﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-11-20</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 20 November 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS</title>
        <page.no>8097</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Apology to the Forgotten Australians and Former Child Migrants: 15th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>8097</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8100</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements on the fifteenth anniversary of the national apology to Forgotten Australians and former child migrants be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade</title>
          <page.no>8100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8104</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements on Australian consular and crisis support 2023-2024 be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8104</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7259" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8104</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion for the second reading of the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The matter before the House is the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. The question is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [09:56]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>85</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>55</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a second time. <br />Debate adjourned.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>8106</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>8106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>8106</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 33 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business for Monday 25 November 2024. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determination will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 19 November 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 19 November 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 25 November 2024, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR GEE: To present a Bill for an Act to ensure access to GPs in regional areas, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Doctors for the Bush Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 19 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS DANIEL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Online Safety Act 2024</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice </inline> <inline font-style="italic">given 19 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR VAN MANEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) reform is required to retain workers in the building and construction industry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Master Builders Australia has reported that there is a critical workforce shortage, with a 14.7 per cent decrease in the number of construction industry apprentices completing their studies since 2022, and the total number of construction apprentices also decreasing by 22.4 per cent for the same period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Government has delivered a business insolvency crisis, with over 23,938 business insolvencies since taking office, including over 6,399 construction business insolvencies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Government's Fee Free TAFE program has delivered a 13 per cent completion rate to date and the Government has refused to reveal the dropout rate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Government is failing Australian businesses and the construction sector; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Opposition's Housing Infrastructure Program aims to deliver up to 500,000 additional homes and contribute to the growth in employment in the building and construction industry by direct employment to residential development infrastructure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr van Manen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS CLAYDON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 25 November 2024 marks the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, beginning 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in Australia, it has been publicly reported that approximately 64 women have been killed by acts of violence by men as of 17 November 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) one in three Australian women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by a man since the age of 15;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) violence against women and girls impacts everyone, of all genders, ages, ethnicities, religions and socio-economic backgrounds, it does not discriminate, and is almost always committed by men; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) there is no excuse for violence against women and girls;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the work that the Government has done so far in taking immediate and practical steps to support women and children to escape from violence through significant investments to support the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-32;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the following additional commitments made by the Government to end violence against women and children in a generation:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) $4.4 billion in new funding to address the scourge of gender-based violence and respond to the government initiated Rapid Review into Prevention Approaches through:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) convening a national cabinet on gender-based violence at which the Government committed to investing $3.9 billion in support for frontline legal assistance services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) investing $351 million over five years for funding under a renewed five-year national partnership agreement to be matched by states and territories; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) allocating $169 million in targeted initiatives to support the National Plan; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) $1 billion through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for housing for women and children impacted by violence, plus other supports for housing single parents; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) recognises that there is still much more work to be done to prevent violence against women and children and to create lasting change, that it is a whole of community response, and that the Government is absolutely committed to leading this response.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 18 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Claydon</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter </inline> <inline font-style="italic">should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS LE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are fundamental to the Australian economy, contributing significantly to job creation, economic resilience, and particularly in the manufacturing sector, where their role is vital to the national interest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) manufacturing is a leading employer in the electoral division of Fowler, employing approximately 12 per cent of the local workforce, significantly higher than the national average of 5.9 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) hundreds of manufacturing businesses in the electoral division of Fowler produce essential goods across a variety of sectors, from food production and building materials, to medical supplies and recycling initiatives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) manufacturing SMEs are grappling with rising operating costs, a shortage of skilled labour, and limited access to critical resources;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Government's Future Made in Australia plan, introduced in May 2024, does not sufficiently address the challenges facing the manufacturing sector; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) manufacturing SMEs deserve a fairer share of Government support to achieve sustainable growth, scale effectively, expand employment opportunities and remain competitive amid growing domestic and international pressures;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that the Government's recent relief measures, such as the one-year extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off and a $325 electricity rebate for small businesses, were positive steps, however fall short of addressing the long-term, systemic challenges faced by small and medium-sized manufacturers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to provide comprehensive and sustained support for small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) increasing the instant asset write-off to $50,000 and extending it indefinitely, to support capital investment in small and medium manufacturers and enable them to remain competitive as plant and material prices continue to rise;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) promoting manufacturing as a career to young Australians and migrant workers by continuing and expanding government investment in training initiatives, apprenticeships, English language training and foundational skills development to fill critical labour gaps and provide certainty for employers to boost productivity within the sector; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) supporting lowering the cost of doing business by addressing the escalating costs for insurance, freight, energy, and compliance, which disproportionately impact small and medium manufacturers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 18 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Le</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS CHANEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in 2023, the Government revised down its annual productivity growth assumption from 1.5 per cent to 1.2 per cent, reflecting the slowdown in productivity over the past two decades;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australian productivity growth is now behind most comparable nations including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) productivity growth is a key contributor to increases in economic welfare, accounting for 80 per cent of growth in real wages; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) contributing factors to the decline in Australian productivity include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) complicated workplace laws, regulation and taxation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) declining educational outcomes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) under-investment in research and development relative to peer economies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to issue a formal response to the Productivity Commission's five-yearly productivity inquiry report, <inline font-style="italic">Advancing Prosperity</inline>, presented in March 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 19 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Chaney</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS DOYLE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government is strengthening Medicare and delivering cost of living relief to Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the Government's record investments in bulk billing have stopped the free-fall in bulk billing rates, with Australians accessing an estimated 5.4 million additional bulk billed visits in the past 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that Australians have saved more than $1 billion on cheaper medicines, as a result of the largest price reduction in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), the introduction of 60-day prescriptions, and the lowering of the PBS safety-net threshold; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the continued expansion of the Medicare Urgent Care Clinic network, with almost 80 clinics opened which have seen almost 900,000 bulk-billed presentations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the influx of new doctors entering the workforce, with one new doctor joining the Australian health system every hour on average over the past year, and the number of junior doctors electing to take up general practice training increasing by more than 25 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) expresses its concern at the track record of the Leader of the Opposition, who during his term as Minister for Health:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) tried to introduce a tax on visits to GPs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) froze Medicare rebates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) cut $50 billion from our hospitals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) said there were 'too many free Medicare services';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) was voted by Australia's doctors as the worst health minister in the history of Medicare; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) as a result, cannot be trusted with Medicare; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) acknowledges that only the Government can be trusted to protect and strengthen Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 19 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Doyle</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR COULTON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Royal Far West (RFW) is a national charity dedicated to the health and wellbeing of Australia's country children across more than 200 schools and 364 communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) RFW is celebrating its centenary of service to Australia in 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in 2019, RFW received funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care to provide services online to schools and preschools under the National Paediatric Telecare Service (NPTS), and that funding finishes in June next year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) workforce shortages in regional areas, and a resulting lack of access to services, has seen high demand for NPTS;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the NPTS overcomes the tyranny of distance and reduces expenses for families in the midst of a cost of living crisis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) operating across four states, the NPTS has provided support to 20,000 children, parents and educators; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) urges the Government to provide ongoing funding to RFW to allow this vital allied health and mental health service to continue to support families in rural, regional and remote Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Coulton</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS J RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that the Government is making sure that Australians can continue to pay with cash for essential items if they want to, while also ensuring an orderly transition to phasing out cheques;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the Government's plan will:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) mandate that businesses must accept cash when selling essential items, with appropriate exemptions for small businesses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ensure that cash can be used for essential purchases, such as groceries and fuel, so that those who rely on cash will not be left behind; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the Government's acknowledgement that while Australians are increasingly using digital payment methods, there is an ongoing place for cash in our society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 19 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms J </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 RURAL, REMOTE AND REGIONAL HEALTH: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 18 November 2024</inline>) on the motion of Dr Webster—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) rural and remote Australians bear a heavier burden of disease than Australians who live in major metropolitan areas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the rural, remote and regional health workforce persistently suffers more significant staffing shortages than its metropolitan counterparts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the former Government established the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner in 2017;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the inaugural commissioner, Professor Paul Worley, said in 2018 that he had heard the urgency of calls for a National Rural Generalist Pathway for the medical practitioner workforce, and recommended later that year the national recognition, as a protected title, of a Rural Generalist as a Specialised Field within the Speciality of General Practice, which is now federally funded and accredited by the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the National Rural Health Commissioner has established the National Rural and Remote Nursing Generalist Framework 2023-27, after consultation commenced by the former Government in early 2022; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) Queensland Health began developing a rural generalist pathway for allied health professions in 2013 which Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health successfully developed further in some jurisdictions but a pathway is not yet available in Victoria for instance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls upon the Minister for Health and Aged Care to advance rural generalist pathways in medicine, nursing and allied health, to address dire workforce shortages in rural, remote and regional Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR VAN MANEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that small businesses are struggling under the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) burden of the Government's cost of living crisis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) weight of the Government's additional administrative red tape;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that according to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) conditions for small business:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) have deteriorated by 3.5 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) continue to be well below the long-term average;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the operating environment for business has been in decline for the past two years with rising concerns about regulations, increased costs and slowing demand; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) fewer people are considering starting a small business and businesses are less likely to invest in expansion; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to address its failure to support small business, the backbone of Australia's economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 August 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr van Manen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR PERRETT: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) welcomes the 106 advocates for Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) Australia who are present with their families in Parliament House today, 26 November 2024, to advocate for further funding for the Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Research Network (T1 DCRN);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends these advocates for type 1 diabetes (T1D) on their work with Members and Senators across Australia, explaining why the research undertaken by the T1 DCRN to date has given them enormous hope;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that there are over 130,000 Australians living with T1D, who are part of a passionate and articulate community as all who participated in World Diabetes Day on 14 November 2024 would know;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport inquiry into diabetes, chaired by the Member for Macarthur, which made bipartisan recommendations relating to T1D research, early detection and prevention, and to expanding access to diabetes technologies that help in the management of T1D;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) congratulates the advocates who have travelled from all over Australia to tell their stories and make the case for funding for the next stage of the T1 DCRN; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) provides cross party assurance to JDRF Australia advocates that their message has been heard, their tenacity is admired, and that it is understood in this House that research holds the key.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 DR WEBSTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) under the cover of the United States of America's elections and the Melbourne Cup, the Victorian Government through Parks Victoria have declared they will close certain areas of Mount Arapiles in the Wimmera region for rock climbing due to cultural heritage concerns;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) local residents and rock climbing enthusiasts from around the nation are outraged by the decision, particularly as a prime Australian rock climbing destination and the potential devastating impact on the small community of Natimuk;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) on Monday, 18 November 2024, Parks Victoria Chief Executive Officer, Matthew Jackson told an inquiry that Parks Victoria does not consult on cultural heritage laws and had no obligation to consider its decision's economic impact on local communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) doctors, nurses and allied health practitioners have been attracted to the region, including nearby Horsham, due to the availability of rock climbing and are now reconsidering whether to settle or remain in the region; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls upon the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Commonwealth Government to explain its position on cultural heritage matters that are delivering gross inequities for the majority of Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Victorian State Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) genuinely consult with all stakeholders on the decision;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) ensure all established climbing routes at Mount Arapiles remain in force until such consultation has occurred; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) reminds all levels of Government that on 14 October 2023 regional Victorians and Australians united and conclusively voted 'no' to this form of division in the Australian community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 19 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Webster</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should </inline> <inline font-style="italic">continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 WORLDSKILLS COMPETITION 2024: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 18 November 2024</inline>) on the motion of Ms Claydon—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges and celebrates the exceptional achievements of Australia's Skillaroos who represented our nation at the 2024 WorldSkills competition in Lyon;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the dedication, skill, and passion of our Skillaroos exemplifies the highest standards of excellence in vocational education and training and demonstrates the incredible talent within our skilled workforce;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government for its commitment to getting the best outcomes for Australians through improving access to vocational education and training, supporting quality training and putting TAFE back at the heart of the sector; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) supports the Government as it continues to invest in the Australian people by prioritising training initiatives like Fee-Free TAFE.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MS WARE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the release of the Government's Centre for Population research paper dated October 2024, <inline font-style="italic">Fertility decline in Australia: Is it here to stay?</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the paper provides that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) fertility rates in Australia continue to decline under this Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the average number of children born to Australian women in 2023 is 1.5;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) in Australia fertility outcomes are lower than fertility desires;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) cost of living pressures have caused Australians to postpone childbearing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) the high cost of housing has made it increasingly difficult for young adults to achieve their home ownership goals prior to starting a family;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the Government has:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) failed to manage the economy, resulting in a period of skyrocketing inflation fuelling the current cost of living crisis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) failed to address the housing affordability crisis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) been incapable of supporting a stable economic and housing environment to empower Australian women, resulting in the fertility decline to 1.5 children on average in 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) expresses concern that the Government's economic and housing mismanagement have forced Australian women to delay having children, resulting in a decline in their fertility; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to better manage the economy and housing for the betterment of all Australians including Australian women and reverse the declining infertility rates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 19 November 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 </inline> <inline font-style="italic">pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Ware</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20 November 2024</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8113</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7281" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8113</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8113</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2024 relates to the fees imposed on the pathology sector for certain categories of pathology applications. This bill provides reforms for the current charging arrangements imposed on the sector for categories of accreditation applications.</para>
<para>Under the Health Insurance Act 1973, pathology services must be rendered by or on behalf of an approved pathology practitioner (approved practitioner) in an accredited pathology laboratory (accredited laboratory) operated by an approved pathology authority (approved authority) to be eligible to receive Medicare benefits.</para>
<para>Practitioners or pathologists are required to sign an undertaking to the minister that they will comply with the requirements of the legislation and certain administrative arrangements. They must pay an acceptance fee to become an approved practitioner. Similarly, the proprietor of a laboratory must sign an undertaking and pay an acceptance fee to become an approved authority. Laboratory premises may be approved by the minister as an accredited laboratory following the submission of an application and relevant supporting documentation. This includes an accreditation assessment and payment of the accreditation fee once the premises are provided with an in-principle approval.</para>
<para>The accreditation requirements impose obligations on approved practitioners, accredited laboratories and approved authorities to undertake to meet, or demonstrate compliance with, quality assurance standards for pathology services provided under Medicare.</para>
<para>The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) Act 1991 (pathology fees act) specifies the fees which must be paid for the acceptance, and approval of, applications for the approved practitioner, approved authority and accredited laboratory. This allows approved providers to be identified in the Services Australia billing system of Medicare eligible services. These fees were arbitrarily set to be between $500 and $2,500 in 1991.</para>
<para>The 2022 health portfolio charging review identified that the fees set against each of these application categories have not been reviewed or changed since the pathology fees act came into force. Further, when investigated, the fees were found to exceed the administrative cost of processing these application categories. As such, this arrangement does not align with the Australian Government Charging Framework 2015.</para>
<para>Removing the fees applied to the three categories of applications through the repeal of the pathology fees act will resolve this misalignment with government charging policy. It will provide fee relief in addition to reducing the administrative burden for the pathology sector.</para>
<para>The consequential amendments included in this bill remove all references to the payment of fees for these application types from 1 July 2025. However, to preserve the high level of confidence in the accuracy of pathology testing in Australia provided under Medicare, the administrative requirements, including accreditation obligations, will remain unchanged.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7282" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8113</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8113</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I am very pleased to introduce the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024, or the bill.</para>
<para>This bill amends the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Act 2010, or the act, to expand the existing Midwife Professional Indemnity Scheme.</para>
<para>The bill provides a framework under which the government will pay 100 per cent of eligible claims for relevant intrapartum services provided outside of a hospital. This expansion of the MPIS aims to ensure professional indemnity insurance coverage for:</para>
<list>Eligible midwives providing homebirth services;</list>
<list>Eligible midwives providing intrapartum care outside of a hospital; and</list>
<list>Eligible entities employing or engaging eligible midwives to provide intrapartum care outside of a hospital, including birth centres, as part of birthing-on-country models of care.</list>
<para>The bill provides scope for rules to be made to specify the intrapartum services covered under the expanded MPIS. The government's broad intent is to cover out-of-hospital intrapartum services where they are provided in compliance with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia's Safety and Quality Guidelines for Privately Practising Midwives. This approach supports the delivery of safe and accessible care.</para>
<para>This bill represents a significant step forward in supporting midwives and improving access to safe and culturally appropriate maternity services for women across Australia. Midwifes are a crucial part of Australia's health system. As a mother, a grandmother and nurse, I've seen their care, professionalism, empathy and the difference they make firsthand. This bill is recognition of that.</para>
<para>For too long, eligible midwives practicing in out-of-hospital settings have faced barriers to accessing professional indemnity insurance. This has limited their ability to provide essential services, such as homebirths and intrapartum care outside of hospitals, and has restricted the choices available to women in their birthing journeys.</para>
<para>This bill addresses these longstanding gaps by expanding the Midwife Professional Indemnity Scheme. It ensures that eligible midwives, including those providing services under a birthing-on-country model, have access to the financial protection they need to confidently practice to their full scope.</para>
<para>The bill achieves this by requiring the Commonwealth to cover 100 per cent of the cost of eligible claims made against eligible midwives for incidents arising from out-of-hospital births. This includes homebirths and intrapartum care outside hospital conducted in accordance with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia's Safety and Quality Guidelines for Privately Practising Midwives.</para>
<para>Importantly, the bill also extends this 100 per cent Commonwealth coverage to eligible entities, such as Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, that employ midwives to provide birthing-on-country services. This ensures that these vital services, which are crucial for improving the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers and babies, can be delivered with appropriate insurance coverage.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill will take effect from 1 July 2025, providing a permanent solution to the insurance gaps that have hindered midwives and limited birthing choices for women.</para>
<para>This bill is about empowering Australia's hardworking midwives, supporting women and mothers, and ensuring equitable access to continuous, culturally safe maternity care. It is a testament to our commitment to strengthening Australia's healthcare system and improving the health outcomes for mothers, their babies and all Australians.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7283" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8114</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8114</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Since the Albanese government came to office, we have been working every day to drive progress on gender equality.</para>
<para>The bill we're introducing today is the latest in a series of reforms our government has delivered for Australian women, reforms that put the needs of women at the forefront of our majority-female government's work, each time taking us a step further towards creating a more equal country.</para>
<para>Our government is proud that we continue a long legacy of Labor governments in this work.</para>
<para>From the Whitlam government funding women's refuges, health centres and community childcare, to the Gillard government introducing our country's first paid parental leave scheme, Labor governments exist to make Australia a better and fairer place.</para>
<para>Advancing gender equality and supporting Australian women is at the centre of that project.</para>
<para>In March, the government released <inline font-style="italic">Working for </inline><inline font-style="italic">women</inline><inline font-style="italic">: A </inline><inline font-style="italic">strategy for gender equality </inline>to set a path to achieve our vision for gender equality over the next ten years.</para>
<para>And we are making progress towards that vision.</para>
<para>This year, for the first time, the individual gender pay gaps of private sector businesses with more than 100 employees were required to be reported publicly, bringing focus to how businesses are working to advance equality within their own workplaces.</para>
<para>More than 11 million workers now have access to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave.</para>
<para>We have improved paid parental leave (PPL) to recognise the reality of modern Australian families, expanding it to 26 weeks by 2026, providing greater flexibility for parents in how and when they take leave, and introducing superannuation on government PPL.</para>
<para>We have made child care cheaper, helping more women to juggle family and work and providing young children with the best start in life.</para>
<para>Gender equality is now a central objective of the Fair Work Act, strengthening the ability to consider gender when it makes wage determinations.</para>
<para>We have funded wage increases in aged care and early education—two sectors long dominated by women workers and which have been undervalued and underpaid for too long.</para>
<para>We are funding prac placements in areas traditionally dominated by women, such as teaching, social work, midwifery and nursing, and supporting young women to start their careers with more financial security by reducing their HELP debts and providing fee-free TAFE places.</para>
<para>Our government recognises that improving gender equality is good for Australian women and good for Australia as a whole—helping to boost women's participation in the workforce and improving productivity for companies and the economy.</para>
<para>As I said, we are making progress. But there is more to be done.</para>
<para>The data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, WGEA, has allowed us to track progress and increase transparency on workplace gender equality, including the gender pay gap.</para>
<para>WGEA reports that the total remuneration gender pay gap is 21.1 per cent for 2023-24, which includes base salary, overtime, bonuses and additional payments. As of May this year, average full-time earnings of women in Australia was lower than the equivalent for men by $231.50 per week. By the time they reach retirement age, women have on average 25 per cent less superannuation than men.</para>
<para>Women also continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions, representing only 22 per cent of CEOs. Women hold 20 per cent of chair positions and 32 per cent of board member positions. One in four organisations have no women board members.</para>
<para>This is despite research finding a relationship between increasing the proportion of women in the most senior levels and higher company performance, productivity and profitability. The gender pay gap represents an estimated cost of $51.8 billion a year to the Australian economy.</para>
<para>Our government wants to work with employers to close that gap and make sure that workplaces are fair, respectful, flexible and safe.</para>
<para>We're doing this through increasing accountability and raising the bar for large employers to take action.</para>
<para>Building on our 2023 reforms to publish employer gender pay gaps, our government is now introducing this bill, the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill.</para>
<para>The bill will introduce a world-first targets scheme to accelerate action on gender equality by large Australian employers.</para>
<para>It will require organisations with 500 or more employees in Australia to commit to achieve—or, at a minimum, improve on—measurable targets to progress gender equality in their workplaces.</para>
<para>Target setting and action planning are both well-known levers for improving gender equality outcomes in the workplace. Research by Dr Leonora Risse, an economist and one of Australia's leading gender equality researchers, found that target setting for gender equality promotes accountability, transparency and organisational confidence. The research indicates that taking this kind of data-driven approach is in itself a mechanism for change.</para>
<para>Regardless of which targets employers select, the act of requiring them to take targeted action will drive a shift in behaviour by embedding practices that are likely to create positive and lasting cultural change in workplaces.</para>
<para>This bill requires large employers to select targets from a menu of targets and then make progress towards these targets. The full list of targets and rules for selection will be outlined in an associated instrument to the act. The intent is that employers will select at least three targets from the menu of targets, which is aligned to the WGEA gender equality indicators.</para>
<para>Employers will then have three years to improve upon or achieve the targets. This will give employers flexibility and time to take action in priority areas for their workplace. By rewarding progress, employers will also be incentivised to set more ambitious targets.</para>
<para>The menu of targets that employers can choose from will focus on: the gender make-up of boards and the workforce; gender pay gap; flexible working arrangements and support for parents and carers; workplace consultation on gender equality; and efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment. These areas align with WGEA's gender equality indicators, the six key areas where workplace gender inequality persists and where progress can be achieved through focused action. The menu of targets is included in the supporting materials to the bill.</para>
<para>The targets include both numeric targets, such as reducing the gender pay gap and improving gender composition in roles or occupations, and action based targets, such as introducing a paid parental leave program or enhancing flexible work offerings. The targets will draw on the information that employers currently provide to WGEA against the gender equality indicators.</para>
<para>WGEA will work with employers to set and achieve targets, helping them build their capacity to achieve change. This is already occurring through WGEA delivering education resources and providing direct support to employers to undertake analysis, develop action plans and build internal capability to improve gender equality.</para>
<para>It is important to note that these employers—those with 500 or more employees—are already required to have policies or strategies against each of the gender equality indicators. When they select targets they should already have relevant strategies and policies in place. Setting targets will help focus on action and accountability to achieve those strategies and policies.</para>
<para>In creating obligations to set and achieve targets, this bill seeks to cement Australia's status as a global leader in gender equality. Targets will lead to more ambitious commitment and progress, which then meets community expectations and is in line with the broader momentum towards gender equality in Australia.</para>
<para>No other country in the world requires businesses to commit to gender equality targets. Australia will be leading the way to accelerate action on gender equality in workplaces.</para>
<para>This bill builds on last year's amendments to the act by continuing to implement the recommendations from the review of the act in 2021.</para>
<para>Changes in 2023 led to the gender pay gaps for private sector employers with 100 or more employees being published for the first time. This was a clear move towards greater transparency and accountability for Australian organisations and gave them an opportunity to assess their performance against their peers. It also gave employees and the broader Australian public the chance to see how individual workplaces are performing, helping them to make more informed decisions as employees, customers and stakeholders of these businesses. This is, and will continue to be, a critical step towards closing the gender pay gap and accelerating action towards gender equality. Public sector employer pay gaps will be published for the first time from early 2025.</para>
<para>The inclusion of a gender equality targets scheme further supports the government's 2022 election commitment to lead a national push to close the gender pay gap by encouraging employers to close these and other gaps in workplaces.</para>
<para>Our government wants to be working alongside employers to effect the change we need to see and, in doing so, benefitting both employees and employers. Through this, companies will see improved staff retention, productivity, safety and enhanced reputation.</para>
<para>Despite the current high level of transparency in reporting to WGEA, only 68 per cent of organisations have undertaken a gender pay analysis. Of these organisations, 75 per cent took action to close the identified gap. Requiring organisations to set targets can drive real change, as employers will be accountable for improving their results.</para>
<para>While the bill provides the opportunity for employers to make ambitious commitments through the targets scheme, it also ensures that employers are acknowledged for the efforts they make towards progress against their targets. In addition, it ensures they are not found to be non-compliant if they set ambitious targets and make progress towards them but are not able to meet them within the three-year period.</para>
<para>It is the intent of the amendments to encourage employers to actively take action within their organisations to improve workplace gender equality and make progress against their baseline. In this way, the compliance provisions recognise the act of setting and making progress on the target as the primary threshold.</para>
<para>The targets menu has been developed by WGEA following consultation with key groups of stakeholders to make sure the menu of targets is genuine and measurable. The targets have been designed in consultation with a range of stakeholders including the business sector, the not-for-profit sector, higher education providers and the women's sector.</para>
<para>The government's been upfront about our policy position and the intentions behind introducing gender equality targets.</para>
<para>Results against the targets will be monitored through employers' annual reporting to WGEA and their boards. Information about targets selected and employer progress or achievement will also appear on WGEA's Data Explorer.</para>
<para>This bill raises the bar in the obligations on large employers, who may also be publicly named as non-compliant if they do not set, improve upon or meet the targets without reasonable excuse.</para>
<para>Large employers will be required to follow the targets scheme to obtain a certificate of compliance from WGEA. The holding of a certificate of compliance is considered as part of an employer's eligibility to contract with the Australian government through procurement processes.</para>
<para>In this way, the government is using its purchasing power to drive gender equality outcomes and boost women's economic equality—effectively using a policy lever worth $70 billion each year.</para>
<para>Since our election in 2022, our government has placed gender equality at the heart of our work.</para>
<para>We know that many businesses and organisations share our commitment to improving gender equality in workplaces right across the country.</para>
<para>I am heartened by the obvious commitment of employers in Australia, who are already engaging positively with WGEA. We can see this in the response to the publishing of employer gender pay gaps. I encourage employers to see this reform as an opportunity to go further and work with government to really shift the dial on gender equality and close the gender pay gap.</para>
<para>This reform will also apply to Commonwealth public sector employers with 500 or more employees.</para>
<para>This will hold the government as an employer to the same standard and mean the public and private sector can learn from each other and make progress together.</para>
<para>We look forward to working with employers across the country on the reforms in this bill.</para>
<para>Now is the time to accelerate the pace of change. The introduction of gender equality targets will build on the progress to date and position us to close the gender pay gap and improve the lives of Australian women.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7277" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8117</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8117</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill marks a significant step in our commitment to improve regulatory outcomes in the energy sector, by ensuring dedicated governance and accountability structures that are tailored specifically to energy market regulation.</para>
<para>The intention of this bill is to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to separate the Australian Energy Regulator (the AER) from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC), establishing the AER as a non-corporate Commonwealth entity with operational control of its staff, resources and governance arrangements.</para>
<para>The AER is the independent regulator of wholesale and retail energy markets and energy networks, mainly across southern and eastern Australia, under national energy laws and rules. Its key activities include energy network regulation, compliance and enforcement, and the performance monitoring and reporting of energy wholesale and retail markets as well as network businesses.</para>
<para>Taken together, that is an incredibly important function—as perfectly well expressed in the AER's purpose, which is 'to ensure energy consumers are better off, now and in the future'.</para>
<para>The AER currently operates as a constituent part of the ACCC. Both organisations are a single Commonwealth entity for the purpose of the finance law. The AER shares staff, resources and facilities with the ACCC—and as a result, the AER board, which is responsible for regulatory functions, does not have direct control over resources and staff, which remain under the ACCC's authority.</para>
<para>This proposed amendment to legally separate the AER from the ACCC will remove the governance risks that hinder the AER's ability to manage its increasing regulatory responsibilities effectively. It will enable the AER to operate effectively as an independent entity.</para>
<para>The bill will not change the key elements of the Australian Energy Market Agreement—such as the role and function of the AER as the independent energy regulator, the composition of the AER's board, the requirement for the Commonwealth to fund the AER, and the administrative law arrangements whereby the decisions of the AER will continue to be subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.</para>
<para>The National Energy Laws—which provide the AER with more detailed functions and obligations—will also remain unchanged.</para>
<para>It has to be acknowledged that several independent reviews have recommended an autonomous AER.</para>
<para>In 2015 the Review of Governance Arrangements for Australian Energy Markets<inline font-style="italic">, </inline>chaired by Dr Michael Vertigan, considered governance arrangements of the Australian energy markets and recommended that the AER should have full management and financial autonomy, which would most effectively be achieved by re-establishing the AER as a stand-alone regulatory body.</para>
<para>The 2017 Independent Review into the Future of the National Electricity Market, led by Dr Alan Finkel, noted the AER's role is highly technical and sector specific, and that by constituting the AER as a separate energy agency we would be mirroring the structures of other energy market bodies and comparable energy regulators in similar countries.</para>
<para>State and territory energy ministers have been consulted on the proposal, and, on 19 May 2023, agreed the AER should be established as a standalone Commonwealth entity.</para>
<para>It would surprise no-one to observe that the AER's operational environment has evolved significantly since its establishment in 2005. As the energy market becomes more complex, and with the AER's regulatory functions expanding, the AER needs the authority to manage its own resources and to set its own strategic direction independently from the ACCC.</para>
