning the seat of Goldstein, would sit well and truly under that expenditure cap, yet political party material that doesn't mention the candidate doesn't count under the cap. The Liberal Party or the Labor Party could line the Nepean Highway with their party-branded billboards, all the way from Elsternwick to Cheltenham, and it wouldn't count under the cap. The electoral expenditure of a party plus its branches cannot exceed the federal cap of $90 million, but that amount still allows the Canberra cartel to shift money around the country and pour it into marginal seat campaigns at their discretion. Call it the sandbagging slush fund. There are two sets of rules in play here, and Australian voters aren't fools; they can spot a stitch-up when they see one. This legislation has so many loopholes you could sail a ship through it. These loopholes mean that even advertising mentioning a party candidate doesn't fully count towards their divisional cap, provided it's spread around the state, or Senate candidates are promoted alongside the House candidate, or both. That means the parties could spend much more than $800,000 promoting a particular candidate, if they do it in the right way. Then there's the gaping hole in this bill that is best described as the third-party free-for-all. Any third party, like Advance Australia or the ACTU, can run their own campaign on electoral issues, with a cap of $11 million per annum. Exactly how this works remains a bit opaque, but it appears that, if Advance, for example, wants to spend big on a climate change denial campaign, they can, if they sit under that $11 million cap. The unions could run a pro-jobs campaign geared to Labor. This is in addition to party caps. And that's not to mention the fact that there are three pages of exemptions to the definition of 'gift'. That's confusing and, again, needs scrutiny. Is this the sort of electoral reform Australia needs? Meanwhile, incumbents, including myself, would have the advantage of public funding and resources, while new entrants face the same caps as those of us who are already in office. How is putting the squeeze on new entrants and Independents while giving the green light to partisan lobbyists and political action groups a way to reinstall confidence in the political system? It is true that several elements of this legislation go some way to reforming our electoral system in a way that ordinary Australians will welcome, as I do. Lowering the disclosure threshold for political contributions to $1,000, from $17,000, and aggregating those donations to determine whether they exceed the threshold is long overdue. Having a more transparent process for the disclosure of gifts is vital. The legislation proposes that it occur within 24 hours during the final week of an election campaign, weekly during the campaign proper and monthly at other times. These transparency measures would ensure that we have line of sight on where the money is coming from and where it's going. Kicking the dark money out of Australian politics is something I fully support. Indeed, I practiced as close as practical to real-time disclosure during my last campaign. Unfortunately, this legislation won't stop dark money from being poured in to influence the upcoming federal election—and we can expect plenty of it being spent to try to win seats—because, despite the rush to pass the bill, those measures won't be in place in time. Sadly, the value of these initiatives in restoring faith in the fairness of our electoral process has had the stool kicked out from under it by the other provisions in this legislation. The proposed gift or donation cap for any individual is to be set at $20,000 per annum, and it will reset every calendar year or after a general election. That means there'll be four opportunities for an individual to give every election cycle. The devil is lurking in the detail here. Each party branch will have its own cap. For instance, that means the Labor Party has eight individual state and territory branches as well as national branch. An individual could therefore donate as much as $180,000 per year to the party. Once again, Independents and any aspiring new entrants are playing by a different set of rules to the major parties. Public and administrative funding of elections should be a way to build a firewall between the electoral process and those vested interests with big wallets looking to pay for access and influence. Public funding will increase from $2.91 per vote at the last federal election to $5 a vote, at a total cost of $40 million. About 76 per cent of that money will land in the coffers of the major parties—once again reinforcing their hold over Australian democracy. It basically doubles the funding they receive now. Australian voters are crying out for political parties to cut the bull and stop telling lies in their election ads. If there's one initiative that Australian voters are crying out for it's truth in political advertising. This government has other legislation in train that deals with mis- and disinformation, yet when it comes to just that in political ads it's on a go-slow. The bill has been tabled, but apparently there is no rush to pass that one. The major parties are happy to take an extra bucket of public money, but they won't lift a finger to protect Australian voters from the lies and deceit in political advertising. Is it any wonder the professional reputation of Australian politicians has cratered like it has? Quite seriously, the more time I spend looking at this bill the worse it gets. Ramming it through the parliament without proper scrutiny before Christmas when it won't even come into effect until after the next election is a sign of desperation from the major parties—'Quick! Get it through just in case any more Independents get in and stop us.' This law could fundamentally change who can get into the parliament for a generation. Australian needs a new approach to politics that encourages political engagement and participation in our democracy, not a lockout strategy that signals to ordinary Australians that they are not welcome to get involved. Lead better. Don't change the rules to help you win. 17:52 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Electoral reform is critical if we are to maintain confidence in the political system. Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes free and fair elections as: The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. We should be rightfully proud that as a relatively young nation we have a mature and robust electoral system. It has served us well. We may not like the outcome of some elections, but we all respect the process and, ultimately, we respect the decision of the people. That is always accepted. Added to this are our Australian values, particularly the right to a fair go. In Australia, you don't need to be a millionaire to participate in politics. My first election cost me roughly $40,000 to run. Contrast this to the politics of the United States, where the recent election cost a staggering $15.9 billion. The Democrats reportedly spent $6.7 billion, while the Republicans spent a reported $7.6 billion. Increasingly, we are seeing a larger spend on campaigns across parties and individual candidates in Australia. In the last election we saw several candidates from major parties and Independents spending more than $2 million on their campaigns. The United Australia Party spent more in a single year than any political party in Australian political history. Our democracy must not devolve to a financial arms race that favours the size of the campaign wallet over the quality of the candidate. Australians should not be dissuaded or precluded from participation as a consequence of financial barriers to entry. At the least, Australians must be able to be aware of the sources of the parties' and candidates' funding before they cast their ballots. I've previously quoted the late great Robin Williams, who said that politicians should wear sponsored jackets like NASCAR drivers, and then we'd know who owns them. In 2019 and 2023, I introduced private member's bills seeking to lower the political donation disclosure threshold to $1,000, provide a broader definition of donations and require real-time disclosure as soon as reasonably practicable within five working days after receipt. This is about transparency. If donations are received in the thousands, the public has a right to know so they can determine for themselves whether the candidate's party or party views are being influenced. And they need to know before the election, not the following year. The bill before the House will lower the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000 cumulative over a calendar year, as my bills did. It will also, similarly, broaden the definition of gifts over the threshold value so that new disclosure requirements apply. The bill will not, as my bill did, require real-time donation disclosures above this threshold, but it will put in place a requirement to disclose donations monthly in arrears following their receipt and more regularly as polling day approaches—within seven days, once writs are issued, and, in the last seven days, within 24 hours, in the week on either side of polling. I think the 'either side of polling' is really important. This will ensure voters can access the information that they need before casting their votes. The bill will also require the establishment of a federal election Commonwealth campaign account, monitored by the Electoral Commissioner, to capture all expenditure and gifts received for a federal purpose. It will cap both the amount that may be donated and campaign spending to slow down that electoral arms race so we don't see the obscene amounts of money that are being spent on elections in some countries. I understand concerns that political party candidates will be treated preferentially in terms of high caps on spending in comparison with independent candidates. The bill will apply a federal expenditure cap of $90 million for parties, a divisional cap of $800,000 for each division and a Senate cap for states and territories based on the number of divisions in the relevant state or territory. I think that this is all exceedingly generous. This is not perfect, but it is still better than the current situation, which offers no limits and less transparency. The sources of an estimated 40 per cent of political donations over recent years are unknown. We never know where the money is sourced from. I think that this bill will be a step towards trying to uncover that. While I feel that the expenditure cap of $11.25 million per year for significant third parties, associates and third parties who campaign for particular outcomes is also very high, at least spending on such campaigns will now be captured, disclosed and capped. Electoral spending for an independent candidate running in a single seat will be limited to $800,000, which I think is very generous, based on my own personal experience. I recognise and appreciate the concerns of other candidates, although that hasn't been my experience over four or five elections now. Other improvements expand eligibility for pre-poll and postal voting to ensure that people with a disability or with obligations as a carer for someone with a disability will still be able to vote even if they can't attend a polling booth. It will strengthen the Australian Electoral Commission's enforcement powers to investigate and prevent breaches of the new funding and disclosure provisions and provide protections for voters and workers from harassment during polling, including filming without permission. Provision of administrative funding to meet new reporting requirements and public funding for parties and candidates should also help to minimise the reliance on private donors for electoral campaigns. I would always prefer that a bill undergo due political review through the committee inquiry process before it's brought on for a vote. I always like to think that we can have that Senate reporting done before we vote in the House of Representatives, but that doesn't always happen. Every time we do skip this process, though, I think we put a bill at risk—that we haven't fully fleshed out the unintended consequences. However, having attempted multiple times over multiple terms in this place to secure vital improvements to transparency of political donations, I am loath to miss this opportunity. Despite this bill not being perfect, I am of the view that, on balance, it will provide greater transparency and more timely information regarding political donations. It will strengthen the Electoral Commission and it will cap the amounts that can be donated and spent. Australians will go to the polls knowing what each candidate and each party have spent on their campaign. At the very least, if they think it is excessive or that it represents the purchase of influence, they may choose to vote accordingly. Trust in democracy is at a low point, and shining some light on the money trail can only help to improve behaviour and ultimately rebuild that trust. It's disappointing that politics has degenerated to the point where knowingly using misinformation or disinformation for political gain has been increasing over successive elections and that it has become necessary to legislate against legislators who are willing to do this. Based on my experience and the use of such provisions in South Australian elections over time, I support the creation of an electoral communications bill based on the tried and tested provisions that have served us well in my state. On balance, I support this bill. 18:01 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi In a democracy, elections should be about the contest of ideas, the battle to convince voters that your vision for the nation's future is the one they want to vote for. But the reality, in recent Australian elections, has been the battle to see who could spend the most money. In the 2022 federal election, almost $250 million was spent by the major parties. Clive Palmer spent $117 million just on his own. In some seats, Independent candidates spent more than $2 million on just a single race. Big money in politics distorts the contest of ideas. We desperately need reform to our donations laws to reduce the impact of big money and remove dark money from politics in Australia. That is why I wish I could stand up today and fulsomely welcome the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. We need it, and Australians want it, too. The 2022 Australian Election Study found that more than 90 per cent of Australians supported limiting donations to political parties, and, in a world that is more and more divided, this is something most Australians actually agree on. Australians are increasingly dissatisfied with the major political parties. In 2022, one-third of Australians voted for a minor party or an Independent. Support for the two major parties has never been lower. What do the two major parties do in response? Do they have a good, hard look at themselves; introduce policies that reflect the migration of votes towards Independents and minor parties; fix their internal processes to be more representative? No. They make a backroom deal to make sure the two-party duopoly is stronger than ever. A 224-page bill was drafted without it being shown to anyone else in the parliament but the two major parties, a bill that ultimately gives the major parties more money and everyone else less—with no exposure draft for the rest of us to see. I received the 224-page bill and 180-page explanatory memorandum on Friday afternoon. My team and I have been going through it to try and understand just how these reforms will work—because we want them to. What impact will this have on our elections? In the short time I've had with the bill, questions and concerns have arisen. These are questions and worries about aspects of the bill that go to the core issue of our democracy—elections and how Australians participate in them as voters and candidates—and they should give every Australian pause for concern. But, before I outline my concerns, I want to celebrate some measures in this bill, because there are some good ones. This bill includes some excellent measures that will shine a light on money in politics that has not existed before, and I welcome that. I welcome the new requirements to disclose all donations above $1,000. This is what I do now on my own website. I also support the provisions for real-time donation disclosures. Under the bill, donations above $1,000 will be required to be disclosed once a month to the Australian Election Commission outside of election periods. During elections, gifts must be disclosed once a week and then, in the week before the election, every day. That's good. This is a win for transparency. It will ensure voters know who is donating to candidates and political parties and, importantly, they will have this information before they cast their vote. I congratulate the government on this section. Right now, we only know who donates to an election candidate for donations above $16,900 and only once a year. Right now, voters are going to the polls with no line of sight as to who has donated to the names on the ballot paper. This bill fixes that, and I am unequivocal in my support for this section. I also support the intention of other key elements of the bill. Let me be crystal clear. I support donation caps and I support expenditure caps. I want to see a fair and level playing field. The government say they do too, but the devil is in the detail. The government are very quick to say the donation and expenditure caps should come as no surprise, that they were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and so subsequently we don't need any additional scrutiny of the actual legislation. But this is not exactly true, is it? Yes, the committee recommended we should have donation and expenditure caps. But they did not recommend a number for those caps. Yes, the committee recommended that we should amend the definition of a gift to ensure it meets community expectations of transparency. But they did not recommend the four pages of things in the bill that are excluded as gifts. Yes, the committee recommended a new system of administrative funding and increased public funding for elections. But, again, they didn't mention how much or how this should be calculated. And there are some things in this bill that the committee report doesn't actually touch on at all. This is where we get to my concerns with this bill. Firstly, let's look at the new donation cap, called a 'gift cap' under this bill. Right now, a business, individual, organisation or anyone can donate as much money as they want to a party, a member of parliament or a candidate. This means those with the deepest pockets have the potential to have undue influence over our elections and over those elected. Voters feel that these large donations are never just donations; one day, they will likely be used to call in a favour. So I support donation caps, and the committee on electoral matters does too. But, importantly, they did not mention what the caps should be. It's important, then, that we scrutinise how exactly the government arrived at the figures they did. Under the bill, the donations are capped at $20,000 to a party, MP or candidate per year. In that same year, a donor cannot give more than $600,000 overall. So, if they want to donate to multiple candidates, they can—up to $600,000. A key issue I have with the gift cap is not necessarily the cap itself. It's what is considered a gift and what is not—what's in and what's out. For example, in my reading of the bill—and, remember, I haven't had much time to read it—it appears that union affiliation fees, MP and senator levies and a subscription paid to a political party can all be excluded from the definition of a gift. If you're wondering what all these things are and what they all mean, fair enough. The bill currently has four pages of things that are excluded from the definition of a gift. While it looks like the government are turning off the tap of big money, they are still leaving plenty of ways for money to flow to the major parties. I seriously question how this creates a fair playing field in elections. I think the government needs to answer this. Next, I have real concerns that the spending caps under the bill skew in the favour of major parties and not Independents, especially Independents that are new entrants, that are not incumbents. This is a really big concern for me. Under the bill, each candidate cannot spend more than $800,000 in an electoral division. This seems very reasonable. I don't want to see elections becoming an arms race on whoever gets elected and the person that's elected being the candidate that spent the most in that division. A cap like this appears sensible. Then there is the national cap, set at $90 million. This applies only to a registered political party, not an Independent candidate in the House or the Senate. This means that a major political party could spend up to $800,000 in the 30 or so marginal seats they're focusing on to form government and significantly less in other, safe, seats and still not reach the $90 million cap. But this isn't the end of it, of course. Under the bill, registered political parties won't exceed the $800,000 cap if they don't 'target' that division. What does that mean? It means that, if advertising or other electoral spending doesn't mention the candidates or the electorate name or refer to their likeness, it doesn't count towards the $800,000 for that seat. What does that mean in reality? It means you could be on the main street of Wodonga in my electorate of Indi and looking at a billboard for an Independent, whoever that might be, that counts towards the $800,000 spending cap and, on the other side of the road, a billboard that says 'Vote Liberal' or perhaps 'Vote Labor' wouldn't count towards the cap at all. This is deeply concerning. That does not feel fair and equal. That does not feel like a level playing field to me. These caps still mean the races in particular seats can be completely distorted by who can spend more than the other, and isn't that what we are trying to avoid? And it will be the major parties that can spend more. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't sound fair to me. The government is reducing how much money can be donated and how much money can be spent in elections. But don't for a second think the Labor Party is turning off the funding tap. Who exactly is picking up the tab? Well, dear taxpayer, you are. This bill increases public funding for elections. In 2022 where a candidate received more than four per cent of the primary vote they were paid by the AEC about $3.35 per first-preference vote. Under this bill, this will be increased to $5 per vote. This change will cost taxpayers $41 million per election. On top of this public funding, under the bill the government will give members of parliament a new administrative funding payment—$30,000 per year for members of the House of Representatives and $15,000 for senators. The government says this funding is needed to help members comply with the new donation disclosure requirements that I outlined earlier. They are onerous. They will take administrative support. Of course they will. But I have two issues with this as well. Firstly, this increase in public and administrative funding is going to disproportionately benefit the major parties, plain and simple. Analysis by the Australia Institute reveals that, under the change to public funding, 75 per cent of this $41 million going to politicians will go to the major parties. Then, on top of this, 85 per cent of the new administrative funding will go, guess where? To the major parties. If a challenger from outside the major party duopoly wants to run for election for the first time, they will not benefit from any of this money, compared to a new entrant or incumbent from a major party, who likely will. As an incumbent, I will benefit from this funding, make no mistake. But, as an Independent, I don't want to just pull up the ladder behind me. I want to see new Independents and challengers fairly enter the competition because, as we have seen, they only improve the competition. That's the heart of democracy. The second issue I have with an increase in funding is that the government have simply not justified it. They haven't justified their calculation for how they got to $5. This is taxpayers' money. We need justification. Where's the detail? Why $5? Why tens of thousands of dollars for administrative fees? It's as if they've plucked these numbers right out of thin air. These amounts could be justified, but the government simply hasn't explained why. We're just asked to accept that. These are the problems I've identified in just a few days. Some elements of this bill are good, as I have said, some are concerning and some are simply just too hard to call. It's why it's vitally important that the bill is referred to a joint parliamentary committee for a full inquiry before there's any vote. What is wrong with that? To be frank, on the concerns I have just outlined—public funding, administrative funding and donation spending caps—I can't be certain my interpretation of the legislation is correct. There must be an opportunity to scrutinise this bill for voters, for all the experts out there and for politicians alike. To be a good legislator, you need to understand the detail. It's not just a vibe; it's not just something that appears on your desk a couple of days before you give a speech and then, dear Lord, actually have to vote on it. You need to look at the detail and ask, 'What is the impact of this? Are there any unintended consequences?' and, the big one, 'How will it impact our democracy?' Australians agree there needs to be greater scrutiny on these laws before they're passed by the parliament. Polling released on Tuesday by the Australia Institute reveals more than four out of five voters believe proposed changes to Australian electoral laws should be reviewed before they're introduced to parliament—not much to ask. My constituents sent me here to interrogate laws. They didn't want someone who just follows the directions of the major parties; I'm not just a rubber stamp. If the government are serious about electoral reform, then they shouldn't be afraid of scrutiny. If your bill is as good as you say it is, put it under scrutiny. Scrutiny isn't a dirty word. When our parliamentary processes work, we make laws better. Why is this government so afraid of making this bill better? What is this government truly afraid that we might see if we give this bill the scrutiny it deserves? Are they afraid of making it better or afraid of us looking at the detail and finding that it could have serious ramifications for our democracy? Deputy Speaker, if you think the Chairman's Lounge is an exclusive club, then you should have a look at this so-called electoral reform bill. It's going to make the federal parliament an exclusive club for incumbents and the major parties. I have serious concerns about this bill and I say to the government: do better. Give this the scrutiny the Australian public deserves. 18:16 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. It won't be my best speech, because it's so rushed. We received a copy of the bill just a few days ago. It's a very large bill, which we're still trying to read, interpret and get a response to. I do apologise for my incredibly rushed speech, but we're trying to draw it together as quickly as possible. Like so many of my colleagues on the crossbench, since I arrived in this place I've been calling for improvements to our electoral laws, specifically to shine a light on the problem of the private and corporate money in politics. The problem with private money in politics in this country is that so much of it is hidden. So-called dark money has been obtained in ways that have skirted around the rules, avoiding any obligation to be disclosed to the Australian public. This might include things like a $10,000 ticket to a party business forum. According to the Centre for Public Integrity, over $1 billion in dark money has flowed to the political parties over the last two decades, undisclosed and undeclared. The public has no knowledge of where it came from, who it went to or what it was used for. This, quite frankly, undermines our democracy. I've also long called for greater clarity on the definition of a 'donation' in our electoral laws so that more of the money flowing to MPs and candidates in creative ways is captured and disclosed. I've also called for the disclosure to occur far more frequently. Currently, disclosures of donations to political campaigns are only required to occur every several months, even maybe a year after an election. These two problems have been improved in this bill. Parties will no longer be able to charge $20,000 a ticket to a fundraising dinner or a business forum without disclosing that income as a donation. This is a good change. Similarly, people who purchase the tickets will be obliged to report their donation. The disclosure threshold has been significantly reduced to $1,000, so we will have much greater transparency over who is donating what and to whom and where the influence is flowing. There will be real-time disclosure requirements. Outside of an election period, recipients of donations will be required to disclose them on a monthly basis. In the month after the donations are made, once writs for an election are issued, that steps up to weekly, and, in the seven days either side of an election, disclosures must be made within 24 hours. These changes—a broader definition of what constitutes a donation, a reduction in the disclosure threshold and more frequent disclosures—are welcome, but they could have been done much earlier. Many of these things are uncontroversial, and they should have been done much earlier so that they could have been applied to the next election in 2025. The other problem with money in Australian politics, of course, is the outsize influence of big money. Let's just name the problem. At the 2022 election, Clive Palmer spent $123 million and obtained one seat in the entire parliament. He outspent Labor. Wealthy individuals should not be able to buy a seat in parliament. Donation caps should absolutely be implemented so that wealthy individuals and corporations are not able to sway or undermine our democracy, but it is imperative that the donation cap is not set so low that new entrants who are not part of a major party are not able to raise enough money to be competitive with a major party candidate, particularly because major party candidates will be able to benefit from an additional nationwide expenditure cap of up to $90 million, which parties will be free to spend in marginal seats. This is the biggest problem with this bill by far—the fact that party candidates, in addition to the $800,000 spending cap per electorate, will have the additional benefit of nationwide spending caps. A new community independent challenger has no such nationwide allocation, so this $800,000 expenditure limit must be considered in the context of other changes that enable the parties—but not independent or minor party candidates, perhaps—to move money around the country to spend in electorates of their choosing, such as marginal electorates. I will go into a bit of detail now, because these two different types of spending caps are quite complicated, but the Australian public deserves to hear about it. Here's how it's unfair. The parties have a national spending cap of $90 million. That is the maximum amount they can spend on an election in one year. Remember that per election spending cap of $800,000? That $800,000 is for targeted electoral expenditure where the name of the candidate is specifically used. In a nutshell, electoral expenditure is targeted if it goes out to voters in a particular electorate and expressly mentions a candidate or includes their likeness. Here you can think of posters, ads, billboards, T-shirts and the like that say, 'Vote 1 Sophie Scamps,' or have a picture of me on them. I can spend $800,000 on such material, and so can my party opponents. They too are limited to expenditure of $800,000 per electorate per candidate on this type of thing. But here's the rub. They can spend much, much more than that in each electorate on material that promotes their own brand. They can have ad after ad after ad that says, 'Vote Labor,' 'Vote Liberal,' 'Vote Labor to cap international student numbers,' or 'Vote Liberal to cap all immigration.' If it doesn't specifically name the candidate, they have an expenditure cap of up to $90 million. All those brands, Liberal and Labor, are extremely well known and incredibly powerful. It's brand advertising, brand based marketing, pure and simple. How can you compete with the brands of these two major parties? As I mentioned, the parties will be subject to a national expenditure cap of $90 million. Unlike Independents, they generally don't raise money for particular electorates. Rather, someone usually donates to the Liberal Party or the Labor Party and it goes into a big pot. The parties are then allowed to move that money around the country at will, so it's available to be spent in any electorate. It's well known, and make sense, that parties are strategic about where they spend their money at each election. They might, for the sake of the argument, be really worried about 30 marginal electorates—30 electorates where they will need to spend more than in other, safe seats. Let's assume they spend on average $100,000 in electorates that are either safe or that they know they have no chance of winning. That's $100,000 in the remaining 121 electorates. When you put that altogether that equates to $12.1 million. That $12.1 million comes off their national cap, leaving them with $77.9 million to spend on the 30 marginal seats that they are targeting, that they are really worried about. That's around $6 million in each of those target seats—$6 million versus $800,000, which the Independents will be limited to. Please explain to me how this is a level playing field? Yes, the parties will be limited to $800,000 on targeted electoral spending, but in the strategic spending scenario they'll be free to spend an additional $5 million on 'Vote 1 Liberal' ads or 'Vote 1 Labor' ads. That's an extra $5 million to promote an already very powerful brand. This is, of course, astoundingly unfair. It is an insurmountable hurdle for new challengers. Spending caps are simplistically appealing; I understand that, but, until we can design a system where spending caps interact with other rules in a way which maintains the ability of Independent challengers to compete, we are only doing harm to our democracy. There is a raft of other problems with this bill that my crossbench colleagues have addressed at length. They include the unfair administrative costs payment for incumbents, the nominated entity advantage of major parties, the lack of clarity around how things like membership fees and levies on MPs and party members will be dealt with—the list goes on. Unfortunately, the way in which the government has gone about this bill means that, as of right now, my team and I have not had nearly enough time to properly analyse either the intended or the unintended consequences of this bill. I do understand that the intention of the bill is to take away the influence of money, but it is particularly the unintended consequences which are of grave concern to me. My team was able to obtain a copy of this bill only last Friday, when we heard about it on the news—how is that fair?—and only after seeking it out. I was not briefed on the bill until Sunday, the day before parliament, and I have still not been briefed by the minister, as has been the convention. The government is bragging about this bill being the biggest reform to our electoral system in 40 years, yet it has not released an exposure draft. They do not intend to expose it to the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee, and they plan to pass it through parliament in a fortnight. This is our democracy we're talking about—our most valuable asset. The way the government has dealt with this bill is nothing short of scandalous. They clearly think the public won't notice or won't care, but I think they underestimate the Australian public. The Australian people are losing trust in the major parties. We saw at the last election that trust in our political system was at an all-time low. We also see that a full third of voters are directing their votes elsewhere than the big major parties. This is because of conduct like this: hoodwinking the Australian people by rushing legislation through parliament in the last sitting period of the year, refusing— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 It being 6:30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 118 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Mackellar Electorate: Building and Construction Industry 118 18:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I recently held a really informative roundtable discussion for Mackellar people working in the construction industry. The construction industry makes up a large part of the Mackellar economy and is a major employer on the northern beaches of Sydney. We have a very proud history of people learning their skills and trade on the beaches and working locally. Representatives from the building companies large and small, residential and commercial, participated in this roundtable, as did engineers and architects from all across the electorate of Mackellar. I held the roundtable because I felt it was important to hear from this industry group for a number of reasons. Firstly, with the cost-of-living crisis, recent building supply constraints and leaner margins for builders, many businesses are facing tough times. I wanted to hear directly from local businesses to find out how they were faring. Secondly, a lot of new industrial relations legislation has been introduced over the past couple of years. I was keen for feedback on how businesses were experiencing these changes, including the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission—something I argued in parliament should not be abolished. Thirdly, the construction industry is, of course, critical to alleviating the housing crisis, and we will only achieve our housing goals if we support our construction industry at every level of government. So I wanted to hear directly from them about the barriers they are facing to getting on with the job of building more homes. The housing crisis is as urgent on the northern beaches of Sydney as it is anywhere across the country. In fact, Mackellar has some of the very most expensive houses and rental costs in the country. As a result, increasingly, Mackellar locals are having to move out of our region because they can no longer afford to live there. As a GP, I experienced this trend firsthand, with many of the young families that I looked after having to move away so they could buy or rent a home they could afford. This often meant that they had to move away from their close family and friends, their networks of support. The housing crisis is fracturing our society. Additionally, I've heard from schools, hospitals and aged-care homes in my area about how difficult it is for them to attract key workers to our region because, quite simply, these key workers are not able to afford to live on the beaches. I've heard about teachers travelling from the Central Coast to work on the northern beaches of Sydney, commuting hours and hours a day. Quite simply, if we continue on such a trajectory, I don't think it's hyperbole at all to say that it will be increasingly difficult for our community to function. Who will care for our older residents? Who will teach our children? And who will care for us in hospital? Also, recently, a year 12 student who was participating in my school partnership program told me that the dire teacher shortage at her school meant that students were regularly missing lessons and had started to teach themselves. Under the government's National Housing Accord, it's planned that 1.2 million homes will be built by 2029, but we will not be able to achieve such an ambitious housing goal unless we start looking after our construction industry at every level of government. To support the construction industry, we must start by listening. So what did I hear at the Mackellar construction industry roundtable? Predominantly, it was about workforce shortages. The clearest message I heard during the roundtable was from the owner of a building company who said, 'Simply put, none of us have enough workers.' Their experience is backed up by the numbers. According to the Housing Industry Association, the HIA, Australia needs an extra 83,000 tradies to build the 1.2 million homes planned in the National Housing Accord by 2029. New modelling from the HIA estimated that the housing shortage cannot be addressed without an extra 22,000 carpenters, another 17,300 electricians and almost 12,000 plumbers. Thousands more will also need to be trained in other trades, with the nation's building industry workforce needing to surge from 277,000 to 361,000—almost another 100,000—to sustain the construction volumes that are necessary for this boom. Without the uptick, the HIA have warned that there will be cost and timeline blowouts for Aussies building new homes and that the federal government target will be unreachable. They have estimated that Australia currently has 114,000 apprentices in training, slightly below record levels. But this figure would have to double to meet the number of additional tradies needed to address the housing shortage. So what do we need to do about this? Firstly, we need to attract and accept more skilled workers from overseas. With just 3,644 internationals currently helping build Aussie homes, both the Master Builders Australia and the HIA believe the government will have to roll out incentives to get more skilled workers to come here. Importantly, these workers will need to be prioritised over, not added to, other professions to avoid exacerbating the demand for new homes. The Master Builders Australia published a position paper in July this year, calling for Australia's migration program to better target and prioritise skilled workers for the construction industry. Its recommendations included reforming the visa system to simplify processes, lower costs, speed up processing times and create better pathways to permanency. It included prioritising the processing of visas for workers in construction occupations; removing or reducing the Skilling Australians Fund levy, particularly for small businesses; developing a construction and skills pathway visa, similar to programs in Canada, New Zealand and the UK; providing exemptions to skills assessment requirements for certain international qualifications; and providing coaching for migrants on finding employment in the construction industry. The second prong in addressing the construction workforce shortage is to urgently train more construction workers here in Australia. To this end, the government's Fee-Free TAFE Skills Agreement, which prioritises the construction industry as a national priority, is very welcome. Under the Fee-Free TAFE Skills Agreement, the Commonwealth government has partnered with states and territories to deliver over $1.5 billion in funding for 500,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational educational and training places across Australia up until 2026. The 2024-25 budget included an additional $86 million commitment for the states and territories to deliver a further 20,000 fee-free TAFE positions; 5,000 of these are pre-apprenticeship places to boost the supply of the construction industry workforce. As an example, some of these fee-free training positions available include qualifications