<para>The ambitious scale and pace of the energy transition requires the AER to operate with greater financial and operational autonomy. A distinctly separate AER will provide for greater management and financial autonomy, contributing to the overall effectiveness of the AER as Australia's energy regulator.</para>
<para>Creating a standalone AER will formalise its governance responsibilities, including for managing its budget, human resources and risk oversight. This change will allow the AER to better align its internal operations with its regulatory mandate and strategic goals.</para>
<para>This is essential for effectively managing the energy transition, overseeing wholesale and retail markets, and addressing issues like energy affordability and network regulation. In other words, this change will make sure the AER is better placed to do what we need it to do in the best interests of the Australian community.</para>
<para>The bill supports the broader energy policy of the government, enabled through the National Energy Transformation Partnership, a framework for Commonwealth, state and territory governments to work together on reforms to help transform Australia's energy system to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.</para>
<para>One of the priority themes of the framework is strengthening energy governance architecture.</para>
<para>The bill is a necessary and forward-looking reform that helps achieve this priority theme.</para>
<para>The government is committed to delivering affordable, reliable and clean energy for all Australians, and the reforms contained in this bill will help make that vision a reality.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cyber Security Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7250" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cyber Security Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8119</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>8119</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7252" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8119</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>8119</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7255" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8120</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>8121</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7269" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8121</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>8121</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I wish my brother a happy 40th birthday, and I ask leave of the House to move the third reading immediately.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wood</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Happy birthday! Leave is granted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Happy birthday to your brother!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank everyone for their good wishes to my brother Vincent and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>8121</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaties Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>8121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>8121</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Report 223</inline><inline font-style="italic">: </inline><inline font-style="italic">Security Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation</inline><inline font-style="italic">on the Protection of Classified Information</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties <inline font-style="italic">Report 223</inline><inline font-style="italic">: </inline><inline font-style="italic">Security Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation on the Protection of Classified Information</inline>, otherwise known as OCCAR. The report focuses on the treaties committee inquiry into the OCCAR agreement, which also includes the consideration of two minor treaty actions: the Amendment to the Loan Agreement between Australia and the International Monetary Fund and an amendment to the annex to the facilitation of international maritime traffic convention 1965.</para>
<para>The proposed major treaty action considered in this report is Australia's ratification of the OCCAR agreement. OCCAR is a European international government organisation that Australia participates in that coordinates defence equipment procurement and management programs. Australia currently has to create interim security arrangements for each OCCAR program that we participate in. The agreement establishes ongoing security measures to protect classified information generated from Australia's participation in these programs. Ratifying this agreement will create mutual security arrangements to protect Australia's classified information and will facilitate our continued participation in OCCAR managed programs such as the Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle, the Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopter and the MU90 Impact lightweight torpedo.</para>
<para>The committee heard evidence on the opportunities the agreement will provide to Australian defence industries and the impact that not ratifying would have on our existing strategic and defence relationships with our European counterparts.</para>
<para>The first minor treaty action covered in this report is the Amendment to the Loan Agreement between Australia and the International Monetary Fund. This amendment extends existing arrangements that Australia has with the IMF and helps secure the IMF ongoing financial stability.</para>
<para>The second minor treaty action in this report is the amendment to the annex to the facilitation of international maritime traffic convention 1965, which will continue the International Maritime Organization's work towards simplifying and harmonising international shipping procedures.</para>
<para>The committee supports the major and minor treaty action considered in this report and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. On behalf of the committee, I recommend this report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8122</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7259" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>8122</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to speak about section 43A of this bill, which seeks to say that the NBN must always stay in public ownership. It is a completely farcical piece of legislation that this government is seeking to put before the parliament. It contrasts this section—and indeed the whole bill—with many, many statements by members of the Labor Party about the NBN over a period going back some 14 years, when the government introduced the legislation in relation to the ownership of the NBN.</para>
<para>You know who actually introduced the legislation that this government is seeking to overturn? It was the member for Grayndler, the Prime Minister, who stood at the dispatch box over there and made a number of statements about the bill, which this section 43(a) seeks to overturn. He said the bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… sets out arrangements for the eventual sale of the Commonwealth's stake in the company once the NBN rollout is complete, including provisions for independent and parliamentary reviews prior to any privatisation, and for the parliament to have the final say on the sale.</para></quote>
<para>What the Prime Minister—the member for Grayndler back then—said was that this legislation sets out processes in relation to NBN ownership. The minister for communications of the day put out a press release saying 'government committed to sale of NBN Co'. This section 43(a) seeks to overturn those arrangements.</para>
<para>Frankly, section 43(a) of this bill needs to be called out for the pathetic and sad stunt that it is. What matters with the NBN is the fact that, under this government, it is crashing to earth in a very bad way for Australian taxpayers. We saw the minister say last year, when huge price rises were approved for the NBN, that this was 'great news for consumers'. There were price rises of up to 14 per cent from October of last year to June this year. That was across just eight or nine months and affected six million Australians. We have seen people leave the NBN—and why are they leaving the NBN? It is because, under this government, the service is bad. The NBN satellite business is absolutely collapsing. It has lost tens of thousands of customers under this government. Does the government actually do something to focus on the success of the NBN and make sure it provides good products to Australians? No. The government's main interest in the NBN is the occasional hi-vis photo opportunity, but you don't make the NBN better for Australians by standing on the side of the road in a hi-vis vest. You just don't. But that is what this government is doing, and to say that price rises are great news for consumers is extraordinary.</para>
<para>We've also seen in the brownfields business of the NBN, which is the core NBN homes—this is existing homes. Guess how many Australians have abandoned the NBN's brownfields product under this government. One hundred thousand. And why are they leaving? They're leaving because prices are going up and up and because the service is poor. You know what else is happening for taxpayers under this government and the NBN? The cash losses continue to increase. In the last financial year, we saw Australian taxpayers have a cash loss of $1.4 billion, up $300 million on the previous year. NBN is losing heaps of cash, losing lots of customers and raising prices. It's a very bad situation.</para>
<para>Logically, what should you be doing? You should be focusing on getting the NBN back on track so it actually provides good services for Australians and Australians don't continue to leave at such an extraordinary rate. But the government instead is trying to create a silly faux debate about the ownership of the NBN in contrast to its own legislation and its own public statements about this issue, which had always contemplated circumstances in which its ownership arrangements could potentially change down the track.</para>
<para>What we need is maturity. We don't need silly, lame, pathetic, childish stunts. We need maturity about the NBN. We need a focus on getting the NBN back on track. We need a government that can actually successfully lead the NBN. We don't need this silly legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), after paragraph 3(1)(b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (c) to ensure that NBN Co has a universal service obligation to provide the national broadband network in a way that is reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (after line 22), after the paragraph beginning "Under provisions" in section 43, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NBN Co has a universal service obligation to provide the national broadband network in a way that is reasonably accessible and equitable to all people in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 7), at the end of section 43A, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) NBN Co has a universal service obligation to provide the national broadband network in a way that is reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business.</para></quote>
<para>The previous speaker was talking about whether we should own government assets or whether the incompetent Public Service should own and run assets. A more streamlined, foreign ownership is what he is advocating. That's his line, but you'd see it differently if you were sitting in a car that was dry-bogged to the eyeballs and you were praying with rosary beads for your survival when the ground temperature was about 200 degrees Fahrenheit and your father had third-degree burns and was suffering heat stroke and had nearly died. You'd probably see communications a bit differently than you city blokes see it. You have absolutely no concern for anything outside the cities.</para>
<para>To their enormous disgrace, the founders of the Country Party would turn in their graves if they saw all those banks that they set up being sold off by the Country Party, which now call themselves the National Party. They would see, in the deregulation, the protection that all of our farming industries had being removed. They would be horrified.</para>
<para>But you don't care how many of us die in the bush. You couldn't give a damn. There's a person dying once a fortnight in the greater Cairns region simply because of the collapse of the roads system there. The Liberals would say that it's Labor's fault. Well, the Liberals are now in there. Will anything happen?</para>
<para>We're talking about communications. Our honourable member here is from Tasmania. All of Tasmania, really, is a rural and regional area. They will suffer the same as the rest of us. I would say that probably every week in Australia there's an accident where they desperately need a telephone to get an ambulance there to save somebody's life. It might even be that every day that occurs in Australia.</para>
<para>There are 60,000 or 70,000 people living on the Atherton tableland, 30 kilometre from Cairns, and there are three highways on which it will take you about an hour and a half to get there. In spite it being only 30 kilometre, it will take you an hour and a half. Those roads are not covered by the current communication system, so if you have an accident on those roads, too bad, so sad. You just hope someone comes along and can get to a telephone somewhere or get somewhere to use his mobile and rescue you. I can go into the details of how many accidents are occurring, but we've had one death a fortnight there, I think, for the last two or three months. I use that as an example.</para>
<para>I asked two people about this, and I think I've made reference to this before. I asked the wife of the very famous and illustrious mayor of Burketown—where a very tiny number of people live in a very big area of Australia—whose from a fourth-, fifth- or sixth-generation family in Australia, 'What do you need most?' and she said, 'Speed with my internet'. John Nelson is maybe one of the top 20 or 30 cattle owners in Australia. He owns a huge swag of country in north-west Queensland. I asked him, 'What do you want most?' and he said, 'Faster internet access. It just drives me off my head, the amount of work that you have to do and the time you have to wait for something to happen.'</para>
<para>This is, seriously, life and death for us, and I bring the attention of the House to my own family as an example. <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Tyranny of Distance</inline> is a wonderful book by the historian Geoffrey Blainey. My family are a good example. There were three Katter brothers. Grandad had gone there in the 1870s in a stagecoach, and there were three boys, two of whom died as a result of the tyranny of distance. My father—and all of us—nearly died in that example I gave previously, but this is a separate issue.</para>
<para>You say that you're looking at putting in a universal service obligation. It's good you're looking at it! It would be nice if you did it. Ben Chifley, John Curtin and 'Red Ted' Theodore would turn in their grave if they saw a government making this service available without a universal service obligation attached to it. The mob on the other side want it to be saleable. Sell-off the most essential service in the country outside of water! <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you seeking leave to continue?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, if I could. Another couple of minutes would be helpful.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to point out that because the Liberals allowed foreign ownership in Telstra, as they wanted, the biggest shareholder is now the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. It is by far and away the biggest shareholder. J.P. Morgan, United States; Citigroup, United States; BNP Paribas, France—these are some of the major shareholders. All the rest are less than one per cent, with one little, tiny exception of four per cent. So Telstra's completely owned by foreigners, and the major and dominant shareholder is China. That's a wonderful outcome! Is there a single person in this country that would agree with the Liberal Party on this? Maybe four of their moronic followers would. And the Labor Party needn't look cute, because they were involved in the sale of Telstra. Now the ownership of your communications systems, which is, outside of water, the most important essential service in this country, is dominated by China.</para>
<para>In light of those things, I can't stop you from doing that. The Australian people will slaughter you in the next election and then they'll slaughter the Liberals in the election after that, and it'll just keep going on until we on the crossbenches get the power, and that is rapidly happening of course. I moved this amendment, which would provide a universal service obligation. The government has officially informed me that it's 'all under control and they're looking at it'. Well, that's a standard joke, isn't it? Those sorts of comments are what we crack jokes about. We've moved that here and we intend to divide the House on the issue.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the member for Kennedy and the very important amendments that he has brought to this House because it's all about making sure that country people get fair access to the NBN and telecommunications. I tell you what, if you want to talk about who is the heir to the legacy of the great 'Black Jack' McEwen of the Country Party days, look no further than the member for Kennedy. He is actually taking up the causes, as seen through these amendments, that the National Party should be taking up.</para>
<para>They should be the ones standing up and saying, 'We want a universal service obligation.' They are the ones that should be fighting for this. It's the National Party that should be fighting to keep the National Broadband Network in public ownership, because once these assets are sold—once the silverware is sold—you can't get them back. They give you a short-term sugar hit with some money in the coffers, but then it goes.</para>
<para>If you look at all of the asset sales that we've had through the years, both at a state and at a federal level, what is there to show for it now? In the days of COVID, the previous government was actually printing money. 'Quantitative easing' was what they called it when Australia did it for the first time. They actually just printed money. So, once these assets are sold, it's like selling the family silverware—it goes.</para>
<para>The member for Kennedy has brought these amendments to this House to make sure that country people get their fair share, and the member for Kennedy knows there is still a great divide in this country. We have the Great Dividing Range in the Central West of New South Wales. It's a physical barrier—they call it the 'sandstone curtain'—bit it's also a divide in terms of equality of services and equality of access to services in so many different ways. That's the great divide that exists in this nation—between city and country—and the member for Kennedy, the true heir of the legacy of Black Jack McEwen, comes to this place to ensure that country people get their fair share, and that they get their fair share out of the National Broadband Network.</para>
<para>I commend the member for Kennedy for bringing these amendments to this place. There is no point having universal service obligations if the NBN is actually sold off, because they wouldn't mean anything. We've seen that with Telstra. The government has spent billions on the NBN, and taxpayers need to get some return and benefit, and country people need to get return and benefit. That's what these amendments by the member for Kennedy are all about.</para>
<para>I look back to the glory days of the old Country Party. Sadly, those days are long gone. I grew up in a Country Party family, and it's no longer the party that I grew up with. I look at the member for Kennedy. He's lived it for decades, through state and federal politics. He's seen and lived what the Country Party used to be. So when you get today's coalition standing up and seemingly opposing legislation like this, which commits the NBN to public ownership, you just shake your head. As the member for Kennedy points out, the old-school Nats would be rolling in their graves if they knew what was going on with the current coalition. I think that's one of the reasons that current National Party members find the member for Kennedy so difficult to deal with: he reminds them of what the National Party used to be and the values that the National Party and the old Country Party used to have in the days of Black Jack McEwen and the days of Doug Anthony. Those days, sadly, are long gone, but, through amendments like these, which the member for Kennedy has brought to this place, that spirit lives on. The true spirit of the old Country Party lives on through the amendments that the member for Kennedy has brought to this place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge my support for the member for Kennedy's amendments, as a person with an electorate that has a mix of fibre to the node, a bit of fibre to the premises and some fixed wireless but a lot of satellite. There is a lot of satellite in my electorate. Many people—when they talk to Telstra, in particular—are told, 'You can't get NBN.' That's simply because for many years Telstra wouldn't provide a satellite service, and, as they were not delivering the service, they would tell people that they couldn't get NBN. It was a huge disservice.</para>
<para>What we are finding right across my community is that we're the poor cousins when it comes to the NBN. We're the poor cousins when it comes to telecommunications. On an average two-hour-stretch drive through my community, I drop out of service a minimum of eight times. We need a universal service obligation that covers the NBN but also covers mobile phones, because right across our communities—in my area there are communities at risk of bushfire, and in the member for Kennedy's area there are a whole range of different natural disasters that can befall the community—it really is a safety issue. I've got to say, when I am driving on roads where I know that there's a higher likelihood of having a car accident, it is incredibly concerning—it is scary to be driving on roads where you know there is no telephone box near you and no way you can get a call out if needed. So I very much commend the member for Kennedy for his great work here.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to support the member for Kennedy's excellent amendments. I would add to the member for Calare's observation about the Great Dividing Range. There is one Australia on the east of the Great Dividing Range and there's another Australia on the west of the Great Dividing Range. I'd say to the member for Calare that there's another dividing range, and that's Bass Strait. This is a very significant issue for Tasmanians. Many Tasmanians live in rural and remote areas, and they also have great difficulties accessing reliable NBN. So this isn't just an issue for the bush; it's equally, I think, an issue for Tasmania and Tasmanians.</para>
<para>We have small settlements right around the strait, right around the coast, with very small settlements on the west coast. I often go and holiday at a little place called Southport, at the end of the Huon Valley, an hour and a half's drive south of Hobart. That's as remote a part of the country as you could imagine, but a lot of people travel there. They go down there to holiday. We get a lot of tourists going down there. We get a lot of international business going down there. And people die down there because they don't have reliable access to the NBN or at least the phone system.</para>
<para>I think this amendment that the member for Kennedy has moved is sensible and entirely supportable, and I'd be very surprised if he doesn't end up having it carried on the voices—because who could possibly argue with the idea that there should be a legal obligation on the NBN to provide affordable access no matter where you live in the country? Now, if I'd said that maybe as recently as a decade ago, I probably would have been put in my place by technical experts saying, 'For heaven's sake, Australia is a continent. It's just impossible.' Wherever you live, you should be able to pick up the phone or get on the internet. But the fact is this is 2024. The technology has existed for years. The only reason some people in this country don't have affordable and reliable access to the internet is decisions by government not to ensure it happens. That's the only reason there are people in this country that don't have affordable or reliable access to the NBN, including a great many Tasmanians right throughout the state of Tasmania.</para>
<para>I call on the government and I call on the opposition to get behind this amendment. It's not good enough, I say to the government, that they're 'working on it'. I agree with the member for Kennedy. That's just a line we throw around in this place. It means 'we're kicking the can down the road, and hopefully you'll go away and stop mentioning it'.</para>
<para>So good on you, Member for Kennedy. I reckon this is the time to get behind this amendment. The guarantee doesn't have to be in place tomorrow. There can be a reasonable timeline. We could give Australians that certainty, no matter where they live in this country, for safety, for access to government services, for access to banking, to be able to run a business these days—wherever they need to live in the country, particularly in rural and remote areas and right throughout Tasmania. It is 2024, after all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate. The government acknowledges the concerns of the member for Kennedy and agrees that universal access to broadband services is an important protection for the Australian community. I also want to acknowledge his tireless advocacy for his constituents, the good people of Kennedy, on communications and connectivity issues. The government doesn't support the amendment, as it would duplicate existing legislative protections that deliver the outcomes the member for Kennedy is seeking, and I'll explain why.</para>
<para>Since 2020, NBN Co has been subject to legislation known as the statutory infrastructure provider regime, or SIP regime. This is complementary to Telstra's voice and payphone universal service obligation and ensures that all premises in Australia can access high-speed broadband services, on reasonable request, by a retail provider. NBN Co is the default SIP under the regime, but other infrastructure providers can also operate as SIPs—typically, where they've been contracted to service new developments. SIPs are required to provide wholesale services that allow retail providers to supply retail broadband with baseline speeds of 25/5 megabits per second. The amendment as proposed would therefore duplicate the existing obligation on NBN Co to ensure that its services are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia.</para>
<para>The government recognises the importance of ensuring that universal service arrangements reflect community expectations and preferences for connectivity, particularly given the rollout of the NBN. The government has been consulting publicly on opportunities to more effectively and efficiently deliver telecommunications universal services and is currently considering feedback received through that process. The current Regional Telecommunications Review is also considering this issue and is due to provide advice to government before the end of 2024.</para>
<para>I can assure the member for Kennedy and all honourable members that the outcomes encapsulated in this proposed amendment, that the NBN be reasonably accessible to all Australians, will be front of mind in the government's consideration of the form of universal service reform and the response to the Regional Telecommunications Review. As always, I'm happy to engage with all honourable members on improvements to communications services in their electorates.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for her response to the member for Kennedy just now. I rise to support the member for Kennedy though, for the reasons that are clear to all of us, I think. While I acknowledge that the minister has indicated that the member for Kennedy's amendment would duplicate what's already in place with SIPs, I guess I want to say that everything that we can do as a parliament to ensure that there is fair, equitable, fast, reliable internet for rural and regional Australians we must do, and I'm here to represent the people of Indi in that endeavour. I thank the government for the work they're doing through RTIRK and through the review of rural and regional telecommunications services more broadly. I was very happy to engage in that process and put in a fulsome submission, calling for, as the member for Kennedy has done, fast, reliable, guaranteed internet for rural and regional Australians, because, as we know, this is actually a fundamental human right now. During COVID, I had students in my electorate competing with students right across the nation for their final year 12 exams, sitting out in trucks on top of hills trying to get a signal for their mobile phone in order to charge through for their online Zoom education—not good enough; clearly not good enough. In rural and regional Australia, we rely on telehealth because we simply don't have the rural health workforce to provide the health care we need. Again, in order to do that with a full video screen rather than just a telephone, we need fast, reliable internet. Every time I walk down the street—even with the improvements that have absolutely happened under this government to the rollout of NBN, we still of course haven't got there yet.</para>
<para>In 2022, I introduced legislation into this House speaking to exactly the concerns that the member for Kennedy has put forward today. I absolutely support a universal service obligation and statutory infrastructure provider network that requires the NBN and all telcos to support people living in rural, regional and remote Australia, where in fact so much of our economic powerhouse is located. A key recommendation in my submission to the 2024 Regional Telecommunications Review was that the new universal service obligation must address home and business internet delivered as part of the National Broadband Network. I've been very grateful to meet with the minister on many occasions and indeed very recently. I understand that consultations are going on in relation to exactly what the new universal service obligation might look like. So I will continue to come to this parliament and work in good faith, including with the member for Kennedy and the minister and my parliamentary colleagues, to ensure that we deliver here in Australia a high-speed, highly functional, reliable NBN for everybody and most especially that we do not leave a single person in rural and regional Australia behind.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:18]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>16</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>48</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. <br />Bill agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>8127</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7280" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8127</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:26]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>49</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:30]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>49</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>8129</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5, column 1), omit "to 4", substitute "and 3".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8, column 1), omit "Schedules 6 and 7", substitute "Schedule 6".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, page 95 (line 1) to page 129 (line 8), omit the Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 7, page 169 (line 1) to page 188 (line 29), omit the Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>It is outrageous that this bill is not going to an inquiry. The government and the coalition won't agree on anything. Why do you think they agree on this? It is the biggest reform to our electoral system in 40 years. It took six months to draft, but apparently it doesn't need any scrutiny. Communities are showing that they want choice, and this bill would reduce our choices.</para>
<para>With more time, better amendments could be proposed with input from the experts and the public. They could address both the intended-but-undemocratic parts of the bill and the inevitable unintended consequences of this bill, of which I'm sure there are many. But, given the timing of this bill and the way it is being unceremoniously rushed through the House and the Senate this fortnight, I'm going to constrain my amendments to a couple of conceptual things that are deeply problematic. These are the most offensive parts of the bill, although there is tough competition for which are the most offensive parts.</para>
<para>My amendments remove schedule 4 and schedule 7. Schedule 4 deals with expenditure caps. Expenditure caps on election expenses are complicated and not fair. It you're an incumbent, you have an office, you have staff and you have a communications budget. If you're in a party, there are also senators in your area that have their own communications budgets. The way this legislation is drafted, any ads that are not for the individual but are for the party are not counted within the divisional cap, so a party incumbent could outspend a challenger many times over. Just listen to that. They could outspend a challenger many times over. This is not a level playing field.</para>
<para>Now, a small tweak to the spending cap for challenges is not going to fix this. This is a fundamental problem with the legislation. Spending caps are not necessary if you deal with transparency and a reasonable donation cap. I think a fair bit of work needs to be done on that too, but that needs to be done in a sensible, considered way in full public view, not rushed through in a hurry like this. This is not banning big money; it is protecting the parties and locking out challengers. That is why my amendment proposes to remove schedule 4 on expenditure caps.</para>
<para>The second change in my amendments is to remove schedule 7. This is administrative assistance funding and election funding. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Why should taxpayers massively increase payments for political campaigns when so many people are struggling? This is just wrong. An increase in public funding to politicians like this was attempted in 2013, but the public got wind of it and it was pulled. The public realised they were being asked to pay more for political campaigns, and that was not on. This is a huge increase of about $40 million in public funding for politicians. There are two types here. There's public funding on a per-vote basis and administrative assistance funding, and both types lock in the major parties. For per-vote public funding, we're going to see a huge increase under this legislation, from $3.50 to $5. This is calculated based on how many votes you got in the last election, so it's great if you happen to be an incumbent. It's not great if you're a challenger. If you didn't get any votes last time, because you weren't running, you get no funding. This makes just one more challenge that people have to face when they are taking on the two-party duopoly. Parties are able to make a profit in unwinnable seats and shift that money to where they're being challenged. They can harvest that public funding and use it strategically. It gives them a war chest to fight any new challengers. Now, this is fine for me; I'm an incumbent. But it's not fine for anyone new who thinks that we need new ideas and new ways of being represented in our politics. This reduces competition, and it's not on.</para>
<para>The administrative assistance funding is also deeply problematic. This is a huge transfer of cash from taxpayers to political parties, and it doesn't have to be spent; it can be banked. If it is spent, it can be sent on all sorts of things—way too many different things. It's $30,000 per MP and $15,000 per senator but all the admin is done centrally by the party—so, even though every extra MP a party has attracts another $30,000, all that admin is done by one or two people centrally. And there are definitely economies of scale in administration—ask any company in the country. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Chaney</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Gorman</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Other members of the crossbench wish to speak on the amendments. As they're well aware, they can just alternate the call between themselves.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Chaney</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe I'm allowed to ask for an extension in consideration in detail.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Gorman</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just being respectful to the crossbench. There are other crossbench members who wish to speak, but if the member wants to continue I'm happy to grant leave for her to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No company in the country would propose an admin fee that increases in a straight line with the number of employees or widgets or anything else. It is laughable and it doesn't recognise the economies of scale. If communities want to be represented outside the major parties it creates a major hurdle. There are problems with many other parts of the bill as well, but there is no time for careful consideration or public scrutiny because it is being rushed through. The government might throw a few scraps around in a show of cooperation on amendments, but we will see no serious scrutiny and no serious amendments. Both major parties have voted against further scrutiny.</para>
<para>If the major parties want to regain votes they should do it by offering better leadership, not by changing the rules. Voters will not forget that the two major parties are pulling up the ladder here. Australians are sick of it. If this legislation is in fact about transparency and preventing individuals from having too much influence, they'd accept these amendments. If it's about locking in the two parties, they won't.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Curtin. She's been able to identify two discrete parts of this legislation that could be removed and still enable the government to proceed with significant electoral reform. I think it's a smart way forward. When you look at a lot of the commentary that is coming out of the public sector across our country, many—as am I—are prepared to accept a lower donation threshold and many are prepared to accept as close as possible to real-time donations. But there are significant concerns in what appears to be a baked-in disproportional benefit for party participants when it comes to expenditure caps and this weird new category of public funding called administrative funding.</para>
<para>To be clear, the bill ostensibly imposes spending caps at a divisional level, a state level and a federal level as well as for Senate campaigns. Yet the caps as they're currently structured are riddled with loopholes that ultimately benefit the legacy parties. Why? Because a divisional cap, which is where somebody like an Independent exists, is set at $800,000 per seat—meaning a candidate is allowed to only spend up to that amount, be they an incumbent or a challenger. A party candidate, however, while in theory being subjected to the same divisional spending cap, is free to have their campaign topped up with executions that are funded under a federal cap for a party which goes up to $90 million.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that political parties do not contest every lower house seat or every Senate seat, and they do not spend the same amount of money in every seat; in fact, they shift the money between seats so they are focused on those seats that they see as the most vulnerable. Under this legislation, parties will essentially be able to put themselves into a situation where they are able to back up individual candidates in divisions by providing additional advertising and electoral marketing materials that go over and above what is everybody else's budget. I think that is fundamentally unfair, and my community of North Sydney would not support that; they would like to see that removed. If it's going to be an 800-kay cap, make it 800 kay for all—including the party expenditure that takes place over and above an individual's direct expenditure.</para>
<para>I will go to this innocuous funding stream called the administrative funding assistance. To be clear, for anyone listening at home, the administrative funding would see every MP in the House of Representatives receive $30,000 a year, whilst every senator would receive $15,000 a year. In the case of an Independent, that money comes directly to them, but in the case of a party the funds are consolidated and the party machine would receive that funding on a quarterly basis. That means the vast majority of this funding will go to the major parties based on a false premise that administrative costs increase proportionately with the number of members. But they don't. It doesn't work like that.</para>
<para>Most of the costs of running a political party are fixed, and it makes no sense to presume that they would increase in direct line with an increase in the number of members. Interestingly, the government has intimated that these provisions have been included predominantly at the behest of people like me—Independents—to cover what are very real compliance costs, including legal fees and accounting fees. When you are just one person wholly and solely bearing those costs they are difficult to get up and over. But, in looking at the detail in this legislation, when I run the numbers on the current members sitting in the House, this legislation means that the major parties would get $4.8 million a year of public funding to use not just on legal fees and accounting fees, but for all sorts of things, including conference attendance, seminar attendance, meetings or similar functions at which policies of a registered political party are discussed, expenditure on equipment or vehicles used by staff and, perhaps most offensively, to pay interest payments on loans!</para>
<para>I'm okay if you want to discuss an administrative payment, because accounting fees and legal fees are high, but I think when we start talking about covering loan repayments for the major parties we have a problem. Therefore, as proposed by the member for Curtin, should be removed from the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a number of questions for the minister in relation to the broader bill. They're not specifically on these amendments, so I'm happy for you to speak first or for me to ask you these questions here or at another point in this debate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In response to that question, I'll just speak to the amendments for five minutes, and then we can move on to other questions about the bill.</para>
<para>The government does not support these amendments, because we do support expenditure caps. We think that that is the right path forward. We think the idea that you can have unlimited amounts of money spent in an electorate for one individual candidate is not sustainable, and we need to stop that. That's why we can't support these amendments, because they will remove those expenditure caps. They will lead to unlimited spending, which is one of the key issues that we're seeking to address.</para>
<para>The member for Curtin said that it was complicated and unfair. Is it complicated? Yes. But just because it's complicated it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, because it is very fair to make sure that we shift the power from big money—which is the power that is being defended by some in this debate—to the voters of Australia. That is indeed what the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended we do. That is what the government wants to do. It's time to get the big money out and put voters back in control.</para>
<para>I note that the member for Curtin significantly outspent her other seven opponents. But even under this proposal, with an expenditure cap of $800,000 per candidate, if there were another eight candidates at the election that this would apply to, which is 2028, the voters of Curtin would still see the ability for $6.4 million to be spent across the eight candidates in that electorate. Now, that's a lot of democracy. That's a lot of letters in the letterbox. That is a lot of signs as you drive down the Stirling Highway. It's a lot of billboards.</para>
<para>I just want to make this point. When it comes to the differences on the crossbench on questions about funding of members with administrative funding, we have the full spectrum. We have some members of the crossbench who are saying that we should have no administrative funding for members. Some are saying that we should cap that administrative funding. And the second reading amendment from the member for Warringah, which we just voted down, was to give public administrative funding not when someone is elected to parliament but when someone nominates as a candidate—a $36 million handout just for someone putting in a nomination form. I don't know about you, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, but we don't provide money unless people reach a certain threshold of spending. The idea that we would simply hand out $36 million just to a person who nominates is not a sustainable proposition.</para>
<para>The amendments that were proposed by the member for Curtin—there are many things I agree with her on, but on this I fundamentally disagree. I don't think the amendment that would provide unrestricted spending by wealthy individuals is what the Australian people want. I think most Australians would say that the idea that someone even has $20,000 to hand over, out of their pocket, to an individual candidate is quite a luxury to have.</para>
<para>We've had others in this debate say that $20,000 is a low or a small amount. You tell that to the working people of Australia who would never have the luxury of having $20,000 to hand over to a candidate of their choice. So, while the $20,000 cap is a very high cap, it is one that is indeed—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Curtin?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Chaney</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance: my amendment does not deal with donation caps. It doesn't talk about the amount of money that can be put in by a wealthy individual. It is about spending caps, which is a different issue. That's the total amount that you can spend in an election. If 5,000 people donate $200 each, why can't that be used in an electoral campaign? What he's talking about there—wealthy individuals—does not go to this amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I ask the minister to please confine his comments to the amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I'm talking to the bill in its entirety in this consideration in detail stage. I'm talking to the entirety of the proposals that are put forward by the member for Curtin. I note that it does—when we talk about these expenditure caps, removing expenditure caps means that, for those who have money of their own, under this proposal if you delete all expenditure caps then, yes, anyone who has a large amount of money, if you're already a wealthy individual who seeks to go into the parliament and you can afford to or have the luxury to fund your own campaign— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a question for the minister. If 5,000 people donated $200 each, why shouldn't that be used in an electoral campaign? In what way is that not consistent with democracy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's proposal simply seeks to place a cap on how much can be spent in a single electorate by a single candidate; that's a very sensible proposal. That total cap on spending is $800,000. Again, I don't think many people in this place spend that much in their own individual seats. It happens in just a couple of seats in my home state of Western Australia; it doesn't happen in my seat, but that's the proposal.</para>
<para>Again, I recognise that different people have donations from different forums and people get funding from different places. But, whether it's someone who contributes $5,000—again, a very large amount of money to contribute to a candidate—or someone who just so happens to be individually and personally wealthy, the fact that they should have no restrictions on their spending, no restrictions at all, is very unsustainable. It is completely at odds with the recommendations that we've seen.</para>
<para>Again, I want to go through the history of how we've got to this point. Way back on 5 August 2022, the Special Minister of State did—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order, the member for Warringah?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Steggall</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's the consideration in detail stage. This is about the amendments or the question put to the minister; it's not a time to do a second reading speech.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Out of respect to you, Deputy Speaker, I would note that this is indeed how we do consideration in detail. Question time will be in a couple of hours. Members are more than welcome to ask questions in question time in that format under those standing orders, but I'll continue to operate under the consideration in detail standing orders, which have served this place well for many years.</para>
<para>Again, how did we get to these recommendations that the government is acting on? The government is acting on what has been put to government by a multipartisan committee. That goes all the way back to 5 August 2022, when the Special Minister of State wrote to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and specifically asked them to inquire into donation reform, funding of elections, limits on spending and truth in advertising. It's there in the letter with the referral for the inquiry: limits on spending. And the idea that we will somehow take out those limits on spending at the last minute, after talking about it for more than two years, deeply concerns me.</para>
<para>The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters released an interim report, and that interim report goes all the way back to 19 June 2023, combined with the final report. I want to read out some of those recommendations—which, again, have been with us for more than 1½ years.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Mackellar?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Scamps</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Am I able to ask a question to the minister at this point?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it's got to be a point of order. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those recommendations, on the table for more than 1½ years, clearly recommended lowering the disclosure threshold to $1,000, and we've got to get that done. None of us in this place is guaranteed a seat in the next parliament—not one of us. That's a really important principle. Therefore, if we have an opportunity to do something about this, we should do it now.</para>
<para>The second recommendation—really clear, up front—was that the Australian government introduce real-time disclosure requirements. Again, that is what the government is doing: acting on this report, and acting within the same parliament to which it was delivered—because there is no guarantee; the Australian people reign supreme in this system. We're trying to give them more power through these reforms, but they decide who's here in the next parliament. We want to make sure the job they sent us to do this time is done.</para>
<para>Reforms to the definition of a gift were recommended, to ensure more transparency and meet community expectations of political donations. Again, recommendation 4—right up front, on the first page:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce donation caps for federal election donations.</para></quote>
<para>Then, right after that, right next to it, is recommendation 5:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce expenditure (also known as spending) caps for federal elections.</para></quote>
<para>And that is what we are doing, and that is what's at debate right now with this amendment. I don't see how anyone can go back to their electorates and say, 'We want to see more of those $2 million versus $2 million campaigns, big money versus big money, election after election.' It's unsustainable. It is not in our democratic principles as a nation. We want to make sure the Australian people get the chance to have their voice heard, whoever they choose to send to this place. That's why the government can't support these amendments. They are not consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and not consistent with the expectations of the Australian people. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a really quick question to the assistant minister. Assistant Minister, is it your contention that every seat will have the same amount spent on it under this electoral reform? Or is it the case that some parties' seats will be able to have more money spent in them than an Independent seat?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will go through the caps in their entirety. I think it's important that we are clear on exactly how they roll out. They're outlined in the explanatory memorandum, which I referred to earlier. If we go through what the caps are for spending, I think we know that there's $800,000 for an individual seat. There's a total $90 million annual expenditure cap and the same divisional and Senate expenditure caps, regardless of party size or number of candidates the party is endorsing. That's been very clear for a long time. That's been outlined.</para>
<para>If we go to how that plays out, it is a cap per candidate when it comes to material that endorses an individual candidate, and that's been very clear. That's been what the government, after lots of consultation, got to. Perhaps I could just go through a little bit of the consultation the Special Minister of State has done on this. Obviously there's the inquiry, to which we saw more than 1,500 submissions provided. We had I think 12 hearings in total. Indeed, we've adopted that inquiry and its final report as the impact analysis in the explanatory memorandum. That's not always the case. That's not always how governments do things, but it's actually the government showing respect to the parliament.</para>
<para>We've seen consultation across the Department of Finance. I had the opportunity, last night, to thank officials of the Department of Finance who've helped with the drafting and preparation of this bill. On that, I'll also note thanks to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, who provide all the drafting services to the Commonwealth for these types of matters.</para>
<para>We have consulted across a range of government agencies. Obviously, discussions have had to happen with the Australian Electoral Commission, where we're talking about new processes to make sure that what is proposed can be implemented by the independent electoral commission that we are so fortunate to have.</para>
<para>We've seen consultations across members of the crossbench, who are here with us now, and they know that because they've been in those conversations themselves. We've had conversations with a range of organisations. I myself have reviewed the submission that was made by Climate 200—which was thanked in the member for Curtin's inaugural speech—amongst others. We have continued to outline these proposals time and time again.</para>
<para>The Minister himself—going as far back as interviews he did on 26 March 2023, talking about electoral reform—has been clear that this has been a priority for the government. It's been clear that we knew we needed to do something when it came to donation reforms.</para>
<para>When it comes to making sure that we have spending caps, we want to make sure that those spending caps are both able to run a campaign that allows voters to get information and not give all of the power to those who have the deepest pockets. That's a really simple proposition. I don't know what it is in your ideas that are so confusing that you would need to spend more than $800,000 in an electorate of some 120,000 to 130,000 people. I don't know why you would need to spend more than that amount of money. It is a very high bar. It's a very reasonable expectation that we would have an expenditure cap.</para>
<para>With that, I'm noting the time. I think our time might be eating into the goods words of the Treasurer for some contributions around the economy.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>8134</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>8134</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8140</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8140</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8140</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7280" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>8140</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Curtin be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a question for the assistant minister. This is in light of the speeches from both sides in relation to the state of our economy and the need to focus spending on those doing it tough. Could you please clarify to the House the process or calculation for having, the level of inquiry for having, and how it is value for money to the public to have in this legislation provision for an uncapped administrative assistance payment that equates to, on current numbers in the Australian parliament, some $4,820,000 of public money going to political parties yearly, which is made up of $2.72 million to the Labor Party per year, $1.56 million to the Liberal Party and $540,000 to the National Party for expenses, including expenditure for conferences, functions, staff, staff training, staff vehicles, office accommodation and even payment for interest on loans.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course, where there are some variables in any election, final costings have to be done following the votes of the people. You can't provide funding for a particular vote until you know exactly how many Australians have voted in a particular election. While I wish we had 100 per cent turnout, unfortunately, that's still a goal to which we aspire. I note that the only uncapped proposal of the nature which the member just refers to that's been put to the House is, in fact, her own proposal, which had administrative funding provided to every person who is a candidate.</para>
<para>If you were to provide administrative funding to every person who is a candidate, which was the proposal put in the second reading amendment by the member for Warringah, that would mean that, simply by nominating yourself—it's a great return on investment—and paying your $2,000 nomination fee, you'd get $30,000 under that proposal. If we went on the numbers of the last election, that would be $36 million paid to people just for being a candidate. While I hope that no-one would nominate to be candidate in the interests of financial reward, but instead would do it out of an interest in public service, I would fear that, under the member's proposal, you'd probably have more than those 1,203 candidates for the House of Representatives that we saw at the 2022 election. That is why the government did not support that amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Respectfully, assistant minister, while that must have sounded nice in your head, you didn't respond to the question. The question was: how was the amount arrived at which provides for an uncapped amount in relation to members of parliament of major parties each receiving, once elected, $30,000 in administrative assistance from the public purse each year, which equates, if one takes the current membership of our parliament, between this place and the other place, to some $4.82 million per annum from the public purse going to the three major parties for expenses, including conferences, functions, staff training, office accommodation and even payment of interest on loans? My question to the assistant minister is: can he please indicate to the House how this is of benefit to the Australian taxpayer? How was this calculation arrived at? And how does this expense of $4.82 million to the Australian taxpayer have any relevance or equivalence to actual costs incurred by political parties to do this? Or is this just a pork barrel to enable the public to pay for elements like interest on party loans, office accommodation, staff training, staff vehicles, functions, conferences and other ridiculous items that have been included in this section?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:53]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>8</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>46</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, item 2, page 97 (after line 21), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Federal cap</inline> in section 302ALA, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Independent House candidate </inline>means a candidate for election to the House of Representatives, for a Division, at any time while the candidate is not endorsed by a registered political party.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Independent House candidate Divisional cap</inline> means 150% of the Divisional cap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 4, item 2, page 97 (lines 23 to 25), omit "a candidate for election to the House of Representatives, for a Division, at any time while the candidate is not endorsed by a registered political party", substitute "an Independent House candidate".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Independent House of Representatives by-election cap </inline>in section 302ALA, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Independent House of Representatives by-election cap</inline>, for a by-election, means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for an Independent House candidate—120% of the Independent House candidate Divisional cap that applies on the 2 day the writ for the by-election is issued; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) otherwise—120% of the Divisional cap that applies on the 2 day the writ for the by-election is issued.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (lines 4 and 5), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Independent House of Representatives cap </inline>in section 302ALA, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Independent House of Representatives cap</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for an Independent House candidate—the Independent House candidate Divisional cap; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) otherwise—the Divisional cap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (before line 6), before the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Independent Senate candidate or Senator </inline>in section 302ALA, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Independent Senate candidate </inline>means a candidate for election to the Senate, for a State or Territory, at any time while the candidate is not endorsed by a registered political party.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (lines 7 to 9), omit "a candidate for election to the Senate, for a State or Territory, at any time while the candidate is not endorsed by a registered political party", substitute "an Independent Senate candidate".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (after line 16), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Independent Senate candidate or Senator </inline>in section 302ALA, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Independent Senate candidate Senate base amount</inline> means 150% of the Senate base amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Independent Senate cap</inline> in section 302ALA, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) multiplying whichever of the following applies by the number of Divisions in the State or Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) for an Independent Senate candidate—the Independent Senate candidate Senate base amount;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) otherwise—the Senate base amount; and</para></quote>
<para>This is a deeply problematic bill and a deeply problematic process that has been followed to push it through the House with almost no scrutiny. Despite the complexity of the legislation, despite it running to more than 200 pages and despite it being described by the minister as the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws for over 40 years, the government and the opposition voted against the bill even being considered by a committee inquiry. This is clearly a stitch-up, trying to entrench incumbency and reduce competition in our democracy. It is very telling that, aside from the minister and shadow minister, not a single member of either the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Party got up to defend this bill. That says it all.</para>
<para>One of the biggest issues in this bill is the structural spending caps. I support spending caps in principle. As we all agree, Clive Palmer should not be able to spend more than $100 million on an election. So, on paper, the $800,000 spending cap for individual candidates seems reasonable. But, when you unpack how these caps are applied, it's clear they create a structural bias towards the major parties. Whilst an Independent is limited to spending $800,000, the major party can not only spend $800,000 promoting themselves personally with their name; they also benefit from their party's advertising for the Senate, up to $9.2 million in New South Wales, as well as their party's national spending, which can be up to $90 million overall. The structure of these caps has many loopholes, that the Labor Party could line every single street in my electorate with banners saying, 'Vote (1) Labor,' and it would not count towards a candidate's $800,000 divisional cap.</para>
<para>I have heard the minister describe how he didn't need to spend $800,000 on his electorate and this should be allowed for competition. But the point is that this bill entrenches unfairness in competition. And this is why the loopholes are being called by the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International and the Australian Democracy Network—I mean, these are hardly bodies that are sitting there not interested in electoral reform. These guys have been pushing it from long before the Labor Party agreed to do this. They all said yesterday that 'the bill will entrench major party and incumbency advantage', and they said passing it without an inquiry was 'not in the interest of the Australian public'.</para>
<para>While Independent MPs like me are disadvantaged by the structure of these caps, the impact on challengers is much worse. New independent candidates, selected by communities who are frustrated by major parties' failures to tackle long-term problems, face huge barriers. Most of these candidates, including most of the people on the crossbench right now, do not have a political past. They come from business. They are doctors. They are from not-for-profits or, perhaps, the public service. That is exactly the sort of diversity we want in this parliament, but it means that challengers usually don't have a big profile and will have to spend heavily to build name recognition, establish credibility and educate the electorate about their policies. In contrast, the major party can rely on the reputation of the party. They can rely on the fact that the major parties are on television practically every single day and that the major parties have consistently used public spending on advertising to promote what they do in their parties and to really build on the back of these in the national media, even if incumbent MPs, like me, have an advantage over them. So applying the same cap to Independent challengers and to incumbents is clearly not a level playing field.</para>
<para>This amendment seeks to address that imbalance. It raises the spending cap for non-incumbent Independent candidates in the House and allows them to spend 150 per cent of the divisional cap. An equivalent provision is made for in the Senate. This change is modelled on spending caps in New South Wales, where Independents are able to spend 1.5 times that of major parties. This amendment does not benefit a single member of this House nor a single member of this crossbench, and I think that should be noted, because I think there has been a lot of imputation, saying I'm trying to protect—this is not about me trying to protect my seat. This is about trying to make sure that we have contestability in our parliament and in our democracy, and that means competition. It does not benefit a single senator. It only benefits those who seek to challenge us, and it is about purely creating competition in our democracy.</para>
<para>The government could argue that this cap unfairly disadvantages major party candidates at the expense of their challengers, and I would refer them to my earlier example. This bill bakes in structural spending advantages for the major parties, which this amendment would only partly—and I hesitate to bring it forward because I know it will only partly address so many problems in this bill, but it would still make it better for challengers. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the member for Wentworth.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just have a question to the minister. I actually have some other questions about amendments I couldn't put forward because, unfortunately, the drafters have not been able to deal with them in time, but I'd appreciate your response first, and then we can perhaps go to questions afterwards? Is that possible?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just outline the government's position on these amendments, which will be my contribution for this part of the consideration in detail. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The caps have been set based on evidence. Everything has been provided in briefings, in what we've seen in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report and the explanatory memorandum, and our proposal is about limiting the arms race for everyone.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to make the observation that there was a member of the Labor Party in the Senate who left the Labor Party and joined the crossbench, and there has been quite a lot of discussion in the media about whether it was appropriate for her to stay on the crossbench, given that she was not elected on her own basis as she was elected on the basis of the party. I think that is really the point that I'm trying to make here. You could run in my seat. You could not have a candidate until the last possible moment that the election is called. You could run a candidate in my seat and you could actually not spend a single dollar with somebody's name on it as an electoral candidate, and they would still probably get, if they were from the Liberal Party, maybe a primary of 30 per cent, just on the basis of the party alone.</para>
<para>I cannot understand how the government—and the minister, who's obviously not listening to me, because he's having an animated conversation with somebody else, but that's his prerogative—can pretend that this is even, that this is levelling the playing field, when there is so much advantage from having those major parties behave in that case.</para>
<para>I'm going to ask some other questions of the minister, because I think they're important questions. I'm not sure if I am going to get an answer to them. Before I do, I want to make a personal apology. I named a staff member in my comments yesterday and I shouldn't have done that. I apologise unreservedly for that. I should reserve all my comments to the ministers and the people who are responsible.</para>
<para>My questions are about nominated entities. The government is making the case that this fair, that we are 'all on the same playing field', and pieces like that. My concern is that the government and the opposition have these nominated entities which have perhaps up to $100 million in them; we don't know how much money is in them. My understanding of the legislation, which is still imperfect because I only got it on Friday, means that these entities are able to give the Labor Party or the Liberal Party any amount of money that they want. They're not subject to the donation caps that any other member is subject to.</para>
<para>To use a sporting analogy, because there are a lot of people who love sports in this area, my question is: if every team in the AFL had to comply with a salary cap but the two teams that had been going the longest—let's call them Melbourne and Geelong, not the Swans—didn't have the same salary caps, would that be seen as fair? That is my question, really, to the government in relation to this: is it okay that because the McCormick Foundation—which potentially holds up to $100 million worth of assets—was built and grew wealthy before this legislation, it can make any donation of any amount it wants to the Liberal Party, for example, and is not subject to any sorts of donation caps at all? So anyone who wants to give me or anyone else money—even in a party that has not been established—can't give more than $20,000, but it's okay for the McCormick Foundation, because it has been around for ages and reportedly has $100 million in assets, to give as much money as it wants to the Liberal Party.</para>
<para>Similarly in the case of the Labor Party, there are institutions that can give as much money as they want. Do you think that's fair, or should these institutions—if we're really going to level the playing field—perhaps be subject to the same donation caps as everybody else is in this country? It's a genuine question. Why are there no donation caps on the assets of these organisations, these nominated entities, which are not the Labor Party or the Liberal Party? They're entities close to them but they're not the same thing. Why should they be able to give unlimited donations?</para>
<para>Why should everybody else not be able to have these sorts of donations? Or why is there not some sort of management? If you don't have a nominated entity, why don't you for instance get to have a higher donation cap so that there's a chance for, again, challengers to build up their war chest, like the McCormick Foundation and the Labor Party's entities? That's a question I still do not have an answer to, and I think it goes to the heart of why I don't think this is an extremely fair bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I just wanted to check whether the minister will be responding straightaway to the questions put by the member for Wentworth or whether I can ask another question and he'll take them all as a whole?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't direct who stands on their feet. I can just continue the procedures for the day. I take it you're on your feet, so the member for Indi has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. I will take it that the minister has held those questions in his mind. Can I add one more to them—a very simple question? The minister just said in his remarks in response to the member for Wentworth's amendments that the government was acting on evidence in order to arrive at the metric for the caps. I've seen no such evidence. The JSCEM report supported both recommended donation caps and expenditure caps in principle but did not nominate an amount, so I would like the minister to give us the evidence that the government have used to arrive at these numbers, please.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To the minister: as part of the consideration in detail process, this is a question and answer session—that is my understanding—whether you're moving an amendment or not. It would just be great to understand if the minister is going to engage in consideration in detail.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had a question for the assistant minister, who asserted that this legislation was all about taking big money out of our electoral system—something that everyone here on the crossbench does agree with. We do need far greater transparency and we need to take the influence of big money out of our electoral system.</para>
<para>However, I'd like to ask a question about the fairness of the way that this bill is structured. I want to give the example of two candidates in an electorate. One is able to spend $800,000 and $800,000 only. The other candidate, who is part of a party, is able to spend $800,000 plus potentially another $1 million, as long as their name isn't mentioned. I'd like to hear from the assistant minister how that can be portrayed as fair and equal and a level playing field.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a series of other questions on this bill in relation to exemptions in relation to donations. It's not clear to me whether the minister's going to respond or not—unfortunately, it seems not. There are three pages of exemptions to the definition of a donation or a gift under this bill. Whether each of these is justified is exactly the sort of thing that we should be looking at in a committee inquiry, but the minister has said that we don't need another inquiry because all these questions were considered by JSCEM.</para>
<para>Can the minister explain where each of these exemptions is justified and explained in the JSCEM report? I am still seeking justification and understanding of why these areas were excluded from the gifts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am sitting here listening to the amount of money spent. As many people know, at the last election, I spent in total about $170,000 to get elected. Half of that was my own money and $80,000 was raised from the community.</para>
<para>For me, there are some fundamental flaws to this bill in terms of the money that major parties are being given, in particular, the bill introducing a new system of administrative funding to assist people that are already in the House and are incumbent.</para>
<para>I take myself back to 2022, to the campaign using my own money. The donations amount I took is nothing in comparison to the amount of money that the major parties seem to be trying to prevent. I think most independents you'll find from the community don't have the large amount of money that this bill seems to be preventing. But I think we need to look at how you justify that we can spend public money to give to the major parties that have already got incumbency of their office. That's the unfairness of it from my perspective. Of course, this bill certainly benefits those that are currently sitting in the House.</para>
<para>Thinking of those who are like me from three years ago, it would be more of a challenge. It would take some people who are madder than me to actually invest their own funds to campaign. So, that's my objection to this bill, because I think it has not been really thought through, even though it looks like the government is doing something about transparency and caps and all that. I think in a way you're also increasing lots of public funding for the major parties to continue the structure that you have.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>An additional question I have is whether the major parties are willing to give greater transparency about their nominated entities, which are the ones they are going to use to fund their campaigns, which nobody else can fund in the same way—all these nominated entities that the major parties will have access to. They're considerable funds. Will we get transparency in terms of their assets, in terms of all those pieces? And will the government consider, if people don't have nominated entities—which could give literally tens of millions of dollars to the major parties as donations, completely legitimately, under this bill, as far as I can read it—making some consideration that if the major parties get these uncapped donations from these nominated entities then there is some sort of consideration for those people who can't get uncapped donations, those people who haven't got funds that were set up 40 years ago to the benefit? Or perhaps the major parties will consider handing over these nominated entities to the public funds? This could be a great way to fund all this new expenditure fees, if we just had the assets of these nominated entities.</para>
<para>They're legitimate questions. If the major parties want to be able to access uncapped donations from their nominated entities, how do we level the playing field, if they're going to be able to access those uncapped donations but are going to cap them for everyone who doesn't have these nominated entities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the questions being raised by the crossbench are extremely important, and I'm sure that Australians who are listening at home have many questions as well. Perhaps the Australian people, who are very passionate about the integrity of their democracy, would find it useful to hear a careful explanation from the assistant minister about the difference between a nominated entity and an associated entity, to make clear to the voting public what we're talking about here—where donations go and how they're treated in those various entities.</para>
<para>This is complex legislation; of course it is. We know. We've been deep in it for a couple of days, which is the only amount of time we've had to look at it—unlike, I suspect, some members of the major parties, who've had more time with this. But there are many questions raised, and I think it's very important that they're answered. So, I really do earnestly request that the assistant minister go through that, because there are people listening, and this <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> will record that the crossbench has a very deep interest in ensuring that this legislation is what it says on the can: electoral reform. So, I put that question to the minister—to please explain the definition of those two entities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to add to the contribution by the member for Indi regarding the fact that this electoral reform bill will not be scrutinised, it seems, by a committee or a Senate inquiry. There have been several questions—very legitimate questions—from the crossbench. Seeing as the bill is not going to be interrogated under an inquiry, we would deeply appreciate some answers to our questions. We have questions that we would legitimately like answered and which the Australian public would also like the opportunity to hear your answers to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:23]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Georganas)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>7</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>50</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Debate adjourned. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8146</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 stands referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8146</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7276" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8146</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the bill immediately. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:34]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Georganas)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>50</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a second time. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>8147</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Men's Day</title>
          <page.no>8147</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>International Men's Day provides an opportunity for us to celebrate Aussie blokes, celebrate Territory men and also celebrate those working to support our young men through to our elders. I want to say thank you.</para>
<para>Flinders University is working to advance men's health through their WBMenNT program in partnership with the One Percent program and Indigenous Allied Health Australia. They've been trialling the implementation of an educational and social support program for young First Nations men in the NT. Dante Rodrigues and Jahdai Vigona, who spoke here in parliament last year, two fine Territory men, and Melissa Opozda recently visited the University of Michigan with Professor James Smith from the Flinders University team to learn about the WBMen program to refine the delivery of an Australian model. I caught up with them at our Darwin International Men's Day Lunch last week. The NT program is funded by Movember, who I caught up with here yesterday, and it has the potential to be scaled across Australia.</para>
<para>I also attended Indigenous Allied Health Australia's Leading Our Ways graduation ceremony last week out in Palmerston. Congratulations to these graduates for the work that you do to make sure our men are healthy, our women are healthy, our kids are healthy—that all Territorians are healthy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Local Government</title>
          <page.no>8147</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We recently had council elections in Victoria, and I want to single out those who lost their wards or retired and to thank them for their service. It is often said that government is most effective when it's closest to the people. Local councils play a vital role in grassroots democracy. They don't just bring services to the community; they bring communities together. I will always work closely with the local counsellors.</para>
<para>From Whitehorse, I want to thank Andrew Munroe, Trudy Skilbeck, Amanda McNeill, Denise Massoud, Mark Lane, Tina Liu and Raylene Carr. Many of you served as mayors and deputy mayors. I don't just count you as colleagues, in serving the community, but as friends. Cynthia Watson, in the Boroondara ward that will overlap the new Menzies, I thank you for your service. Finally, to the three councillors in Manningham, Tomas Lightbody, Stephen Mayne, who many will recognise, and Michelle Kleinert, all of you, in all three local government areas, have gone above and beyond to serve your wards. I appreciate what you have done for our communities, and I look forward to working with those who take the mantle from you.</para>
<para>To that end, I acknowledge the new mayors and deputy mayors of Manningham and Whitehorse. To Deirdre Diamante and Andrew Conlon, and to Andrew Davenport and Prue Cutts, I look forward to working with you to serve our communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations: Nurses and Midwives</title>
          <page.no>8148</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our New South Wales nurses and midwives are the backbone of our healthcare system, and yet, compared with their counterparts in other Australian states and territories, they are the lowest paid. This is leading to large numbers of our nurses and large numbers of our midwives leaving the state of New South Wales and pursuing healthcare roles in jurisdictions with better pay and conditions. This should not be happening in New South Wales. As a practising emergency doctor I continue to work shoulder to shoulder with these nurses and with these midwives, and I see firsthand the dedication, the care and the professionalism they exhibit in often very challenging situations.</para>
<para>Public sector nurses and midwives in New South Wales are calling for justified and necessary improvements to help rebuild our public health service. They are calling for better pay. They are calling for better conditions, including a 15 per cent pay rise. I have joined with our New South Wales nurses and midwives in their pursuit for better pay and conditions. The viability of our health system depends on it. I will continue to support our New South Wales nurses and midwives' campaign for better pay and conditions because it is the right thing to do.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Movember</title>
          <page.no>8148</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As you can plainly see, it is Movember. This wonderful initiative was started 21 years ago, and its goal is to be part of the solution for men's health. Movember has funded over 1,320 men's health projects around the world and transformed the way health services reach and support men. Sadly, in the main, men are not great at expressing their emotions or their perceived failings.</para>
<para>Of course, we all know that one of the greatest tragedies of mental health is the deception of the individual enduring what should be a temporary state in their life that they are the only one who is going through or has ever been through whatever challenge they are facing. Initiatives like Movember raise awareness and encourage people to talk about their individual challenges, and enable others to share their stories in overcoming similar challenges, giving people hope. My message to those who are not in a good place mental health wise is to reach out to the numerous organisations out there who are trained to help you get through this difficult period in your life.</para>
<para>So I'm proud to endure the itchiness on my top lip, the realisation that my facial hair is sparser and greyer than it once was, and the childish barbs of being called Rodriguez, Sanchez and Raul by my colleagues, if it just helps one person get back on track. It's our duty to our fellow man.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Free TAFE Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8148</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7271" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Free TAFE Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I represent a community in Macquarie that values its carpenters, plumbers and electricians; its hairdressers and beauty therapists; its outdoor tourism guides and chefs; and its aged-care and childcare workers. We know they learn and formalise their skills both on the job with great small-business bosses and at TAFE. That's why TAFE in the Blue Mountains, in the Hawkesbury and throughout Western Sydney really matters. Free TAFE is a way to make that pathway more accessible to more people, and more than half a million people have embraced it and are training in the jobs that we need.</para>
<para>The Liberals have confirmed that they'll oppose the Albanese government's Free TAFE Bill. This would deny a generation of Australians access to cost-of-living relief that helps them get secure, well-paid jobs. The Liberals have made it clear that they will scrap fee-free TAFE. Last time they were in office, the Liberals ripped $3 billion from TAFE and training. Are they going to do that again if they're given the chance? Are the Liberals going to tear up the existing fee-free arrangement with New South Wales? How much will TAFE cost students under the Liberals?</para>
<para>The Liberals left Australia with the worst skill shortage in 50 years, but they call fee-free TAFE wasteful spending. Under Labor, TAFE, the backbone for training our tradies, including free TAFE, is here to stay.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Representation</title>
          <page.no>8149</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If the last decade of politics has shown us anything, it's that the two-party system is going to hold Australia back the longer we let it exist. We see system change and structural reform being passed aside for quick bandaid fixes, and Labor-LNP unity tickets on reforms to cement their power. The fear of rocking the boat too much has well and truly ingrained itself in this place. The word I hear from my community about this incumbent Labor government is 'disappointing'. After almost a decade of LNP government, people expected big, positive and progressive changes, and what we got instead was business as usual. But when you look across at the opposition, the LNP have blatantly learned nothing from the 2022 federal election. The LNP have dug their heels in and, instead of accepting climate change is a real thing, have denied the benefits of renewable energy and presented policies that exist solely to extend the life or fossil fuels as long as possible.</para>
<para>The last decade and this term of parliament has made it abundantly clear that if we want real action on climate change and environmental protection, and if we want an economy and society that puts people before profit, then the political system is going to have to change. The two-party system has shown itself to be fundamentally incapable of delivering the positive change people want to see. The only way we are getting a progressive system change in Australian is with a bigger crossbench, more Greens and a minority government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>8149</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>SMITH (—) (): Skills drive the future of young people and the future of Australia. The WorldSkills competition showcases Australian vocational education and training on the international stage and puts centre stage the government's mission to continue strengthening our world-class TAFEs and VET sector. I was pleased to recently join a group of fee-free CIT students and staff and parliamentarians at an event to welcome back to Australia our WorldSkills team, the Skillaroos, who participated in the recent WorldSkills event. This year's competition in France was the largest ever, with over 1,400 young people from 70 countries participating. As Australians, we are competitive, especially when it comes to international competition, and the Skillaroos came 14th this year—a great achievement.</para>
<para>Many of the occupations in demand across Australia have direct VET pathways, demonstrating that education and training are part of the solution to the nation's skills shortage. Another critical aspect of the skills shortage question is making sure everyone has access to top-quality education and training. We believe in investing in our people. Our greatest asset is our people. By investing in them, we are ensuring all Australians have the skills and capacity to contribute to a thriving economy and strong communities. That's why the Albanese government is investing in fee-free TAFE and in public education across the country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Alps</title>
          <page.no>8149</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Alpine areas across Australia are home to unique and sensitive ecosystems and threatened species, including the mountain pygmy possum and the southern corroboree frog. First Nations people have been the custodians of our mountains, where important ceremonies have coincided with the migration of the bogong moth, for millennia. As well as breathtaking natural beauty and important ecological and cultural value, our alpine areas are also an economic powerhouse. Alpine resorts generate $1.5 billion annually to Victoria's gross state product, attract 1.56 million visitors and provide more than 14,000 jobs. Indi is home to five of Victoria's six alpine resorts: Mount Hotham, Falls Creek, Mount Buller, Mount Stirling and Lake Mountain.</para>
<para>From bushfires to landslides, our alpine areas and resorts have proved resilient and adaptable, but climate change is presenting new challenges. The Australian snow pack is now at a 2,000-year low, and we are seeing ski seasons closing early. Protect Our Winters is a volunteer group passionately fighting to save our fragile alpine system and everything it represents. Protect Our Winters, along with the Australian National University and the Australian Mountain Research Facility, have undertaken a sobering analysis of the climate change impacts for the Australian Alps. But it's also a call to action. To save our precious alpine areas, we must reduce emissions, invest in appropriate renewable energy and empower our communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Canning Show, Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>8149</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many people might not know where the greatest show on earth is. It is in Swan, and it is called the Canning Show. I'm very proud to have the Canning Agricultural and Horticultural Society in the heart of Swan, and a few weeks ago I got to celebrate the Canning Show. It was a fabulous place, and I got to go with my children.</para>
<para>But the thing I was surprised by was some of the stories from community members. I spoke to a young man, and we were talking about politics and the former coalition government. He explained to me: 'Look, I could never vote for the other side, and the reason for that is because I was a robodebt victim. I was a robodebt victim, and it felt like everyone around me was against me—family members and the government systems. It felt like they were gaslighting me'. I was really surprised to hear about how he felt and the mental toll that it took on him, and how long it took for him to recover.</para>
<para>Robodebt should never have happened, and who knows what would happen under the coalition government—robodebt, robocop, robo who knows what. It shouldn't have happened, and we will make sure it never happens again. To all the victims-survivors: please know that we know it should never have happened, and it will never happen again.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McPherson Electorate: Volunteering</title>
          <page.no>8150</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the many high points in my role as the member for McPherson is the opportunity to meet our community organisations and their many volunteers. Just last week I again hosted community groups to thank them for their support of so many people on the Gold Coast. I thank Burleigh Community Men's Shed, Currumbin Happy Group, Coolangatta Senior Citizens Centre, Burleigh Heads and Miami Senior Citizens Club and the Probus clubs of Robina, Miami and Varsity Lakes for all their hard work. Thank you for creating a sense of belonging and connection and for bringing happiness into so many people's lives. The friendship, the laughter and the enjoyment found in these clubs is invaluable to our community. These clubs focus on a very wide range of things. They organise social events and offer opportunities for people to become active in their community.</para>
<para>I encourage everyone, especially those people who are living alone, to join a community group. By joining a community group, members can lend a hand to others when they need it. They can make new friends. They can go on bus trips. They can participate in morning teas. They can socialise along with their peers. Ranging from clubs with weekly meetings to monthly get-togethers, there is something for every single person. If you or someone you know is interested, please contact my office. I'm happy to put you in touch with your local community group.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lalor Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>8150</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was thrilled last week to welcome Minister King, the minister for infrastructure, to check out the Ison Road bridge in my electorate. I was as thrilled to stand with her to check the progress of that bridge as I was to declare that we had made an election commitment in 2022 to pay for half of that bridge in conjunction with the state government—a $57 million commitment that's going to move traffic away from the centre of the city of Wyndham and get people onto the M1 and to and from work quicker. It is an integral part of a system for the south-west of Melbourne to make sure people can move around across our city and move to the city of Melbourne quickly.</para>
<para>You can imagine how pleased I was to make that commitment after 10 years of neglect from those who now sit opposite, who committed nothing to roads in my patch and nothing for my community. Not only did they not make a commitment to my community through the federal budget; they starved the state government of funds for roads as well.</para>
<para>I'm really pleased we're getting on with the job and really pleased to see the Ison Road bridge coming to fruition. I am looking forward to working with the community as we get to the next stage and then to the interchange happening, to make sure it all works together.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament</title>
          <page.no>8150</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to share the contribution of Lachlan, from my electorate, as part of the Raise Our Voice campaign:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Obesity is more than just a statistic, it's a pressing community health crisis that impacts us all. Currently, around 30% of Tasmanians are classified as obese, contributing to increasing rates of chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers. In Launceston, over 60% of adults do not meet the recommended physical activity levels, putting them at heightened risk for these health issues. Obesity affects not only physical health but mental well-being, contributing to anxiety and depression. The economic implications are alarming as well, with obesity-related healthcare expenses placing a significant burden on our system. In Tasmania, the cost of treating obesity-related conditions is estimated to exceed $500 million annually, diverting resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Additionally, rising childhood obesity rates threaten the future health of our next generation. To combat this crisis, we must prioritise healthy living initiatives by implementing comprehensive nutrition education programs in schools, improving access to affordable fresh produce, and creating more public spaces for physical activity. By fostering a community that supports these efforts, we can create a healthier society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. The time for action is now, if all of us work together we can ensure a bright future for us all.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>8150</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know Aussies are doing it tough right now, but Labor is here to make life easier for Australians. Meanwhile, those opposite seem to think life should come with a few more hurdles and maybe a hefty price tag. When Australians follow their dreams, we're right here cheering them on. The coalition, though, seem to say: 'Good luck, mate. Bring a floaty, because you're on your own.'</para>