in civil construction plant operations, electrical fitting, bricklaying and blocklaying, and electrical engineering. These extra fee-free TAFE positions are very much needed and very welcome. However, there is an added complication. I also heard at the roundtable that it is not only difficult to find and attract new apprentices and workers in the construction industry but also increasingly difficult to retain them. Because of the very problem we are trying to solve—the lack of affordable housing—all too often, young apprentices and employees are leaving the Mackellar electorate for more affordable housing options in other regions. As an apprentice, it's often just too expensive to live on the Northern Beaches of Sydney. A number of participants in the construction roundtable suggested that construction workers and apprentices needed to be regarded as key workers when it comes to accessing social and affordable housing opportunities and that, of course, the amount of this form of affordable housing needs to be increased. I would like to again thank all the participants in our construction industry roundtable. It was certainly a great opportunity for me to hear from you all and to better understand the obstacles you face. Calwell Electorate: Gambling 120 18:40 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I want to speak about the devastating damage that gambling addiction causes to individuals, families and children in my community. Recently, I attended and spoke at a Settlement Services International gambling prevention forum in Craigieburn. The forum brought together stakeholders and community leaders in my local core community to discuss challenges and strategies in promoting responsible gambling practices within our diverse, multicultural communities as an important way of fostering collaboration and understanding and, in doing so, make a vital and significant impact on reducing the harmful effects of gambling. During the forum, I reflected on the scourge that gambling is and the wreckage addiction causes to the lives of my constituents, and I also paid tribute to the many wonderful people in service deliveries who fight daily battles to reach those in need and give them a helping hand in order to raise them out of their despair. Twenty-three years ago, during my first term as the member for Calwell, the installation of pokies was a sought-after business plan for many of our struggling local sports clubs, who saw it as a way of staying financially afloat, and it was a lucrative one, of course, for the pubs and other social venues. A proposal by the North Melbourne Football Club sought to install pokie machines in the Broadmeadows Town Hall. The idea was that it would be a win-win situation for both the North Melbourne Football Club and the Hume City Council and, by extension, the local community. However, this proposal was successfully scuttled by residents, outraged at the idea of the town hall being used for gambling purposes, while being packaged as a social and cultural benefit to all. With the Broadmeadows Progress Association in the lead, a broad and united coalition of culturally diverse residents and our local interfaith leaders joined the many protests that were held outside the Broadmeadows Town Hall. The pressure against the proposal was so great that the idea was eventually abandoned by the council and by the club. Not long after the North Melbourne pokies proposal, Tattersalls launched an advertising campaign named From Broadmeadows to Broadway. Billboards went up everywhere, including TV, buses and trams. Our community was outraged at the stereotyping of Broadmeadows and the many assumptions and presumptions held by the advertisements and responded with their own local campaign, called Broadmeadows and Proud. They pushed back against the stereotyping of Broadmeadows by displaying the pride our community felt about living in Broadmeadows. Whilst we won these battles in early 2002, we have not won the war. The arguments against pokies and other gambling models that were so forcibly articulated by the community then still resonate today. They are just as relevant and just as powerful. Our local community continues to be a vulnerable and disadvantaged community. The latest data shows we are eighth in Victoria for socioeconomic hardship. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation released data that shows that in the city of Hume, a staggering amount of $380,906 is spent on pokies per day. That's $139,030,852 per year. Hume, which is the municipality in my electorate of Calwell, has the third-highest pokies expenditure in Victoria. We have 14 venues. Between them, they have 833 pokie machines. With a regional cap in place of 851 pokie machines, that's 98 per cent of allowable pokie machines, and it's 4.3 pokie machines per 1,000 adults. For vulnerable people, gambling has a habit-forming allure. It promises an economic ease and benefit that will enable a happy life—a short fix for their hardships, both economic and personal. But gambling is an addiction, and it rarely ever delivers its promises. Countless individuals and their families have suffered catastrophic financial losses, losses of homes and breakups of families and relationships, and it contributes to the ongoing mental health crisis. Gambling preys on vulnerable people, using sophisticated and subtle psychology, and is behavioural in its approach. It relies on advertising to sell a dream which more often becomes a nightmare. My community fought against billboards and other means of more conventional advertising 20 years ago. Today's digital and online platforms and free-to-air TV provide the gambling industry with an unstoppable capacity to reach into every corner of our community and our lives. Alarmingly, there is a capacity for a more direct access to young people and to children. Today, we are witnessing alarming rates of addiction, whether it's gambling, alcohol or drugs. And these addictions are also associated with mental health disorders. Regardless of what people think of gambling, it's never just recreational and social in its focus and entertainment. Vulnerable people are easy prey and become victims. And, as we advance further in our digital platforms, advertising casts a wider net with its allure. This is where governments have a responsibility to stay ahead of the game and legislate where and when necessary, especially when research into harm and data collection tells us just how dire the situation is. The online gambling inquiry, which was conducted by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and chaired by the late Peta Murphy, the member for Dunkley—and I acknowledge the present member for Dunkley in the chamber with us today—made 31 recommendations. Evidence that was taken during its public hearings and the hundreds of submissions it received laid bare the ugly truth. We know the government is closely considering all 31 recommendations of the final report, and we do expect the release of a comprehensive response. But, on the very important issue of gambling advertising, the government has made it clear that the status quo is untenable, and it's consulting on a model that prioritises reducing the exposure of children to gambling advertising, tackling the unacceptable level of gambling ads during live sport and restricting wagering providers from targeting and saturating Australians with advertisements. The pressing issue here, and the essence of my grievance, is that the most effective response is a model involving a total ban on advertising. I've received many letters from my constituents in relation to this issue. My position is in step with theirs. At the gambling forum I attended, we heard from one of my constituents, Merapi, who spoke about her and her husband's 20-year battle with gambling. Merapi uses her lived experience to help others. Her story is typical. Her encounter with the allure of gambling began by accident. Merapi and her friend had some time to kill between errands, so they walked into a nearby venue with pokies. She had never tried pokies before and decided, 'What the heck, let's have a go.' By chance, Merapi won the jackpot of the day, and so overwhelmed was she by what seemed like an easy win that she began a 20-year struggle with pokies. She eventually moved with her husband and children from New Zealand to Australia to hopefully help break the habit, only to find that it was easier to gamble here. The result of her addiction—and her husband's, who was also a gambler—saw them move to nine different houses, the repossession of their car and a life trapped in a constant struggle for the next jackpot. Merapi reflected on the miracle of at least keeping her family together. Today she enjoys a better and healthier life with her family and her grandchildren, and she dedicates her time to helping others. I urge the government to adopt all 31 recommendations—in particular, recommendation 26 of the report, which calls for the government, in cooperation with the states and territories, to implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling. The government, in its consideration, should not yield to the claims made by the gambling industry and the TV advertising market that to ban online ads will have a negative cost to the industry. Keith, from my electorate, wrote the following: 'The total TV advertising market, which includes all metropolitan free-to-air, regional free-to-air and catch-up TV, recorded revenue of $3.3 billion for the 2023-24 financial year. The commercial TV lobby, Free TV, estimates gambling ads contributed around $200 million of that revenue. This is just six per cent. Free-to-air television, for what it's worth, is not going to fold if they do not get the gambling revenue.' He finishes by saying, 'Bite the bullet and ban it.' Many other constituents have written to me requesting the same thing, and I urge the government to respond with a total ban on online advertising as the only way to address this scourge in our community. Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Rockhampton Airport 121 18:50 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Rockhampton and Capricorn Coast region is flourishing and transforming into one of Australia's most dynamic and resilient areas. It is a region on the rise, propelled forward by strategic investments exceeding $6 billion, demonstrating the confidence placed in Capricornia and its people. This extraordinary investment underscores the region's potential and its growing role as a vital contributor to our nation's economy. Key to this transformation is the emphasis on large-scale infrastructure projects—roads, water and capital works. They are not just shaping the Capricornia of today but building the foundation for its future. These developments are the backbone of progress, fostering connectivity, driving industry and empowering communities. One standout achievement in this wave of progress is the Shoalwater Bay Training Area upgrade. This $1 billion initiative recently celebrated its final critical milestone with an official opening, marking a significant chapter in Capricornia's growth story. Upgrades to the training area included establishing Camp Tilpal, which can accommodate up to 2,000 troops in addition to the 1,000 at already established Camp Growl. Furthermore, a new administration building, field kitchen and dining area, medical building, exercise control centre, landing zone, logistic facilities and new road infrastructure have been transformative for the training grounds. Shoalwater Bay is not just any training area. It is a world-class facility, one that has earned its reputation as one of the best military training grounds globally. Its historical significance is equally compelling. First used to prepare Australian troops for deployment during the Vietnam War, Shoalwater Bay has since evolved into a cornerstone of our defence capability, hosting Australian and international forces alike. Covering a staggering landmass five times the size of Singapore, it is a truly unique asset in our region and for our nation. The upgrades we celebrate were made possible through a visionary partnership back in 2015. The former coalition government laid the groundwork for the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative, an integral part of the comprehensive strategic partnership between Australia and Singapore. Once fully realised, the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative will extend Singapore's armed forces training duration from 45 days to a nine-week annual program. As the initiative matures, up to 14,000 Singapore Armed Forces troops will train in Australia for up to 18 weeks a year. The upgrades to the Shoalwater Bay Training Area represent a monumental transformation, enhancing its capacity and functionality to meet the demands of modern military training. This initiative not only strengthened our bilateral ties with Singapore but also unlocked unprecedented investment opportunities. The ASMTI has delivered more than $1.25 billion in benefits to Central Queensland, directly contributing to the prosperity of our local communities. But this wasn't just about infrastructure. It was about ensuring that the people of Capricornia reap the rewards of this partnership. We insisted on a strong focus on local industry participation, knowing that our skilled workforce and businesses were ready to rise to the occasion. I am proud to report that more than 80 per cent of the work associated with this initiative was carried out by regional Queenslanders. This is a testament to the talent, expertise and dedication of the people who call this region home. From creating jobs and upskilling workers to boosting local businesses, the Shoalwater Bay upgrades have delivered benefits that will echo for generations. This success was not achieved by chance. It was a result of bold leadership and community action. A dedicated committee was formed comprised of local businessowners and key lobby groups to drive local content for this project. Their tireless advocacy and innovative thinking brought about new initiatives that changed the way Defence interacts with local businesses. This committee didn't stop at advocacy; they took action. They spearheaded a trade delegation to Singapore, forging cohesive and strong relationships that strengthen ties with our partners abroad. This delegation provided the confidence needed for local businesses to work together, demonstrating how collaboration could yield remarkable results. Through their efforts, a successful partnership emerged between the local community and the project management company, Laing O'Rourke. This collaborative approach set a new benchmark for local engagement and ensured Central Queensland was not just a spectator in this development but an active and integral participant. The completion of these transformative upgrades have unlocked new opportunities for further development across the region. One key asset poised to capitalise on this growth is the Rockhampton Airport, the primary gateway to Central Queensland and the critical arrival point for thousands of troops each year. However, the airport's full potential is still to be realised. Thanks to the over $44 million in federal funding that I proudly secured, the airport is already on its way to becoming a cornerstone of regional growth. This funding has enabled the development of a state-of-the-art aircraft maintenance facility and essential terminal upgrades, positioning Rockhampton Airport as the central hub for tourism business and the future possibilities of freight and international travel. Despite this progress, there remains an urgent need for the addition of Bay 7, a crucial infrastructure upgrade to accommodate the increased aircraft movement during military exercise periods. With a record-breaking 58 aircraft movements recorded during Exercise Wallaby this year, the airport's capacity is being stretched to its limits. This sudden surge in activity underscores the need to seize this moment and invest in the infrastructure required to meet rising demand. Now is the time to recognise the airport's strategic importance not just as a military gateway but as a catalyst for future growth. By strengthening its capabilities we can unlock further investment, drive economic development and cement Rockhampton Airport's role as a linchpin for the region's prosperity. The construction of Bay 7 at Rockhampton Airport will enable multiple wide-body aircraft used for military movements to arrive and depart simultaneously. This vital addition will eliminate disruptions to regular passenger transport, ensuring the airport operates smoothly and efficiently even during peak military exercise periods. There is a pressing need for additional investment to extend the airport's facilities to provide critical infrastructure to support the arrival and departure of international troops. Currently, troops face the discomfort of waiting in the elements for processing, a situation that is neither practical nor befitting of the airport's role as a central hub for military and civilian operation. The growth potential at Rockhampton Airport is not limited to increased military exercises. It also aligns with the agricultural expansion brought about by the development of Rookwood Weir, which will add an additional 76,000 megalitres of water to support agricultural productivity. This positions the region as a powerhouse for agricultural growth and export. A recent study conducted by CQUniversity highlights Rockhampton Airport's capacity to address critical supply chain gaps and establish itself as a major air transport hub in the heart of Central Queensland's intensive agricultural production zone. With the region already renowned for being one of Australia's most productive agricultural areas, producing premium beef, grains, legumes and tropical fruits, there is a unique opportunity to export these high-value, perishable commodities to Asia's growing markets. The advantages are clear. Existing free trade agreements with multiple Asian nations provide the framework to increase trade, but the challenges lie in ensuring our produce reaches international markets swiftly and in prime condition. Currently, with the nearest major air transport hub located more than 600 kilometres away, these commodities face critical delays that risk their quality and market competitiveness. Rockhampton Airport, strategically located on Queensland's east coast, has been identified by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts as a priority airport for development. Its central location and proximity to intensive agriculture makes it the ideal hub to facilitate airfreight for the region. My vision is clear to see Central Queensland grow and thrive by expanding Rockhampton Airport's capacity not just for increased aircraft movements but also to tap into the region's agricultural potential. By developing a cold and dry storage facility, we can bring the airport in line with other major airfreight hubs, ensuring our agricultural commodities reach overseas markets efficiently and competitively. This investment will position Central Queensland as a leader in agricultural exports and unlock new economic opportunities for the region. The opportunities before us are immense. From the strategic upgrades at Shoalwater Bay to the transformative potential of Rockhampton Airport, Central Queensland stands at the threshold of unprecedented growth. These initiatives are not just investments in infrastructure. They are investments in our people, our businesses and our future. By seizing these opportunities, we can position Capricornia as a powerhouse of industry, agriculture and international collaboration. It is my unwavering commitment to ensure that the people of Central Queensland benefit from these developments, that our communities thrive and that we lay the foundation for long-term prosperity. The time to act is now, and together we can secure a brighter, stronger future for our region. Climate Change 123 19:01 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley I rise to speak about climate change and the transition to renewable energy. In my first speech I spoke about my commitment to climate action and the transition to renewable energy. This is an important issue that this government is committed to acting on. We all know that there is so much work to do globally to combat climate change. The figures are increasingly worrying. The State of the climate 2024 report highlights that Australia's climate has warmed by an average of 1.51 degrees since national records began. The warmer weather has led to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events over land and in the oceans. There has been a reduction in rainfall of between nine and 16 per cent across Australia. Since 1950, there has been an increase in extreme fire weather and longer fire seasons across large parts of the country. Sea levels are rising around Australia, including more frequent, extreme high levels that increase risks to coastal infrastructure and communities. These are grim facts. There is no denying it, but we must accept the reality. More must be done—now more than ever. What hasn't helped is the nine years of utter chaos in climate policy under the Liberals. How many different policies did they have? The only one I remember is the National Energy Guarantee, which sunk Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership. After a decade of delay from the Liberals, Australians voted for climate action, and, with the Albanese Labor government in charge of this country's energy policy, we have taken steps to transition Australia to a renewable energy future. We have set in law a target of net zero emissions by 2050, working towards reducing Australia's emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. This target was included in Australia's nationally determined contribution communication 2022, under the Paris Agreement. The Australian government launched the Net Zero in Government Operations Strategy in November 2023 to describe how it will achieve this target. These targets are supported by renewable energy legislation that was introduced earlier this year by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. A key initiative working towards our net zero target is the installation of solar panels. Australia is leading the world in rooftop solar. Recently, Minister Bowen attended the four-millionth solar panel installation in Australia, which is a milestone for Australia's solar industry and a milestone for Australia's energy consumers. Just today, the Minister for the Environment and Water announced a new solar farm near Bendigo, in Victoria, to power 118,000 homes. This is another important milestone in the government's plan to make Australia a renewable energy superpower. Solar energy on our rooftops is in many ways the most important form of energy in our national energy market. What we know is that, if you put rooftop solar on your roof today, you will save money on your energy bills tomorrow. But we've got a lot more to do. We've got to help families further by reducing their cost of living with solar panels and batteries. Speaking of batteries, a couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of hosting Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy in Dunkley to visit the site of a soon-to-be-built Carrum Downs community battery. Funded by the federal government to the tune of $500,000, this battery will be built by United Energy with support from Frankston City Council. The battery will store excess rooftop solar when supply exceeds demand, storing it for when there is strain on the energy grid, ensuring that locals in the Carrum Downs area can access electricity. This will save many residents across the area significant amounts of money when there is a spike in the wholesale price. In addition to this, we have delivered energy efficiency grants to support small business. The Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy and I were pleased to visit Ding, the owner of Fat Chef Cafe in Carrum Downs, who recently a $21,000 grant to install an electronic oven to reduce emissions and reduce his gas bill. Another issue is the chronic amount of pollution and plastics in our natural environments. In my electorate of Dunkley, we see with our own eyes the significant impacts of plastic litter and plastic being washed up on our beaches each day, impacting our environment, our local wellbeing and the visitor economy, particularly after the recent storms. Every year, 1.84 billion single-use cups are wasted by Australians, contributing to health, litter, landfill and climate change. According to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 130,000 tonnes of plastics leak into the marine environment in Australia every year. Globally, it is estimated that over 12 million tonnes of plastic leaks into the ocean every year. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, based on current trends there will be more plastic than fish, by weight, in the ocean by 2050. I recently met with the Boomerang Alliance, who has been shining a light on the use of plastic packaging, which, in Australia, is excessive, wasteful and dangerous to the environment and our wildlife. They have developed a stewardship model packaging framework, including guidelines for a best-practice scheme to inform the proposed Commonwealth scheme. The scheme will include guidelines and principles for packaging and circular economy arrangement. The framework is built on the premise that businesses producing or selling packaging have a responsibility beyond the design and use of their packaging—to contribute towards it being collected, reused, recycled and composted. I also met with Common Grace, a Christian organisation committed to campaigning for justice. One of the areas they do the most campaigning on is climate justice and action. In Dunkley, we have many passionate locals working hard to address the impacts such as Plastic Free Places, which has been running across the region for several years. Plastic Free Places is supporting local businesses and organisations to adopt plastic-free practices—for example, carrying a reusable water bottle and taking their own cup for a takeaway coffee. It's small things like this that all of us can take action on to make a change. I'm excited to see more and more sporting events and festivals embracing reusables. We know we need to reduce our reliance on single-use plastics whilst avoiding the emissions and waste materials plastics produce. In Western Australia, we have recently invested $8 million into a bioplastic hub to break down and create compostable packaging. We know there is so much more to do and are working to change legislation to ensure targets are mandatory, not voluntary, so they are consistently achieved. Thanks to the local organisations, staff and dedicated volunteers from Dunkley and beyond that I have met with—Toby and Birte from Boomerang Alliance, Plastic Free Places, Beach Patrol Frankston, the South East Climate Change Alliance, Common Grace and Labor's own Environmental Action Network. We need passionate people and organisations advocating and facilitating projects and discussions that support much-needed reforms and change at an individual, community and national level. The Commonwealth government is taking a strong position through a range of strategies targeting business, supply and adaption, which is incredibly valuable. As I said in my first speech, I'm committed to taking action on climate change and to being a voice. I will do what I can as the MP for Dunkley to promote initiatives, share ideas, provide feedback and advocate for climate adaption for the sake of our children, our communities and our planet. There is more we can do, and we need to do it now. Who is going to join me? Waste Management and Recycling, Renewable Energy 125 19:10 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I'd certainly like to join the member for Dunkley in her campaign to reduce plastic waste in our environment because I think what she spoke about has a lot of support in the wider community across Australia. Indeed, when you consider what she said about the amount of plastic in our ocean environment, it is such a shame and a pity, and we need to do more. That huge whirlpool of rubbish, of debris, in the Pacific is a modern disgrace. There is absolutely no question. But I will take her up on one thing. This is a grievance debate, so let's be egregious about something, and that is her claim that if you put solar panels on your roof top, you will be paying less for your bills the following day. That is not the case; that is fanciful; that is folly. You have to pay for the solar panels. Whilst there might be some recompense in the long term, in the long run, it will not happen overnight, as she suggested. Don't just take my word for it; let's ask anybody who currently lives in Broken Hill. On Thursday 17 October, a severe storm knocked over seven TransGrid transmission towers in the far west of New South Wales, and that caused a power outage which lasted a full fortnight. It wasn't until 31 October that power was restored. People were being encouraged to reduce their power, to turn off unnecessary implements, but at the same time they were being told to turn off their solar panels because they didn't want to put more energy into a grid that was already reduced severely by the impact of these storms and reduced substantially by the fact that seven towers had been knocked over. It brings home very much the folly of being reliant too much on renewable energy, on just solar and wind. I appreciate that Broken Hill is connected via that big interconnector, that big transmission line. I appreciate that's how they get their power. Broken Hill should be an energy superpower. Goodness knows BHP had its genesis in that far-flung New South Wales town. So much wealth for this nation has been produced from that community, and yet, in this day and age, it can be knocked out for a fortnight. It is just so hard to believe. We talk about having a national, rational discussion about nuclear, and we have to. We have to, because if you place all of your eggs in one basket—and this is the rush to renewables that those opposite would want us to do—you are going to see more power outages of the like that we saw in Broken Hill last month. Labor's approach requires imposing 58 million solar panels, 3½ thousand new industrial wind turbines and up to 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines across the country. That might all be well and good for those city electorate types, because they are not going to have their vista disturbed by these massive transmissions lines. Energy experts have warned that the cost of Labor's rollout will be between—wait for this—$1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion. That is a lot of money. Of course, Labor comes to this argument and says: 'Well, what's nuclear going to cost? How long is it going to take?' Yes, it will take some time—some considerable time—but the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme wasn't built in a day, nor was Rome. It took a good quarter of a century to get that magnificent hydro-electricity project completed. Let's also consider that Snowy hydro wasn't necessarily a power project; it was first and foremost an irrigation project, and a lot of people forget that. The word of warning from what happened at Broken Hill last month should be very much on the towers. If we are going to build, as the energy experts suggest, 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, why shouldn't we make the extra investment of undergrounding those lines to prevent such calamities as having the towers knocked over and having communities the size of Broken Hill all but out of power for up to two weeks? This created such an impost on community members. Indeed, one person was administering his own at-home six-hour-long dialysis treatment three times a week. Try doing that when there's no power, but this was the case for kidney patient Leroy Johnson. He was trying to manage his medical condition amid rolling blackouts. You have to feel sorry for this fellow, but he wasn't alone. There were businesses completely knocked out of operation because of the situation, and it just went on and on. There is great folly in that. What we're also seeing across rural and regional Australia is situations where prime agricultural land is being taken up with these massive solar farms. Again, city types won't understand. They won't get it. They won't care, because it's not their vista that is being destroyed by these massive solar farms. Take the case of Maxwell residents Don and Lesley Kirkpatrick and their daughter Emily. Maxwell is on the Holbrook Road, on the way to Mangoplah, south of Wagga Wagga. The Kirkpatrick family are quite concerned about the solar farm that is going to be plonked—and, yes, I mean plonked—right in front of their farm, and there's another one now slated for approval at The Rock. A development application was submitted to Wagga Wagga City Council by Green Gold Energy Pty Ltd. Don't you love the name? 'Green Gold'—let's be patriotic! They might be a very good company; I'm sure they are, but all too often these are foreign companies that have no substantial link to or understanding of the local area. They come in with these wonderful names and these very articulate community liaison people. They talk up the project and then off they go; you never see them again. The fact is they're putting forward plans for a $5.9 million solar farm to be constructed at 1,000 Burkes Creek Road. Again, it's prime agricultural land, and the Kirkpatricks are quite concerned. One thing I am really desperately worried about, as the Kirkpatricks and so many others are, is the fact that they are considered state priority projects. What happens is that the state government rides roughshod over the local council. It doesn't matter whether the development application has even been put in. The state government just takes control of the project. They say it's 'state significant' and then the project gets the tick of approval by the New South Wales government. Local councils don't get a say. They don't get any input into what is a major eyesore, as many would have it, on the local environment. That is the case on Holbrook Road, and the Kirkpatricks are rightly upset. You've then got projects right in Upper Laughlan, Yass Valley and Snowy Valleys, with the transmission lines going from Bannaby and Big Hill right through. I appreciate that we have to build nation-building infrastructure. I get that. I get that the energy grid is in more demand. I understand that. But there is a great folly in rushing to do this project and not taking into account what happened at Broken Hill, not taking into account the fact that undergrounding these power transmission lines might be the better option, albeit at a far greater cost. But we have to consider the local environment, we have to consider the implications of what happens in a complete knockout of the power system when you've got people on dialysis treatment and we have to consider the future. Foreign Aid, Occupied Palestinian Territories 126 19:20 Mr HWB Makin ZAPPIA () (): We live in uncertain times. The climate change transition, extreme weather events, global conflicts, tens of millions of displaced people or refugees around the world and now the cost of living all becoming global phenomena is leaving people feeling very insecure. For millions of people, life is worse than insecure; it is a struggle for survival. For people in war zones, fleeing conflict or living in extreme poverty, their survival is dependent on the generosity of others. A recent statement issued by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference said, about the state of the world: The last century was the most violent in human history, with the piles of corpses of Auschwitz and Hiroshima its demonic emblem. At the dawn of the new century and the third millennium there were hopes for a time of peace. But that was not to be. In 2022, it was reported that there were 55 state-based conflicts around the world and 82 non-state conflicts. According to the United Nations, this is the highest number of violent conflicts the world has faced since the Second World War. Two billion people live in countries wracked by such conflicts. We are all too aware of some conflicts such as the slaughter in Ukraine and the Holy Land, with the media saturated with reports of these wars and the immense human suffering they bring. But other conflicts – without the same global implications, perhaps – tend to be overlooked or forgotten. The scale of human suffering is immense, the loss incalculable. I recently met with representatives of Micah Australia, a coalition of Christian international development agencies who advocate for global justice. Micah is calling for Australian overseas aid to increase from the current figure of 0.68 per cent of the federal budget to one per cent, a figure that was surpassed—reaching 1.28 per cent—back in 2012. I acknowledge that, in dollar terms, the amount has actually risen, but, in proportion to the Australian budget, it has actually diminished. In support of their ask, Micah quotes the following statistics: 700 million people still live in extreme poverty, one in five children live in a conflict zone, and there has been an 80 per cent rise in humanitarian need since 2019. I understand well that, at a time when many Australians are struggling with the cost of living, there will be community pushback against Australia sending more money overseas. However, as Micah correctly points out, it is in Australia's national interest to provide overseas aid for the following reasons. Firstly, foreign aid provides security and stability for developing countries. Twenty-two out of 26 of Australia's nearest neighbours are developing countries. Foreign aid also provides increased economic security for developing countries and, in turn, trade opportunities for Australia, in addition to reduced migration pressures. Additionally, Australia has a moral obligation, as an advanced nation, to deliver life-changing services, support education and improve health outcomes in some of the world's poorest regions. Ten of Australia's top 15 export markets today are countries that once received Australian aid—proof that foreign aid ultimately has national benefits. In speaking about foreign aid, I also take this opportunity to recognise and thank the churches in the Makin electorate, which I represent, who almost without exception run overseas aid programs, as do most of the service clubs in Makin. Collectively, the aid provided by those groups changes lives. They don't have the resources and influence of governments but they do have the compassion and the moral conviction to make a difference, to the extent that they can, and they do this with individual programs. I personally know of some of the programs and the lives that have been changed by the people who are behind those programs. It's often said that problems are sometimes too big for small entities to do much about. It's a comment that I hear all too often: 'What can I do about it?' The reality is that if you can do something to change just one person's life, that is still worthwhile. The churches and service groups that I work with in the Makin electorate, who are all involved in foreign aid programs, are doing exactly that each and every day. With respect to foreign aid, I also want to touch on the situation in Palestine. Every day, we wake up to fresh news of bombings of civilian targets by Israel and the loss of more—sometimes dozens of—innocent lives, including women, children and elderly people. Indeed, one statistic I was looking at suggests that some 42,000 Palestinians have been killed since the 7 October event. In addition to all of those killed, there are tens of thousands who have been maimed or left homeless and without shelter, food and water. My concern is not only the loss of those lives. My concern is equally that foreign aid to assist those people who desperately need it is being obstructed. We read reports about that each and every day. Of course Israel has the right to defend itself, and the hostages held by Hamas should be freed. The atrocities that occurred on 7 October quite rightfully should be, and have been, condemned, and I condemn them equally. But that does not justify, in my view, the relentless brutality being inflicted upon the innocent Palestinian people trying to flee for their lives or simply trying to survive. Their lives also matter and they too have a right to live. The carnage is taking place whilst the world effectively looks on. I want to quote comments made by Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the International Court of Justice: Israel's commission of inhumane acts against the Palestinians as part of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination, and its intention to maintain that regime, are undeniably the expression of a policy that is tantamount to apartheid. This is also the conclusion reached by United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 2007 … mainstream organizations such as Amnesty International … and Human Rights Watch … and renowned Israeli human rights organizations. Recently, Australia voted with 158 other countries in recognising permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian lands. World opinion is turning against Israel, and the calls for Israel to stop the carnage and allow unrestricted aid to the Palestinian people are growing louder. I know that this matter has now been going on for over a year, and I do understand the complexities of it. But, whilst people argue about terminology—whether it's apartheid, whether it's genocide—to me that's a side issue. What matters to me is the lives of innocent people, each and every day, being lost. I understand that amongst those some 13,000 are children. I don't know if the statistics are absolutely accurate, but I suspect they are somewhere near the mark even if they're not. Yet that is happening whilst the world effectively looks the other way. It is time that the 'war'—call it what you like—is stopped. It is time that the killing is stopped. It is time that we provide the aid that those people desperately need. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BILLS 127 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 127

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