<para>Take going to uni or TAFE: Aussies decide to invest in their future, and we say, 'Go for it; we've got your back,' but when the coalition were in charge course fees skyrocketed and TAFE funding was slashed, putting study out of reach for many. Now we're busy cleaning up their mess. That's why we're wiping 20 per cent off HECS debts and making TAFE free. For the average Australian student it's $5,500 wiped off the books. In the Hunter alone, that's nearly 15,000 people. Even if you don't have a HECS debt yourself, you probably know someone who does—your kids or even your grandkids.</para>
<para>We back Aussies following their dreams, sharpening their skills and unlocking their potential to make Australia a better place. The coalition jacked up fees and shrank training places like they were on a mission to keep the 'hard' in hard work. Labor is here to lend a hand; the coalition is here to just make life harder for all Aussies. Peter Dutton has already said he'll cut this 'wasteful spending'—that he'll cut this 'wasteful spending' is what he said. Remember, everyone: you can't trust Peter Dutton at the next election.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to remind the member for Hunter to use correct titles when he's referring to anybody in this House.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program</title>
          <page.no>8151</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You'll see around Parliament House this week a number of service men and women from the Australian Defence Force. They are participating in the ADF parliamentary exchange program. The parliamentary exchange program is a great initiative. ADF men and women come into to MP's offices and learn more about the political process, days in the lives of MPs, some of the complex consideration required when analysing legislation and how parliament works.</para>
<para>As the name implies, it is an exchange program, so there are times when we, as MPs, can go and spend time with the ADF on their turf. I've had the honour of spending days in the Puckapunyal Army base in my electorate engaging with the Combined Arms Training Centre and, earlier this year, experiencing part of Exercise Kakadu in Darwin, including some time on the helicopter frigate HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Stuart</inline>. These exchanges are critical, because there may be times when, as members of this place, we have to make a decision to deploy the ADF, potentially in dangerous circumstances. We need to know them and their perspectives and understand our capabilities.</para>
<para>Flight Lieutenant Monique Lonsdale is embedded in my office. She said the biggest take-out so far amongst her and her colleagues is the broad cohesion and collaboration across the parliament—something the general public probably don't see if they just watch question time. Monique is the third ADF exchange participant I've welcomed in my office, and my ability to do my job as a representative has been greatly enhanced by the perspectives of these outstanding Australians who are serving our nation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>8151</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The people of Hasluck have a right to know what I stand for. I stand for better communications in the Swan Valley in Hasluck and in the Perth Hills, where the Albanese government's investments in improving our NBN and mobile coverage are paying off.</para>
<para>I stand for a science based, cohesive system of emergency management and better disaster preparedness, which we have seen with the consolidation of functions under NEMA and massive investments in fire, cyclone and flood preparedness, including funding for a disaster operations centre in the Perth Hills and significant additions to our national aerial fleet.</para>
<para>I stand for the health of the people of Hasluck, who have benefited from this government's record investments in Medicare, a cap on scripts, 60-day script dispensing for chronic conditions and bulk-billed urgent care clinic services here in my electorate.</para>
<para>I stand for better education funding for government schools. From next year, schools in Hasluck will start to see 100 per cent funding, meeting the schooling resource standard. Parents, educators and students will feel the benefit of this straightaway and our country will benefit.</para>
<para>I stand for better infrastructure. Next month, thanks to the Albanese government and the WA Labor Cook government, we'll see the opening of the Morley-Ellenbrook METRONET line, which runs right through Hasluck and gives our residents an essential public transport option.</para>
<para>These are some of things I stand for. The people of Hasluck know what I stand for. They've got no idea what those opposite stand for, but they do know that under a coalition National-Liberal government they will be worse off. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Charitable Organisations</title>
          <page.no>8152</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Everybody knows that charities play an important role in society, delivering services while addressing a wide range of community needs, and I'd like to urge Queensland charities to get in quick with applications to the Queensland Gives organisational capacity-building grants program and their regional grants program, which distribute around $5.7 million in grants to Queensland communities.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTRY</title>
        <page.no>8152</page.no>
        <type>MINISTRY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Temporary Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>8152</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery will be absent from question time today and tomorrow, and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel will answer questions on his behalf.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>8152</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>8152</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. At COP29 an additional six nations endorsed the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050. They joined 25 others, including the United States, the UK, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine and the UAE, some with existing civil nuclear programs and others committing to a program so that they can reduce emissions and deliver energy at a reasonable cost. Why isn't the Albanese government signing up to the same agreement?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Spence was interjecting all through that question. He will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Spence then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know how much clearer I need to make it about members being heard in silence when questions are being asked. The same thing will happen if this continues. The leader has asked his question in silence. He deserves that courtesy. Now the Acting Prime Minister deserves the same courtesy.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a very simple answer to that question. It's because we don't have a civil nuclear energy industry in this country, nor do we seek to establish one. The reason we don't seek to establish one is that to do so would be to pursue the single most expensive form of electricity in the world today. That would be an additional $1,200 on the energy bill of every household in this country. That's what it would represent. That's what it would represent to go down the path of a civil nuclear industry. We don't have one, we don't seek to go down that path, so we are not a part of that agreement.</para>
<para>And, if we did go down that path, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, there would be no prospect of any piece of electricity entering into the grid for two decades. Even then what we are talking about is, at max, four per cent of the electricity grid being contributed in 20 years time—the most expensive form of electricity, $1,200 per household, in 20 years time, and even then it's only four per cent of the grid. That's what the ridiculous proposal that is being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition represents.</para>
<para>I tell what you we did sign up to, Mr Speaker, at COP28 last year in the UAE, with 132 other countries—including the United Kingdom, including the United States, including France and others—and that was a commitment to triple the world's renewable energy capacity because we understand that the cheapest form of electricity in the world today is firmed renewable energy. That is what's being pursued by countries around the world, and that is what we're pursuing here, not in 20 years time but right now, such that we have seen a 25 per cent increase of firmed renewables into our grid since we came to office. Now, that is actually making a difference in putting downward pressure on energy prices, along with the energy price relief that we have put in place, which those opposite have blocked not once but twice.</para>
<para>So, on this side of the House, we represent pursuing efficient energy which seeks to transition us to a place of net zero emissions by 2050, such that we take our country to the cutting edge of technological modernity. Those opposite are about going backwards, about increasing energy prices and about pursuing a fool's errand.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There was far too much noise during that answer. The member for O'Connor and the member for Barker were injecting. I'm just going to ask them to dial it down.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender Equality</title>
          <page.no>8153</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How are the Albanese Labor government's policies supporting progress to close the gender pay gap, and what are the alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Chisholm for the question. She is someone who has spent her entire working life championing the cause of Australia's women. This government is determined to improve the economic security and equality of women in this country. Every day, we have been working to close the gender pay gap to make the lives of Australian women fairer and more equal. Today, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency released its latest gender equality scorecard, and it's good news. The scorecard shows the gender pay gap is the lowest it has been since reporting first started in 2014. The main driver of the decrease in the gender pay gap is a lift in wages for lower-paid workers, especially in highly feminised sectors. They are Labor policies that are driving this change.</para>
<para>We have increased transparency for gender pay gap reporting. We're investing in wage increases in aged care and early childhood education and care. This is the workforce that, alongside educating our smallest children, is actually also literally the workforce that enables all of us and all of the workforce in the country to do the jobs that we do. They are an incredibly important workforce—people like my sister who, after raising six kids on her own, went back into child care for Knox council and spent decades raising children in her care. We've supported lifting the minimum wage, we've made gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act and we've strengthened protections against sexual harassment in the workforce. Many of these measures were opposed, frankly, by those opposite, and that is really a shame on them. Under Labor, the gender pay gap has dropped to record levels. Under Labor, women's average weekly earnings have increased by $173.80 a week since May 2022. That is a substantial increase. Under Labor, we have reached record highs in women's economic participation.</para>
<para>While progress has been strong, Labor is not going to stop doing the hard work to close the gender pay gap. Today, of course, the assistant minister has introduced legislation requiring big companies to set gender equality targets for their workplaces—something that, again, will make a significant difference. None of this would have happened if those opposite had continued to be in government and they had their way. If we had continued on the path that they set the country down, the gender pay gap would be closing three times slower than it is under us. That has real consequences for the wages of Australian women, real consequences for the economic security of women in this country. We know the Leader of the Opposition's policies have real costs. He has the wrong agenda for Australia and the wrong agenda for Australia's women.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>8153</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Given global momentum for nuclear energy along with support from the world's largest banks, including Bank of America, Barclays, Brookfield, Citi, Credit, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Rothschild & Co—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member's going to pause. We're going to take as long as we need to do this. The minister for the environment is now warned. It's really simple: people are going to ask their questions in silence. We will stop question time to enable that to happen, which means there could be fewer questions. I don't think anyone wants that. So the member for Fairfax will begin his question again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the Acting Prime Minister: given global momentum for nuclear energy along with support from the world's largest banks, including Bank of America, Barclays, Brookfield, Citi, Credit, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Rothschild & Co; leading technology companies, like Google, Microsoft and Amazon; and even Young Labor, calling for an end to Australia's nuclear ban, why does the Albanese government remain so stubbornly opposed to exploring this proven zero-emissions energy source?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question. The answer is that it's all about cost and it's all about economics. We don't have a civil nuclear industry in Australia today. It is a significant fact, an inconvenient truth, which those opposite simply—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Acting Prime Minister is going to pause. I just made the point when the member for Fairfax was being heard that I wanted everyone to be silent. So, the answer to that question is not to start yelling straightaway, particularly this close to me. So, interject if you must; yell—don't do that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, no. This is not what anyone wants and I don't think what the people of Australia want. So you'll leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). I'm just asking everyone to show some restraint and some respect. That's completely not on.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Fairfax then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Acting Prime Minister is going to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was a ridiculous display, befitting what is a ridiculous policy that is being put forward by those opposite. And it simply ignores the inconvenient truth for those opposite that we don't have a civil nuclear industry in Australia today, and to establish one from scratch would cost money and take time. I mean, it's not that simple—although the Leader of the Opposition may think it's that simple, because he thinks the way it works is that you go off and burn uranium, go out the back and set up a bonfire, throw some uranium on it and—bingo!—there's renewable energy. But, unfortunately, that's not how it actually works.</para>
<para>Every expert out there makes it completely clear that we would be waiting a 20-year duration before we could reasonably expect to have nuclear energy in this country were we to go down that path—and, even then, all we are talking about is a contribution of four per cent to the electricity grid. But do all of that, and you will achieve the single most expensive form of electricity this country could pursue, an increase of $1,200 onto the household budgets of every Australian. That's the idea that is being put forward by those opposite.</para>
<para>Well, on this side of the House we reject that idea. We are pursuing policies in the here and now, which are being pursued around the world—firmed renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, which is being brought online around the world. That's what we're doing right now—not in 20 years, but right now—such that, since we've come to power, we've increased the grid by 25 per cent in terms of its renewable capacity. That is what we are doing, and it stands in stark contrast to the ridiculous antics we see from those opposite.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>8154</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How has the Albanese Labor government's multibillion-dollar investment in pay rises for the aged-care sector helped women in the workforce?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Corangamite for her question and for her personal commitment to improving the quality of care for older people in her beautiful part of the world. Mr Speaker, 85 per cent of the aged-care work force are women, and for too long these women were undervalued and underappreciated for their highly skilled work because of a prejudicial bias ingrained in our society that some work is worth less simply because of the type of people who are more inclined to do it and that people should be paid more to stack supermarket shelves than to care for older Australians.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government made it a priority to offer more than thanks, more than platitudes, more than pats on the back. And we now have, as of today, definitive evidence that our $15.1 billion investment in the female dominated aged-care workforce has made a difference. This morning the Workplace Gender Equality Agency published their latest gender equality scorecard, and it illustrated a confronting 21.1 per cent gender pay gap—a 0.6 per cent reduction from their last survey. However, the gender equality agency said that the main reason for that reduction was the 15 per cent wage increase for residential aged-care workers.</para>
<para>Just yesterday, we heard from HESTA super fund. They are now projecting that aged-care workers will retire with $40,000 more in their superannuation as a result of the Albanese Labor government pay rises. The benefits for aged-care workers come from more than our record wage increases. Labor's tax cuts delivered registered nurses in aged care a $1,679 reduction in their tax, almost double what they would have received under the coalition, helping workers like Rachel, whom I met last week at a mobile office in Zillmere. We did that at Mickey's Cafe—a shout-out to Mickey for his lemon biscuits.</para>
<para>Rachel has been working in aged care for more than seven years. Rachel told me that the Albanese government's pay rise has been transformative. She said that the lack of meaningful wage increases over a decade had left many workers like her at her nursing home driving vehicles well past their used-by dates and needing extensive repairs. It was dangerous. Rachel said that she and many of her colleagues have now bought more reliable vehicles, which they could only afford to do because of this pay rise.</para>
<para>These pay rises are helping our male aged-care workers too. Rachel's colleague Ahmed has been saving for a deposit for a house for eight years. The banks are now considering Ahmed for a home loan because of the pay rise that we were able to deliver for him. This is the value that the Albanese Labor government places on care.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>8155</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tuvalu: Parliamentary Delegation, Huntsman, Hon. Jon Meade, Jr, Neville, Hon. Lisa Mary, Bishop, Councillor Madeline, Beef Australia, Merimbula Public School</title>
          <page.no>8155</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for North Sydney, I have a number of acknowledgements I'd like to make to welcome guests to parliament. I'm pleased to inform the House that present is a delegation from Tuvalu, led by the Hon. Paulson Panapa, Tuvalu Minister of Foreign Affairs, Labour and Trade. We're also joined by the Hon. Jon Huntsman Jr, former US ambassador to Russia, China and Singapore and the 16th Governor of Utah. I'm pleased to inform the House that we also have the Hon. Lisa Neville, former member for Bellarine and minister in the Victorian parliament; Councillor Madeline Bishop from Lake Macquarie City Council; representatives of Beef Australia, including the chairman, Bryce Camm; and students from Merimbula Public School in the mighty electorate of Eden-Monaro. Welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>8155</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Funding of Political Parties</title>
          <page.no>8155</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. At a time when Australians are struggling more than ever to keep up with their loan repayments, this government, with the likely support of the opposition, will soon pass a piece of legislation that will see the two major parties each receive nearly $5 million a year in public funding as administrative funding assistance. This money will be able to be used to pay interest payments on party loans. How does the government justify allowing public money to be used to pay the interest on political party loans when so many ordinary Australians are struggling?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the honourable member for her question. I begin by acknowledging and saluting the terrific work of Minister Farrell, who has been working for some time in a consultative way to do what we can to make sure that our donations regime is as transparent as possible and that we take responsible and necessary steps to lessen the impact of big money on politics. Minister Farrell, in his characteristically diligent and consultative way, has provided to the parliament, for the parliament's consideration, some steps that we think are necessary and sensible to achieve those objectives, and we urge the parliament to support them.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the honourable member for Holt. The member for Holt will resume her seat. Is the member for North Sydney seeking to make a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Tink</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has concluded his answer.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Tink</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He hadn't when I stood up, Mr Speaker. You had your head down.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies to the member for North Sydney. I didn't see her on her feet. I give the call to the honourable member for Holt.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>8155</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. What does the government's commitment to a 15 per cent wage increase mean to the early childhood education and care workforce?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Holt for her question and for her tireless advocacy for children and families in the electorate of Holt. The member for Holt understands that early childhood workers provide an essential service and that a sustainable and secure early childhood education and care workforce is a foundation. It's a foundation for a universal early childhood education system that's affordable, that's accessible and that's inclusive. Early childhood educators and teachers do highly skilled work and professional work. But, for too long, they haven't been valued. They just have not had the remuneration that reflects that professionalism. Because of this, for far too long, we've been losing workers from the sector. I'm pleased to say that there are now around 30,000 more early childhood education workers than when we first came into office in 2022, and that is in no small measure due to the efforts of this government, not just to grow the workforce but, importantly, also to properly value this highly feminised workforce. A critical part of this is our historic 15 per cent wage increase, an investment by the Albanese Labor government. Two hundred thousand early childhood workers right across Australia could have another $100 at least more in their pay packets by Christmas this year. By next year, that could be more than $150 in their pay packets. That's how you grow an essential workforce. That's how you ensure that children, families and communities have access to early childhood education.</para>
<para>It really just seems like a no-brainer. Parents know this; early childhood educators know this; people in the sector know this—that, to truly value the workforce, to keep the workforce, you need to pay them more. But not everyone in this place gets this. Not everyone in this place understands this. The shadow minister for early childhood education said, and I quote—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, the member for Gorton, the Minister for Housing and the Treasurer! No—people are entitled to raise points of order. We don't need commentary or sound effects when someone rises to their feet. That is not appropriate behaviour, and it's not going to continue. The manager, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, there was no reference in the question to alternative policies, opposition or any of that. The minister is now straying into opposition policies and statements. She's not being relevant, and she should be directed to be relevant. If she can't be, she should be asked to sit down.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was: what does the commitment to the 15 per cent increase mean to the early childhood and care workforce? That's a very specific topic question. She wasn't asked about alternative approaches, so she can't talk about perhaps policy. She has got some commentary to make about the government's decision. That's different. But she simply can't use the remainder of her time to talk about opposition policy. If she does, I will sit her down. She has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am talking about the importance of this pay rise for the sector, for retaining the sector, and the fact that parents and early childhood educators support this but that support is not universal in this place. There are people in this place who have said that they think that it is a waste and that it is something that the budget can't afford. That is a risk. That is a risk to those early childhood educators who are relying on that 15 per cent wage rise to stay in the sector and to stay doing the job that they love. Make no mistake; the essential services provided by early childhood educators would be at risk if we did not make— <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">ime expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>8156</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm whether on 6 June 2024 the Albanese Labor government, through the minister for trade, signed an agreement under the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity that includes a cooperative work program to support the take-up of small modular nuclear reactors?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Durack. Members on my left will cease interjecting. Until the House comes to order, we won't hear anything.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Page is not helping. The Acting Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They crawl to this topic through every different alleyway, but let me be really clear that what I can absolutely confirm is that this government is not going to be pursuing a civil nuclear industry. We're not going to be doing it, because it would be the single most costly form of electricity that we could provide in this country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>8156</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government helping with the cost of living by getting wages moving again? How are other policies helping with the cost of living, and what barriers have there been?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. In meeting the cost-of-living challenge, a key objective of our government has been to get wages going, and we've been doing that by increasing the minimum wage and by seeing award increases in sectors like aged care and child care. This is now flowing through to the wider labour market such that we are now experiencing the strongest real wage growth in four years. Now, we get that Australians are doing it tough, and there is a lot more which needs to be done, but these extra dollars in the pay packet are making a real difference. In particular, this is benefitting women because these increases are occurring across the care economy, and, as a result, the gender pay gap is now at its lowest level on record.</para>
<para>We are also reducing costs. We're doing so through more affordable child care, through cheaper medicines and through free TAFE. But the biggest risk to that—well, he is sitting right there, and yesterday we got a crystal-clear articulation of the philosophies of those opposite when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it's a key principle and tenet of the Liberal Party: if you don't pay for something, you don't value it.</para></quote>
<para>Well, it's nothing if it isn't honest, because this was exactly demonstrated when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Health, when he tried to introduce a GP tax, when he tried to put a cost on the attendance of emergency departments right around the country and when he sought to increase the prices of basic medicines. What he did as the Minister for Health, if given the chance, he would do as the Prime Minister across the board.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we have a very different philosophy, because we understand that Australians in their darkest hour, who are receiving emergency care in emergency departments without charge, do value that. We understand that Australians who are undergoing life-saving surgery so that they can return to their families—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going to cease interjecting. I can appreciate there might be some response included to what the Acting Prime Minister is saying,but you and the member for Barker are just continually running through commentary. It's not sustainable. We're just going to dial it down for the remainder of this answer. There are only 26 seconds. I'm setting everyone a challenge just to get through this answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>without a crippling debt value that too. On this side of the House, we are proud to stand as the party which has been the champion, throughout our nation's history, of public health and of public education, and we most certainly will take that philosophy to the next election, when Australians will be given a choice between a government which is fighting for them and a man who represents a material risk to the household budgets of every single Australian.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>8157</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Acting Prime Minister, Australia is at odds with every comparable economy and ally in rejecting zero-emissions nuclear energy, putting at risk energy security and energy costs. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm the reason Labor is rejecting nuclear power has nothing to do with cost or time but is due to their political battle with the Greens in inner city seats.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. We're going to do this again because I couldn't hear the question because there were too many people on my right interjecting. The way question time works is—for those on my right—I need to hear the question if a topic comes up or there's a point of order I then have to make a decision on. It makes my job really hard if I can't hear it, so we're going do this again and the member for Hume's going to have his question.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't need any commentary; otherwise, people will leave and not hear the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Acting Prime Minister, Australia is at odds with every comparable economy and ally in rejecting zero-emissions nuclear energy, putting at risk energy security and electricity costs. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm the reason Labor is rejecting nuclear power has nothing to do with cost or time but is due to their political battle with the Greens in inner city seats?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Minister for Social Services is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we do have a battle with the Greens political party, and we join that battle with relish, which really does stand in stark contrast to what we see from those opposite who, when it comes to housing, the environment or now immigration, are in the greatest love affair of all time with the Greens political party.</para>
<para>I think <inline font-style="italic">Romeo and Juliet</inline> teaches us that love conquers all, but I definitely do not think that Shakespeare imagined what was going on here. What we are seeing here is the most unholy alliance between the Greens and the Liberals. So every Australian needs to know that when they go out and they vote for the Greens political party or when they vote for the Liberals, when it comes to Canberra it is the one team.</para>
<para>What I can confirm is that the simple reason why we are not supporting a civil nuclear industry is that it makes no financial sense, whatsoever. The fact that it makes no financial sense is exactly why this shadow Treasurer would be proposing it. He is the man who has refused to make any sense, when it comes to the economics of this country, since he's taken up his post. Economic management certainly ain't his strong suit.</para>
<para>We certainly will not be pursuing a civil nuclear industry. It will be $1,200 per household more expensive in 20 years time and, at that point, it's only going to contribute four per cent to our electricity grid. So, no, we are not walking down that road.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fiscal Policy</title>
          <page.no>8158</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese government's responsible budget and economic management right for the conditions we face? How does it compare internationally and to alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Fraser for the contribution that he makes to our economic policies on this side of the House. In an uncertain global environment, the hallmark of this Albanese Labor government has been responsible economic management, and that could never be more important than it is right now.</para>
<para>From time to time, those opposite ask us to make international comparisons. The reason that's not happening today is that inflation went up in Canada overnight and it's going down in Australia. It's going up in the US, Canada and Europe, but it's coming down in Australia, and that's why he hasn't asked about inflation. But I look forward to three o'clock, when he jumps up and asks his first question of me today.</para>
<para>Another really important international comparison is when it comes to the budget position. The IMF has made it clear. When those opposite were in office, we had the 14th strongest budget analysed by the IMF. Now we're in the top three. We've gone from 14th in 2021, under them, to onto the podium in 2024, on our watch. That's because we've knocked out a couple of budget surpluses—turned their big deficits into big surpluses—a $172 billion turnaround. We have $150 billion less debt and $80 billion less in interest repayments.</para>
<para>Here he's where the international comparison is so stunning. We've got debt to GDP down from the mid-40s, peaking, to the mid-30s. How does that compare with other countries? In the mid-30s in Australia, yet in the United Kingdom, 103; Canada, 106; France, 111; the United States, 123; Italy, 139; and Japan, 251 per cent of GDP. That's their debt compared to the mid-30s here in Australia.</para>
<para>I'm asked about alternatives. I tried to give the shadow Treasurer some help today. I gave him more than 20 minutes to tell the parliament and to tell the Australian people what he would do differently when it comes to the economy, and, instead, we learned exactly why his colleagues are in the <inline font-style="italic">Saturday Paper</inline> saying that he's got no direction, he's 'vacated the field' and he just throws rocks. Instead of getting coherent and credible, costed economic policies, we just got this kind of bizarre cut-and-paste of his least coherent interview transcripts. The reason this matters so much to this parliament and to this country is that we know that those opposite are a risk to our economy and our budget, because we know their record.</para>
<para>When they were in office, inflation was much higher and real wages were falling. They went after Medicare. They delivered deficit after deficit and a trillion dollars in Liberal debt in a budget chock full of waste and rorts. We have spent the best part of our term in office cleaning up the mess that they left us. We've made good progress, but there's more work to do. The worst thing we could do is go back to the comical incompetence of the shadow Treasurer.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for O'Connor is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>8158</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing. Australians are suffering, with higher rents and an inability to find housing. Under the Albanese Labor government's 'big Australia' policy, a new person is arriving to live in our country every 44 seconds. Minister, where are these new people supposed to live?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me just make a few comments off the top about the migration matters that have been raised here. Migration is coming down because of changes that have been made by our government, and we've done this in a system that Dr Martin Parkinson has described as 'fundamentally broken' by 'a decade of wilful neglect'. And, if there is a single person in this parliament who is responsible for that broken system, he sits over here—in the opposition leader's chair.</para>
<para>The Minister for Home Affairs talked yesterday about the fact that there is one gold medal in this parliament for the person who issued the most number of visas in a single year. It wasn't a Labor minister; it was the Leader of the Opposition, who talks a big game. He talks a big game about migration, but we learned something very important about him this week. We learnt that he is an absolute fraud, because, when it came to the chance to address some of the issues that the honourable member has asked me about, the Leader of the Opposition, instead of doing the right thing and helping us take action, went—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause and take a seat for a sec. We'll hear from the member for Deakin.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order is on relevance. We're a minute into the answer, and the minister has not once referred to the question or to the fact that there are migrants arriving every 44 seconds.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Swan is warned. The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The preamble of the question opened up a discussion of the policy really clearly, and that's exactly what the minister's now engaging in. They might not like for that information to be returned, but it's completely relevant to what was asked.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is directly relevant, but that can't constitute the remainder of the minister's answer. To assist with the member's question, I'm going to invite her to return to the question. She has had a preamble. She's had a minute into the question—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'Neil</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked about migration. I was also asked about housing, so I'm happy to move to that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I haven't finished speaking, so, before you take off, if you could assist me to do my job, I can assist you to do your job.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So, if you could just remain silent, just while I assist the House—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Whilst you're entitled to go through that, to assist the member's question I'm just going to ask you to return back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me say a few things about our government's housing policy. We arrived in office 2½ years ago to find housing in an absolute mess. Let's remember that, for most of the period of time that those opposite were in government, they didn't even have a Commonwealth housing minister. They do not have a leg to stand on. We've taken a very different approach. Our country today is led by a prime minister who was raised in public housing. His access to public housing as a child transformed the entire trajectory of his life. Those opposite don't like to hear it much, but the fact that we have a person who was raised in public housing as our Prime Minister is I think a fact that every Australian should be proud of.</para>
<para>We want to offer the opportunity of secure housing to as many people as we can. We've got a housing crisis in our country that's been cooking for 30 years. We are the boldest and most ambitious Commonwealth in that period to come forward and say we want to help Australians address this need.</para>
<para>One of the main things that we are doing about this is working with the states and territories to build more homes. We are trying to work with the states and territories to build 1.2 million homes over five years. We're working with renters to make sure that they've got better rental rights. And we're trying to get more Australians into that dream of homeownership.</para>
<para>Now, if only we had a parliament that actually wanted to work with us on this issue that affects millions of people. Instead, what we have is an opposition that knows only one word—'no, no, no'—to every single proposition that's put before it. And, unfortunately, for people on the crossbench, the Australian Greens, who talk a big game about housing, when it comes to making real change for real people they say no too. Who would have thought the far left and the far right had so much in common in this country? Despite that opposition we will work hard to make sure that we meet the housing needs of people in this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Students</title>
          <page.no>8159</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Education. Why is it important to strengthen integrity in the international education system, and what is standing in the way?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my friend the real-deal member for Robertson for his question. Yesterday I told the House about the shonks and the crooks who feed off our international education system, exploiting students to make a quick buck here in Australia. That's why this government is acting to protect the integrity of this sector, after these problems were allowed to fester by the previous Liberal government.</para>
<para>In September 2022, we set up the Parkinson review into our migration system. And in January 2023 we set up the Nixon review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, and it made this very serious point:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… there can be much profit to gain for those who choose to engage in the provision of immigration assistance that aids illegal sex work, human trafficking, modern slavery and money laundering.</para></quote>
<para>These reviews exposed the need to act to protect the integrity of our international education system, and we've moved quickly to act on the recommendations of those two reviews. In July last year we got rid of the Liberals' unlimited work rights for international students; in August last year I closed the loophole that allowed dodgy agents and providers to shift international students from genuine study to no study at all—just using the system as a back door to work here; in October last year we created a $38 million integrity unit to crack down on the shonks and the crooks; in March this year we increased the English language requirement for international students; in May we increased the amount of money that international students need to bring with them to get a student visa; and in July we doubled the visa application charge.</para>
<para>But that's not all that we're doing. The legislation that's in the parliament at the moment doesn't just set up a cap on the number of international students that can come to this country in any year. The bill that is currently before the Senate that the Liberal Party and the Greens are in bed together stopping also does this: it prevents education providers from owning an education agent business; it requires providers to educate Aussie students for two years before they're allowed to recruit international students; and it prevents providers who are under serious regulatory investigation from recruiting new international students. This is what the Liberal Party is planning to vote against. I wonder why?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct</title>
          <page.no>8160</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the infrastructure minister. The business case for the Middle Arm hub has been rejected, the environmental impact statement has been delayed and the cost has ballooned to $3.5 billion, $2 billion more than first committed. This climate-wrecking project survives on your $1.5 billion subsidy and the enthusiasm of Labor ministers for these gas companies. Will you do the right thing and redirect this toxic funding to support clean energy projects that will actually benefit our communities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CATHERINE KING (—) (): There's a lot to correct in that question. Let me start by saying the Greens never mention the 65 renewable energy projects that this government has approved. Never. You absolutely ignore them as though they don't exist at all, because it doesn't suit your political interests to acknowledge the good job that the minister for environment has done in increasing renewable energy in this country.</para>
<para>Of course, when it comes to Middle Arm, let me just remind the House that this is an equity injection. It is not money that then can be transferred to other projects; let me educate you about that. It is an equity injection, and that equity injection provides the opportunity, for the first time, for the Northern Territory to have an industrial precinct which does include renewable energy projects like Sun Cable, which actually provides the opportunity for the Northern Territory to begin to increase its revenue so it can become more self-reliant rather than having to rely, as it does, largely on the federal government to fund its services—particularly services in First Nations communities. I would have thought that anybody would be thinking it would be in Australia's interests for the Northern Territory to stand economically on its own feet, to be part of the generation that we are seeing of renewable energy, making sure that we actually have those jobs into the future for people who live in the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>The Australian government remains committed to Middle Arm. There are a number of processes that have to be gone through—the environmental processes, planning processes and Infrastructure Australia—and all of those are underway at the moment. I look forward to working with the Northern Territory government to make sure we can secure the economic future for the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>Again I say to the Greens: stop using politics constantly in these sorts of debates. Stop using politics, because we know that Middle Arm actually does support renewable energy. It also makes sure that we have a strong economic future for the Northern Territory. We stand by Labor's record investment in renewable energy and approval of renewable energy projects. I look forward to the minister for the environment getting a question about the record number of approvals for renewable energy that we have done.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>8160</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. How will the Albanese Labor government's legislation to keep the National Broadband Network in public ownership deliver better broadband at affordable prices for Australian families—in particular, regional communities—and are there any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. Labor, of course, founded the National Broadband Network to deliver fast, reliable and affordable broadband to all Australians. It's an essential piece of national infrastructure that connects millions of Australians, irrespective of where they live or work.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has made significant investments in fibre and fixed wireless upgrades, delivering improvements for Australians. When we came to government less than 300,000 premises had a pathway to upgrade from copper to full fibre. Today that figure is four million. We've upgraded over 2,300 tours on the fixed wireless network, boosting average-user download speeds by 133 per cent. We've also uncapped satellite broadband plans, delivering educational benefits to students in regional and remote communities.</para>
<para>Public ownership is delivering big public benefits when it comes to the NBN. In contrast, when state Liberal governments sold off electricity assets, consumer prices rose three times faster than other services; yet today the Liberals and Nationals voted against the government's legislation to secure the NBN in public ownership. Those opposite want publicly owned nuclear reactors, but they don't want a publicly owned NBN. They're prepared to sell off public assets to pay for their irresponsible and unfunded nuclear policy, and the broadband pushovers in the National Party will let them do it—just like when they flogged off Telstra. For consumers, what does that mean? It means higher prices, reduced services and cuts to investments, especially in the regions.</para>
<para>It's important for the House to understand what those opposite tried to get away with in the dying days of their government. They wanted to increase the regulated NBN wholesale price by inflation plus three per cent each year to 2040. You might ask: why was that? It's widely understood that the purpose of this staggering proposition was to lay the groundwork to maximise the future sale price of the NBN. Over a decade ago, the Liberals promised to deliver a third-rate copper NBN for $29 billion. Then it became $41 billion, then $49 billion and then $57 billion—a sushi train of incompetence and cost blowouts.</para>
<para>In contrast, this government has delivered two budget surpluses, and our NBN upgrades are on time and on budget. The choice for Australians, especially in the regions, is crystal clear.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>8161</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of a recent report from the US Department of Energy which shows that a renewables plus nuclear electricity grid is 37 per cent cheaper than a renewables-only grid. What is it that experts in the US and 19 out of 20 of the world's top economies know that the Acting Prime Minister does not know?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What they know is that, in writing the report, they are assessing an economy which already has a civil nuclear industry in place, and where the sunk costs have already been put in place literally decades ago. This seems to be the fact that has completely escaped those opposite. In order for us to get to a point of having a civil nuclear industry, we would need to go through the process of establishing it, which is deeply costly, which will take 20 years, and at the end of that we get four per cent into our grid. Four per cent—that's it. And, in the process, we'll increase energy bills for the households of Australia by $1,200. That's what we understand. That is not the same as the calculation which exists in the United States, the United Kingdom or France, where they all have a civil nuclear industry already established and those costs have already been sunk and are not priced into the future. The reality of what we face is that you can't go out there and just magic the reactors. You've actually got to go and build them. That costs money, and the people who will pay for it are the Australian public.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>8161</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government narrowing the digital divide in our regions, and what other approaches are being considered?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. He does such a cracking job advocating for the people of the Hunter, and we appreciate it. Like me, he knows the importance of reliable internet in our regional communities. In 2024, reliable connectivity is no longer a nice-to-have. It's an absolute necessity, and that's why we're fixing the reckless and deliberate underinvestment from those opposite and making sure that we keep the NBN in public hands.</para>
<para>This means we can retain oversight on pricing, on infrastructure investment and, most importantly, on service quality, because the string-and-can approach doesn't work anymore. As part of our record investment, we're delivering $2.4 billion to expand full fibre internet access to 1.5 million premises across the nation, including 660,000 in our regions, providing uncapped data and faster speeds under Sky Muster, because you shouldn't be penalised because of your postcode.</para>
<para>I've driven around regional towns and communities over the last few years, and do you know what I haven't heard once? I haven't heard: 'Let's make the NBN a little bit worse'—because that's what we've been talking about in the House today. We on this side of the House want to keep the NBN in public hands so that we can maintain control over service, delivery and quality. On this side of the House we want to keep it in Australian hands for Australian people. Those opposite voted against that today because they want to sell it off to the lowest bidder.</para>
<para>If the Leader of the Opposition ever set foot out of inner-city Brisbane, he would know that in the regions we need high-speed internet and we need to keep the NBN in public hands. I mean, hang on! I understand he went to the shire of Collie in WA, snuck in the back door, and then ran out in a tinted window car without speaking to a single worker or regular person in the street. Regional communities like mine rely on the NBN to work remotely, to access health and education services and to run our small businesses.</para>
<para>It was a Labor government that established the NBN, because we've always been committed to building Australia's future. During the disastrous decade that those opposite had, they dismantled the NBN. Fifteen minutes down the road in Jerrabomberra—you don't have to go far to see what happened—half the suburb have copper, which drops out every time there is heavy rain. Underinvestment is the MO of the Liberals. They are the party of privatisation and half-baked ideas. Don't take my word for it. The mayor of Flinders Ranges said, 'The first thing that goes under privatisation is service.' And isn't that right! Like nuclear, they don't have a plan for connectivity other than selling the NBN. On this side of the House we will back Australian communities right around the regions. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>8162</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. Many Australians, particularly parents, support minimum age requirements to prevent under-16s accessing social media, but will the social media platforms be able to demand and collect personal data such as passports or drivers licences from all existing or new account holders for age verification purposes? If not, how will age verification be obtained?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question and her interest in this issue. I know that this is a matter that is occupying the thoughts of so many Australian parents and members of the community now. It's one that is contentious. It's one that has not actually been implemented at scale anywhere in the world. The member asked a very important question about privacy, and I will respond in a few parts.</para>
<para>The first is that the legislation that we will bring to this parliament will contain robust provisions as they pertain to privacy. We understand that Australians will be very concerned when they consider the level and the severity of cyber breaches that have happened in the recent past and the need to ensure that, consistent with the principles of the Privacy Act, there is only the collection and use of information for specific purposes. We want to ensure, through this legislation, that that principle continues to be maintained.</para>
<para>My clear answer for the member is that this is precisely why we are undertaking the age assurance trial, which we funded in the budget. Part of this goes to not only their effectiveness—and effectiveness goes to the willingness of platforms to utilise forms of age assurance—but also their acceptance by the public as well. We will use this time during the age assurance trial—and I would point out that the legislation will contain a one-year implementation timeframe—to ensure that these matters which are of concern are ones that are properly examined and properly accounted for.</para>
<para>But I do want to make it clear to the member that there is a difference between age verification and age assurance. What we are seeking to do here, through the trial, is to understand these technologies which have been developing rapidly, and the obligation that will be placed on the social media platforms is to take those reasonable steps, reasonable efforts, to ensure that people under the minimum age of 16 do not open and hold accounts.</para>
<para>This will be a process that we will go through, through implementation, working with e-Safety. I'm also working very closely with the Attorney-General and his department, as well as the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, to get this right. But I do want to make this message very clear to the Australian people: this is not about government mandating any form of technology or demanding that any personal information be handed over to social media companies. I'm very pleased to continue to engage with the honourable member, as I'm sure she's keen to see results in this area as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations: Australia and India</title>
          <page.no>8162</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. What is the significance of yesterday's meeting between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of India?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. Yesterday Prime Minister Albanese met Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India in the sidelines of the G20 in Brazil. Our relationship with India has never been deeper or more important. India is now the biggest country in the world, with rising living standards and a growing economy. That is obviously fantastic for India, but it also represents an enormous opportunity for Australia.</para>
<para>Yesterday our two prime ministers announced that we will establish the India-Australia Renewable Energy Partnership, which will see an increase in two-way investment in renewable energy projects, such as PV solar manufacturing, battery mineral processing, green hydrogen and green steel. We will also see a building of the renewable energy workforce of the future through our two countries' establishment of the India-Australia Solar Rooftop Academy. That will be in India, and we will bring to bear our experience in training and our experience in rooftop solar by developing the curriculum and the program for this academy, which will see the training of 2,000 young Indians as solar PV technicians each and every year.</para>
<para>In addition to our economic cooperation, the strategic alignment between Australia and India has never been greater, as our two nations watch the rules based order being placed under increasing pressure in the region and the ocean that we share. That has seen a growth in the defence engagement between our two countries. It has seen an increase in the tempo of our defence exercises. So yesterday our prime ministers also announced that next year we will renew and update the 2009 Joint Declaration on Defence and Security Cooperation and will also establish a maritime collaboration security roadmap, which will see us engage in more activity between our defence forces on maritime domain awareness activities throughout the Indo-Pacific.</para>
<para>We cooperate on economic opportunity. We share strategic alignment. We also share passions, and that will be on display this Friday when our test cricketing teams resume a contest for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy—and in many ways, that represents the biggest symbol of our history, of our friendship and of the enduring bonds that unite our two peoples.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>8163</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In Chris Uhlmann's documentary on Sky News last night, US nuclear expert John Williams said, 'Just about every continent has nuclear power except Australia.' Why is the Albanese Labor government out of step with the rest of the world, which is increasingly taking up civil nuclear energy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are very happy to receive the question from the honourable member, as we are very happy to stay on this topic all day and indeed every day between now and the next election. While it has missed the attention of those opposite that we don't have a civil nuclear industry in this country, that there isn't the sunk cost in place, which is what's enjoyed by those other countries which have a civil nuclear industry—while that fact may have been missed by those opposite, it has not been missed by the Australian people. The Australian people understand that, as the Leader of the Opposition pursues this ridiculous policy, the only people who will end up paying for it is them. They will pay for it through their energy household bills and they will pay for it to the tune of an additional $1,200 in respect of their household energy bills. That is why this government is not walking down the path of a civil nuclear industry.</para>
<para>This government has front and centre in its mind the cost-of-living challenges which are being faced by the Australian people, so every step that we take is going to be about putting downward pressure on the costs that they experience, which is so very, very different to what this Leader of the Opposition represents. Be it what he did as the health minister, be it what he would do if he were ever given the chance to be the Prime Minister again or be it what is being proposed in terms of the policy in relation to the establishment of the civil nuclear industry in this country, what this Leader of the Opposition represents is a material and present risk to the household budgets of every single Australian.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>8163</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to lift bulk-billing rates? Why is the government so committed to protecting Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect, and what threats are there to bulk-billing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bennelong and wish him a happy birthday. I'm sure there's no place he'd rather be than with 150 of his nearest and dearest friends on a day like this in question time! But the member has also been telling me how well received the new urgent care clinic at Ryde has been by his community. I went to my trusty friend for validation—Google review—which, again, is overflowing with similar comments. Visby said, 'Very convenient and accessible'. Jennifer said, 'The urgent care in Ryde is exceptional and a much-needed addition to the community.' I could go on. This clinic is not just providing top-quality urgent care in a timely and convenient way. The important thing for the community is it's fully bulk-billed. That's also important for Labor because, for Labor, bulk-billing has always been the beating heart of Medicare, but it's also always been hard fought not only initially with the doctors, when the AMA instructed their members not to bulk-bill, but consistently through the years from the Liberal Party.</para>
<para>John Howard called bulk-billing an absolute rort. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was health minister, said there were too many free Medicare services and then tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. And that's the problem: 'throughout the years'. This is not a one-off Liberal Party thought bubble. It's a long, unbroken thread of ideological opposition to Medicare and to bulk-billing in particular. Most recently—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The deputy Liberal leader is interjecting, of course. Most recently—you just have to look at the deputy Liberal leader's comments this week. She said: 'It is a key Liberal Party principle. If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' That's what she said, and maybe that's why the Leader of the Opposition tried to make every Australian pay a fee when they got rushed to the local emergency department: apparently, Australians won't value having their life saved when they're having a heart attack unless they hand a fee over to the Leader of the Opposition. Apparently, that's why they opposed bulk-billing as well: people don't value free access to a GP unless they get to pay a fee to the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
<para>We have a different view. The reason our healthcare system is consistently voted No. 1 in the world, especially for health equity, is our free public hospitals and bulk-billing in Medicare. Every Australian can access the best health care in the world just by bringing this beautiful little green card, confident they can keep their credit card at home. The Liberal Party might not value this, but most Australians value it, and I can tell you the Labor Party values it too.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Marles</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>8164</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>8164</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do, most egregiously.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday in question time the Minister for Health and Aged Care made an incorrect claim about the comments I made on radio regarding health. They were not only completely false; they were so bizarre that I am actually worried the minister might be hallucinating. What the minister might want to know is I said Australians:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… can't afford to pay for our heating or air conditioning. We can't afford to pay for our health. Australians are struggling to pay the mortgage, struggling to pay the rent. Younger Australians can't get into a home. It all starts piling up …</para></quote>
<para>The truth is Australians are poorer under Labor.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>8164</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Anti-Corruption Commission</title>
          <page.no>8164</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Presentation</title>
            <page.no>8164</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, I present the annual report for 2023-24 of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.</para>
<para>Document made a parliamentary paper.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>8164</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Report No. 14 of 2024-25</title>
          <page.no>8164</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 14 of 2024-25 entitled <inline font-style="italic">Implementation of parliamentary committee and Auditor-General recommendations—Indigenous Affairs </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">ortfolio: Indigenous Business Australia; National Indigenous Australians Agency</inline>.</para>
<para>Document made a parliamentary paper.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>8164</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>8164</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. The full details of the document will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>8164</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Australia</title>
          <page.no>8164</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gippsland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">After two and a half years, regional Australians are worse off under this Government.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know, Mr Speaker, you understand what a caring kind of guy I am. I'm starting to get worried about the wellbeing of the entire Labor frontbench because they're absolutely obsessed with the Leader of the Opposition. It's six months until the next federal election is due to be held, and they've given up governing. Their obsession with the Leader of the Opposition is evident every day in this place. Forget about Labor's 'light on the hill'. Forget about Bob Hawke's famous pledge that by 1990 no Australian child would be living in poverty. It's now clear that by 2025 no Australian child will be living without a three-word slogan. As we've seen in question time, as we've seen all this week, Labor has given up on governing and is now completely focused on three-word slogans and regurgitating the attack lines, the negative points, that come up in its focus group hearings. They've given up any attempts at vision, hope, optimism or aspiration. 'No child will be living without a three-word slogan' is this government's plan for Australia's future. They strut to the dispatch box and they claim that cost of living is now their No. 1 priority. After wasting more than $400 million tearing Australians apart with a vanity project otherwise known as the Voice, it's embarrassing to watch.</para>
<para>Those of us who live in the regions understand there are many skills shortages in Australia today, but the biggest skills shortage in Australia today is in the Australian Labor Party cabinet. I'm disappointed the member for Moreton is leaving the place; at least if he was in the cabinet room there'd be a little bit of skill injected into the room. The biggest skills shortage on the Australian continent today is in the Australian cabinet, which is suffering a severe lack of skills—even the poor old member for Moreton couldn't get a game there. Instead of developing policies and making Australia stronger and safer, this cabinet has been turned into a three-word slogan factory. We have before us, effectively, an opposition in waiting. They've given up on governing, and all they're doing now is throwing mud at the Leader of the Opposition, desperately running scare campaigns and desperately conjuring up more three-word slogans straight out of their focus groups.</para>
<para>I'm sure that everyone here—I look around the room; maybe not Sam. What's your seat again?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rae</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hawke.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Maybe the member for Hawke's not quite old enough to remember this, but everyone else is old enough to remember the TV show <inline font-style="italic">Seinfeld</inline>. Everyone remembers the show <inline font-style="italic">Seinfeld</inline>. There's one very famous episode in <inline font-style="italic">Seinfeld </inline>where Jerry and George pitch their ideas to a TV producer to develop what they call 'a show about nothing'. Sadly, when it comes to regional Australia, we are living through a <inline font-style="italic">Seinfeld </inline>government at a federal level. It's been a show about nothing, and regional Australians are worse off.</para>
<para>This <inline font-style="italic">Seinfeld </inline>government has failed to deliver for local communities. It's been divided. It's been distracted by a Canberra-knows-best attitude and has no interest in our local communities. They don't believe in locals and they don't trust us in the regions to make decisions that benefit our communities. I really only need to consider the performance of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to demonstrate that this <inline font-style="italic">Seinfeld</inline> government has built nothing. The minister for infrastructure and transport, otherwise known as the minister for ribbon-cutting, wasted her first year in office and then, after wasting her first year in office, the minister for ribbon-cutting decided she needed a 90-day infrastructure review to decide on her future priorities. The only problem with the minister for infrastructure's 90-day review is that it took 200 days. This minister is the only person on the planet who would take five minutes to make two-minute noodles! She took 200 days for a 90-day review. This delay meant cost increases for projects, uncertainty and then project cancellations. Quite noticeably, though, the project cancellations mainly occurred in seats held by coalition members in regional areas.</para>
<para>The minister also locked in some regional rip-offs when she took away the 80-20 funding split. The Commonwealth used to pay 80 per cent and state governments 20 per cent for regional projects. Now it's all fifty-fifty, so we get less for regional areas as a direct result of this minister's decision coming out of her 90-day 200-day review.</para>
<para>On top of the cuts to regional transport projects, the government has failed—and this is quite extraordinary—to build a single project under its Growing Regions Program. Remember that program? It had $600 million to build projects for regional Australia. It took more than two years even to call for nominations, and now, after 2½ years, work hasn't started on a single project under the Growing Regions Program. The minister has had to pretend she's delivered something by inspecting and opening coalition funded regional projects. The hypocrisy of this minister is that she comes in here and she spouts three-word slogans from the focus groups and attacks the record of the previous government but then she sneaks out of here and she travels around Australia, taking credit for projects she had nothing to do with. During the sitting weeks, she's in here shouting, the warrior for Labor, at the dispatch box making these false claims about chaos and everything else she thinks went wrong during the coalition government, but then, when she gets over here, she's off travelling around Australia, cutting ribbons, unveiling plaques and issuing press releases taking credit.</para>
<para>You don't have to take my word for it; you just have to look at the minister's own press releases. This is one of my favourites:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Light at the end of the Coffs Harbour Bypass tunnel</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In a major milestone for one of regional Australia's biggest infrastructure projects, the first phase of the multi-billion-dollar Coffs Harbour Bypass is complete.</para></quote>
<para>Well done, Minister! The minister is quoted as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"This is a major milestone for this nation-shaping project.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">During consultation ahead of the project in 2016, the people of Coffs Harbour were very clear they wanted tunnels instead of cuttings and it is great to see progress in bringing that to fruition."</para></quote>
<para>But in 2019 the minister was the shadow minister who failed back the project in the first place. The member for Cowper fought like a Trojan to get the work done. He doesn’t even get a mention in the press release.</para>
<para>But it gets better. I won't bore you with the roundabout in my electorate; that's a little bit too self-indulgent. I should go to the hypocrisy roll of dishonour, which is very long. This one is my favourite in all of Australia. This one is really good: the Cooroy to Curra section D on the Bruce Highway, colloquially known as the Gympie bypass. This one really takes chutzpah. This one really does take the cake. This project started under Warren Truss. It continued when I was minister—before I was sacked the first time! Then it continued under the member for Riverina. Throughout all this, the constant advocacy by the member for Wide Bay fighting for this project has been exemplary. What you see in this press release, though, is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese and Queensland Government funded Gympie Bypass has opened to traffic, a significant improvement for residents with heavy vehicles no longer needing to travel through Gympie.</para></quote>
<para>That's all true. There's a quote from the Prime Minister himself—</para>
<quote><para class="block">"This vital infrastructure project has been a long time coming for the locals and visitors who travel throughout the Gympie region"—</para></quote>
<para>and one from the minister:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"The Gympie Bypass opening to traffic today is a monumental achievement by the Australian and Queensland governments."</para></quote>
<para>But she didn't put any money into it. It was funded entirely by the previous coalition government.</para>
<para>There are more that I probably won't quite get to—no; I will. The minister opposite, the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories—this is a beauty too—is in WA. She has announced $800,000 for a childcare centre, and she says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's fantastic to … see local-led projects progressing, and to discuss the Shire of Moora's forward priorities—because when we work together, we get the best outcomes for our regional communities.</para></quote>
<para>That was $800,000 for a childcare centre—fantastic!—under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. The minister loved the program so much she voted to abolish it. It's gone. The entire $800,000 came from the previous government.</para>
<para>Regional Australians aren't easy to fool. They can smell the bulldust of those opposite from a mile away. In just a few months time, regional Australians will only need to ask themselves a few simple questions when it comes to judging this government: Am I better off under this Prime Minister? Is my family better off? Is Australia a safer and better place to live? Do I feel positive about the future of my community under the leadership of this Prime Minister? The answer to all those questions, I'm afraid, is going to be no, because the cost of everything is going up and we will be even worse off under a Labor-Greens government in the future. We have a government that is more focused on three-word slogans than it is on the future of the Australian public.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always great to get up and talk about regional Australia, and I'm so glad that we're on this side of the House so that we can actually deliver for regional Australia. From day one we have been getting on with the job of delivering for regional Australia, and we have delivered more in 2½ years than those opposite managed in their 10. What we're talking about is delivering much more than a bloody grants program, because regional communities deserve services. They deserve access. They deserve people who back them and support them, not people who run around and allow regional dollars to go to the North Sydney pool. I'm not sure where the member from Gippsland or any of the Nationals were when the Liberal Party gave regional dollars to the North Sydney pool—10 million regional dollars. I don't know anyone in my electorate, the member for Gippsland's electorate or the member for Mallee's electorate who uses the North Sydney pool. FYI, it's still not built and it's over budget, so no-one's using it right now.</para>
<para>We're investing in regional communities, as I said, because we're taking a strategic approach: we're investing in people, in places, in services that our communities need and in industries that our local communities rely on. We've restored integrity and transparency to grant programs—I know that's a foreign concept to those opposite—and we've doubled Roads to Recovery. Over the next five years it will go to $1 billion annually. That means every local council across the country will have more money to put towards road maintenance projects. The funding will allow local governments to plan for long-term maintenance and upgrade their road networks. In the member for Gippsland's electorate, it means his councils will receive close to $70 million over the next five years, which is an increase of almost $22 million. It's something that neither he nor anyone else on the coalition benches ever managed to put in place, so well done to the Labor government for delivering to every local council across the country.</para>
<para>We're increasing the roads Black Spot Program from $110 million a year to $150 million a year, meaning we're improving more of the dangerous sections of roads across the country. We've launched the new Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program, with $200 million available each and every year, providing a $50 million boost in that.</para>
<para>We are delivering more through every local council, as I said. But it's not just about delivering the hard infrastructure; it's also about working with our communities for what they need—the skills and training that they're after. We want more people to be able to train at home and continue working locally, because you shouldn't have to leave your home to build a career. We're bringing universities closer to our regions by investing in 20 more regional study hubs. We've established fee-free TAFE, and a third of people that have taken up fee-free TAFE live in our regions. They don't have to leave their communities to train or to upskill which is so incredibly important in this day and age.</para>
<para>We're making record investments in housing because, in order to attract and retain staff, we need somewhere for them to live. There's been $32 billion in housing initiatives, the biggest investment in a decade. We want to see more homes built. We're working with all levels of government to kickstart housing supply through our $1.5 billion Housing Support Program. We're building the enabling infrastructure to get more homes in our regions, and we're ensuring that more regional people can buy their first home. Over 13,000 people have already been supported under the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee thanks to the expanded eligibility criteria that this government has put in place.</para>
<para>When we came to office 2½ years ago, people in regional communities couldn't get in to see a local GP. We're strengthening those services in our regions with significant investments to get Medicare back to where it should be. We have supported an additional 2.2 million bulk-billed visits in regional and rural Australia since November last year, funded through the government's Australian General Practice Training Program. General practitioner registrars have been successfully placed in regional towns that were previously struggling to attract GPs. We're also waving HECS fees for doctors and nurse practitioners that work in rural and regional Australia, and we will provide $320 per week to nursing and midwifery students during their mandatory prac placements from 1 July next year.</para>
<para>We've funded an additional 29 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics, bringing that total to 87 across the country from Albury to Broome to Devonport to Bundaberg to Queanbeyan in my own electorate. Those clinics are ensuring people across Australia get access to the free and urgent care that they need.</para>
<para>We know how important the NBN is, particularly in our regions. That is why the Albanese government took to the last election a further $2.4 billion investment which will make sure that we get fibre to the premises of 1.5 million additional homes, with 660,000 of those across regional Australia. Today, as we were saying in the House, we will ensure that the NBN is owned by who it belongs to: the Australian people. Those opposite want to sell it off. They want to sell it off, which will mean more expensive internet to regional Australia. It is not on.</para>
<para>As a former mayor who experienced the Black Summer bushfires with communities across Eden-Monaro, I've seen firsthand the devastation that natural disasters can bring to regional communities. The Albanese government has worked hard to enhance the country's disaster risk reduction, preparedness and emergency response capability. Regional communities are better prepared for disasters under this government than they ever have been before. We set up the National Emergency Management Agency and have a regional network of NEMA staff supporting communities across the nation. We understand the importance of improving Australia's emergency management capabilities, as we're acting on the royal commission recommendations to keep us safe and reduce disaster risk. We have built the largest firefighting air fleet in the country's history. We have 160 specialised, highly-mobile aircraft that are positioned around the country to protect regional communities against bushfires this summer. As I said, that's on the back of the recommendations from the bushfire royal commission. That's something that was not acted on by those opposite.</para>
<para>We built the $1 billion Disaster Ready Fund to invest in disaster resilience and risk reduction. We created the National Emergency Management Stockpile and Disaster Relief Australia, and we expanded the aerial firefighting fleet. This was all rolled out under this Labor government because we are committed to working with every community. Your postcode should not limit what you have access to. We don't need to use colour coded spreadsheets to determine where funding should be allocated. If you don't believe me, ask the ANAO. The closed, secretive grants process which saw regional dollars go to North Sydney pool—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Buddy, North Sydney pool is still not open. I'm not sure where the bleating was when that happened!</para>
<para>Under those opposite, the infrastructure pipeline blew out from 150 projects to almost 800 projects. They thought it was responsible to add projects that had no hope of ever being completed, because there was no additional budget ever invested in the infrastructure pipeline. You cannot build a road with a press release. It is outrageous.</para>
<para>Those opposite froze financial assistance grants, taking over $900 million out of local councils. They also froze indexation on road maintenance payments to state and territory governments back in 2014 and left it there for a decade. No wonder our regional roads are suffering.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is fixing the mess and reversing those coalition cuts. Not only are we locking in future road maintenance funding at 2.5 per cent per year; we are backdating this reform to when the freeze was put in place by those opposite. This year we've increased road maintenance funding to $460 million, and each and every year from now on it will increase.</para>
<para>Now, apparently, those opposite are going to block fee-free TAFE. So, for the one-third of people in regions across the nation who have taken up the opportunity to train themselves or upskill: sorry, you're going to have to pay for that from now on because they don't think it's important to upskill you.</para>
<para>They voted against international student caps, which for regional universities means that there is now no longer going to be a proper allocation of international students across the country. Apparently it's okay to concentrate those international students in the big eight. They don't want regional universities to succeed, and that's exactly what they've just voted against. And they've also voted against keeping the NBN in public hands.</para>
<para>They make reckless commitments and they don't understand that they're having a substantial impact on our regional communities. What they've said is that nuclear power might be the answer. I mean, no plan, no costs—it's another half-baked idea, another way that they're trying to force regional Australia to deal with their incompetence. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to congratulate the member for Gippsland for bringing this incredibly important matter of public importance to the chamber and to the people of Australia. After 2½ years, regional Australians are worse off under this government. That is the statement the member for Gippsland has asked us to speak about, and I am unfortunately very happy and very well equipped to talk about this subject.</para>
<para>My electorate of Mallee has absolutely suffered under this Labor government. There is no question about that. I actually have the data, the very clear data, that under Labor Mallee has received $93 million in total across 83½ thousand square kilometres. Under the coalition in the 46th Parliament—and, I grant you, we had COVID—it received $2 billion.</para>
<para>Now, you know, the people of Mallee would go, '$93 million over nearly three years compared to $2 billion.' I can't tell you one project that has happened under this Labor government for the people of Mallee. I'm serious about that—12 shires and no funding actually implemented, no shovel in the ground other than with coalition dollars.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Moreton, Member for Fairfax, I'd actually like to hear the member for Mallee.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is one particular issue. Another issue is health. Let me bring you up to speed on what has been happening in my electorate with regard to health. We have lost doctors. Over this last 2½- to-three-year period we have lost them because the distribution priority area was expanded under this government. So the number of doctors who have left regional areas for metropolitan areas has increased—56 per cent more have left. That has not helped us one iota.</para>
<para>What dollars have been put into education in my electorate? Well, I'd like to know. I would really, sincerely like to know. Are people in the regions—in Mallee—worse off or better off under this Labor government? I can absolutely guarantee you they are worse off. Mallee has been selected—wow, a badge of honour—to carry the renewable target zone called the 'renewable energy zone'. In Victoria, there were five renewable energy zones but now there is one, and it's called Mallee. Thank you very much.</para>
<para>We are an agricultural area. We are a horticultural area. And now we have the target spot, the big bullseye, on Mallee to receive 50 projects, so far, of renewable wind turbines, solar farms, batteries and transmission lines. There will be 350 kilometres of transmission lines going straight through farmers' paddocks. Are farmers happy about this? I can give you a really clear answer to that. The answer is no.</para>
<para>There are some farmers who have made the decision to take the money and put the turbines on their property. Are they still talking to the farmers in the next paddock? This is a genuine issue. Under this government, the divisions that have occurred throughout my communities is absolutely appalling. There needs to be accountability given to, and taken by, this Labor government.</para>
<para>On top of that, we have mineral sands. The coalition are pro-mines; there's no question about that. Of course, we welcome mining. I see the Minister for Resources right here, and no, it's not about NIMBYism; it's the fact that there are primary industries already taking place in my electorate. I have farms where they are going to have mineral sands on their property for 36 years. There has been an article this week from the ABC about this very project.</para>
<para>The local communities are up in arms. I have farmers ready to just walk away, now. They're ready to walk away from generational farming—and I'm talking about five and six generations. What does that mean for our food security in the future? I think Australia needs to seriously look at where we are going with regard to mineral sands operations and it needs to have a social licence, not just a miners' willingness.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to rise and speak on this matter of public importance and highlight how wrong the members of the opposition are and how it's just not true. Regional Australians have been some of the biggest beneficiaries to policies that have been introduced by the Albanese Labor government. Five minutes isn't enough time to outline in detail all of the changes we have made since coming to government that are making a real difference to the lives of regional Australians.</para>
<para>I can start with health. Access to bulk-billing doctors is increasing. The tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentive has meant that more and more of our doctors in regional areas are bulk-billing. In my electorate, we've seen the biggest uptake. Regional electorates are tapping into this incentive; another regional electorate is the electorate of Mayo. Cheaper medicines are helping people in regional Australia. We all know the health statistics: sadly, people in regional areas don't live as long and have more chronic health conditions, therefore to have access to cheaper medicines is making a real difference to their lives.</para>
<para>I can also talk about the difference that the urgent the care clinics are making in Shepparton, Bendigo, Geelong and Ballarat, plus others being rolled out in other regional areas. They are all making a real difference to people's lives. I can talk about the changes that we have introduced in terms of reduction of debt for university fees and the debts that people have. Free TAFE is making a difference to regional students, by starting to try and reverse the trend of our young people not accessing tertiary education when they finish high school. These are all reforms from this government.</para>
<para>There are tax cuts for every worker—not just for those earning big incomes, which the previous government introduced. We changed it to make sure every worker, including those in regional Australia, got access to that. Regional wages are slightly lower than those in the metro cities—it is just a fact of life—meaning more workers in the regions got a tax cut under us than from those opposite. That is a simple fact. That is another measure of how regional Australians are doing better under us, because of our tax cuts reform.</para>
<para>Can we also talk about aged care and early childhood education? The pay rises introduced by this government are reversing the bleed. Aged care in regional areas was desperate for workers, but we've stabilised that by increasing the wages, encouraging workers to stay where they live and where they work. It's the same for childcare workers; when those wages come in, it will stabilise and help reverse the desert problem that we have in regional Victoria. Fixing wages is critical to turning around the challenge that we have with early childhood education.</para>
<para>I'm glad that renewables were put on the table. Renewable energy is a real opportunity for regional Australia. In my own electorate, and in the electorate of Mallee yesterday, a new solar power plant was approved by this government. That will power every single home in my electorate. That is what was approved yesterday. It's not just in the electorate of Mallee; it is everywhere where we can get a project that stacks up economically and environmentally. I am so pleased to stand here and say that this government, our government, has approved a renewable energy project that has the ability to power every single home in my electorate, and it is being built in my electorate. So it is not just the electorate of the member for Mallee; it is every part of regional Australia where it stacks up environmentally and economically. That is where we are making a real difference.</para>
<para>We are helping communities power themselves. We are training our own in our regions—through our universities and through our health system—to take care of our own in aged care, in early childhood education and in our medical service. We're giving every worker that works in regional Australia a tax cut and we're getting on with building the infrastructure that we need.</para>
<para>I've got 30 seconds left to even start talking about the infrastructure that we're doing. We are doubling the Roads to Recovery budget, which is helping our councils fix the roads that they need. We have the Growing Regions Program—which is not being rorted, it's being delivered through a transparent process that is being backed up by the Auditor-General's office. This is just the beginning of the shopping list of what we have done for regional Australia. Regional Australians are better off because of our government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After 2½ years, regional Australians are worse off under this government, and those opposite have no understanding about what regional and rural Australia are about. They just have no concept. They wouldn't know a farmer if they fell over one—although they do spend a bit of time trying to trip them over.</para>
<para>This is a little lesson for those opposite: regional Australians provide the food and fibre, not Woolies and Coles; they don't grow it out the back. Farmers have provided blood, sweat and tears and that's how you get the food. The wild-caught fishing industry is how we get fresh fish on our plates, and the grazing industry—that beautiful hunk of rump steak; how good is that? Well, that comes from a grazier. That actually comes from a cow, not from one of those plastic packets in Woolworths. And the mining industry produces so much.</para>
<para>But rural and regional Australians do so much more than just do the jobs and produce food. They create the wealth. In my region alone, $15 billion from royalties is generated from coal—the resources minister should actually know this—and what happens with that? That money goes towards our police, our fire and our ambulance, all generated within the regions. From the export earnings, billions of dollars goes towards our NDIS, defending our country and securing our borders, all created in the regions.</para>
<para>Then there is the sugar industry. In my electorate of Dawson I have the biggest sugar-cane growing area in the whole of Australia. Over 80 per cent of that sugar is exported, again creating export earnings. And horticulture: in my home town of Bowen, half a billion dollars worth of horticultural crop provides food to feed this country as well as provide export earnings. You would think that, with all those contributions from regional Australians, some money, or a little bit, would come back, wouldn't you? That's what you'd do: you'd give some money back to those that are providing so much.</para>
<para>What has this hopeless one-term Albanese Labor government done in 2½ years? They've made things more difficult. They've cut funding to the Bruce Highway. The Bruce Highway is the main road, the main highway, from Brisbane to Cairns. It's about 1,600 kilometre long, and that's how farmers get their produce to market and how people get their supplies up from the city and how our families get home safely. What have the Albanese Labor government done? They've cut the funding. Forever it's been an 80-20 arrangement, with 80 per cent provided by the federal government and 20 per cent by the state government. But that's been cut to fifty-fifty. So now the work is not getting done. So now we have a long conga line of potholes, and it's not as safe for my people to drive on.</para>
<para>And what about the fishing industry? The Labor government has decimated the fishing industry with the ban of gillnets in order to 'save the Great Barrier Reef'. Can you imagine having a net on the reef? It would get tangled up, and you'd never get it back. Gillnets go absolutely nowhere near the Great Barrier Reef. This was just a stroke of a pen; it was just a silly idea to once again appease their buddies the Greens, but it has decimated the fishing industry—the fishers and also the chandlery shops, the ice works, the boatbuilders, the whole lot.</para>
<para>What about the introduction of a biosecurity levy? How's this one: the Labor government has brought in a biosecurity levy into make sure they have to pay for the rest of their overseas competitors! No-one else in the world does that. But the Labor government brought that in. They have absolutely no idea.</para>
<para>They introduced the car and family ute tax, another blight on regional Australians. The vehicles that we need to drive—LandCruiser, Rangers, HiLuxs and those sorts of things—have gone up in price. But here's a newsflash for those opposite: electric vehicles can't carry the weight, they can't overload and they can't cover the distance. But, again, it's another attack on regional Australians.</para>
<para>They are driving up power prices. Power prices are going through the roof, and this was after the promise of a $275 reduction. They made this promise 97 times. I cannot believe it.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government must stop demonising regional Australians. Without regional Australia, Australians starve and Australia stops.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm proud to stand here today as a regional MP, delivering for my region on the South Coast of New South Wales and for regional Australia. I grew up on a dairy farm in my region, and everything I learnt growing up means I get my region. It's where I've raised my four kids. So, as an MP—and a mum—I naturally want the best for every young child growing up in our region. I want our young people to go to TAFE to complete their apprenticeship or go to uni. I want young people to aspire to remain living locally. I want to ensure the health needs of pensioners and our most vulnerable are looked after. That is why, I have absolutely championed what's good for our regions. And today I want to mention just two of those initiatives.</para>