Second Reading 127 19:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar The Australian people are losing trust in the major parties, with a full third of them directing their votes outside of a major party at the last election. It is because of conduct like this—the hoodwinking of the Australian people by rushing legislation through parliament in the last sitting week of the year, critical legislation that goes to the heart of our democracy, and refusing to expose it to the sunlight and scrutiny of an inquiry, doing a backroom deal with the other major party to entrench their own positions—that the Australian people will continue to abandon them. They are being abandoned because of conduct like this. One last observation is that the government has many times as a justification for introducing these reforms said that we don't want to become like America. But I would suggest that in one critical respect this is exactly what this reform will do. By creating an unfair playing field and locking out new entrants because of that, the legislation will actually lock in the dominance of the two major parties for decades to come. We will have nothing but blue and red to choose from and very little else, just like has happened in America. With a duopoly, we are at risk of greater polarisation. What our democracy does need is more voices, more debate, more scrutiny and more competition. That's what we need in our parliament. So let's do better. I urge the government to send this bill for further scrutiny. (Time expired) 19:32 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney At the 2022 federal election, my community of North Sydney sent a clear message to the two major parties that they were done with a political environment that was set on ignoring them. They rose up, took their voices back and sent me, an Independent representative, to this place. At the same time, another 15 electorates decided they were done with the two-party duopoly and voted instead to send their own Independent or minor party representative to this place. As a result, the 47th parliament has benefited from a broader debate than it's possibly experienced since Federation as each crossbench member has determinedly shown up to fight for the reform we know our community wants. Fast forward to today and I cannot express how incredibly disappointed I am to find myself in this place debating a piece of legislation that is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to erase people like me from this parliament. In his own introductory statement accompanying this legislation, the assistant minister acknowledged that this is the most significant reform of our democracy in over 40 years. But, rather than give this legislation the light and oxygen it deserves, the government, colluding with the opposition, has decided to ram it through in the dying weeks of this parliament. And while some may claim, 'There's nothing to see here,' you need look no further than today's speaking list. It does not include a single major party representative. Now that's convenient. To try and argue that this bill is anything more than a stitch-up designed to kill off Independent politics is disingenuous at least and, at worst, it could almost be considered legislative fraud. Having seen this legislation for the first time on Sunday afternoon and then being briefed on it twice since and sleeping on it for two nights, I have no doubt that this is the two major parties rigging the rules of the game in their favour so that, in order to contest the opportunity to represent a community, you basically have to be part of a party. The bill before us does this in three broad ways. Firstly, it significantly increases the public funding provided to incumbents, creating a situation which provides an immediate additional benefit for the status quo and disincentivises challenges. Secondly, it caps the funding newcomers can have access to whilst ensuring the two-party system continues to be able to outspend an emerging Independent candidate by more than 1,000 times. Thirdly, it allows the major parties to get around caps by introducing special rules for nominated entities that safeguard the status quo of the major parties' largest donors while ensuring newcomers cannot establish an entity of an equivalent size. Ultimately, I wish I could stand here and say that I understand this bill inside and out, that I'd examined every detail and each provision and understood how they would work in practice, that I'd been able to consult a broad spectrum of experts and that my community had been given a chance to look at it and provide their thoughts. But none of that has happened. Rather, this bill has been rushed through this parliament without proper scrutiny. As we saw yesterday, despite the best efforts of the crossbench, it will not even go to inquiry. The legislation reeks of something born of arrogance and self-interest, and the way it is being railroaded through this place is out of touch with the kind of governance and policymaking the public want to see. To be clear, major party votes have been declining for 50 years, reaching their lowest level of 68 per cent in the last federal election. That year, nearly a third of voters went to minor parties or Independent candidates. But, ultimately, this bill sends a really clear message to communities like mine: 'We don't care what you want. We don't want to hear it. We don't want to acknowledge how you voted in 2022. We're just going to make it harder for you to vote that way in the future, because we can do it now. Let's face it: with so many of you turning away from us, if we leave this until the new parliament, where we may no longer have a majority control, your representatives may just take this democracy back and make it about you rather than us. And we can't have that.' The two major parties have failed to act sufficiently in the interest of their communities and have instead prioritised their own interests and big corporate donors. Rather than shift the dial by actually listening to communities, engaging in more participatory democracy or, God forbid, improving their policies, they are instead using campaign finance laws to entrench a major party duopoly. With all of that said, then, and the limited time I've had to get my head around this bill, it appears to me to be a really mixed bag of reform. There's what we'll call the potentially good; there's the obviously bad and the downright ugly. Let's start with the potentially good, because my community sent me here to fight for integrity in politics, and that has seen me consistently call for greater transparency, more accountability and truth in political advertising since day one. Ultimately, there's just enough potentially good sprinkled through this legislation for this government to market it as offering all of that. But, just like a sweet treat which has an artificial sweetener rather than good old-fashioned sugar, don't be fooled. Specifically, expediting donation disclosures is absolutely something my community would support, with the bill improving public reporting timelines and requiring gifts that meet the disclosure threshold to be disclosed sooner. It also lowers the donation threshold from the current $16,900 to a $1,000, which again is reform my community would welcome. The irony, however, is that the crossbench has been calling for this electoral reform on transparency and integrity measures for years, to no avail. For example, the member for Curtin, most recently in this term of parliament, tabled the fair and transparent elections bill, which, if adopted, would have lowered the disclosure threshold to $1,000, introduced real-time disclosures, prohibited misleading and deceptive electoral materials, broadened the definition of gift, included funding disclosure requirements and major donation caps, and prohibited certain political donations—yet the government wouldn't even debate it. From a practical perspective, I've also tried to walk the talk, publishing, with the permission of my donors, the details of donations I've received on my website in as close to real time as possible. While these reforms should be welcomed, then, the truth is that voters will continue to have complete transparency over what an Independent raises and spends in their seat but that the same will not be true of a political party member. For, while they will be bound to report on their spending associated with the $800,000 for their division, the additional marketing that their party can run—for example, a national television advertising campaign or billboards in specific locations—that don't include their name will not count against the individual and will instead disappear into the great unwashed budget of a $90 million spend. Ultimately, lower donation thresholds and real-time reporting could have been implemented at any point during this parliament with the support of the crossbench, yet the government has chosen to do a deal with the opposition, rather than work with us. That just about says everything you need to know. Let's get to the obviously bad, and that starts with spending caps. While this bill imposes spending caps at a divisional level, state level and federal level, as well as for Senate campaigns, these caps are riddled with loopholes that will ultimately benefit the legacy parties. The divisional cap is set at $800,000 per seat, meaning an independent candidate will only be allowed to spend up to that amount, be they an incumbent or a challenger. A party candidate, however, while in theory being subject to the same divisional spending cap, is free to have their campaign topped up with executions that are funded under a federal cap of $90 million. I acknowledge a political party that is contesting every lower house seat and every Senate seat and is committed to spending the same amount in every seat would not be able to top up every seat without breaching their $90 million federal cap. But let's be clear—that's not how political parties work. They target specific seats, concentrating their funds on a handful of seats. Under this legislation, then, political parties will be able to outspend independent candidates in targeted seats many times over. Next, the bill introduces a new funding stream innocuously called administrative funding assistance. Administrative funding would see every MP in the House of Reps receive $30,000 per year whilst every senator receives $15,000 a year. In the case of an Independent, that money would come directly to me, but for a party those funds will be consolidated, and the party machine would receive this funding as quarterly payments. This means that the vast majority of this funding will go to the major parties based on the false premise that administrative costs increase proportionately with the number of members. They do not. Most of the costs of running a political party are fixed, and it makes no sense to presume they would increase in a direct line in relation to the number of members. Insultingly, the government has intimated these provisions have been included predominantly at the behest of Independents like me to cover what are some real compliance costs that come with contesting a seat—things like a lawyer and accounting fees. When it's just you as one person, you bear wholly and solely. But, looking at the detail, it seems that not only will the major parties receive disproportionately larger amounts of administrative funding, but they're also able to use it on a range of expenditures, including things like conferences, seminars, meetings or 'similar functions at which policies of a registered political party are discussed'. That means expenditure and equipment, including vehicles used by staff, or, fascinatingly, expenditure on interest payments on loans. Come on! Give me a break! There's no way my community would support the implementation of an administrative assistance fund, no matter how it's dressed up. Moving on to nominated entities, these are the bodies the political parties can use to make unlimited contributions to their party coffers, and this is where it gets really confusing. While this legislation purports to be all about equalling the playing field and taking the big money out of the game, the truth is that these legacy entities attached to major parties have, over many years, accumulated massive assets without limitations on their donation caps. As such, they are yet another coup for the major parties, as extraordinarily—and wait for it—this legislation prohibits Independents from establishing a nominated entity and, due to the new donation caps, will make it almost impossible for a new party to build an entity of a similar size. It gets even better. While each existing registered party can have only one nominated entity, given that the major parties have multiple registered branches and each branch can have a nominated entity, you end up in a really surreal situation. The Australian Labor Party gets a nominated entity, but wait! The Labor Party New South Wales branch gets a nominated entity, but there's more. The Labor Party ACT branch gets a nominated entity. And don't forget the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party of Australia gets a nominated entity. The Liberal National Party of Queensland gets a nominated entity. The National Party of Australia gets a nominated entity. The National Party of Australia New South Wales gets a nominated entity. It goes on and on and on. There is so much wrong in this set-up that I'm not even sure how you'd begin to fix it, but we could start by ensuring the entities are also restricted by capped donations, just like every other third party. In closing, I'm sure there are many more questions arising from this legislation, including on topics like the pages of exclusions to gift caps. What do they really mean? And what about corporate donations caps? But I want to get to the downright ugly, and that is the process by which this bill is being rushed through this House with no committee hearing and no proper scrutiny. Frankly, it's disgraceful the government is using the excuse that the bill is based on high-level recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, otherwise known as JSCEM. To be clear, we all know the JSCEM inquiry was specifically tasked to look into the 2022 federal election. And, despite the fact that that election saw the largest number of Independents elected since Federation, there wasn't an Independent representative on that committee until the last day of hearing. Furthermore, much of this legislation was not recommended by that committee, and the committee has not seen this legislation. So let's just call that for what it is: convenient window-dressing. I'll double back to where I started. The assistant minister himself has said this is 'the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years'. Ordinarily, even minor changes to electoral laws would be subject to a parliamentary inquiry, yet the government and the opposition are happily working together to bring this baby home through the parliament in this term, and that says everything we need to know. This legislation is not designed to take big money out of politics; it's designed to prop up a flailing two-party system. And, if the major parties think they can quash the community Independent movement with this bill, they have greatly underestimated the movement along with the communities and the individuals at its heart. Really frustratingly and incredibly depressingly, the major parties have failed to recognise that democracy is at its healthiest—it's absolute healthiest—when it is based on a true contest of ideas. And, for that, history will judge them. 19:46 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth In summing up this debate, I want to say, once again, it is time to get big money out of Australian politics. It is time for spending caps so we don't have these multimillion-dollar campaigns raging through the suburbs of Australia, and it's time for ideas, not bank balances, to decide elections. It's time for the people of Australia to be given their power back. That's what the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 does. This bill is the result of more than two years of committee inquiries, reports, recommendations, careful drafting, consideration and consultation, including consultation with those on the crossbench. More than two years ago, in August 2022, the Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon. Don Farrell, wrote to the multipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and he asked them to inquire. They gave us their report, and we said we would accept those recommendations and act on them. That's exactly what the government are doing, and we're doing it by reducing the donation disclosure threshold. We're doing it by requiring regular and rapid disclosure of donations. We're doing it by capping political donations. I note that earlier in the debate we had someone say that a $20,000 donation was not big. I think, for most Australians, they'd think, if someone's got $20,000 to hand over to a political candidate of their choice, that is big. We're going to do it by capping campaign spending to level the playing field and provide greater access for individuals and entities to participate in the political debate. We're going to do it by introducing a new system of administrative funding to increase public funding and to offset some of the impacts of this legislation. Labor has had a longstanding commitment to sensible, long-lasting electoral reform. Australia's democratic system is the envy of the world, but we can make it stronger. Multiple inquiries from multiple elections have told us that the biggest weakness in our electoral system is big money, and I think the Australian people will be asking themselves: why do some oppose getting big money out of our political system? Over the last decade, we've seen billionaires repeatedly attempt to sway our elections not through policy or participation but through money and misinformation. What we saw from the recommendations for this bill from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was a path to get big money out of politics, and I want to walk that path. Through this legislation, we have the opportunity—we can all choose to vote to restore transparency to donation laws and expenditure and to keep big money out of our political system. The consultation has been extensive. It's been deliberate, and it's been considered. In recognition of this, it's the result of two years of committee inquiries, reports, recommendations and detailed drafting. When it comes to the detail of this, I draw all members' attention to the explanatory memorandum, where it clearly states, on the regulatory impact, which is a requirement we have for significant changes—I do agree with those opposite that this is a significant change, but it says this: Consistent with the Government's Impact Analysis requirements, the report of the JSCEM into the conduct of the 2022 federal election has been certified by the Department of Finance as meeting the requirements of an Impact Analysis Equivalent. It draws directly on that report as the consultation and impact analysis for this legislation before the parliament right now. Further, the explanatory memorandum says very clearly: T he amendments have been assessed as compatible with Australia's human rights obligations . Again, I draw everyone's attention to that explanatory memorandum. I note that Minister Farrell has been public about the need for and the drafting of both donation and spending caps. This should not come as a surprise especially to anyone in this parliament or, further, to anyone who's been following this in the Australian public policy debate. The position we have from those on the crossbench is to not have a spending cap. They believe that there should not be a spending cap. That is unsustainable. This bill simply implements important recommendations to establish those caps. In 2022 we saw some candidates spend over $2 million on their campaigns. I remember driving through the electorate of Curtin on a regular basis during that campaign, and you couldn't see a fence anywhere in the electorate of Curtin; they were all plastered with signs from various parties and candidates. This bill provides greater access for individuals and entities to participate in political debate. We know that expenditure caps are already in place in several Australian state and territory jurisdictions as well as in international jurisdictions with similar democracies to Australia. I thank members who have engaged on this bill for their contributions during the debate. I think it's important to note a few things as we go through some of what we've seen. The member for Kooyong said, 'The government's proposal to impose restrictive donation caps, while sensibly reducing undue influence, will have significant consequences on the ability of challengers to fund competitive campaigns.' That is simply opposing donation caps. That's a legitimate policy position for people to have, but I think we should call it out for what it is. The member for Warringah said, 'We should require proper consideration of the consequences and effect it will have as a major piece of electoral reform.' I agree with that. That's why, for more than two years, we've had inquiries into this; we've had the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters do it. We then saw what I thought was the best acrobatics in this debate from the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Australian Greens. He said: 'There are some good measures in what the government is proposing in many respects because they picked up measures we've been advocating for, for a long time. We in the Greens want big money out of politics. We've been arguing that for years.' This is step 1 in the model of the Australian Greens: take credit for the work of others. Step 2 is then to obstruct. The Australian people would like to see everyone in this parliament say that it's time to get big money out of Australian politics. The member for Mayo said, 'Electoral reform is critical if we are to maintain confidence in the political system.' While I don't agree with all of her contributions, on that I agree. Again, this bill gives an opportunity to do that. The member for Mackellar described the $20,000 donation cap as 'low'. That's not the view of the government. We think a $20,000 donation cap is significantly higher than what most people in the Australian public could afford to donate to a single candidate of their choice. It's a very high donation cap. We saw the member for Curtin say: 'More transparency is a good thing. Bring it on.' But she then said that she thinks that this bill should not proceed. We saw the member for Curtin say that transparency reform is 'too little, too late' but apparently it's also too much. What that all leads us to is that we need to acknowledge that there are a number of things in this bill that level the playing field. That was a very clear question put to the government by the member for Indi, and I will talk about how this levels the playing field. It provides greater access for individuals and other entities to participate in political debate. This levels the playing field by stopping the arms race so that candidates are not outspending each other. Think about how much Josh Frydenberg spent in his contest with the now member for Kooyong—millions and millions of dollars. It