<para>We're making fee-free TAFE permanent. As a TAFE teacher, I saw what the New South Wales Liberal government did to TAFE: they gutted it. The carpark at TAFE NSW Nowra campus was constantly empty. Locals noticed it and were shocked and dismayed. That's what the Liberal government did. I am so happy to be part of the Albanese Labor government that brought in fee-free TAFE. It has meant more people going to TAFE to do an apprenticeship, to retrain in a skills shortage industry. In Gilmore, 4,400 people have taken up our fee-free TAFE.</para>
<para>Last week I visited the Nowra TAFE campus with the Acting Prime Minister, and we went into electrical and carpentry classes. We spoke with students and heard how fee-free TAFE is helping, providing that bit of important relief, allowing people to retrain. That's absolutely wonderful. Our Free TAFE Bill in the House will make fee-free TAFE permanent—fantastic. But it should come as no surprise that Peter Dutton won't support it. In fact, the Liberals called it wasteful spending. Well, try telling that to TAFE students in my electorate and their mums and dads, nannas and pops. People in my electorate know the importance of TAFE and that our fee-free TAFE is working.</para>
<para>In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and shadow minister for skills made some pretty shocking statements on our TAFE bill in the House. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<para>What an extraordinary betrayal of young people and people of all ages studying at TAFE—gaining skills, getting that qualification, becoming tradies, helping solve skill shortages in our regions.</para>
<para>Well, I'm pleased to say that, under Labor, fee-free TAFE is here to stay. Today I launched a petition to have our Batemans Bay Medicare urgent care clinic upgraded to have normal hours of operation closer to 24/7 and to increase the care level. The Batemans Bay Medicare urgent care clinic that I lobbied hard for and delivered has seen 7,500 patients, all fully bulk-billed, receiving treatment for urgent conditions. It helps take pressure off our wonderful local GPs and the emergency departments at Batemans Bay and Moruya. Here's what Emma said just today: 'That urgent care is fantastic. My son fractured his hand yesterday and we were able to get seen there straightaway, and the level of care they gave us was outstanding. Both the nurse and the doctor treating my son were just so lovely and caring. Our town needs this.'</para>
<para>That's the type of support we're providing in my region and for regional Australia, making a real difference for families, pensioners and everyone in our community. But people should be very aware of the Liberals' $615 billion in planned spending cuts and what's on the chopping board when it comes to health. After all, when the opposition leader was health minister he tried to do away with bulk-billing by introducing a tax on every visit to the GP. He started a six-year freeze on Medicare rebates and cut $50 billion from hospitals. He was even voted the worst health minister in 40 years by Australian doctors. That is in stark contrast to this side of the House, with the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare, increasing bulk-billing and delivering for regional Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great MPI topic—whether regional Australians are better off under this government. The answer clearly is no. I live in regional Australia. I engage with my constituents often, and they're doing it very tough. This government has failed to get core inflation under control, and that means the Reserve Bank is holding off on interest rate cuts. My constituents have mortgages; my constituents pay rent—all people across regional Australia have mortgages and pay rent. And the stubborn inflation that has been caused by the government not taking this seriously and not doing their No. 1 job, which is to get inflation under control, means that people are paying higher mortgages, higher rents, and higher prices for a number of things.</para>
<para>I came in here earlier for the Treasurer's economic statement, and it was very self-congratulatory about how well the government has done on economic management. And I tell you what: there's a former Australian left-arm leg spinner in the building today, but he's not the best spinner in Parliament House today; the Treasurer is a much better spinner than the forenamed former Australian left-arm leg spinner!</para>
<para>What the member for Gippsland said in his address—and I made these points yesterday as well, in relation to another piece of legislation—is that you can see during question time that the government seems to have given up on the vision and the policy and it's all about calling the opposition leader names. Now, come on: we deserve a bit better than that in Australia. I know the tactics committee and the focus groups have said, 'If we demonise the Leader of the Opposition, that's the pathway to holding on to government, however slender that may be.' But it's not really the path that I think Australians want us to go down. Calling the opposition leader names is not leadership; it's not vision. And another thing: a lot of people in my electorate and in regional Australia are involved in small business, whether they own a small business or are employed by one. Those small businesses are reporting to me that it is harder to do business, mainly because of the industrial relations legislation they're forced to wade through. That might be fine for really large businesses to deal with, but, for a small business who doesn't have an HR manager, it's very difficult and it makes it harder for them to do business.</para>
<para>I had an agribusiness investor, farmer and producer tell me just last week, 'I'm not investing in Australia at the moment because I'm too worried about what this mob is going to do around policies to do with IR and water. My investment's going into the United States.' Now, that breaks my heart, because, when he invests, my people get employed and we produce things. It's hard to produce things in my patch in the Murray-Darling Basin without irrigation water. The lack of investment confidence in the agricultural sector because of the changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—and I'll call out again the minister for the environment's failure to come to basin communities and find out the actual consequence of the damage she's doing—is hurting my community. Those people aren't better off.</para>
<para>When people invest in agribusiness, people get employed, we export products to South-East Asia and beyond, and Australia is a richer, wealthier place. If you take away that confidence, Australia is a poorer place, and the people who live in regional Australia who rely on these industries are poorer. The policies announced by this government have damaged confidence and are making regional Australian people poorer.</para>
<para>There was an infrastructure pipeline in my electorate. It built some great things. The Echuca-Moama Bridge improved rail lines between Shepparton and Melbourne. I haven't seen much infrastructure development in the 2½ years of the Albanese government. In fact, we have had some funding, but no work's started. We've got to build some stuff; then people in regional Australia will be better off.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Under the Albanese Labor government, regional Australians are better off, and here's why. Bulk billing in the regions is higher now than it was two years ago. That's a fact, and the data makes it crystal clear. The Albanese government's record investment to strengthen Medicare has revived bulk billing and made it cheaper for people in regional Australia to see a GP. In regional Victoria alone, this has resulted in an additional 585,900 free visits to the GP just in the past year. That's something to celebrate, and it's remarkable. It reinforces the fact that regional Australians will always do better under Labor when it comes to Medicare and their health care.</para>
<para>This stands in stark contrast to the damning legacy of the former coalition government. We all know the opposition leader was overwhelmingly voted by Australian doctors as the worst health minister in living memory. It was the opposition leader who wanted to abolish bulk billing, which would have delivered terrible health and cost-of-living outcomes for regional Australians.</para>
<para>It's a similar story when it comes to the education sector. The Albanese government understands that regional economies are bolstered by investment in and support for their educational institutions, like Gordon TAFE and Deakin University in my electorate of Corangamite in regional Victoria. That's why we're backing in our regions, putting forward a policy that would see more Australians attend regional universities—studying, working and, hopefully, embracing and staying in regional areas.</para>
<para>The latest data backs this up. It shows that, under our education policy, regional university intakes would rise by 11 per cent above their 2023 international student levels, and 78 per cent above their estimates for 2024. This projected 78 per cent rise would be the economic boost these regional communities need. I know there are National Party MPs and senators who want this bill passed because it would benefit their regional communities, but, unsurprisingly, the Liberal Party are standing in the way of this bill. They're blocking our pathway to supporting regional universities, they're opposing a 20 per cent cut to student debt and they're now opposing free TAFE, a program that regional Victorians are taking up in droves.</para>
<para>When it comes to infrastructure, our record speaks for itself. We're progressively doubling Roads to Recovery funding to $1 billion annually. Under this program, Victoria will receive $895 million over five years—much more than the former coalition government proposed—with much of it going to regional roads. The Black Spot Program will also rise from $110 million to $150 million per year under Labor. In my regional, fast-growing electorate, this Labor government has in the last year rolled out more than $1.3 million for road projects alone on the Surf Coast, making our roads safer and reducing travel times for motorists. We're about to kick off, early next year, stage 2 of the Barwon Heads Road upgrade; this is a joint state-federal funding partnership, a $250 million project that will duplicate this busy arterial road in one of the nation's fastest-growing areas. And on Saturday we officially opened the Waurn Ponds rail duplication, with work now complete.</para>
<para>This contrasts sharply with the former coalition government, which took funds from regional Australia and put them into the North Sydney pool—so much for a coalition government that supports regional Australia! They have form. Do you remember, Deputy Speaker Claydon, when the former Abbott coalition government froze road maintenance funding back in 2014 and then did nothing for a decade? As a result, regional roads suffered and so did their businesses and local communities. But, luckily, things have changed. At the last election, the nation voted for a competent, compassionate government that is now getting on with the job for the people of my electorate, for the member for Gippsland's electorate and for all regional Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am an optimistic person. I like to believe in the best of people. The MPI today is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">After two and a half years, regional Australians are worse off under this Government.</para></quote>
<para>I have said many times that I don't think members of the Labor Party come here to do harm, and I don't think they mean to do harm to regional Australia. I think they are, in the truest sense of the word, just simply ignorant, and they don't understand what it is they are doing to rural Australia.</para>
<para>I have been keeping a bit of a list of the things that I think are really biting and really hurting and have changed in this 2½ years of government. First is the cost of everything. Only the other day I was in a butcher's shop looking at sausages that were $16 a kilogram. I can't tell you what an obstacle this is for people anywhere, let alone in the country. Our electricity prices, despite promises of a $275 reduction, have gone up by 30 per cent. If you think that's tough on households, imagine what it's like for a small manufacturing business or a large retail centre or whatever it might be. Costs in the country are pretty tough on everything. There have been 12 interest rate rises under this government. The average mortgage is $35,000 worse off. Personal income taxes are up by 25 per cent. We've heard the government parrot about their tax cuts—the stage 3 tax cuts which were actually funded under the former government—but, in fact, bracket creep is taking care of those very, very quickly indeed.</para>
<para>The abolition of the live sheep trade is eroding confidence right across the sheep industry, not just in Western Australia. There are some orders on some ships at the moment, and we know not what the owners of the ships will do; they may depart Australia early. There is the recommencement of the indiscriminate water buybacks along the Murray River. I led a delegation from the top to the bottom of the Murray, talking to growers about what would this mean in their communities; I can tell you it hurts. The building of transmission lines and renewable energy parks through high-value farmlands is starting to meet with real resistance in our rural and farming communities, I can tell you. There is the abolition of the ag visa program; this was to provide a workforce for Australian farmers to sow and harvest crops—that is gone.</para>
<para>There is the drying up of road projects. I worked very hard to get major upgrades on major highways within my electorate, and we began the duplication of the Augusta Highway; it's gone just on 30 kilometres. Work is still underway, I might say, but it's the money that was allocated from the previous government, and it's about to cease, and there is nothing in the forward estimates to keep this work going the rest of the way to Port Augusta.</para>
<para>On the local roads and community infrastructure, members just before me spoke about the increase in roads renewal. In fact, it has been put back in one hand—what was taken away from the left. The reduction of instant tax write-off measures for farmers and the imposing of the biosecurity levy on farmers—I think that's stuck in the Senate at the moment. But the idea that farmers would be paying for the import inspections on non-agricultural products, like fridges, white goods, machinery, electronics et cetera, is quite preposterous. The vehicle emissions standard will come into effect in the middle of next year but with another $15,000 to $20,000 on the vehicles that we use in regional areas.</para>
<para>There is the abolition of the native title respondents fund for those landholders that find themselves in the position of having to fight to keep their rights on their own property. There is the commitment to expand Australia's parks and reserves from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. I only heard the environment minister in a meeting this morning being very excited about the prospect of going from 22 per cent of land being under the protection of Australia to 30 per cent in the next five years. I can guarantee you that that land, that protected area, will not be coming out of the electorate of Sydney. It won't be coming out of the electorate of Melbourne. It won't be coming out of the central area; it will be coming out of the regions that I represent, and it creates holes in the economic fabric. There is the allowance of big emitters to buy up agricultural land set aside for emissions to meet the safeguard mechanism. The safeguard mechanism itself is actually undermining the metal refining platforms, like the steelworks at Whyalla, the lead smelter in Port Pirie and the copper smelter in Roxby Downs. It is making it more and more difficult. So it has been a tough 2½ years, I'd have to say, and I think the government needs to take a very close assessment of what they've done to rural and regional Australia. I would like to continue— <inline font-style="italic">(Time</inline><inline font-style="italic">expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm proud to stand as a member of a Labor government that supports a seat like mine in the Northern Territory that's as diverse as Lingiari, which is regional and remote Australia. Labor works hard to help all of my constituents deal with the cost-of-living pressures, and there is still more to do. When you hear speaker after speaker on the other side—not once have we heard on our side that there isn't more to do. We know that there is more to do and that everyone is hurting, and we are doing everything possible to try and make life better for everybody—not just the select few but everyone.</para>
<para>In my electorate, we work very hard as part of the government to build strong and sustainable communities that provide relief to those most in need at times when they need it the most. Labor's tax cuts, which came into force from 1 July this year, benefited 43,000 Territorians in Lingiari, and Labor is working hard for all Australian taxpayers to keep more of what they earn. Our government's $300 energy bill relief is another practical way Labor is easing the cost-of-living pressures. Around 85,000 households across the Northern Territory have benefited from this measure, which is reducing national household bills by 17 per cent on average compared to the previous year. In Lingiari, the Sun Cable project is going to benefit the nation but particularly Aboriginal communities along the corridor where the Sun Cable project is working. The Indigenous land use agreement is about to be signed between Sun Cable—its partners through the Northern Land Council—and native titleholders. I was listening to the member for Grey when he was talking about the native title disputes in South Australia. If it might help the retiring member for Grey, maybe that side of government needs to work more with their Aboriginal communities to get consensus rather than the ongoing disputes that we often see. I think that side of politics loves the division between pastoralists and Aboriginal people.</para>
<para>In the Northern Territory, we've done a lot of work with the cattlemen's association, with the pastoral industry and with Aboriginal people in terms of building the economy and the Northern Territory. A lot can be said if you work on those relationships.</para>
<para>Not everyone agrees, and that's okay. You can agree to disagree. But it is imperative that all of us in this House try and work together with industry to try and get the best outcome, particularly if we're looking at what needs to happen to get greater benefits and outcomes for our constituents.</para>
<para>One of the things that I do want to pick up on, and everyone's picked up on this because it is really important, is the Medicare reforms that our Minister for Health and Aged Care has taken through. I just want to quickly touch on the urgent care clinic in Alice Springs, or Mparntwe, which has had over 25,000 people. For a small community like Alice Springs, the number of people who have used the Medicare urgent care clinic in Alice Springs has been mind-blowing. It is in the top 25 urgent care clinics that we have put in place. The community of Alice Springs are very grateful.</para>
<para>It was good to be there the other day and see people coming in. It's not just Aboriginal clients that are going into these urgent care clinics but mums and dads and everyone that lives in Alice Springs. Alice has a high multicultural population—it's about 30 per cent of the community—and you hear everyone saying how good the Medicare urgent care clinic in Alice Springs is. That has been a fantastic initiative, and getting the support of the health minister, the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, the Department of Health and others to make the Medicare urgent care clinic in Alice Springs happen has been an important part of the Albanese Labor government's promise to make it easier to see a doctor in regional communities like Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek.</para>
<para>It is hard to try and get a doctor into all of these regional areas. The Medicare urgent care clinic in Alice Springs, as well as what we're doing throughout those regional areas, has to be applauded. It has been a big investment by this side of government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for this discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>8174</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>8174</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>8174</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human </inline><inline font-style="italic">rights</inline><inline font-style="italic"> scrutiny</inline><inline font-style="italic"> report</inline><inline font-style="italic">: report</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 10 of 2024</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 10th scrutiny report of 2024. In this report, the committee has considered 24 new bills and 162 new legislative instruments and has substantively commented on one new bill, one new legislative instrument and has concluded its examination of two bills.</para>
<para>In this report, the committee commented on the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 and the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2024. The Migration Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide for the cessation of subclass 070 bridging (removal pending) visas to facilitate arrangements for the removal of visa holders to receiving countries; to permit the sharing of criminal history information, both domestically and with foreign countries; to provide for the reversal of protection findings; and to alter the test for where the minister may remove certain BVR visa conditions.</para>
<para>The Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2024 changes the test for where the minister may impose visa conditions, including curfews or electronic monitoring on a bridging visa holder. The committee considers that the bill and regulations engage multiple human rights while those individuals are in Australia and potentially in circumstances where they've been removed to a foreign country. The committee considers that further information is required to assess the compatibility of these measures with these rights and is seeking further information from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.</para>
<para>The committee has also considered a response from the minister regarding the Aged Care Bill 2024, which seeks to establish a legislative framework for the Commonwealth aged-care system. The committee sincerely thanks the minister for the provision of additional information and welcomes the minister's acceptance of some of the committee's suggested actions, including with respect to aspects of measures related to restrictive practices and to supporters and guardians. This is an important reminder of the work of the committee, and I sincerely thank the minister. The committee otherwise restates its recommendations from report 9 of 2024, including that it would be appropriate for the bill objectives to be inclusive of Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.</para>
<para>Finally, the committee considered a response from the minister regarding the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. The committee thanks the minister for their response and reiterates its recommendations from report 9. Further, having regard to additional information provided as to limited remedies available where these measures breached a person's human rights, the committee has recommended that consideration be given to amending the bill to require the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, to establish a complaints mechanism to handle complaints with respect to breaches of human rights arising from the proposed scheme.</para>
<para>On that note, I thank the secretariat, as always, for their diligence and their hard work for the other committee members. We do have an inquiry that is about to get underway into antisemitism on university campuses and the work doesn't stop while that inquiry is going on. We are still doing our regular work, and I have to say that 10 committee reports are a reflection of the hard work of the secretariat as well as all committee members, so I thank them all. On that note I commend the committee's scrutiny report 10 of 2024 to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DELEGATION REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>8175</page.no>
        <type>DELEGATION REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam</title>
          <page.no>8175</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam from 25 to 30 August 2024. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I had the honour to be part of the Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam in August, led by the President of the Senate, the Hon. Sue Lines, which I attended along with Senator Anne Urquhart; the Hon. Kevin Hogan MP, Member for Page; Ms Rachel Callinan, delegation secretary from the Department of the Senate; and advisers to the President, Ms Harriet Brooke and Ms Nyat Mulugeta.</para>
<para>The delegation met with senior members of Vietnam's leadership and representatives of the National Assembly of Vietnam. The delegation reciprocated the Guest of Parliament visit by the former President of the National Assembly of Vietnam, His Excellency Vuong Dinh Hue, hosted by the presiding officers of the Australian parliament in November and December 2022, during which the cooperation agreement between our two governments was signed, and follows the elevation of bilateral relations between Australia and Vietnam to a comprehensive strategic partnership in March 2024.</para>
<para>I note that 2024 also marks 50 years of the ASEAN-Australia partnership, a significant milestone for both Australia and Vietnam. As the first Vietnamese Australian with a refugee background to stand in this House, I naturally feel proud that my birth country and my adopted homeland, Australia, have reached that significant milestone, demonstrating how much work and how many dialogues have been shared between the two nations, including trade and development, regional and international issues, gender equality and human rights, just to name a few. I was equally proud to see how many Australians, including Vietnamese Australians who have returned to Vietnam, are contributing to and helping to build Vietnam's civil society and economy—people like Jimmy Pham AM, who started his KOTO training centre over two decades ago, in 1999, and continues to support young people, largely women, to develop skills and confidence that will empower them to be productive citizens of Vietnam.</para>
<para>We visited Maxport, a sportswear manufacturing company owned by Australian Nicholas 'Jef' Stokes, founder and CEO, and saw the amazing work they're doing in producing high-quality sportswear. Maxport is part of the Australian funded International Finance Corporation project, empowering enterprise to reach gender equality, which provides assistance on workplace gender equality for footwear and apparel manufacturing.</para>
<para>Another great Australian company that we got to see was QLM Label Makers, a family-owned company that started in Queensland in 1973 and is now seen as a leader in the label-printing industry. Simon Pugh, the managing director, warmly welcomed us to his business with his home-baked anzac biscuits as well.</para>
<para>On behalf of the delegation, I would like to acknowledge His Excellency Mr To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam and State President; His Excellency Mr Pham Minh Chinh, Prime Minister of Vietnam; and His Excellency Mr Tran Thanh Man, Chairman of the National Assembly of Vietnam. We were deeply honoured to accept Chairman Man's invitation on behalf of the delegation. We extend our sincere appreciation to Chairman Man and his officials for facilitating the program.</para>
<para>We would also like to acknowledge the warm hospitality extended by all those who received the delegation during our visit, and thank them for generously sharing their knowledge, perspectives and friendship.</para>
<para>We would like to acknowledge the Australian Ambassador to Vietnam, His Excellency Mr Andrew Goledzinowski, the Deputy Australian Ambassador to Vietnam, Ms Renee Deschamps, and Acting Consul-General Mr Brent Stewart, as well as other embassy and consulate officials who facilitated the visit, accompanied us to our various activities and provided expert briefings and support.</para>
<para>I commend the report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8176</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8176</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7276" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>8176</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 6, item 3, page 20 (line 27), omit "paragraph (1)(a)", substitute "subsection (1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 22 (after line 4), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 7 — Other amendments relating to subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visas</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 68(5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit all the words from and including "if" to and including "future.", substitute "if the first visa ceases to be in effect under subsection 82(3) because another Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa for the non-citizen comes into effect.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Paragraph 76B(1)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any of the following applies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) at the time the visa was granted, there was no real prospect of the removal of the person from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the visa was granted under section 195A;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) if the non-citizen has previously held other Bridging R (Class WR) visas—the first of those visas was granted under section 195A; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Subsection 76E(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit all the words from and including "if" to and including "future.", substitute "if the first visa is subject to one or more prescribed conditions.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Paragraph 76E(3)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "paragraph (1)(a)", substitute "subsection (1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Subsection 76E(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "paragraph (1)(a)", substitute "subsection (1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Application of amendments of section 68 of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subsection 68(5) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, as amended by this Schedule, applies in relation to a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa for a non-citizen that ceases to be in effect under subsection 82(3) of that Act on or after the commencement of this item, whether the Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa was granted before, on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection 68(5) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, as in force immediately before the commencement of this item, continues to apply in relation to a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa that ceased to be in effect under subsection 82(3) of that Act during the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) beginning on 18 November 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending immediately before the commencement of this item;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">as if the amendments to that subsection made by this Schedule had not been made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Application of amendments of section 76B of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subparagraph 76B(1)(b)(i) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a person who holds a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa, whether the Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa was granted before, on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subparagraph 76B(1)(b)(ii) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a person who holds a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa granted on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subparagraph 76B(1)(b)(iii) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a person who holds a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa that was granted without an application on or after the commencement of this item, and who previously held a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa granted under section 195A of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, whether the Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa was granted under section 195A of that Act before, on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Saving provision relating to amendments of section 76E of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite the repeal of paragraphs 76E(1)(a) and (b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> by this Schedule, a regulation that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) was made before the commencement of this item for the purposes of paragraph 76E(1)(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>;and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) was in force immediately before the commencement of this item;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is taken to remain in force, on and after the commencement of this item, as if it had been made for the purposes of subsection 76E(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>8177</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Free TAFE Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8177</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7271" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Free TAFE Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8177</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Free TAFE Bill 2024. I do so with immense pride, because this is not just a nation-building piece of legislation. It is not just giving Australia the tools to thrive into the future and to meet its skills requirements; this is a bill of uplift for Australians and their families right around the country, because, by making fee-free access to hundreds of thousands of TAFE places permanent, we're giving everyday Aussies the keys to learn the skills that create livelihoods for themselves and their loved ones, regardless of their means or background. That is life changing for those Australians, because free access to education for disadvantaged families can be an absolute circuit breaker for cycles of poverty. And we have already seen thousands upon thousands of Aussies enter TAFE to learn skills under the fee-free TAFE agreements struck previously by the Labor government. These are invaluable outcomes—outcomes that are good for people and the economy—that help Australia to fix the skills shortages that desperately need to be addressed.</para>
<para>To go back to the effect that fee-free TAFE is having on families around the country, all of the Labor government's work towards levelling the playing field of education is especially close to my heart, because my community is one of the most disadvantaged metropolitan areas in the country. It's an area where, for many families, if someone wants to engage in education and training at TAFE, they often have to weigh the financial cost of that decision against paying their bills, against caring for their loved ones and against putting food on the table next week. Understandably, those factors can turn people away from TAFE in my community. That's not acceptable from my perspective, and it's not acceptable from the Albanese Labor government's perspective, because no Australian should have to turn down education opportunities. No-one should be giving up the chance to learn skills that will make their lives more fulfilling or more prosperous because they can't afford it. That's why Labor's changing the game with this bill.</para>
<para>But unfortunately we found out this week that such a state of affairs, where Aussies in challenging conditions can't afford to access education, is acceptable to the opposition. The Liberals, by their words and their actions, have indicated that they're more happy to keep everyday Aussies in that position. They're even proud of it. And I say that because the coalition has walked away from supporting this bill. They've walked away from the provision of hundreds of thousands of fee-free TAFE places for Australians, walked away from the opportunities these places provide for families across the country, which this piece of legislation will set in stone.</para>
<para>It's just shocking that this opposition leader had turned his back on Aussies who are doing it tough by trying to shoot down the bill. He's turned his back on Aussies in places like the northern suburbs of Adelaide, on people who can find it extremely difficult to access TAFE affordably. He's turned his back on those Aussies by trying to make it harder for them to access education, by trying to make it harder for families to access opportunities to create a better life, and by trying to make it harder for people to overcome obstacles of disadvantage. It's just beyond belief that the opposition leader and his coalition colleagues would do this.</para>
<para>And what do the Liberals have to say for themselves? How do they justify that decision? In the words of the member for Wannon, who spoke earlier this week on the bill, they did it because 'nothing is free in this world'. In other words, those opposite believe that giving people a chance to go to TAFE, where Aussies otherwise wouldn't be able to, is a waste of money, because, according to the Liberals, those people can't be trusted to receive a helping hand to help them smash barriers of disadvantage, can't be trusted to complete their training. It is an assertion based on the completion rates of mostly three-year courses, when fee-free TAFE has been around for only 18 months.</para>
<para>That lack of trust from the Liberals has been heaped on Australians who are already disadvantaged. They are Aussies who might come from the suburbs of Elizabeth or Salisbury and other disadvantaged suburbs in my electorate and around the country. They're Aussies from the regions, who might have to pay a significant amount of money to travel to TAFE to complete their training. They're Aussies from a First Nations background, Aussies who are women and Aussies with a disability. They're Aussies from three of the most underrepresented demographics in our labour force—being told by the coalition that they don't deserve help to enter it, being told by the opposition leader that they aren't worthy of government support, that their education, their careers, their future, if they see that coming from TAFE, would be money going in the bin.</para>
<para>The wellbeing of Aussies doing it tough, the aspirations of Aussies wanting to forge a future through TAFE to learn skills that are life-changing for them and their loved ones, just isn't worth enough to the coalition. Hence they're saying no to the provision of 100,000 fee-free TAFE places every year. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for skills has tried to frame it as a case of bad economics. She wants to frame the coalition argument in a way that says: 'We're not anti-TAFE; we're not against the 508,000 Australians, many of whom are already facing disadvantage, who have enrolled in a fee-free TAFE course since the agreement was made. No: it's just that we, the Liberals, don't think we should pay for it.'</para>
<para>To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and her coalition colleagues, there's just not enough return on investment when a government supports Aussies to lift themselves into training and employment. The Liberals simply don't think Australia gets enough back for those efforts. What a joke that is. Even if you did take that approach, even if you did make an Australian's access to education a monetary cost-benefit analysis, that notion still doesn't stack up. Australia suffers when people can't access education. It leaves our nation well short of the skills and training our population needs to accommodate present and future growth.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">J</inline><inline font-style="italic">obs and skills report 2024</inline>, which was released this week, makes that perfectly clear. One of its pillars calls for a much more inclusive workforce, one that is open and easily accessed by the disadvantaged groups of Australians I referred to earlier. And how do we do that? We make education more accessible so that more people can be trained to enter the workforce with the skills needed to keep Australia building onwards and upwards. You'd think that would be obvious to the Liberals opposite. But, lo and behold, following nine long years of a coalition government, a government that ripped $3 billion of funding from the VET system and TAFE, Australia now faces its worst skill shortage in 50 years, caused by the same doctrine then that's inspired them to oppose this bill before the House now. They appear determined to make that shortage worse, which is just unacceptable and, frankly, negligent, because as a nation we're in a position where we need to build 1.2 million homes within the next five years, and we need people with the skills to do that—skills they can get at TAFE—to ensure housing is affordable and accessible.</para>
<para>We're also in a position where 44 per cent of all new jobs created within the next five years will require a VET qualification at least. People need the skills to become employable, especially if they're of lesser means, and they can get those skills at TAFE. It would be absolutely disastrous for Australia if they didn't have access to that training and were barred from the workforce as a result.</para>
<para>That's a huge part of why the Labor government has put forward this bill—to address the skills shortage and, in turn, to address both of those issues, as well as other shortages in the industries of care, defence, manufacturing and agriculture, by giving Aussies the opportunity to enter those industries, no matter who they are, where they're from or how much they earn, and fill that skill gap. And, to perk up the ears of the incredible economic managers across the chamber, the coalition, doing so will prevent the untold economic damage that skill shortages will cause if ignored, as they are seeking to do, given their position on this bill.</para>
<para>To respond to that purely fiscal cost-benefit analysis from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues—assuming that was justified anyway—whatever amount of money the Liberals think they're going to save this country by opposing this bill, whether that's because they deem the 508,000 enrolments in fee-free TAFE courses to be wasteful spending, to quote the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; because they don't think disadvantaged groups of Aussies can be trusted to take advantage of access to education; or because they don't think that giving people the tools to get an education and getting meaningful employment is worth it—whatever money they think is going to be saved from those notions, Australia stands to lose far, far more than that if fee-free access to TAFE to fix the skill shortage is left unchecked.</para>
<para>Their argument collapses even more when you consider their position against the relationship between people enrolled in VET courses and income support recipients. The jobs and skills report has indicated, referring to the VET National Data Asset, that, of VET graduates who were on income support prior to commencing their study, 39 per cent were no longer on income support after two years of completion. That is statistical, hard evidence of the benefit VET can have for Aussies on income support—Aussies who are much more likely to be in disadvantaged circumstances.</para>
<para>You would think that those opposite, for all of the wasteful spending they continue to allege of this government and for all of their crusading against the very idea of income support in general, would want to get Australians doing it tough on their feet to support themselves and their loved ones—but apparently not. Their efforts against this bill are an attempt to make life for Aussies already doing it tough even tougher.</para>
<para>As you can see, like many on this side of the chamber, I'm struggling to comprehend why the Liberals are doing this. In that pursuit, I keep looking at the astonishing comment made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday on the bill. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… remember this, and it's a key principle … of the Liberal Party: if you don't pay for something, you don't value it.</para></quote>
<para>What on earth is that supposed to mean in the context of this bill? All I can get from that is that a key principle of the Liberal Party is that they believe a government can't trust an Australian's judgement about what's valuable to them. Say you're one of the 508,000 enrolments across the country in a fee-TAFE course. Is this key principle of the Liberal Party suggesting that someone who is in a priority demographic under the agreement, with clear and present barriers to education, doesn't know what they want? Is that line trying to say that they're wrong in deciding to gain valuable skills to enter the workforce and potentially lift themselves and others out of poverty, just because the course they're enrolling in is free and just because a helping hand is finally there to help Aussies get around the barrier of cost to better access our world-class education system and the workforce beyond? What an unbelievably offensive notion—a key Liberal Party principle, mind you, put forward by those opposite. It's a direct attack on the aspiration of Australians who come from challenging backgrounds—an attack on their hopes and dreams.</para>
<para>Even worse, that statement is a complete and utter insult to the intelligence of people coming from areas of disadvantage—from places like Davoren Park, Elizabeth North and Munno Para in my electorate of Spence. That statement says that those top-end-of-town pollies of the coalition think they know better than the decisions you make. They think they know more about the conditions you're in than you do. How dare the Liberals prescribe their personal values onto the backs of Aussies doing it tough? How dare they project their own assertions, based on their wealth and the privileges they enjoy in this place, onto families in our communities who live week to week, as if politicians know their lives better than they do? And how dare those opposite use this bill to question the intelligence of the Australian public, to weaponise the decision-making of Aussies who just want to educate themselves? How dare those opposite take 508,000 enrolments into fee-free TAFE courses and turn it into point scoring?</para>
<para>I'll always stand up to that, and the Albanese Labor government will always stand up to it with me. We know that by enshrining fee-free TAFE in legislation, as we're doing in this bill, to build on the crucial outcomes so far under the current agreement, we're giving the keys of opportunity to Aussies to help them break down barriers and thrive as they learn the skills to give them the future they want, regardless of who they are, where they're from and what they earn, and regardless of what the opposition think of their choices. With their position on this bill, the opposition leader, his deputy and the Liberal Party will continue to heap disadvantage on those who are already disadvantaged. But the Albanese Labor government will never stop fighting on that front, and I will never stop fighting to support those who need it most. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It won't surprise you to hear that we on this side of the House care greatly about whether taxpayer money is being spent effectively. And we are vigilant when it comes to those opposite, given their predilection to pick a winner, particularly when that winner is the public sector over the private sector, and vigilant as to the consequences of Labor's choices on the training choices of everyday Australians—and I hasten to add, as a member of the Nationals, the impact on training choices in regional Australia.</para>
<para>Before I get too far into the facts and figures, as the member for Mallee I reflect on the increasingly frequent conversations I have with small businesses, particularly those who use trades and who cannot source young apprentices and workers. If fee-free TAFE isn't delivering workers into regional manufacturing and industry, that ought to be reviewed.</para>
<para>In my electorate I have SuniTAFE—that is, the Sunraysia Institute of TAFE—operating in both Mildura and Swan Hill, as well as Federation TAFE in Horsham. There are also various other providers, including: the Civil Contractors Federation; Skillinvest, who, in addition to running other courses in the electorate, run agricultural and vehicle training at Longerenong near Horsham and more courses in Horsham itself; the Australian Institute of Vocational Development; Oz Skills Careers College; Murray Adult Community Education; and the Warner Institute, just to name some. Choice matters.</para>
<para>I must add that just yesterday a new engineering centre opened at Federation TAFE's Wimmera campus in Horsham, offering certificate III in engineering—fabrication trade. I think that is a wonderful development in Horsham, and I hope to hear of many students who take that up. I also must add, as shadow assistant minister for regional health, that we have a dire health workforce shortage in regional Australia. We need to ensure that we are adding to the supply of workers across hospitals, health care and aged care through TAFE courses.</para>
<para>In short, skills training is critically important in regional Australia because of the difficulty we have in attracting workers. We need to grow our own. That is another reason why we need to ensure we have the maximum number of training options in regional Australia. Undermining the private-provider space threatens that choice.</para>
<para>The coalition and the peak body for independent registered training organisations have been critical of the fee-free TAFE policy prioritising government-run TAFE over VET providers. When it comes to the free TAFE policy, as the opposition we have a responsibility to hold the government accountable on whether this policy is a success or not. That is our job. All too often, those opposite preach virtue while reaching into the pockets of present and future taxpayers to throw money at something, hoping it will work, as the costs mount up and the results dwindle to nothing.</para>
<para>The coalition's concerns about the unquantified cost but locked in obligation under this bill are a major reason why, at this time, we cannot support the bill. As the shadow minister was at pains to emphasise, and I highlight today, we are not opposed to students in vocational training or TAFE. I speak with young constituents who want VET and TAFE options and who want to gain the skills for their chosen career. It is the best fit for many young people and, indeed, for older people looking to reskill to follow their dreams.</para>
<para>Financial mismanagement by those opposite is the reason we oppose this bill. We are, if you like, twice bitten thrice shy. Here are two glaring examples from the Labor Party on financial mismanagement—and there are plenty of others. First, is Labor's globally unprecedented attempt to make our energy grid, one of the most vast electricity grids in the world, entirely reliable on intermittent renewable energy. Chris Uhlmann on Sky News last night dropped truth bomb after truth bomb about the energy crisis Labor has dragged us into. They are the same truths that we, on this side, have been saying for years which Labor and, I have to say, much of the media have simply not wanted to listen to. But the Australian public are listening. Mark my words. I hasten to add that on Friday, Frontier Economics belled the cat—and what a large cat it was—of a $500 billion blowout on Labor's cost estimates on their renewables-only approach to the vast energy grid of Australia.</para>
<para>The second example of Labor's inability to manage taxpayer money is Victorian Labor's Suburban Rail Loop, underpinned by an as yet unspent $2.2 billion of the Albanese Labor government. The SRL has blown out from an initial cost of $50 billion to upward of $216 billion. Australians just can't trust Labor with their money.</para>
<para>Under Labor's free TAFE policy, approximately 350,000 students are enrolled overall in national areas of priority, and I'll now give details of those enrolments from January 2023 to 30 June 2024. In the care sector—aged care, child care, health care and disability care—there were 131,352 students, including 35,585 enrolled in early childhood and care for children. In the technology and digital space there were 48,907 students. In hospitality and tourism, though I could not source a figure, perhaps the minister could fill that gap. Enrolled in construction were 34,996 students. In agriculture there were 20,322 students. Sovereign capability enrolments—for example, manufacturing and defence—appear to have been minimal, and, since 1 January 2024, we just don't know the VET workforce number.</para>
<para>A question time briefing pack for August 2024 for the new minister, Minister Giles, released by the department under freedom of information, indicated that from the start of fee-free TAFE in 2023 to 31 March 2024 there had been 61,072 completions, representing around 13 per cent of enrolments for that period. The excuse given is that courses can take up to three full-time study years to complete.</para>
<para>I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe Labor has provided data on the dropout rate from their fee-free TAFE courses. We know from evidence that the South Australian minister gave to his parliament on 30 October, the dropout rate there is 12.5 per cent. If that rate is replicated nationwide, that's a frighteningly close equivalent percentage of dropouts to completions—as many dropping out as finishing the courses. We still don't know how much of the $1.5 billion spent on this program so far has gone to courses that will never be completed.</para>
<para>Victorian data shows the Diploma of Nursing has the most enrolments, with 9,600 enrolments, while the high-skills need and demand areas that fee-free TAFE has most supported in Victoria are the care sector at 29,000 enrolments, ahead of construction with 10,000. The full Victorian cohort in fee-free TAFE is predominantly female—50,000 females and 32,000 males.</para>
<para>The first tranche of the fee-free TAFE program was due for a mid-fund report by 15 July 2023 and an end-of-fund report by 31 July 2024. I ask the minister to table these reports.</para>
<para>Tom Karmel from the Mackenzie Research Institute looked at the preliminary data from fee-free TAFE in August this year and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The results are fairly clear cut.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">First, Government funded training, as measured by program commencements, increased from 2022 to 2023. That said, commencements have been fairly static since 2015, and are well down on the number of commencements over the period 2010-2014. Thus it is difficult to sell the program as a significant increase in investment in training delivery by governments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Second, there is no evidence that the Australian government priorities have had a material effect on shifting training toward its priority areas. Overall, the proportion of commencements in priority areas has not shifted from 2022 to 2023. We see that commencements in the Construction field declined from 2022 to 2023, despite construction being a clear priority. Similarly commencements increased in the training package areas of Creative Arts and Culture (up 17%), Financial Services (up 103%), and the Public Sector (up 17%), despite these areas not being designated as priority areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Third, there is little evidence that Fee-Free TAFE has had much impact from an equity perspective. The percentage of government funded commencements that is Indigenous did not increase from 2022 to 2023 and is lower than what was observed in 2019. Commencements aged 17-24 years declined, while those out of work changed little. Little has changed in terms of women in non traditional fields or those with a disability. While the fee-free nature of the program should make it more attractive for individuals, tuition fees in VET government funded places have always been heavily subsidised and the States have always offered concessions for target groups, so perhaps the tuition free aspect has not made that much difference. It should also be noted that tuition is not the only cost associated with VET training—individuals need to invest considerable effort.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Fourth, the Fee-Free TAFE program has definitely improved the position of TAFE in the VET market. This has occurred at the expense of private providers.</para></quote>
<para>I have to pause there to focus on that word 'expense'. That's the truth. Two words Labor and the political left use to manipulate the masses are the words 'safe' and 'free'. Nothing in politics is free. Someone pays for it. In this 'free' TAFE instance, it will be the taxpayer facing an unquantified cost, and, as Tom Karmel points out, private providers who will pay.</para>
<para>Back to Tom Karmel—and again I quote him on the use of this term 'free':</para>
<quote><para class="block">My final comment relates to the fee-free aspect of the program. This is not costless with tuition fees previously contributing amounts representing around 13% of funding for training. The absence of this source of funding limits the number of places offered. The policy judgment then is whether the benefits to individuals not having to pay tuition fees outweighs the negative impact on the finances of VET. If the lack of tuition fees limits the offerings then it is possible that the impact on equity groups will be perverse, with fewer individuals able to take up a training place.</para></quote>
<para>Who would have thought: picking winners ends up limiting choices, meaning some disadvantaged people such as rural and remote Australians will gain nothing from so-called free TAFE.</para>
<para>We've seen this movie before—for instance, with childcare places. Recently I had the shadow minister for early years, Angie Bell, visit Mallee and talk to local constituents. We know that the Labor government increased subsidies for those parents, even right up into the $500,000 pay grade, to access child care at a subsidised rate. The problem is it didn't deliver one more place in the regions. There is no equity when you live out in the regions and you don't have a childcare centre; that is not bringing about equity for families who live there.</para>
<para>I am told that in my home state of Victoria just one per cent of those registered for a fee-free certificate IV in plumbing completed their training. My constituents raised with me whether this government's current skills policy is working effectively to provide the apprentices, care workers and tradies of the future.</para>
<para>We are losing apprentices and trainees nationwide under Labor; there are an estimated 39 per cent fewer apprentices or trainees starting a trade or skill since the Prime Minister took office. Master Builders Australia seized on National Centre for Vocational Education Research research earlier this year which showed that building and construction apprenticeship commencements had fallen 22 per cent in the year to December 2023. Master Builders say they're only replacing half of their annual exit rate of eight per cent, projecting that construction labour shortages will lead to a $57 billion reduction in GDP over the next five years. It is a parallel to health and where we sit currently with the exit rate of GPs and the oncoming rate of new GPs. This is a huge problem that this government needs to address.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is a country with a bright future, and a bright future for all our citizens—although you wouldn't know it from listening to those opposite talk us down. A Future Made in Australia, the National Reconstruction Fund, the energy transition—these are all big policies and plans that are driving global opportunities for this country that every Australian will benefit from, whether it's the well-paid, secure jobs they'll create, the services they will benefit from, the businesses they will build and grow or the thriving economy.</para>
<para>We want all Australians to benefit from the economic opportunities Labor is building—no-one left behind, no-one held back as the economy transitions. And make no mistake, the economy will transition. Change is the one great certainty in life, and we need to be prepared for it and embrace the opportunities it brings. The one thing all these strategies need is a skilled workforce. Skills drive economic growth. For many of these jobs, an apprenticeship, university or TAFE qualification is the entry ticket.</para>
<para>When we came into government we inherited workforce shortfalls across the economy. There wasn't a sector I didn't hear from telling me how hard it was to get the skilled workforce they needed: tradies, the health sector, aged care, education, retail, services, manufacturing, defence—the list goes on. The previous Liberal-National government ran down TAFE and universities and then were surprised that there was a shortage of skilled workers. The Albanese Labor government is committed to investing in the skills Australia needs to drive economic growth. The Free TAFE Bill 2024 commits the Commonwealth to ongoing support of states and territories for free TAFE.</para>
<para>Free TAFE has changed the lives and futures of hundreds of thousands of Australians, providing cost-of-living relief and a pathway to well-paid and secure employment. In the first 18 months of fee-free TAFE there have been 508,000 enrolments. Staff and students at the Tonsley TAFE in my electorate told me how popular it was. Students who otherwise wouldn't have signed up for training because of cost barriers were now beating down the doors—older workers wanting to reskill to change careers, women wanting to upskill to return to work after having children but facing financial barriers to get the time to study. The most popular topics were building trades, IT, early childhood education and enrolled nursing—all areas where we have a workforce shortage, where Australian businesses are crying out for more workers, where Australians can have rewarding and fulfilling careers and where fee-free TAFE is making a difference in addressing the workforce shortage across the country.</para>
<para>TAFE courses are designed to prepare individuals for critical roles in industries such as health, construction, technology and manufacturing. These are not luxury skills; they are the backbone of our economy and our society. This bill builds on the success that is fee-free TAFE. It ensures that free TAFE continues to deliver a coordinated response to workforce shortages in industries of local and national priority, helping build the pipeline of skilled workers that Australia needs now and into the future.</para>
<para>Ongoing free TAFE will offer greater certainty to students, employers and industry, as well as states and territories. It will establish ongoing cost-of-living relief by removing financial barriers to education and training, particularly for groups that typically experience economic disadvantage. Labor is committed to ensuring that opportunities are available for all Australians who want to take them up—no-one locked out; no-one left behind. As a government and as a parliament, we have a responsibility to help people here and now. We owe a duty to Australians and to the next generation of Australians to build an economy that liberates their talents and rewards their efforts and to make sure that they are ready, prepared and upskilled to benefit from those opportunities, and that starts with education for all.</para>
<para>Every Australian, no matter their background or financial situation, should have equal access to education—no-one held back; no-one left behind. Education is the great equaliser. It can transcend socioeconomic divides. It provides individuals with the skills they need to thrive, and it equips societies with the tools for progress. When we invest in education, we are not merely providing knowledge or technical training; we are sowing the seeds of innovation, productivity and inclusion. We believe in equal opportunity. By making TAFE free, we're removing the financial barriers to access and ensuring that everyone has the chance to pursue a career they love and to achieve their potential.</para>
<para>We believe in investing in our people. Our greatest asset is our people, and, by investing in them, we're ensuring that Australians have the skills and capacity to contribute to a thriving economy. Our whole nation benefits when we make it easier for people to access education. Free TAFE is an investment in the future of our society—a fairer society that benefits everyone. The long-term benefits of a more skilled productive workforce will create great economic growth that benefits all Australians.</para>
<para>The cost of inaction is high, as we've seen over the last decade. Failing to invest in skilling up our people will leave businesses stranded and Australians locked out of reaching their potential. That is exactly where the previous government left us, with critical workforce shortages across the nation, particularly in skilled workforce areas. We know the cost of inaction and neglect of the TAFE system, and we're not willing to repeat the errors of the previous government. A better educated workforce drives innovation, productivity and long-term economic growth, and free TAFE is a targeted solution. By removing barriers to these in-demand courses, we create a steady pipeline of skilled professionals—in-demand workers ready to contribute to our economy.</para>
<para>The bill doesn't just respond to the demands of today; it prepares us for the challenges of tomorrow. As industries evolve and new technologies emerge, we need a workforce that is agile, adaptive and equipped with cutting-edge skills. Free TAFE ensures that we remain competitive in a global market while securing local jobs. It means Australians are ready and able to take those secure, well-paid Australian jobs in order to truly and fully benefit from the industries of the future. We have a responsibility to help people here and now—a duty we owe to the next generation of Australians to build an economy that liberates their talents and rewards their efforts. And that starts with education for all. Every Australian, no matter their background or financial situation, should have equal access to education.</para>
<para>We believe in equal opportunity, and by making TAFE free we're removing financial barriers to access and ensuring everyone has the chance to pursue their career. We believe in investing in our people, Australians. Our greatest asset is our people, and by investing in them we're ensuring all Australians have the skills and capacity to contribute to a thriving economy. Our whole nation benefits when we make it easier for people to access education.</para>
<para>The true cost of free TAFE is an investment in the future of our society, and a fairer society benefits everyone. The long-term benefit of a more skilled, productive workforce will be to create economic growth that benefits all Australians. We have a duty to create a society that values opportunity, fairness and the dignity of work. Free TAFE is not merely an economic policy; it's a statement about the kind of nation we want to be. Do we want to be a society where talent and potential are squandered because of financial barriers, do we want to perpetuate cycles of inequality and disadvantage, or do we want to build a future where everyone, regardless of their background, has the chance to learn, grow and succeed, and where businesses thrive because they have the skilled workforce they need to grow? We on this side of the House recognise that education is not a commodity but a public good, a foundation upon which we can build a brighter, fairer and more prosperous future for our country and our citizens. The cost of inaction is high. Failing to invest in skilling up our people will leave businesses stranded and Australians locked out of reaching their potential. A better-educated workforce drives innovation, productivity and long-term economic growth.</para>
<para>TAFE opens doors for people across Australia who are looking to gain well-paid and secure work. Studies consistently show that every dollar invested in education generates significant returns for both individuals and the broader economy. Graduates of TAFE programs typically enter the workforce faster, earn higher wages and therefore contribute more to society, not only in their skilled work but also in taxes over their lifetime. Moreover, they often fill roles that are essential to our public infrastructure, such as in health care, construction and renewable energy.</para>
<para>Labor is delivering on the training Australians want and the skills they need to get ahead. Labor is providing cost-of-living support for more Australians to access high-quality, affordable training. We're helping Australians to get well-paying jobs. We're delivering the skills and training needed to grow the Australian economy, building the homes we need, creating a future made in Australia and ensuring all Australians can get quality care when they need it. With high-quality skills and training, we are building a better Australia. Nine in 10 new jobs over the next 10 years will need post-school study, and half of those jobs will need vocational education and training. A reliable, trusted TAFE sector is critical for our economy. An accessible and high-quality sector means people can create and share in our national prosperity.</para>
<para>Free TAFE legislation is more than a policy; it's a vision for a better Australia. It addresses our skills shortages and strengthens our economy; it gives Australians opportunities to build themselves better lives through secure, well-paid, skilled jobs; and it prepares us for the challenges of a changing world. It's an investment in our people, our industries and our shared future. The choice before us is clear. We can choose to cling to the status quo, allowing financial barriers to block pathways to education and opportunity, and talk the country down, as we hear from those opposite, or we can choose to embrace progress, ensuring that every Australian has the chance to contribute their skills and talents to our nation. We on this side want Australians to have good, well-paid, secure jobs. We want Australia to have the skilled workforce we need to become an economic powerhouse in a changing world. Helping students and graduates with free TAFE is a practical way to achieve both those things.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that if the Government can legislate its promises on Fee-Free TAFE right now, it can also legislate to wipe student debt; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to legislate its promise to wipe 20 per cent of student debt and raise the repayment threshold now, not wait for an election".</para></quote>
<para>The Fee-Free TAFE Bill 2024 and the moves that we are seeing to wipe 20 per cent of student debt are welcome and they are a recognition that pressure from the Greens and the community is working. We have been the party of public education, fighting for free TAFE and free university, and it was the Greens that put the massive burden of student debt that people are under on the electoral agenda. At the last election, our push to wipe student debt and to make university and TAFE free was incredibly popular and agreed with, I would suspect, by the majority of people in this country, who understand that, if the Prime Minister was able to go to university for free, so should be everyone else now.</para>
<para>The situation that we have at the moment is that people are finding themselves—after having completed university, for example—with debts that are impacting on their ability to live a full life. It makes it harder to get a home, because you've got debt that gets taken into account when you front up and seek a mortgage—plus you just have less money available. Critically, it's impacting on other areas of people's lives as well, because it has a cascading and flow-on effect. If you're unable to get secure housing, in part because of the massive debt that you've got, it means that decisions about whether you start a family are also affected. And so the situation that we have in this country at the moment is that the massive education debts that people have accrued under the Liberals and Labor are now cruelling their lives. People are denied what they need to live a good life.</para>
<para>Now, we could fix that in this country. We can fix that in this country by making public education genuinely free at all levels, and we've been arguing for that for a very long time. It is a welcome move that the government is taking partial steps towards free TAFE, and that's why we support this bill. It is a welcome move and something that the Greens—and only the Greens—have been calling for for some time. But earlier on in this debate, many of the Labor speakers have said very clearly and very eloquently, 'We've got to get this done and we've got to get this done now because people are under pressure.' The current member for Perth, the minister, said in relation to another bill that was before us—the electoral reform bill that the government's trying to rush through without an inquiry—'No-one in this place is guaranteed being returned after the election. If we've got an opportunity to do something, we've got to seize it. We've got to make the most of it. We've got to enact it.'</para>
<para>Speaker after speaker on this important TAFE bill has said, 'Let's lock this in now,' and we agree. But I ask the government a simple question: If it's good enough to lock in free TAFE now, why isn't it good enough to wipe student debt now? Why is that being held ransom to an election? As the member for Perth said, who knows what the parliament is going it look like afterwards? If we can make TAFE free now before Christmas then we should be able to wipe 20 per cent of student debt before Christmas.</para>
<para>Now, the Greens have put forward a costed plan that would mean we could wipe student debt in full. We could have free education in this country just like the Prime Minister enjoyed, and we could wipe student debt in full. That would go a huge way to making our country more equal and fairer, because it would mean people wouldn't be deterred by the prospect of racking up a huge debt before jumping into tertiary or vocational education.</para>
<para>My dad was the first person in his family to go to university. He went and studied social work, and he was able to do it because university was free. He was able to do something that was unusual in his working-class family, because university was free.</para>
<para>This changes lives. This would change lives if we did it. We can fund this, too, by making big corporations pay their fair share of tax. Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, did you know that under this government one in three big corporations pays no tax at all? And they're making excessive profits off the back of price gouging and putting up prices at the supermarket check-out and from electricity and power They're price-gouging people and they're making excessive profits, and then one in three of these big corporations pays no tax at all. Make them pay their fair share of tax and you will raise the revenue to do things like making university free, making TAFE free and being able to wipe student debt.</para>
<para>Now, we would like to do all of those things, and they're things that I think the majority of the population would like to do as well. If you can wipe student debt and make university and TAFE genuinely free, then you open up huge opportunities for people and, most critically at the moment, for people who are working their way through tertiary education or who've recently graduated. Under Labor you can end up having a $50,000 debt for an arts degree, because Labor has not reversed the Morrison-era fee hikes for arts. So some people are graduating now, under Labor, with a $50,000 debt for an arts degree. If you wipe that debt, then you give people a chance to live a good life.</para>
<para>In my electorate and right around the country, parents are telling me that things are just very different now to what they were 20 or 30 years ago and they are incredibly worried that their kids are never going to be able to get ahead. They're never going to be able to own a home, not only because of the massive tax breaks for wealthy property investors, which are pushing house prices out of the reach of first home buyers, but also because, if you graduate, you start behind the 8 ball because you've got a big debt that you've got to pay off. That gets in the way of being able to own a home. House prices are out of reach and you never catch up.</para>
<para>We're becoming a society where, while it says all the right things, even if you do everything that is asked of you, a whole generation—a whole class of people—is saying very clearly that they're finding it impossible just to get the basics of life. Parents are telling me that, for their 20- and 30-year-old kids, they know—they can see—that it is very different to the way that it used to be. Wiping debt would give people a very good chance. It would make a material difference right now. For all of those reasons, we would like to see debt wiped fully, but wiping 20 per cent of HECS debt is something that we could do right now, given that, under pressure from the Greens and from the community, Labor has shifted its position.</para>
<para>We welcome that shift, but we don't understand why you're making people wait till after the election. If we can do fee-free TAFE now, why can't we wipe that 20 per cent of student debt now? We've got next week; that's what's left—another day here and then next week. That's it for this year's parliament. All of the rhetoric from the government about how we've got to act on this now and lock it in now and why it's important now applies just as strongly to wiping that 20 per cent of student debt. Mehreen Faruqi, our deputy leader and education spokesperson, and I have written to the Prime Minister offering support to pass that 20 per cent cut now. We haven't heard back, but we've offered support to pass that 20 per cent cut right now.</para>
<para>We've got a week and a bit left, so I'm pleading with the government, saying that, if it's good enough for TAFE, it's good enough for university debts. Let's do it right now. Let's do it next week. The government loves to come in here and talk about bad legislation of theirs that is having trouble getting its way through with the support of the parliament. Mind you, they look ready to do a deal with the coalition and rush through electoral reforms. Like, there's always time to rush through legislation when it's supporting the major parties' interests. They're very happy to do that. Why can you find time to rush through legislation to support the Liberal and Labor parties' interests—the major parties' interests—but you can't find time to pass legislation to cut student debt in this parliament?</para>
<para>So I am again asking the government, through this amendment, to say, yes, let's pass this bill; let's get this TAFE bill done. But let's also pass that 20 per cent cut to student debt now. You have an opportunity to vote for it. We're going to give the government an opportunity in the Senate as well, to vote for it there, because there's legislation there that's dealing with HECS, where the government could actually just pass our amendment and it could be done by Christmas. What a way to end this year—to pass legislation that delivers people not only fee-free TAFE but also the 20 per cent cut to student debt. I hope the government reconsiders, because I haven't heard a good answer yet. I'm sure the next government speaker will talk about how we need to lock this in and lock it in now. Well, if that's right, do it for universities as well.</para>
<para>On TAFE, as I've said, TAFE should be free. It should be fully funded and it should be properly resourced. We need staff in TAFEs who are paid properly and valued and respected for the incredible work that they do. We know that this government has made some important changes to TAFE, which we do welcome, but they're still not enough to overcome the nine disastrous years of the coalition government's gutting of our TAFEs and public education and training system. So, yes, it is welcome that there are some steps being taken to repair and restore our TAFEs, but it is not enough to undo the damage that the coalition government did. We're going to need some bold reform to deliver the change that we need for free and universal public education and training, and that is something that we're going to push for.</para>
<para>I welcome the element of this bill that is in many respects a win for First Nations communities, by allowing funding to flow to Aboriginal community-controlled organisations that are VET providers, and I welcome the fact that part of the rationale behind free TAFE places is to increase places for marginalised groups, including First Nations students.</para>
<para>So let's get this bill through, but let's get it with the 20 per cent cut to student debt for those people who've got HECS. Both of those policies—this bill and the 20 per cent cut—were announced by the Prime Minister on the same weekend, yet only one has made its way into legislation that we're being asked to push through the parliament. If the government do not support our amendment to cut 20 per cent of student debt now, when they could make people's lives better right now and send a very strong signal that their debt is going to be cut by 20 per cent—not after the election but right now—then people are entitled to conclude that it's just a cynical election ploy, that people with student debt are being held ransom to the outcome of an election when the government could act right now.</para>
<para>There's no good reason not to cut it right now other than that you want to hold people with student debt to ransom and say, 'We'll give you some things now, but you only get this depending on the outcome of the election.' Students and people who have graduated and have got student debt are struggling right now. Their fates, their ability to own a home, to rent a home, to start a family, to live a good life should not be held to ransom to the political will of a government that is more interested in playing politics than actually doing right now things that would help people live a better life.</para>
<para>We can do this right now, and I urge the government to stop holding people with student debt to ransom and to not only pass this legislation but wipe student debt by 20 per cent before this parliament rises.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chandler-Mather</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8186</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7280" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8186</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that amendment (1) moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:25]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Vamvakinou) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>10</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Unresolved question—<br />That amendments (5) to (7) moved by the member for Indi be agreed to:<br />(5) Schedule 7, item 3, page 172 (after line 5), after the paragraph beginning "The amount of the funding for a registered political party" in section 302AA, insert:<br />The amount of the funding for a registered political party's expenditure group is subject to a cap.<br />(6) Schedule 7, item 3, page 172 (line 26), omit "The amount", insert "Subject to subsection (2A), the amount".<br />(7) Schedule 7, item 3, page 173 (after line 24), after subsection 302AB(2), insert:<br />(2A) The amount worked out under subsection (2) must not exceed an amount equal to $3,750 multiplied by 32.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that amendments (5) to (7) moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:29]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Vamvakinou) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>10</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>50</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Unresolved question—<br />That amendments (3) and (4) moved by the member for Indi be agreed to:<br />(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 100 (lines 29 to 30), omit "is not mainly communicated to electors enrolled outside Divisions", insert "is communicated to electors enrolled in the Division".<br />(4) Schedule 4, item 2, page 101 (lines 9 to 19), omit subsection 302ALC(3), substitute:<br />(3) Electoral matter is express coverage matter for a Division, State or Territory if the electoral matter is communicated to electors enrolled in the Division, State or Territory..<br />Question negatived.<br />Unresolved question—<br />That amendment (2) moved by the member for Indi be agreed to: <br />(2) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 12 to 22), omit clause 3, substitute:<br />4 Review of operation of amendments<br />(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act before the end of 12 months after the first general election that is held after 1 July 2026.<br />(2) Without limiting the matters to be covered by the review, the review must consider the following matters:<br />(a) the effectiveness of the amendments in achieving transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and its participants;<br />(b) the impact of expenditure caps and gift caps on the election, the electoral process and its participants.<br />(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.<br />(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report<br />Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:37]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Vamvakinou)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>48</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>15</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>8189</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a third time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:43]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Mrs Andrews)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>49</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>15</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a third time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8189</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7256" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>8189</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>8190</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Free TAFE Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8190</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7271" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Free TAFE Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8190</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Time and time again we read and hear in the media about the critical skills shortage in Australia. This is borne out in the countless conversations I've had where people have lamented the difficulties in obtaining a tradesperson, technician or the like. The shortages are real, particularly in booming regions like the electorate of Werriwa, where paddocks are being transformed into houses and communities every day.</para>
<para>My electorate is home to two fantastic TAFEs, one in Macquarie Fields and one in Miller. The latter has an outstanding building and construction faculty, where carpentry, plumbing, stonemasonry and electrician studies, among many others, are undertaken on the site. Of course, in the digital age there's not necessarily the need to attend TAFE campuses for some courses. But for those for whom it is a necessity, it's nice to know that it is close to home and has such an esteemed reputation.</para>
<para>Australia needs to be a skilled nation to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. Gough Whitlam knew this years ago when he opened the doors of Australian universities. The Albanese Labor government knows it, too, as demonstrated in the bill before the House, the Free TAFE Bill 2024, because a well-resourced, planned TAFE system is at the very heart of the VET sector and a smart Australia.</para>
<para>By way of background to this bill, the Australian government has worked in partnership with states and territories since 2023 through the Fee-Free TAFE Skills Agreement to deliver more than $1.5 billion in funding for 500,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places across the country. In the first 18 months alone, fee-free TAFE has seen more than 508,000 enrolments. This is an astonishing figure and demonstrates what an outstanding success the program has been. But the figure tells only part of the story, because behind every enrolment is the story of a life changed, a new pathway to employment and economic security.</para>
<para>Fee-free TAFE supports training places in high areas of demand and skills need and provides access for the most vulnerable and in need to assist them to get the training they require. Unfortunately, the existing fee-free TAFE program ceases on 31 December 2026. The bill before us, then, seeks to provide ongoing financial support to the states and territories for the period after December 2026. In doing so, it will also provide cost-of-living relief for hundreds of thousands of Australians, providing each of them, along with employers and industry, with greater certainty.</para>
<para>The passing of the bill will support the delivery of at least 100,000 free TAFE places across Australia with its commencement in 2027. It demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to partnerships with the states and territories for the national VET system. Equally, it again demonstrates the belief this government has in the TAFE system to be front and centre in addressing Australia's need for a skilled workforce. Specifically, the bill provides that fee-free TAFE places will continue to be targeted to priority industries that are experiencing current and projected workforce shortages, including construction and housing supply—which is great news for the Miller TAFE and my burgeoning electorate.</para>
<para>The legislation does not lock states and territories into the fixed mode of delivering fee-free TAFE. Rather, there'll be ongoing discussions with states and territories regarding the agreements. The precise financial contributions and conditions will, in due course, be included then.</para>
<para>In September I was privileged to attend, with Minister Giles, the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and the New South Wales Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education, Steve Whan, the announcement of the TAFE Manufacturing Centre of Excellence in Western Sydney. I spoke to students, both young and older, who were excited about the opportunities from the revitalisation of TAFE and the fact that they could afford to improve their skills for the next step in their career.</para>
<para>It did disappoint me, then, to hear comments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in October in this place that 'if 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'. I can assure the opposition that these students and others I've spoken to who are taking the opportunities that free TAFE is offering them actually really do appreciate them. These opportunities are making a difference not only to them but to their families and their children. The opposition has continually attacked the fee-free TAFE program, but they don't seem to have any idea.</para>
<para>The popularity of the program testifies to just how much it is necessary. This bill is something I'm proud of. Supporting VET and TAFE is in Labor's DNA, and it delivers on every front and in every way for Australia and Australians. Further, we know it is a winner due to its massive popularity, with the states and territories also onside. After years of neglect by those opposite, it's wonderful to see this bill give the TAFE sector the prominence and support it deserves and, in doing so, give Australians from all parts and corners the opportunity to acquire the skills that they deserve and that they are seeking. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVILEGE</title>
        <page.no>8191</page.no>
        <type>PRIVILEGE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Barker</title>
          <page.no>8191</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. This incident occurred a short time ago in my ministerial office, and I am raising this at the first available opportunity. The matter relates to an incident that occurred in my ministerial office during a drop-in session that I hold regularly to enable all members of parliament, regardless of political persuasion, to come and talk to me about infrastructure projects and community infrastructure projects. I hold that, as I said, for everyone across the chamber and I have done so for the past 2½ years. I want to be able to continue to do that. These sessions are offered as a courtesy, and they form part of the goodwill that I expect all members of this place have towards one another as we go about doing the various jobs that we have.</para>
<para>This afternoon, the member for Barker and a staff member attended my ministerial office as part of the drop-in session. They attended, and the member for Barker and the staff member came into our meeting room. The member for Barker tabled a letter. He wanted me to know about a project in his electorate. I started an interaction with him, but he left very quickly. I also had to go to the Federation Chamber. As he was leaving the office, my staff observed that he had been filming the interaction on a GoPro in my ministerial office, and I asked one of my staff to go around to the member for Barker's office to confirm this was the case. A member of my staff followed the member for Barker and his staff member into his office and saw that they were downloading a film on to a laptop. My member of staff said, 'Did you film that interaction with the minister?' The member of staff confirmed that it had been filmed and that filming had been undertaken in the ministerial corridor.</para>
<para>I consider this a significant breach of the rules. I consider it a significant breach of the way in which we conduct ourselves in this place and the respect I believe should be shown to each other and the respect I accord to members, particularly of the backbench, going about doing their jobs. As a result of the breach, the discourtesy that's been shown to me and my staff by the member for Barker, and the seriousness of the breach, I ask that you consider giving precedent to a motion referring these matters to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. I also seek leave to table the e-mail that goes out to all members advertising that I am holding the drop-in sessions.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Minister of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, and I will consider her statement and the tabled material in the usual way. For the benefit of all members, it's important that I consider this material carefully and thoroughly. I reserve the matter for further consideration, and, once considered, I'll report back to the House as soon as possible. For the benefit of all members, standing order 51 provides the mechanism for the Speaker to consider a privilege matter raised when the House is sitting. The minister has done that at the first opportunity.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8192</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Free TAFE Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8192</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7271" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Free TAFE Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8192</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Free TAFE Bill 2024, and I will start by outlining the background to this bill. I note that in the second reading speech for the bill the Minister for Skills and Training outlined the importance of a strong vocational education and training system to enable inclusion and economic equality and to save Australia's future. He stated that strong TAFEs are essential to a strong vocational and training sector. I completely agree—particularly now, when we look at the considerable shortage of skills that we have in this country—that a strong vocational education and training system is absolutely crucial. It's crucial to the further building of our country. It's crucial for the construction of our houses. It is crucial to supporting our manufacturing sector. It's crucial to supporting our retail sector and, very significantly, our beverages and hospitality sector.</para>
<para>However, the issue that I and others on our side have with the whole premise of this legislation is that it is dealing only with TAFEs. TAFEs are not the only VET providers in our country, and indeed they shouldn't be. I think what the government could have done on this was to address some of the other underlying issues that we have with the skills shortage in our country, and this legislation, unfortunately, does not do that. The minister's speech talks about free TAFE providing a prosperous and equitable Australia, removing barriers to education and training, and delivering a coordinated national response to workforce shortages in industries and occupations of local and national priority. It can do that, but why then is the same assistance not being offered to the private VET organisations? Many of those organisations provide very important, successful and competent training. They provide additional support particularly for our younger apprentices. That's the first issue that I have with this legislation. Again, I fail to understand why this government has an obsession, I suppose it is, with TAFE and not with general VET training overall.</para>
<para>This bill commits the Commonwealth to make a grant of financial assistance to states and territories for the delivery of free TAFE places, with states and territories required to enter into a free TAFE agreement with the Commonwealth which sets out the terms and conditions of financial assistance. I should say that I have no doubt that the intention behind this legislation is to address some of the skills and workforce shortages that we have in this country, but it has not been dealt with in the way that it could have been. It could have been so much better.</para>
<para>I started by referring to some of the critical shortages in, for example, our construction industry. All of us in this place—and everybody in this country—knows that we have a chronic shortage of housing, which has led to a massive housing affordability crisis. Who is going to build those houses? TAFE does provide training opportunities for our builders, for our roofers, for our tilers and for our electricians, but TAFE is not the only place where we can skill up the workforce that is needed in our construction sector. I particularly refer to the work that is done by the National Electrical and Communications Association, known as NECA, because, before I gave this speech, I spoke to the CEO of NECA to find out how exactly they train the electricians of the future.</para>
<para>In my home state of New South Wales, they have around 500 to 600 apprentices at their registered training organisation campus in Chullora, and it's a campus that teaches the apprentices. It's a not-for-profit led charity, and it has received not one cent from the Albanese Labor government's supposed 100,000 free TAFE spaces, so this legislation will not help that organisation. This organisation said that, comparing its results against the results of TAFE, it has a roughly 90 per cent completion rate from when apprentices first sign up to the completion of their trades, whereas in TAFE it's around a 50 per cent completion rate. When I asked NECA what the reason for that was, their response was that they provide some mentoring and also some pastoral care to their apprentices as they are going through. They also ensure that their apprentices are matched correctly with prospective employers because, as we know, sometimes a relationship between an employee and an employer is just not a good fit. In those circumstances, they will then work with the apprentice to ensure that they are moved to an employer that may be a better fit for that particular electrical apprentice.</para>
<para>We've got a situation where, already, we can see that the private organisations can provide a lot of assistance and extra benefits that are not necessarily provided through TAFE, and it is the same when we consider the plumbing sector, particularly Master Plumbers. I have similarly spoken to the CEO there. Master Plumbers has a similar enterprise to NECA. I'm particularly drawn to Master Plumbers because, as of next year, my elder son James will be a plumber's apprentice. It was a similar conversation that I had. I asked, 'What are your completion rates?' They said, 'They're around 80 per cent.' Again, compared to TAFE, around 50 per cent—and the same reasons were put forward. There is that level of pastoral care. There is a bit more assistance and oversight provided to the apprentices than they receive in TAFE. That is why I do question why this legislation is only directed at TAFE and why the Albanese Labor government does not seem to be able to think outside of the square to consider private organisations in the skills and training sector.</para>