will bring things down. It will lower the temperature. It will allow the Australian public to spend more time considering. We will also have restrictions on registered political parties where they will be bound to one set of expenditure caps for national divisions and states or territories. We'll have capped entity electoral expenditure for third parties and associated entities—something we haven't seen before in Australian politics. That will reduce the influence of third parties who are seeking to engage in Australia's democratic processes while still entitling them to the ability to do so. We had costs associated with managing affairs raised through consultation by independent members of the parliament. The need to have funding for the costs associated with managing affairs of members in complying with this was raised during the process. That's why the funding applies to all elected members equally to ensure they have financial support to comply with the regime. It also provides for a regulation-making power to provide for amounts to be paid in advance of election funding for a future election. I want to note that when it comes to gifts and donations, every single member of the crossbench who sits as an Independent can receive $20,000 from an individual donor. That donor could donate to member after member after member of the crossbench, but, when it comes to candidates of registered political parties, they are bound by the party donation cap. That again shows there has been significant consideration to the needs raised by those on the crossbench. We'll do things that many have agreed to throughout this debate, which is to start capturing more things, such as fundraising events and business forum events, to ensure they are counted as donations and count towards the cap. Some of the contributions didn't accurately acknowledge that, but I want to say very clearly that is what this bill does. It also ensures that we have strong, clear measures and penalties that are targeted at schemes and mechanisms that are designed to avoid those caps. If I go to the amendment that's in front of us—the second reading amendment—the government will not be supporting this amendment. Despite the repeated attempts to delay reform by members, the government is of the view that it is time for action. This legislation and the provisions held within it have been subject to multiple inquiries over multiple terms of the parliament. As the minister in the other place has made clear, no coherent argument has been made by opponents of this legislation. Way back since the initial recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in November 2023, the minister has welcomed the views suggestions and proposals from all members in this parliament. It is very misleading, incorrect and disappointing for anyone to indicate that these reforms are a surprise. The amendment itself contains a number of inaccuracies with no evidence or basis. I also note that my calculation of the impact of the request in part (b) is that the member wants every candidate when they nominate to receive administrative funding. At the last election for the House of Representatives, there were 1,203 people who nominated. Under this proposal, if we were to give $30,000 on nomination to each of those candidates, my calculations are that would be $36 million before a single vote has been cast. If members have suggestions for improvements or amendments to the legislation, put those forward, but let's debate the legislation. Let's not kick this off. It is time to get big money out of Australian politics. What I want is what I think most Australians want. What the government wants is what most Australians want, too. That is what this bill delivers. It gets the influence of big money out of politics to make sure our electoral system remains a system we can all trust—trust that election results are not unfairly skewed by big money, that elections are a contest of ideas not a contest of bank balances and that we know who is funding election campaigns, with more information about who is providing that money on and before election day. Australia has an electoral system that is the envy of the world. This bill will enhance and strengthen our elections and Australia's representative democracy. I really do close by thanking again the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their recommendations. We've adopted it as the impact analysis compliance for this explanatory memorandum. I thank the committee chair, the member for Jagajaga Kate Thwaites, for her dedicated work, and I thank the Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon. Don Farrell and his team for delivering this bill. I also thank all of those who have worked on it from the Department Finance and those who have given advice through the Electoral Commission and elsewhere. I commend this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Warringah has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill be returned to the House for further consideration. Cyber Security Bill 2024, Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024, Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024 133

Cyber Security Bill 2024

Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024

Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024

Second Reading 133 20:00 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I'm very pleased to take the opportunity to speak on the Cyber Security Bill 2024 today. I first raised the issue of ransomware in this parliament more than seven years ago, in 2017. It has long been an area of interest and concern to me—including during the last parliament, when I was the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity. I should also acknowledge that it's an area of interest for others here in this chamber today. In that term, I introduced a private member's bill dealing with these issues, the Ransomware Payments Bill 2021, which would have formed a policy foundation for a coordinated government response to the threat of ransomware. As Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, I was pleased to work with the then cybersecurity minister, the member for Hotham, on the international chapter of the 2023-2030 Australian Cyber Security Strategy, launched in November last year. This recognised that the evolving challenges of cyberspace required us to work with our international partners to uphold international law and norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace and to impose costs on bad actors that make cyberspace less safe and less secure. The strategy sets out how we will improve cybersecurity, manage cyber-risks and better support Australians and Australian businesses in cyberspace. This includes reinforcing our cyberdefences; strengthening our resilience, or our ability to bounce back from cyber incidents; deterring and responding to malicious actors; and working closely with international partners—reducing the returns to bad actors targeting Australia with cybercrime and increasing the costs to them of targeting our businesses. This bill delivers on measures promised by our government in that strategy. It takes necessary steps to ensure that Australians and Australian businesses can enjoy the full benefit of the internet, while keeping us safe. There's an urgent need for this bill. The previous government did little to address these threats. When I introduced the private member's bill on ransomware from opposition, the Australian Cyber Security Centre had identified ransomware as the greatest cyberthreat facing Australian business, but the current Leader of the Opposition—the previous home affairs minister and defence minister—has never even used the word 'ransomware' in parliament. Last year, ransomware was still the most destructive cybercrime threat to Australians, causing up to $3 billion in damages to the Australian economy, and ransomware attacks are only becoming more prevalent in our world. This bill will lay the foundation for a co-ordinated strategy to fight ransomware. It will introduce a mandatory reporting obligation for entities that are affected by a cyber incident, receive a ransomware demand and elect to make a payment or give benefits in response to that demand. This is essential for us to be able to develop a fuller picture of ransomware attacks in Australia and the scale of the threat, enabling a more coordinated government response. Even prior to this bill, the Albanese Labor government was already taking steps to tackle ransomware. Australia has led the International Counter Ransomware Task Force since January 2023, driving international cooperation on countering ransomware, including through information and intelligence sharing, and facilitating collaboration with law enforcement. We provided an additional $75 million to the AFP to boost the Hack the Hackers program. This is an investment that will equip the police, who are responsible for fighting cybercrime, with the skills and capabilities needed to disrupt these actors and protect the community. The Australian Federal Police and the Australian Signals Directorate established Operation Aquila in November 2022 to investigate, target and disrupt cybercriminal syndicates. Ransomware threat groups were a priority, and under Operation Aquila the AFP and ASD, with other agencies and international partners, were able to link Mr Aleksandr Ermakov to the breach of the Medibank Private network. Following very substantive efforts across these agencies, in an Australian first, we used Australia's cybersanctions powers on Mr Ermakov for his role in the cyberattack earlier this year. Our cybersanctions framework was established to deter and frustrate cybercriminals, to impose costs on them for their activities. It enables us to sanction a person or entity in relation to a significant cyberincident with a targeted financial sanction and/or travel ban. This disrupts their ability to conduct their business by limiting their access to the financial system, including crypto exchanges, and their ability to travel overseas. It also reveals their identity and their tradecraft, exposing cybercriminals who trade in anonymity, and makes it more difficult for them to conduct their activities. Frankly, being sanctioned is bad for business. Cybersanctions are now a key tool for us to consider when responding to significant cyberincidents. I am pleased that since sanctioning Aleksandr Ermakov we have also sanctioned a further four Russian cybercriminals and imposed cybersanctions on three people for their involvement in the Evil Corp cybercrime group: Maksim Viktorovich Yakubets, Igor Olegovich Turashev and Aleksandr Viktorovich Ryzhenkov. They had senior roles in Evil Corp. I called for Mr Yakubets to be sanctioned during debate in this place during the introduction of the Magnitsky legislation in 2021. I said at that time: … Maksim Yakubets, the leader of the Evil Corp ransomware group in Russia, has been sanctioned by the US government. He drives a fluoro camouflaged Lamborghini with the licence plate 'Thief'. That kind of impunity needs to end. So it was particularly satisfying to see the Australian government sanction him last month. We have also sanctioned Dmitry Khoroshev for his senior leadership role in the LockBit ransomware group. We have taken clear steps to deter cybercriminals from targeting Australians. The Australian Cyber Security Centre also provides ransomware guidance to help Australians and businesses protect themselves and respond to ransomware attacks. They are available to provide assistance 24/7. One key piece of advice from the ACSC, and something that I have said here in this place before, is that you should never pay a ransom, ever. Paying a ransom does not guarantee that you will regain access to your information or prevent further disruption. It doesn't guarantee that your data won't be sold or leaked. But it does provide criminal organisations with further resources and incentivises further cybercrime, putting even more Australians at risk. This is why we need a coordinated approach to tackling ransomware. We need a whole-of-nation effort to improve the government's threat picture to inform additional protections, current incident response procedures and future policy. That is what this bill does. It will not completely solving the ransomware issue. There are no silver bullets here. But it is a critical step. We understand that cybersecurity incidents can be sensitive issues. Targets of cyberattacks may be reluctant to report them. But we need to understand the cyberthreat landscape so the government can more effectively assist organisations with their incident responses as well as providing them with the information they need to protect themselves before these incidents occur. The reporting of cybersecurity incidents by members of the public and Australian businesses is crucial in this respect. That is why this bill will establish a limited use obligation that will restrict how information provided to us during a cybersecurity incident will be used to give Australians and Australian businesses confidence that the information they provide will be used appropriately. We are committing to protect the information that these businesses and Australians share with government by using and sharing it only with the government agencies and regulators where necessary and only for the purpose of assisting the incident responses. This is because the Albanese Labor government wants to work with you to protect you. This bill will also establish the power to mandate security standards for smart devices that are internet or network connected. These devices, like smart TVs, smart watches, baby monitors and home assistants, have become integral parts of our everyday lives, and our usage of and reliance on them continues to grow. Indeed, there are estimates that there will be more than 21 billion IoT devices connected to the internet globally by 2030. We want Australians to be confident in the safety of the digital products they buy, but at the moment there aren't any mandated cybersafety standards applied to IoT products. We saw the destructive capability of these IoT products during the Mirai botnet incident some years ago. So it is essential that the government makes sure that they are safe for Australians. Australian households and businesses are bearing the financial costs and negative societal effects of persistent and preventable cybersecurity incidents. We want to build trust in digital products so we can live in a country where safe digital products are the norm, and that's what this bill will help to build. The establishment of a cyber incident review board to conduct postincident reviews of significant cybersecurity incidents will help ensure Australia is well placed to better prevent, detect and respond to incidents in the future, and that mechanism will assess what happened in cybersecurity incidents of national importance. It will improve public understanding about what occurred and, by doing so, it should encourage the rest of the community to learn from the incident and uplift all of our cybercapabilities together, proving our national cyber-resilience. Now, building cyber-resilience is a shared global challenge, and Australia's security and prosperity are linked to our regions, so our efforts do not end at our national borders. Our flagship Cyber and Critical Technology Cooperation Program works across the Indo-Pacific to help countries maximise the opportunities and mitigate the risks related to cyberspace and critical technologies to enhance the resilience of the region. Last year I announced the establishment of the Pacific Cyber Rapid Assistance for Pacific Incidents and Disasters, the RAPID teams, to help respond to cybercrises in the Pacific when Pacific governments request the assistance of the Australian government. It's been a resounding success and warmly welcomed in the region. In many respects Australia is already a leader in cybersecurity, but this bill will ensure that Australia has a world-leading, robust cybersecurity regime going forward. The time to act is now, and I commend this bill to the House. 20:11 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak on the Cybersecurity Bill 2024 and related bills, which I spoke about only yesterday in tabling the report. After World War II began, Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, said of the Allies: They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done, and well armed, better than they, then they started the war! Today, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Korean Peninsula, once again a dark alliance of great powers has festered, working for many years to dismantle the global rules based order and, with it, Australia's democracy. 'Foreign interference corrodes our democracy, sovereignty, economy and community,' as Mike Burgess, the Director-General of Security, put so well in his annual threat assessment in February. As deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I know how deeply our competitors seek to embed themselves in our democracy, and one of their greatest tools is the mobilisation of cybercapabilities. Australian families and businesses know how dangerous a cyber incident can be. We all remember the Cambridge Analytica incident from January to June 2024 alone. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner saw 527 more notifications of cyberbreaches, impacting thousands of Australians. A third of these were what we call phishing attempt, a quarter were ransomware attacks and a fifth of these were brute-force hacking or malware attacks. While most incidents don't make the front-page news, Australians will recall a number of recent incidents. We saw the Medibank and AHM cyber incidents, which resulted in Australians' sensitive health and identifying information being leaked. This large-scale attack was one in a recent string of large-scale attacks hitting Optus and Latitude Finance. The ProctorU remote education service was hacked, with 444,000 people's data linked to the dark web. The Australian National University in 2018 fell victim to a sophisticated attack which impacted thousands of students, accessing data that was nearly 20 years old. In 2019 our very own parliament was hacked. The then head of the Australian Signals Directorate, or ASD, Mike Burgess, confirmed that cybercriminals using phishing methods sought to gain entry into the government's network, admitting that a small amount of data was taken. Thank God for parliament's cybersecurity unit—no sensitive data was accessed. Australians from all walks of life know that cyberinsecurity puts lives and livelihoods at risk. Stephane Nappo from CISO said: It takes 20 years to build a reputation and a few minutes of cyber-incident to ruin it. The impact of cyberinsecurity can be devastating, and Australian small and family businesses know this to be true as well. A former member of the US Homeland Security Council, Ted Schlein, said: … there are only two kinds of companies in the world, those who have been breached and know it and those that have been breached and don't know it. Sole proprietors, subcontractors, family restaurants, vendors, digital agencies and doctors' clinics all have access to sensitive financial, personal and legal data. And data is the treasure which digital pirates seek to loot. At this point I want to acknowledge the great work of an organisation called IDCARE, which is based in my electorate. IDCARE is a not-for-profit organisation that does tremendous work across Australia, helping tens of thousands of people a year when they have had their digital identities stolen or corrupted. I want to send a shout-out to Dave Lacey and his team at IDCARE and encourage people that, if they have been hacked, if their data has been stolen, if their identity has been stolen, they shouldn't waste any time; they should get on the phone to IDCARE and get some help as soon as they possibly can. This legislation is so very important. The three bills we're debating are designed to mandate minimum cybersecurity standards for smart devices; to introduce mandatory ransomware reporting for certain businesses to report ransom payments; to introduce limited-use obligations for the National Cyber Security Coordinator and the Australian Signals Directorate, or ASD; to establish a cyber incident review board and clarify, simplify, streamline, and align existing obligations, regulations and government assistance measures. Once again, this important legislation to bolster Australia's national security comes on the back of the hard work and advocacy of the coalition. Yet again we are leading the government from opposition when it comes to keeping Australians safe. We put legislation on the table for ransomware action on more than one occasion. Labor obfuscated, dithered and delayed before finally relenting, just like they did on social media reform. The issues in this bill are no different. In the Cyber Security Bill 2024, the proposed mandatory standards for smart devices are welcome, but they are long overdue. This proposal was first canvassed by the former coalition government in our 2021 cybersecurity strategy discussion paper. The same can be said about limited-use obligations. The coalition first called for legislated limited-use obligations on 22 March 2023. We called for the construction of a cyber incident review board, identifying that our country needed a mechanism to conduct objective investigations following significant cyber incidents. In line with recommendation 5 of the PJCIS report, the coalition is committed to seeing members of the Cyber Incident Review Board drawn from industry, academia and the Public Service. As the PJCIS outlined in our report tabled just yesterday: While it is appropriate for senior public servants—including representatives of relevant statutory agencies such as ASD—to be included on the CIRB and in the exercise of its powers, the Committee has heard from some of a desire to also include representatives external to government. Coalition members expect that the government will, along with addressing the remainder of the 13 recommendations of the PJCIS, take action accordingly to address our concerns and the concerns raised by small businesses and Australia's higher education sector. It is action that Australians and their businesses expect on matters as important as these. If this careless Labor government had moved more quickly with these reforms, it may have gone some way to boosting the willingness of businesses to share information with ASD in a timely and meaningful way. The consultation process that preceded this legislation proves that the small business community and private sector are beginning to understand their role and responsibilities, as well as the threats and opportunities, when it comes to Australia's national security. What this process shows is that industry is ready to engage with the government and this parliament in developing policy, building capacity and responding to Australia's security threats. It's clear to me that the Australian business community is well and truly ready to contribute to the development of a national security strategy. While I am pleased to see the government getting on board with the coalition's groundbreaking work to bolster Australia's cybersecurity, more must be done. We can't keep patching up our national security framework with quick fixes, bumper-sticker announcements and piecemeal bills. Cybersecurity, foreign interference, bribery, money laundering, border security and immigration, military secrets, scam prevention and social media reform are all important areas of legislation which the parliament has considered over the last few years, a number of them spearheaded by the coalition. But it's time to look at the bigger picture and begin developing and implementing a comprehensive national security strategy which is responsive, forward thinking and meaningful—not just a bandaid fix. Security should be built in, not a bolt-on in response to some media coverage or public incident. It's time for an integrated strategy that would engage Australian industry, academia, the community and all governments in developing a comprehensive plan to bolster Australia's self-reliance, sovereignty and security. Our AUKUS partners have implemented their own national security strategies, while our government has cut back on border security, crippled the space and defence industry, and dithered and delayed on cybersecurity. Once again, I want to pay tribute to the late, great Jim Molan AO DSC, former senator and major-general, whose fierce advocacy for a grand national security strategy continues to inspire so many, including me. We can talk all we want about a defence strategy, a defence industry plan, a cybersecurity strategy or a ransomware action plan, but to what end? As Jim Molan said: How can there be a defence strategy without an overarching and comprehensive national security strategy? What good is it to have a brilliant defence strategy without national liquid fuel, industry, pharma, science and technology, manpower, diplomacy and stocking policies … We learnt during COVID that Australia is behind the eight ball when it comes to global supply of essential goods and services. Medicines and medical equipment; veterinary medicine for livestock; fuel for transport; manufacturing; power; defence; food and primary produce; space defence; biosecurity; market stability; cybersecurity; and land, sea and air defence are all important components of Australia's integrated national security. It's time that we addressed them as a whole and not in part, not in a piecemeal fashion. I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues in the PJCIS. I have served on many, many committees in this place. I've chaired many of them and I've deputy-chaired many of them, and I can honestly say that the PJCIS has the highest workload of any committee that I have ever served on. It is not unusual for the PJCIS to be working on 14 inquiries at any one point in time. I want to extend a shout-out to the former chair, the member for Wills. I said this yesterday and I'll say it again: the member for Wills is a good man who believes in the importance of the security of this nation. I think the member for Wills has been through a rough trot in recent times, and I wish him the best in his new role. I also want to give a shout-out to the new chair, Senator Raff Ciccone, who has already demonstrated a terrific grasp on the issues that we deal with in this committee. I look forward to working with him, as I do with all members of the committee. The PJCIS is too important a committee to get bogged down in petty politics. There is no greater obligation on any member who serves in this place than to keep Australians safe. The PJCIS is really at the tip of that spear in ensuring that our security and intelligence agencies do what they say they're going to do and act in accordance with the law, and I'm very proud to be a part of it. I thank Australian industry for their ongoing vigilance when it comes to cybersecurity, although there's much more work to be done. I call on this government to take seriously its responsibility to protect Australians and secure our future. It's well over time to introduce a comprehensive integrated national security strategy. Now let's just get it done. 20:26 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta In July this year I was given the honour of being appointed the Special Envoy for Cyber Security and Digital Resilience by the Prime Minister. In this role I've had the opportunity to speak with dozens of stakeholders—from micro tech startups to multinational corporations, from sole operators to ASX 200 companies, from individual victims of cybercrime to international government counterparts. What I've learnt from these discussions is that cybersecurity is a critical issue that needs to be addressed at different scales with different groups and at different levels of technicality. Unlike other national security issues, the uplift of Australia's cybersecurity is a team sport. It cannot be done by government alone. It requires an interconnected and engaged group of stakeholders from across public and private sectors, working together towards the common goal of ensuring that Australian citizens and businesses can live, work and learn safely and securely online. The legislative reforms that we're debating today take some key steps towards a digitally secure and safe future. It's another significant reform that this government is bringing forward to unlock the gains that the digital economy can provide for all Australians, following work across government, such as the Attorney-General's privacy reforms, the Treasury's anti-scam reforms and the communications portfolio's misinformation and disinformation reforms. This package includes our nation's first cybersecurity act, which, together with reforms to the Intelligence Services Act, contains four critically important measures. First, the bill will create a framework for setting mandatory security standards for smart devices. At the end of 2023 there were 109 million smart devices in Australia, there being at least one device in 73 per cent of Australian homes. By the end of 2027, there are likely to be 353 million devices in Australia, worth over $2.1 billion to the Australian economy. The Cyber Security Bill will create a framework by which any smart device sold in Australia will meet three security requirements. Firstly, each device will be sold with its own unique password, ensuring that a widescale cyberattack cannot be perpetrated on the owners of a particular piece of technology. Secondly, each device will have fault-reporting capabilities so that manufacturers have the information needed to remedy and identify vulnerabilities. Thirdly, each device will come with the information the purchaser needs to know about regularly updating the software in their device, so that any cyber vulnerabilities in software are removed as soon as possible. These critical changes will create a baseline of cybersecurity standards across Australia's smart device market, making our everyday lives safer and more secure. Second, the cybersecurity bill creates a requirement for businesses above a prescribed level of annual turnover to report ransomware payments to government. Ransomware remains one of the most destructive types of cybercrime in Australia, with the capacity to cripple digital infrastructure through the encryption of devices, files and folders, rendering essential computer systems inaccessible or inoperable. This reform is not the government stepping back from its advice that a ransom should never be paid. That is still our advice. Ransoms fund further criminal activity, and there is no guarantee that, if you pay a ransom, your network or information will be handed back. In fact, for many businesses, if they pay a ransom they're giving a signal to the market of their willingness to pay, putting themselves at risk of further and subsequent attacks. Instead, what the government is saying with this requirement is that we want to make sure we have a full picture of the ransomware threat in Australia. There has been some public commentary that this reporting obligation will create unnecessary stress for small businesses that may be captured under the $3 million annual threshold, but the 72-hour timeframe for making a report only starts from the time that that ransom is paid, which may be some time after the incident itself occurs, and it will only be enforced in cases of egregious noncompliance. The penalty for noncompliance is not a punitive measure for acts done in good faith, as the bill clearly outlines. Whilst those on the other side think that we should just be slapping an economy-wide ban on making any ransomware payment, the Albanese government wants to build an evidence base upon which a decision can be made. Having a thorough understanding of ransomware payments in Australia allows the Australian government to build a tailored package of assistance and guidance for victims, to assist in law enforcement and the disruption of threat activities, and, in future, to have the data to make an evidence based decision on whether a ransomware ban is suitable for Australia. This is evidence based policy, not shooting from the hip. The third measure in the cybersecurity bill and in the amendments to the Intelligence Services Act will create a limited-use obligation whereby certain information provided by victims of a cyberattack to the National Cyber Security Coordinator and her office, or to officers from the Australian Signals Directorate, will not be able to be used for other purposes. This is incredibly important. The purpose of this limitation is to safeguard in the early stages of an incident, where information is being generated in real time and is unable to be verified. The Cyber Security Coordinator is responsible for leading whole-of-government coordination in response to significant cybersecurity incidents. Lieutenant General Michelle McGuinness is responsible for providing advice to the Minister for Cyber Security and other elected representatives that they need to direct government activities in response to a large-scale cyber incident. The coordinator and staff from her office need to receive contemporaneous information about an incident in order to perform this vital role. In addition, ASD have the significant technical expertise to assist Australian businesses to respond to a cyberattack. They are the cyber firefighters, who need to receive technical information in real time to address an attack. That is why this piece of legislation is so important, because recent experience is that victims of a cyber attack have been hesitant to provide this vital information because of the risk of that information being lawfully provided by ASD to other Australian government regulators such as ASIC, OAIC and APRA and used against them. Government receives incident reports from a company's general counsel, when they really need to have a direct dialogue with the chief information security officer on technical details to best employ their assistance and expertise. These limited-use provisions will create a limitation on how information provided to the Cyber Security Coordinator or to ASD will be able to be shared, by creating requirements for these officials not to share the information except in specific and prescribed circumstances. It doesn't mean that regulators with cybersecurity requirements to enforce are excluded from ever receiving that information, but it does mean that the OAIC, ASIC, APRA and numerous other government regulators will only be able to receive information for their regulatory purposes from the entity under their existing powers. Limited use will enable the cyber coordinator to receive the real-time information necessary to provide government support in a time of crisis. It means that ASD, our cyber firefighters, can receive the information they need in a timely way to help put out a cyber incident. The final measure in the Cyber Security Bill 2024 is to legislate the Cyber Incident Review Board, which will conduct postincident reviews of nationally significant cyber incidents. The board will conduct inquiries and make reports to industry and government on a no-fault basis to improve Australia's collective cybersecurity outcomes. The board will operate independent from government and have the capacity to conduct reviews on its own motion, on referral from the minister or from the cyber coordinator, or at the request of the victim of a cyber attack. It will have suitable powers to require the production of information, but information provided to the board will not be admissible in civil or criminal proceedings against the entity. Whilst reviews of previous cyber incidents can and have been conducted under government executive powers, legislating this board will create clear duties and obligations about the conduct of reviews and the treatment of information provided or generated in the course of a review. It promotes transparency of this important function and will provide public advice about an incident, with the aim of providing collective cybersecurity practices for all Australians. This package of legislative reforms also builds on Australia's world-leading critical infrastructure security regulatory system, making three critical improvements identified as part of the government's Australian Cyber Security Strategy. This strategy's aim is to make Australia a world leader in cybersecurity by the end of 2030. The first measure expressly includes business-critical data as part of a critical infrastructure asset under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act, the SOCI Act. As the customers and clients of Optus, Medibank and Latitude Financial, amongst numerous others, are now all too aware, the security of information that our critical infrastructure organisations collect and store to operate in our economy is just as important as keeping the lights on. It is just as important for the security requirements under the SOCI Act to apply in respect of business-critical data that our critical infrastructure assets hold to conduct their businesses not just in relation to the goods and services that they provide. Let's take the water services sector as an example. The current SOCI Act would apply to a critical water asset—a water or sewerage system delivering services to at least 100,000 connections. Requirements have been applied to critical water assets under the SOCI Act to ensure that the physical, personnel, cyber and information risks associated with these assets are managed appropriately. What this amendment will do is ensure that business-critical data that a critical water asset operator holds to provide water and sewerage services, whether that be sensitive operational plans or customer information, is captured as part of these requirements. And when we're talking about better securing digital data, we're talking about meeting and, hopefully, exceeding cybersecurity requirements. This bill also makes important reforms to clarify the security regulation of critical telecommunication assets—some of the most important assets to the way we live, learn and work online. The previous government did not sort through the patchwork of legislative requirements under the SOCI Act and the Telecommunications Act, which resulted in recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security directing government to do this. Their failure to act has created unnecessary ambiguity for industry and has limited the ability to ensure compliance. What the Albanese government is doing, after conducting a thorough and inclusive co-design process with industry and customer advocates, is creating a clear path forward to ensure our telecommunications networks remain secure without regulatory duplication, and we've clearly articulated the security requirements for our telcos and carriage service providers. Finally, the SOCI Act reforms expand the scope of some, but not all, of the powers known as the government assistance measures. As currently enacted, those powers enable the government to work with industry to respond directly to a serious cybersecurity incident. What recent cybersecurity incidents have taught us is that government assistance to industry is not just necessary to respond to an incident. Assistance is also required to manage the consequences coming from an incident. Cyber vulnerabilities can often be detected and removed quickly, but the impacts of unauthorised access to systems and data may need to be managed for some time afterwards. What I've heard from consultations with cybersecurity professionals, data centre providers and government officials is that a cybersecurity incident of significant national impact to Australia is not just probable; it's inevitable. The United States had the Colonial Pipeline incident in 2021, leading to large-scale petrol shortages on the east coast over six days, creating significant economic, social and personal impact. Over half of the UK's National Health Service was brought to its knees in the 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack. Patient records could not be accessed for several days, resulting in delayed surgeries and ward closures. Ukraine has experienced wave after wave of cyberattacks—switching off its power grid in the middle of the 2017 winter, leaving thousands of Ukrainians in the cold—as well as a number of subsequent attacks associated with its war with Russia. Australia is not immune from these types of attacks and incidents in the future. In fact, we've already had large-scale data spills, such as Optus and Medibank Private, that have had a significant impact on Australians. While none of those incidents created the significant widespread economic and social impacts that have been experienced elsewhere, I want to make sure the Australian government can ably assist our critical infrastructure to respond to an incident of this scale, whether it be to stop the incident from occurring or to make sure that the consequences of the incident can be managed appropriately. This is a package of key reforms necessary to support the continued uplift of Australia's collective cybersecurity. I want Australian citizens and businesses to be best placed to take every opportunity in the digital economy, something that cannot occur without being safe and secure online. I commend these bills to the Chamber. 20:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina If ever we had cause for alarm over cybersecurity, it was just the other day—5 November, in fact—when the Guardian published an article headed 'Is your air fryer spying on you? Concerns over "excessive" surveillance in smart devices'. The article, penned by UK Technology Editor Robert Booth, said: Air fryers that gather your personal data and audio speakers "stuffed with trackers" are among examples of smart devices engaged in "excessive" surveillance, according to the consumer group Which? According to the article: The organisation tested three air fryers, increasingly a staple of British kitchens, each of which requested permission to record audio on the user's phone through a connected app. The piece went on: Smart air fryers allow cooks to schedule their meal to start cooking before they get home. In this day and age of limited time and people very busy in their lives, it's a great idea. It's smart. It's the use of technology to meet a busy schedule. Not all air fryers— the Guardian said— have such functionality but those that do often use an app installed on a smart phone. Which? found the app provided by the company Xiaomi connected to trackers for Facebook and a TikTok ad network. I'll digress a little. We've been told of the dangers of using TikTok, and, for any member of parliament who does use TikTok—I appreciate that it's a way of getting through to the younger generation—it is an absolute folly. Your information will be collected and sent where you don't need or want it to be. The piece continues: The Xiaomi fryer and another by Aigostar sent people's personal data to servers in China, although this was flagged in the privacy notice, the consumer testing body found. I would defy that too many people actually read the fine print. If you are like me, once you get a device, you open the packaging and—as many blokes do—the last thing you have a look at are the instructions of how to put it together. You just put it together as best you can and plug it in the wall and hope that it works. The article said: Its tests also examined smartwatches that it said required 'risky' phone permissions—in other words giving invasive access to the consumer's phone through location tracking, audio recording and accessing stored files. We know that so much of our information is collected. We know that so much of that data is stored. What we don't know is who is doing it and why and what they are going to use it for in the future. I well recall, when I was second in charge of the National Security Committee—and I'm not giving away state secrets—some of the hacks that came across the table. Indeed, very sophisticated players from certain very large countries were able to infiltrate local councils, large and small, and businesses, large and small, in Australia. This is of great concern. We should be very worried, getting very prepared and making sure that we are doing everything we can to solidify our cybersecurity. In this day and age, the hackers, those players who would otherwise part our money and us, are getting better at what they do. Being able to be tracked and followed on everything that you do online through our cooking now is, indeed, a worry. The article said: In a response to Which?, Xiaom said respecting user privacy was among its core values and it adhered to UK data protection laws. Ha! Yeah, right! It claimed it didn't sell any information to third parties, but that just beggars belief. Why would a company need to store data on an air fryer? Maybe to find out whether you are frying chips or vegetables or what, perhaps, you are cooking. No. You can't be that gullible. We can't be having these sorts of devices. If you've got one of those, you are being tracked. We know that. We appreciate that. People should do everything they can to ensure that they are not scammed. I had the member for Whitlam, the minister responsible for scams, do a forum in my electorate. It was a very good thing. A lot of older people attended that. They are all too often overrepresented in the statistics of those people who have had money taken through nefarious ways and means. I was appreciative of the minister coming to Wagga Wagga to share his views and what the government is doing. The government can always do more. I appreciate that. Never before in history has cybersecurity been so important. Wherever you are and whatever you are doing, you are likely to be in the vicinity of a smart device with connectivity to the internet. It is not just computers and smartphones; we have smart TVs, smart fridges, smart lights, smart cameras and so much more. Indeed, a growing number of devices in homes are connected to the internet, including camera enabled doorbells and, as I mentioned, smart TVs. It's remarkable progress. Who would have thought 20 years ago that technology would become as prevalent and perhaps as invasive as it is today? Indeed, iPhones really only go back to 2008. Remember the bricks that some people used to carry around that used to be mobile phone technology? You may all be familiar with Apple, Siri, Amazon's Alexa and Google Assistant. They're always listening in in case you ever have a question to ask. If you talk about a product or a topic, only to see advertisements then popping up on your internet feed as though somebody, somewhere, somehow, someway was listening in, of course, they are. We know that for a fact. Every time you use something connected to the internet, your data is being collected, it's being tracked and it's being used—and it's not always by people you should or could trust. Sometimes it's for good, to improve efficiency and the relevance of search results. Yes, that's correct. But every time this data is collected about you, it can be used for nefarious causes—particularly when data breaches occur and your data gets into the wrong hands. By 2025, cybercrime is estimated to cost the world $10.5 trillion. In Australia, as of 2021, the University of New South Wales estimate cybercrime cost $42 billion—that's $42,000 million—to the Australian economy. That's almost equivalent to expenditure in many, many portfolios—including Defence. This is deeply concerning. It's cause for urgent action. That is why the coalition does support the policy intent of this package of bills. I note these bills will give the Minister for Home Affairs the power to make mandatory security standards for smart devices. This is important. This is vital. If our air fryers can be spying on us, who knows what else is? Who would know? This is something the government must have at the forefront of its operations. People's security is absolutely the No. 1 priority for government. How many cameras, drones and other devices do government departments use that are manufactured in China? It would be a fascinating answer. Who knows how much confidential data is being collected by foreign actors, foreign players? The Cyber Security Bill 2024 will also empower the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to issue compliance, stop and recall notices in order to enforce the mandatory security standards regime—not such a bad thing. This is a good start to improve the security of our devices. Even properly-managed data can be breached by bad actors. That's why it's important that the government, via the Australian Signals Directorate, is informed of entities that have been subject to a cyberincident. This bill will ensure that entities with more than $3 million in annual turnover report cyberincidents to the ASD if they've made a ransomware payment or given any other benefit in connection to such an incident. The $3 million cap prevents excessive regulation on small businesses, but it does ensure that larger businesses are more likely to store your data and have the economic capacity to adhere to these regulations. That's something that perhaps needs looking at. Naturally, some entities may be hesitant to report and provide data to the government for fear of adverse consequences. That's why this package establishes a limited use obligation which restricts how much information provided to the National Cyber Security Coordinator can be used or shared with other government entities. Further, this obligation will also be imposed on the ASD, which will be prevented from communicating such data for the purposes of investigating or enforcing a contravention of a Commonwealth, state or territory law other than a criminal offence against the entity subject to the cyberincident. This ensures reports and data supplied are full, honest, accurate and transparent, enabling the ASD to do its job properly, rather than struggling to obtain accurate data from entities fearful of ancillary consequences. I have to say that we are fortunate in this country to have people who are very qualified in the space of cybersecurity. I know when the 2016 census went a little awry, Alastair MacGibbon played a very strong and powerful role. I know the role that the ASD played. I know just how important this is. We are very lucky that this nation has people in the Public Service and elsewhere who do their utmost to ensure that the bad guys don't win. As we move into an ever-more digitally connected future, it becomes ever-more imperative to enact the regulations and frameworks necessary to combat the established and emerging threats of cybercrime. As of 2023, the Australian Trade and Investment Commission reported Australia's tech industry to be worth $167 billion. That's grown by 80 per cent in five years. Its growing at an exponentially fast rate. It is huge. It's also estimated to constitute $250 billion of our gross domestic product by 2030. It's clear Australia must entrench its place on the world stage as a nation which is proactive and a world leader in cybersafety when it comes to digital technology, and I would like to think that, whichever party or parties occupy the government benches in Australia, the same priority and the same importance is placed on cybersecurity. I know that the government come to this place and space with good intent, and I encourage them and acknowledge them for that. It's very clear that Australia is targeted all too often by people and nations that want to do us harm. But this bill and other measures will ensure business has the confidence to continue to invest and grow. I have to say I well remember that, when I was in government and was on the National Security Committee of cabinet, we made the rather controversial decision at the time to not allow Huawei to have the reach that they wanted in Australia, even though they were making big inroads. They were sponsoring the Canberra Raiders National Rugby League team. But why would we want to have a foreign entity with the capability to do what they could? We can't have our traffic lights and our hospital power systems operated by international players. Whilst I know it was a controversial decision at the time, it was the right course of action to take. It's not just the tech sector that these regulations are relevant to; it's almost every business sector. Like a great octopus, players who want to and feel the need to can reach in and take anyone's money, and no-one is safe. Every business has a website these days. Nearly everybody shops online these days. More and more people are banking online as well. It is our duty, and it is the government's role, to ensure ordinary Australians are protected to the best of Australia's ability and the best of the government's ability. We must protect not just Australians but industry from cybercrime. That should be the ultimate goal: to keep Australians safe. I appreciate that that's what the government are endeavouring to do, and they have the coalition's support in just that. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 142 20:58 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and a correction to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the Federation Chamber to move government amendments (1) to (4) as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr 86256 I move government amendments (1) to (4) as circulated together: (1) Clause 32, page 37 (line 7), before "subsection 29(1)", insert "section 27,". (2) Clause 42, page 49 (line 15), omit "subsection 38(1),", substitute "subsection 35(2), 38(1), 39(1),". (3) Clause 58, page 67 (line 6), omit "section 54,", substitute "section 48, 49, 51, 54,". (4) Page 94 (after line 30), at the end of the Bill, add: 88 Review of this Act The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may: (a) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of this Act; and (b) report the Committee's comments and recommendations to each House of the Parliament; so long as the Committee begins the review as soon as practicable after 1 December 2027. This is the first bill in the Cyber Security Legislative Package, alongside the Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024 and the Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024. This package will collectively strengthen our national cyber defences and build cyber resilience across the Australian economy. On 9 October, Minister Burke referred the package to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee recommended that, subject to implementation of the recommendations in its report, the package be passed by parliament. These amendments will implement the changes and clarifications as recommended by the committee. To implement recommendation 7 of the committee's report, the bill was amended to clarify that information obtained by the National Cyber Security Coordinator in relation to a cybersecurity incident or required by a Commonwealth body or state body from a ransomware payment report is not admissible against the impacted entity in certain criminal or civil proceedings. Further amendments will ensure that information obtained by the Cyber Incident Review Board in the performance of its functions is not admissible in evidence against the entity in certain criminal and civil proceedings. To address recommendation 10 of the committee's report, the bill now contains a provision that the committee may review the operation effectiveness and implications of the cybersecurity act as soon as practicable after 1 December 2027. The bill will provide clarity and confidence for Australians in the face of an ever-changing cybersecurity landscape. The legislative package will empower government and industry with awareness and resilience to better protect Australians from cybersecurity threats. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024 142

Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024

Second Reading 142 Consideration in Detail 142 21:02 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the chamber to move government amendments (1) to (4) as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr HILL 86256 I move government amendments (1) to (4) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (lines 28 and 29), omit "acquired under subsection 41BB(1) or section 44BC by", substitute "prepared by, as referred to in paragraph 41BA(2)(b), acquired by, as referred to in paragraph 41BA(2)(a) or (b), or acquired, under subsection 41BB(1) or section 41BC, by". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (line 32), before "acquired", insert "prepared or". (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (after line 32), after note 1, insert: Note 2: ASD is a Commonwealth body: see the definition of Commonwealth body in subsection 41BA(5) and section 8 of the Cyber Security Act 2024. (4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (line 33), omit "Note 2", substitute "Note 3". The Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill is the second bill in the cybersecurity legislative package and seeks to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to legislate a limited use obligation on the Australian Signals Directorate, similar to the provisions relating to the National Cyber Security Coordinator under the Cyber Security Bill. A limited use obligation will protect the information voluntarily provided to or acquired or prepared by the ASD during an impacted entity's engagement in relation to a cybersecurity incident or vulnerability. On 9 October, Minister Burke referred the package to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee has now handed down its report and recommended that, subject to the implementation of the recommendation in its report, the package be passed by parliament. To address recommendation 7 of the committee's report, these amendments clarify that information voluntarily provided to or required by or prepared by the Australian Signals Directorate in relation to cybersecurity incidents is not admissible against an impacted entity in certain criminal or civil proceedings. These amendments support the purpose of the limited use obligation to promote early and fulsome engagement with the ASD. The limited use obligation will bolster the ASD's abilities to mitigate harms in the early stages of cyber incidents, warn others of potential threats, provide incident management advice and assistance, and maintain a comprehensive national cyber threat picture. This measure does not create a safe harbour for industry and will not exempt an organisation from complying with their existing legal and regulatory obligations. With this measure, alongside the establishment and clarification of the role of the National Cyber Security Coordinator, we will ensure government and industry can work together to communicate with clarity and confidence, making our responses more efficient and based on real-time insights. Cooperation on a national scale is one of Australia's greatest advantages against malicious cyberactivity, and I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024 143

Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024

Second Reading 143 Consideration in Detail 143 21:07 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the Federation Chamber to move government amendments (1) to (6) as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr HILL 86256 I move: (1) Clause 2, page 3 (after table item 8), insert: (2) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add: (3) Schedule 5, items 31 to 33, page 38 (lines 9 to 14), omit the items. (4) Schedule 5, item 67, page 46 (line 10), omit "sections 35 and 38A", substitute "section 35". (5) Page 52 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 7 — Notification of certain critical infrastructure or telecommunications security assessments Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 1 Subsection 38(1A) Repeal the subsection. 2 Section 38A Repeal the section. 3 Subsection 54(2) Omit "or 38A". 4 Application provision — repeal of section 38A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 The amendments of Part IV of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a security assessment in respect of a person that is furnished by the Organisation on or after the commencement of this Schedule. 5 Application provision — confirmation of application of section 38 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to certain critical infrastructure or telecommunications assessments (1) The object of this item is to confirm the application of section 38 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 in relation to an adverse or qualified security assessment (a relevant assessment) that was furnished: (a) by the Organisation: (i) in connection with section 58A, 315A or 315B of, or clause 57A or 72A of Schedule 3A to, the Telecommunications Act 1997; or (ii) for the purposes of section 32 of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018; and (b) at a time before the commencement of this Schedule; and (c) to a Minister who, at that time, was not the ASIO Minister. (2) A notice given, or purportedly given, by a Commonwealth agency for the purposes of subsection 38(1) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 in relation to a relevant assessment is taken for all purposes to have been, and to always have been, given under that subsection. (3) A certificate issued, or purportedly issued, by the ASIO Minister for the purposes of subsection 38(2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 in relation to a relevant assessment is taken for all purposes to have been, and to always have been, issued under that subsection. (4) To avoid doubt, anything done, or anything purported to have been done, by a person that would have been wholly or partly invalid except for subitem (2) or (3) is taken for all purposes to be valid and to have always been valid, despite any effect that may have on the accrued rights of any person. (5) For the purposes of applying this item in relation to civil or criminal proceedings, this item applies in relation to: (a) civil and criminal proceedings instituted on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and (b) civil and criminal proceedings instituted before commencement, being proceedings that are concluded: (i) before the commencement of this Schedule; or (ii) on or after the commencement of this Schedule. (6) In this item: ASIO Minister means the Minister administering Part II of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. do a thing includes: (a) make a decision (however described); and (b) exercise a power, perform a function, comply with an obligation or discharge a duty; and (c) do anything else; and purport to do a thing has a corresponding meaning. (6) Page 52, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 7), add: Schedule 8 — Other amendments Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 1 Section 60AAA Repeal the section. 2 Section 60B Omit "3 years", substitute "5 years". The Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024 is a third and—you'll be pleased to know!—final bill in the Cyber Security Legislative Package. This bill seeks to amend the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018, the SOCI Act, to strengthen existing security obligations on critical infrastructure sectors and address gaps identified following recent major incidents impacting critical infrastructure. I thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its work on this bill through its inquiry and recommendations. That committee made two recommendations, recommendations 12 and 13, in its advisory report that require further amendments to the bill which the government agrees to implement. To implement recommendation 12, the government is introducing an amendment to this bill to amend section 60B of the SOCI Act to extend the committee's ability to initiate a review into the operation, effectiveness and implications of the SOCI Act from three years to five years from royal assent of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Act 2021, SLACI Act. The government acknowledges the importance of conducting a holistic review of the SOCI Act after the amendments being made by this bill are implemented. Under section 60A of the SOCI Act, the Minister for Home Affairs must cause an independent review into the operation of the SOCI Act, which Minister Burke intends to commence by no later than 1 November 2025. Together, this approach will ensure an independent review can fully assess the operation of the SOCI Act in time to inform the committee's next review. Pursuant to recommendation 13, the government is introducing an amendment to this bill to repeal section 60AAA of the SOCI Act, removing the now redundant six-monthly reporting to the committee relating to consultation undertaken by the department on the amendments made by the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protections) Act 2022 and the SLACI Act. In addition to the response to the committee's advisory report the government amendments to this bill include a technical amendment to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the ASIO Act, to clarify provisions relating to the ministerial responsibility for protecting ASIO information and giving notice of an adverse or qualified security assessment in respect of an assessed person in connection with certain provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the SOCI Act. I commend the bill to the Chamber. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024 145

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 145 21:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 It being approximately 9.30 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the Federation Chamber stands adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:13