<para>This is a view that is backed up by business. It's backed up by industry. Just last week, I was over at the Ingleburn Chamber of Commerce, which is down in south-west Sydney. This is the new part of the electorate of Hughes, and I'm very glad that I'll have the opportunity to represent and serve the people of Ingleburn and the businesses of Ingleburn in this parliament. I hope that they give me the opportunity to serve and represent them after the next election. I raised this issue about this legislation and about the free TAFE, and, in the feedback that came back from those in industry down in Ingleburn, they said we need to look at other options. There were some private VET organisations there that said, 'We provide these services; we can often get the apprentices through in a shorter timeframe.' They certainly ensure that the apprentices are with employers where it is a good match and that the apprentices are not in any way suffering from some of the unfortunate things that have happened to apprentices in the past. They ensure that they are paid correctly. They ensure that their hours are correct, and mostly they really assist them to get through their course.</para>
<para>The chamber of commerce people who were present that day also indicated to me that what they also need out there are industry based apprentices. This is what we need to do in this place. This is what government needs to be doing. This is why the coalition has put this out as one of the election promises that we'll be taking to the next election. We need to be going out to industry and saying, 'What is it that you need?' I have a lot of manufacturers in my electorate in Moorebank and also down in and around Ingleburn and Macquarie Fields, for example. When I have gone to manufacturing forums where the sector comes together, I have said, 'What do you need?' I have been through a lot of the manufacturing places down there, such as Cullen Steel and Darrell Lea chocolates. They are very different. The Darrell Lea chocolates was a good experience, I must say. There was a big weighing machine there, and I said, 'Please don't tell me that you weigh us on the way in and then weigh us on the way out, because that would mean that I do not want to come in!' But what the manufacturing industry are saying is, 'We can't get, today, the fitters, the turners, the boilermakers and the machinists to run our factories.' We are doing a lot more now with robotics and with AI, but, at the end of the day, there is still a big need for a lot of trades in these factories at these sites that are simply not coming through the school system.</para>
<para>With that, there are a couple of things we need to be going into schools saying. There are plenty of students in probably year 10 or year 11 for whom finishing school and going for an academic sort of learning at a university is simply not the right course. They need to be shown, I suppose, other pathways, and I don't think that in recent years we have done this particularly well.</para>
<para>I have 18-year-old boys, and I know that it is not really encouraged at their schools. I think we need to, in the schools, be doing a lot more of the school based apprenticeships. We need to be talking to career advisers and saying to them, 'This needs to be a pathway that you can show the students.' We don't need to push all our students into university, and we don't need to push them all into TAFE; we need to show them that there are a whole lot of different opportunities, once they're finishing school, for further education and for further skills development.</para>
<para>Those are, broadly, some of the issues that I see with this legislation as it relates particularly to my electorate. I know the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has spoken on this legislation a number of times, and she has set out the coalition's position in relation to it. She has stipulated that industry based apprentices will definitely be part of the coalition's policy going forward to the next election.</para>
<para>I support further education and higher education. I support federal money being put into that. But it shouldn't just be limited to the TAFE sector.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our government is accused of having an obsession with TAFE—and I think that's okay; I don't think we regard that as an insult. We are passionate about TAFE. We are passionate about vocational education and training. We are passionate about building the skills for the future in this country and repairing the many years of neglect we saw from the previous government. Our government has consulted with industry—we've consulted from the beginning of our term—in a range of different fora, including the Jobs and Skills Summit. We're investing in manufacturing and industry in this country once again because we can see that a future made in Australia offers great opportunities for people right across this country.</para>
<para>In my own electorate of Chisholm I was delighted that the Prime Minister's first visit to Melbourne after the federal election in 2022 included a visit to Holmesglen TAFE in my community, to the Drummond Street campus. We had a excellent morning visiting apprentices, meeting with staff and learning about the tunnelling centre and the electrical training centre that was established there. I've also been able to go to another Holmesglen TAFE campus recently with Andrew Giles, the new minister. It was a really important visit to hear firsthand from people about what free TAFE meant to them. We are absolutely committed to investing in the skills Australia needs to drive economic growth. This is part of our ambition to ensure that no-one is left behind and no-one is held back as the economy transitions.</para>
<para>The Free TAFE Bill 2024 commits the Commonwealth to ongoing support of states and territories for free TAFE. We know so far that fee-free TAFE has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians, providing cost-of-living relief and providing an important pathway to well-paid and secure employment. In the first 18 months of fee-free TAFE there have been 508,000 enrolments; this is enormous. Ongoing free TAFE will offer greater certainty to students, greater certainty to employers and greater certainty to industry as well as to the states and territories.</para>
<para>The bill establishes ongoing cost-of-living relief by removing the financial barriers that exist, for people to be able to pursue an education and to pursue their training. This is particularly important for groups that typically experience economic disadvantage and may not be able to embrace the opportunities offered by vocational education and training.</para>
<para>This bill also ensures that free TAFE continues to deliver a coordinated response to workforce shortages in industries of local and national priority, helping to build the pipeline of skilled workers that Australia needs now and into the future. I think something really important that our government has done—and it should be common sense, but it hasn't always been common sense—is that we have connected skills with industry. We look forward at what the areas of demand in the economy will be and make sure that we have people being trained in those areas. As I said, this should be common sense but it hasn't always been the case. I think it is really important to highlight the work our government has been doing in this space.</para>
<para>The legislation here does not lock states into a fixed mode of delivering free TAFE, but it builds on the shared stewardship that we've developed for the national VET system. While this bill sets out broad parameters, specific details will continue to be agreed to through negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states.</para>
<para>We know that we have a responsibility as a government to help people here and now, but we also have a duty to the next generation to build an economy for all Australians that liberates their talents, rewards their efforts and opens the doors of opportunity. This starts with education for all. In my very first speech, I spoke about the importance of education. It is something I hold very dear—that every Australian, no matter their background or financial situation, should have equal access to education. No-one should be held back and no-one should be left behind.</para>
<para>We believe, on this side of the House, in equal opportunity, and by making TAFE free we're removing financial barriers to access and ensuring that everybody has the chance to pursue a career they love and to achieve their full potential. We believe in investing in people and making sure that everybody has the skills and capacity to contribute to a thriving economy. Our whole nation benefits; we know this. Our communities benefit when we make it easier for people to access education. Free TAFE is an investment in the future of our society. A fairer society benefits everyone. The long-term benefits of a more skilled and more productive workforce will absolutely create economic growth that benefits everyone in our communities—that benefits all Australians. We know that, if we don't act, the costs will be higher down the track. Failing to invest in skilling up people will leave businesses stranded and leave Australians locked out of reaching their potential.</para>
<para>A better educated workforce drives innovation. It drives productivity and long-term economic growth. TAFE opens doors for people right across Australia who are looking to gain well-paid and secure work. We're delivering the training Australians want and the skills they need to get ahead. This is meaningful cost-of-living support. It's helping people access high-quality, affordable training and get jobs that will be well paid, too. We're delivering the skills and training needed to grow the economy, to build the homes we need and to create the future made in Australia that we should be ambitious for, and we're ensuring all Australians can get quality care when they need it. We know free TAFE trains so many people that work in the care and service industries.</para>
<para>With high-quality skills and training we're building a better Australia. Nine in 10 new jobs over the next 10 years will need post-school study, and half of those jobs will need vocational education and training. Having a reliable VET sector is critical for the economy. Making sure it is an accessible sector means people can help create and share in our national prosperity. I think, from comments made by my colleagues, it's pretty clear that you cannot have a strong VET sector without strong public TAFE at its heart. TAFEs are valued and trusted public institutions and have a very long history in this country of delivering training in the public interest and working to meet Australia's social and economic goals in the here and now and, through working with government, looking at the long-term needs of the nation.</para>
<para>TAFEs are trusted partners in their communities, driving quality improvements across the VET sector, leading innovation in teaching and learning practice, supporting students to succeed and assisting industries to develop skilled workforces.</para>
<para>I mentioned earlier the visits that I have been privileged enough to participate in with the Prime Minister and with the minister at various moments in my electorate. The passion that the teaching staff have for the work they do and the dedication they have are to be commended. I know that it is something that the students absolutely value, and it's one of the reasons that they have made the decision to enrol in TAFE.</para>
<para>There is a TAFE in nearly every community across Australia, and every community in the country deserves access to great vocational education and training. I know some people, like those opposite, unfortunately consider free TAFE wasteful spending. On this side of the House, we reject that principle absolutely. We see free TAFE as an investment in the nation's future, in the future of our communities and in the future of individuals—to be able to build a good and prosperous life for themselves and their families.</para>
<para>We are unapologetic about our support for TAFE. Supporting TAFE is in the DNA of the Labor Party. Now that we're in government, we're reversing the damage of a decade of neglect, and we're rebuilding TAFEs for communities across Australia. We made the landmark $30 billion, five-year National Skills Agreement with the states and territories, lifting investment in skills across Australia, alongside the investment that we have made in fee-free TAFE.</para>
<para>We're making sure that there is more integrity in the system by going after bad providers so that quality providers can do their work properly and there is trust in the system. Our government has tightened up regulations, we've set up a tip-off line and we've increased funding to the independent regulator. This is directly leading to the exposure and deregistration of fraudulent providers. I hope we can all agree in this place that having an education system with integrity is vitally important for our nation. We know that it takes only a few bad apples to bring an entire sector into disrepute. But it also takes a genuine national partnership and vision to support our great TAFEs, and through this bill we are making sure that we have the right frameworks in place to be able to support TAFEs and support people's ambitions now and into the future.</para>
<para>Hearing people speak against this bill is really disappointing. For years the Labor Party have fought against the resentment from those opposite towards public education and against their efforts to undermine TAFEs, and we'll always have that fight. We're very prepared to have that fight.</para>
<para>We know that reducing access to free TAFE will leave many Australians without a pathway to gain the skills they need to secure well-paid employment, and that will end up worsening the divide—worsening inequality in this country. It will mean that there are a group of people who can afford education and a group of those who cannot. I for one do not want to see that divide in my community. I want everyone in my community to have the same opportunity to access a good education, and I would hope every single person in this House would agree with that proposition.</para>
<para>Those opposite want to exacerbate educational inequality and make it harder for people to access affordable vocational education and training and set themselves up for the life that they deserve. Excluding people from opportunities and stifling their aspirations are what is presented to us by those opposite. The reason that we know this will be really bad for the country is that we saw the damage and destruction caused last time those opposite were in government. Their disregard for the VET system and their disregard for the skills of Australians meant that the system was left in a really bad state.</para>
<para>We shouldn't be limiting people's access to pathways. We shouldn't make it harder for people to become healthcare workers, to work in construction or to work in technology. Governments, I think, are reasonably expected to open doors, not slam them shut. I do not want to see cuts to vocational education, and I'm really worried about what it would mean for my community if Peter Dutton ever became Prime Minister. We know that that would also mean that the experience of older workers would be lost—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Caldwell</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I ask the member to refer to members by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition instead of 'Peter Dutton'.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leader of the Opposition—I'm very sorry.</para>
<para>We know that if the Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister, housing and energy projects would not get off the ground because of skill shortages. We know that businesses would need to look overseas for workers instead of employing Australians here at home. I suppose that's a quandary that the Leader of the Opposition needs to resolve, given his particular attitude to migration at this point in time.</para>
<para>We don't want education to be a privilege; we want education to be a right for all Australians. For the prosperity of our nation, we cannot afford to cut off the pathways, to close the doors of opportunity for people to access vocational education and training. So I am really proud to be a defender of TAFE. I'm really proud to support this bill to make free TAFE permanent, to provide more opportunities for more Australians to access the education that they want and that they deserve.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CALDWELL</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak against the Free TAFE Bill 2024 not because anyone is against TAFE or against vocational training but because this particular bill is emblematic of a completely shambolic approach by this terrible Labor government to any policy implementation. I will explain for those couple of viewers perhaps tuning in at home why I say that this is such a clear example of this government's incompetence.</para>
<para>Effectively, this is an untested and uncosted experiment with Australian taxpayers' money. That was set out in the documents that were tabled by the minister when the bill was presented to this House. I wonder if there is any sort of financial competence that could be displayed on that side of the House when on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum the comment under 'Financial Impact Statement' says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is no financial impact resulting from the Free TAFE Bill 2024.</para></quote>
<para>It would seem that they were either prepared to sign a blank cheque or not being upfront and honest about what the real cost of this will be to Australian taxpayers. Later in the day, we found out that the minister does in fact have some concept of what the cost might be. The Minister for Skills and Training, Minister Giles, has today said it could cost at least $253.7 million a year. Again, when we are talking about financial competency or ministerial competency, what are the unfortunate chances that the Prime Minister will have shifted this particular minister out of one botched portfolio over into an area where you would think he probably just could not muck it up—and yet here we have documents that have completely omitted a fundamentally important part of it: the cost.</para>
<para>I don't hold a great deal of faith in Minister Giles, as I'm sure the House is well aware, based on his track record of delivery in other portfolios. I'll tell you who I do have some faith in, and that's our shadow, the member for Farrer, who I think had a pretty good grasp of this whole thing of higher education and this particular sector of higher education. She spoke on this particular bill earlier, and I'm going to quote some of why I believe what we say on this holds more credibility than what Minister Giles says. She said, for example:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<para>Contrast that with the absolutely shambolic approach taken to policy by this minister and this government.</para>
<para>I also found, in the legislation, what could actually prove to be a cruel joke and a cruel hoax on Australians. I looked at the definitions, and it says, for example:</para>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">FT place</inline>—</para></quote>
<para>'FT' is short for 'free TAFE'—</para>
<quote><para class="block">means a free place in a course at a TAFE institution or a course provided by another VET provider.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An FT place may not be free of all fees.</para></quote>
<para>I just wonder whether this minister is across the detail of what's going to be required to deliver on this corflute campaign that's being constructed at the expense of every Australian taxpayer. This is not free. Every Australian is funding this untested experiment by this Labor government. You might wonder why it's worthwhile pausing to test and measure whether this program could or should work, and I'm going to point out one particular thing that is critically important in understanding where this funding is directed. Again, to quote our shadow minister: 'TAFE is not all vocational educational training. TAFE is just the state government run public training provider. Labor's approach to skills is akin to only funding state run public schools and then refusing to fund non-government schools. We should not accept that, and, quite frankly, we just wouldn't.' But this government is so keen to chase the election-winning headline. We heard the member for Chisholm earlier. She's right on message. She's in a marginal seat, and she will be chirping this stuff constantly—free TAFE, free TAFE. This is, make no mistake, a corflute campaign for the next election that's being funded by every Australian taxpayer.</para>
<para>Most people won't benefit from it, but I can assure you one thing: we are all going to pay for it. Perhaps at the next election when you walk into a polling booth those corflutes shouldn't say 'Free TAFE under Labor'; they should say 'Taxpayer funded TAFE provided by Labor because we decided that was the form of vocational education and training that we supported over and above all others'. That is effectively what is being done here. This Labor government are taking a gamble on one single form of vocational education and training, being the state run provider—a completely inflexible ill thought out approach—and it completely defies the logical application of thought to how training outcomes are achieved in reality.</para>
<para>I know that those opposite make much fun around what the coalition thinks of Australian skills, and I might just point this out before I forget. I've identified where there is a real skills shortage in Australia. It's on that front bench over there. So it may well prove that that's where the training should be headed. I think it's worthwhile reflecting on the coalition's track record in this area, because we actually back vocational education and training. We don't just back one part of the sector. We want to back the whole sector.</para>
<para>The coalition handed this Albanese Labor government a skills and training system that was not just trending up but powering ahead on the back of record investments, guaranteed by a strong economy. The policies that the coalition invested in were over $13 billion in skills in the final two years of the government alone, representing the most significant reforms to Aussie skills in over a decade. The number of trade apprentices in training hit record highs in the final months of the coalition government, and as of June 2022 there were 429,000 apprentices and trainees in training and 277,900 commencements.</para>
<para>Data released by the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research confirms that Australia has lost almost 85,000 apprentices and trainees from the national training pipeline since this Labor government took office—about one in five. That effectively means there are over 100,000 fewer apprentices and trainees starting a trade or a skill, or a drop of almost 40 per cent, since Labor took office. We know that, under Labor, Australia is building fewer homes, skill shortages have worsened and we have lost one in five apprentices and trainees across this country. All of that is adding to increased inflation and higher prices.</para>
<para>As I said earlier, the problem with Labor's TAFE-only approach is that we should be supporting every student, not just some. We want to back all of them, regardless of whether they're at a training TAFE or at an independent provider. The problem with this Albanese government's approach is that they've undertaken a skills policy that directs funds to just one part of the training sector rather than all of it. We're not anti-TAFE; we are pro-TAFE as part of a mix of training and vocational education opportunities that should be available to Australians. That means we should be allowing access to all of those options, not just one pathway.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister and Minister Giles have repeatedly dodged questions about how many Australians have completed or dropped out of the 500,000 fee-free TAFE courses. We know that their own talking points state that just 13 per cent of the fee-free TAFE enrolments have resulted in a qualification being completed, at a whopping cost of $1.5 billion. Labor knows that they're hiding the failure rate, because they know that fee-free TAFE is not keeping pace with training outcomes for other training pathways, including industry training providers.</para>
<para>While fee-free TAFE is delivering a completion rate of only 13 per cent, industry led training providers have completion rates as high as 80 to 90 per cent. Labor are trying to pass off the low completion rates as being due to the length of courses, and that is completely misleading. They don't want you to know the detail; they just want you to see the headline.</para>
<para>Departmental officials confirmed last night that the courses with the highest enrolments include—just so we can use some examples here—Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care, Certificate 3 in Individual Support, Certificate IV in Training and Assessment and Certificate IV in Cyber Security. These courses take 12 months at most. Industry sources suggest free TAFE fail rates could be as high as 55 to 60 per cent across many courses, and some in the training sector have indicated that some courses could have failure rates as high as 70 to 90 per cent. So we've got to ask ourselves this question: is this policy and is this legislation a good idea?</para>
<para>Those opposite, including the member for Chisholm, will continue to parrot on about access to education—blah, blah, blah. Can I tell you: they are all over to shop on education, skills and training. There is an incoherent mess going on in all of those sectors. Why? Because they're trying to chase the coreflute headline. If you compare what's going on between TAFE, which they want to make free; private VET providers, which are not free; uni fees, which are very high under the government—maybe they're going to offer 20 per cent off to a group of people next year, if the wind's blowing from the south-east or whatever the case may be. None of this makes sense. No actual thought has been put into a coherent reform package to make skills and training more accessible, more efficient and a good use of Australian taxpayers' money. Ultimately, that's what we need to be worried about. This is really nothing more than an election slogan that's being funded by everyday Australians. They've taken away the ability for them to use a price signal to try and encourage certain courses. They haven't reviewed what's been going on, and this, I reckon, will be a failure for Australian taxpayers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Free TAFE Bill 2024, an important bill. It's important because of the skills shortages we have in this country. If you have a look at the number skills shortages right across the nation, fee-free TAFE will assist the next generation to get the skills that they require to learn the trades to fill those positions. Currently, we are bringing people in from overseas for traditional trades that we always did ourselves—electricians, plumbers, mechanics et cetera. When you add onto that the high-tech jobs that are being created and, in my own home state, the Defence build that's taking place, including the AUKUS submarines that will eventually start being built down there, we are looking at thousands and thousands of jobs that will have to be filled. And they're not just blue-collar jobs; they're jobs that will require trades, skills and high-tech skills as well. So I'm very proud of this bill and what it's committed to.</para>
<para>Many years ago, TAFEs started off as technical colleges around the country, certifying different trades. They were trades colleges, trades schools et cetera. More courses were introduced in the seventies and eighties. Why was that? There were more courses introduced to give people the skills and foundations to better their lives using the skills that they learnt at TAFE and the experiences that they had at TAFE. This system has assisted thousands of people across our nation for many years.</para>
<para>I'm a product of TAFE. I finished high school and enrolled into higher education for accounting, which I absolute disliked. I couldn't fathom it for some reason—and that's not to discourage anyone else who wants to do it or the wonderful accountants out there—so I dropped out and went into the workforce. I did a whole range of things: I worked in factories and drove taxis for a number of years. And then I enrolled in TAFE. I picked up some skills; I did some business courses including accounting, bookkeeping, business law I, business law II, contract law—a whole range of things. TAFE assisted me.</para>
<para>Back then—I was in my mid to late 20s when I was studying—the fees were $30 a semester. That allowed me to pay that very small fee to do these courses and to enter the next period of my life with better skills. If, for whatever reason, those fees had been much higher—at that time I had a mortgage as well—I perhaps wouldn't have been able to achieve what I have achieved and be where I am today.</para>
<para>It's very important that we go back to the basics, back to the core, of those original TAFE beliefs. What were they there for? They were there to encourage people to pick up skills, to take the next step in their life, to learn things and perhaps to get a better job—or just a job in itself. It's very important, so I'm very pleased that this particular bill will allow many, many people to pick up skills and fill positions that we're going to need.</para>
<para>I will go back to my own home state. Last week I had the Deputy Prime Minister in my electorate at the TAFE SA Regency campus. Regency TAFE, for those who are not from South Australia, is our old trades school. It's where apprentices go to learn everything from plumbing or electrical to mechanics or engineering—a whole range of things. The courses that will be offered there will work in conjunction with our defence building industries. Courses will be created to fill the positions that we're going to require as a state and as a nation to build our submarines, defence ships and a whole range of other things.</para>
<para>It's already estimated that we will require approximately 30,000 skilled positions. It's a pretty good problem to have as a state, I think. But, unless we train them today, where are we going to find these skilled people to fill those 30,000 positions within the next 10 years. That is what this is all about. It's about training people to ensure that we have the skills for the future. It's about ensuring that we give them the opportunity to train so we're not burdening them and having them walk away from training and trades but encouraging them.</para>
<para>I've been listening to the other side. Because it's a publicly funded proposal that we're putting forward, it's totally disliked and opposed. It's like anything else that's public, whether it be Medicare, public education or a whole range of other things. I'm quite surprised that the opposition will be opposing this bill, because this gives the next generation a future. People who, for whatever reason, perhaps haven't got that future right now will have an opportunity to attend TAFE and do courses. Also, this will ensure that we have those skills that are going to be required into the future.</para>
<para>Many years ago, in the fifties—I've told this story many times here—the Premier at the time in South Australia, Mr Playford, who was a Liberal Premier, had the vision of creating a car-manufacturing state. He achieved it. At the time an industrial manufacturing revolution took place in South Australia. Many migrants came. They migrated to South Australia. My parents were a part of that cohort, and my father worked at General Motors-Holden for years afterwards.</para>
<para>We're seeing a second manufacturing revolution in South Australia through the AUKUS build and the defence build that's taking place down there. The difference this time is that we need highly skilled workers. It won't just be welders and electricians. I visited Osbourne, where the Collins class boats were built and other defence ships are being built. Yes, we need to train welders, but specifically for those industries—for example, to work in very tight spots, unlike a normal welder in a big workshop. Electricians will work in a very confined space. These skills are all being taught, and will be taught, at the Regency TAFE in my electorate.</para>
<para>The Deputy Prime Minister and I had the Minister for Skills and Training with us, and Stephen Mullighan the South Australian Treasurer and Minister for Defence and Space Industries, and Blair Boyer, the Minister for Education Training and Skills, came along with us. Of course, this announcement was made in South Australia specifically because, for us, it is of massive benefit to be able to train people to fill these positions.</para>
<para>At the Regency campus last week in my electorate, the Deputy Prime Minister announced again the enduring feature of Australia's vocational educational training system: the funding of 100,000 fee-free TAFE places a year from 2027. This will yield significant benefits, particularly for my home state. Again, I go back to those skills that we're going to require and the 30,000 positions that are being envisaged at this point for the AUKUS build over the next 10 to 20 years. If we don't start training people now—if we don't give younger people the opportunity to take on these particular skills—then we'll still be in the same position, looking at 457 visas and trying to bring people in from overseas to fill these positions, when many of our young people, given the opportunity, would embrace it with open arms.</para>
<para>Again, it's not just the trades. There are many other areas where we see our current employment changing for service industries. One would be the care industry, for a population that's ageing fairly rapidly. Many people are choosing to stay home with carers who visit them, ensuring that they're okay and looking after their health—taking them out shopping. It's a very important part. Of course, we have a duty as a government to look after those people who, in their retirement, need care at home for whatever reason. And of course many of these positions will be training a lot of our carers to look after our elderly Australians.</para>
<para>Another example of work being done between the federal government and the South Australian government is that they're investing in more than 20 initiatives, including the Skills and Training Academy, the Skills Pathway Program and the Commonwealth supported STEM places at the University of Adelaide and Flinders University. And all the skills that will be required for the sub build and the defence build won't be just from TAFE. We will also need nuclear engineers, architects et cetera. This announcement has been a significant step in respect of the build of our AUKUS submarines, with the signing of the tripartite agreement between the Commonwealth government, ASC and BAE Systems to commence preparatory work. Part of this preparatory work is the fee-free TAFE bill, which will ensure that we get those skills that we're going to require in order to fill those positions in the very near future.</para>
<para>The AUKUS agreement with two of our key allies, the US and the UK, and the AUKUS nuclear submarine pathway through which Australia will acquire the conventionally armed nuclear powered submarine capability is very much front of mind for all South Australians. For us it is one of the biggest projects we have endeavoured to bring to fruition. And of course we know that this government is creating jobs. We're creating jobs across Australia. We're building services and upgrading facilities, especially in my state, as I said, for the AUKUS submarines to keep Australians safe while, at the same time, building and supporting a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>We can create those positions, get the economic environment perfect for getting the manufacturing going, but without those skills we aren't going to get there. We need those skills. That's why we need this fee-free TAFE for people who want to upskill, to fill those positions that will be part of the future made in Australia, plus the high-tech jobs in defence: the AUKUS build, defence shipbuilding in Perth and in South Australia and other places around the country—with added manufacturing spin-off jobs as well, which will be high-tech and very important.</para>
<para>Some of these trainees from the announcement the other day will commence training programs supported by this particular academy in the 2024-25 financial year. A further 4,000 to 5,500 direct shipyard jobs will be created to build those submarines in South Australia through those high skills, not to mention the other jobs that will be created—almost double the workforce forecast by the coalition government for the Attack-class program.</para>
<para>The government is investing at least $2 billion in South Australia to support this infrastructure. Part of that investment—again, I go back to the fee-free TAFE bill—is to be able to skill these people. As I said, many years ago we had a manufacturing revolution in South Australia because of Premier Playford, who brought GMH to Adelaide, and Chrysler followed soon after—thousands of manufacturing jobs. People would apply for a job and start the next day. When Holden shut down in 2013 or 2014, you had to do a six-week course at TAFE before you could actually start. That's how these positions and these jobs are changing. The submarine build and the defence build will be much higher tech than Holden was 10 years ago. So it's very important that TAFE opens doors for people across Australia who are looking to gain well-paid and secure work, and this government is delivering the training that Australians want and the skills they need to get ahead.</para>
<para>There would be many people out there who, for whatever reason, didn't continue on to university or who aren't working for whatever reason. Their being able to enrol at TAFE and pick up some basic skills to get them to that first step is so important. It is so important to give those people an opportunity. In my own case, who knows where I would be today if it weren't for TAFE and those very low fees at the time? It was around $30 a semester to do two to three subjects every semester. Had the prices been the equivalent of what they are today, I don't think I would have been able to go onto that next step in my life journey.</para>
<para>We need to offer the opportunities that were offered to me to the next generation of Australians who want to carry on and better their lives or get jobs where they can contribute. We need to give them those opportunities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can tell the member for Adelaide where he'd be were it not for TAFE. He'd probably be floating in the Aegean Sea somewhere off the island of Kastellorizo! He's a good man, and there were some elements to his speech which I wholeheartedly agree with, like when he said that the government was delivering. Yes, they are delivering. They are delivering on the coalition's AUKUS proposal, the coalition's AUKUS idea. When he talked about the 30,000 jobs needed for the submarine build, that's important, and it's going to very much rely on those valuable trades and those imperative skills.</para>
<para>The senior economist at the Housing Industry Association, Matt King, recently stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The HIA Trades Availability Index for the September Qtr 2024 revealed a worsening of the national skilled trades shortage scenario…</para></quote>
<para>In the media release issued on 22 October, he had this further to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"The residential building industry currently employs approximately 278,000 tradies across the twelve key trade occupations required for home building. The trades workforce needs to grow by at least 30 per cent to meet a 1.2 million home target over the next 5 years. That is over 83,000 additional tradies.</para></quote>
<para>He continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"The most acute shortages of skilled tradespeople remain in bricklaying, tiling, plastering and carpentry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"This means a significant boost is needed in a variety of trade occupations to get these much-needed homes completed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Despite concerted efforts to boost the domestic trades workforce, significant challenges remain. Creating career opportunities for the local workforce must be the priority, however this alone will not solve the tradie shortage.</para></quote>
<para>Labor has itself in a bit of a pickle, because Labor did promise to build 1.2 million homes. Under Labor's watch, we have migration which is way exceeding in a month what we once took in over a 12-month period during the Howard years of government. This immigration policy is indeed alarming because we have people coming here at a rate we cannot sustain, certainly not in the housing industry.</para>
<para>Then we have a Victorian government that seems averse to having a timber industry. We've got a Victorian state government which doesn't want any new homes to have gas appliances. When you're trying to stymie the industry as far as how you are going to power homes, when you are trying to stall the industry as to what you're going to build those homes with—that is, timber—it is a one-way street to disaster.</para>
<para>Labor are on this one-way street to disaster, and then they bring in policies such as this. The coalition is perturbed, because people should see this for what it truly is. After uncovering that Labor's commitment to make free TAFE permanent is unfunded, it's incumbent upon us to call it out for what it is. Australian students deserve better than fake pledges on skills and training. I appreciate that the member for Adelaide is a graduate of TAFE, as am I. I hold near and dear those lessons I learnt at the technical and further education campus at Wagga Wagga. But the coalition opposes this free TAFE legislation because it is unfunded. Not just that, it has the potential to increase the Commonwealth's spending by $500 million a year. Labor can't just keep throwing money out there and pretending that it's all costed, it's all in the budget, it's all in the forward estimates, because it is creating a debt situation.</para>
<para>I appreciate that the Treasurer often goes to that dispatch box just over there and talks about the trillion dollars worth of Liberal Party debt that Labor inherited. Let's unpack that for a bit. It was nowhere near a trillion dollars and, if it is a trillion dollars now, it's on his watch. It's on his head. It was nowhere near a trillion dollars. He seems to forget that the Liberals were in government with the Nationals, but, worse than that and more than that, he doesn't ever qualify his remarks by saying that the coalition was dealing with a global pandemic which had the biggest economic downturn in this nation—Labor will say it was since the global financial crisis, but it was since the Great Depression of the late twenties and early thirties.</para>
<para>He was not around that table—I was—when the Chief Health Officer for this nation and the Chief of the Defence Force gave the alarming news about how terrible COVID was, could be and, indeed, had we not acted, would have been. The Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, which assesses how well nations do as far as preparedness and also what nations did as far as recovery and economic activity during the actual global pandemic of COVID-19, showed that Australia was ranked second in the world. That is because, yes, we spent a lot of money. We spent a lot of money through JobKeeper. We spent a lot of money through vaccines. We spent a lot of money saving jobs and protecting people's lives. The Treasurer is being disingenuous when he doesn't refer to that, because, but for that spend—but for that money that went out the Treasury doors—there would be a lot of people who would not be in a job, there would be a lot of businesses which would now be bankrupt and there would be a lot of people who, quite frankly, would not be alive. We saved their lives. The first order of government is to protect its people, and we did just that.</para>
<para>Indeed, 1.1 million jobs were created since the pandemic hit. This was the last term of the Morrison government. Seven hundred thousand jobs were saved through JobKeeper. One that I'm particularly proud of is 220,000 trade apprentices. That was a record high for Australia and that came under our economic stewardship. That came in our government. Indeed, that is proof positive of just what we did during the pandemic to cope with COVID-19 and to make sure that our country was economically on a good footing and that lives were being saved.</para>
<para>And yet now we have a government that, irresponsibly, is just throwing money like there was no tomorrow. With any luck, for this government, there will be no tomorrow, because people will be wise as to what this government offers—or, indeed, what it does not offer—and, at the next election, will vote for a Liberal-Nationals return. That is very much needed.</para>
<para>This legislation permanently commits the Commonwealth to fund free TAFE before it's reviewed. Senate estimates confirmed that there's been no review conducted into this proposal, into this expenditure. You could be seeing anywhere up to a billion dollars being spent on a program which is just there for Labor largesse.</para>
<para>I've always said that a TAFE certificate is just as valuable as a university degree, if not more so. You might think I would say that. I have any number of TAFE certificates and I do not have a university degree. I know that piece of paper is every bit as valuable as a tertiary degree for those TAFE students, because it opens doors to a better future. Australia needs to continue to support and encourage our young people, as well as anyone of any age seeking to upskill, to pursue an education through TAFE. After all, it's the men and women with the skilled trades—builders, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, agriculture workers and many more—who keep our country running. They do.</para>
<para>We have the Greens political party, who will be preferencing Labor, and vice versa, at the next election. But they don't understand that it's those tradies who keep the lights on, who keep the taps working and, indeed, who build the infrastructure which sustains modern civil society. Too often, these inner-city types have no understanding or appreciation of the work involved to sustain their quality of life. I stand adamantly alongside and with tradies and workers and the efforts to train more. And so does the coalition. The coalition government allocated $2.1 billion to give Australians the opportunity to upskill. I mentioned the statistics before. The work we were doing, the funding we were investing went to the heart of what we needed to make sure that we had the right number of apprentices, the right number of people in the right programs in the right places.</para>
<para>Here we have a Labor government, which has made all sorts of promises about building homes, not reining its states in when it had the opportunity. We well remember when it was wall-to-wall Labor on mainland Australia. Thankfully, the Northern Territory has returned to a Country Liberal Party government, and also thankfully Queensland has returned to a Liberal National Party government. But Labor did have the opportunity, when it was wall-to-wall red across mainland Australia, to rein those states in and to help them on that ambitious program of building more homes, but they did nothing and they said nothing. Do you know why? It was because they were too focused on a divisive referendum called the Voice.</para>
<para>That was the first and only priority that Labor did in its first months and months of office. It took the Australian people to say no to that. Then what happened? Presto, the next day, all of a sudden, the cost of living became the government's focus. They hadn't addressed the cost-of-living issue. They hadn't addressed the homes crisis. They still haven't addressed either of those. Worse still, we are still getting a flood of people into this nation each and every month. We heard today in question time a new person comes in every 44 seconds. Yet Labor's saying: 'Nothing to see here. It's all okay.' Well, it's not all okay.</para>
<para>We need to get back to the basics. We need to ensure that, yes, we have a viable, operational TAFE. This bill, this legislation, this proposal, is purely symbolic. It's typical tokenistic behaviour by Labor. Sadly, people see it for what it is. So many of Labor's endeavours are just that—they are media opportunities that have no substance and they haven't been thought through. We heard from the HIA; they're ringing the bell on what's going wrong. They are a good organisation. They can see what is happening. Labor needs to address this crisis. Unfortunately, they won't. They still have their heads in the wrong issues, and they're taking Australians and the nation over the cliff with them.</para>
<para>A footnote in the legislation states that an FT place may not be free of all fees and the fees covered will depend on the terms and conditions of the relevant FT agreement. How interesting! How many people will still have to pay for their TAFE course? It's a good question. It's no surprise from a government that thrives on trying to—I would say deceive, but I'll be kinder and just say pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people and taxpayers. But it is a bit of deceit, and it gets worse. Labor is asking the Australian people to accept the bill when they haven't done the proper and due process before it comes into this place. That is so typical of Labor. They don't consult stakeholders; they don't properly cost things; they don't properly look through things and see what are the unintended consequences. Instead, they come here with a bill that is going to put additional funding on the budget without doing all the due process. It's typical of Labor. The opposition will not support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I think about the future of education in Australia, I don't have to look too far to see it. In Bennelong, we are very fortunate to have a great university in Macquarie University, but importantly we also have not one but two outstanding TAFE campuses: the mighty Meadowbank Campus and the extraordinary Ryde TAFE, right in the middle of the electorate. Both of these campuses are hubs of opportunity, growth and innovation, and have been so for decades.</para>
<para>Every day Meadowbank TAFE and Ryde TAFE help people to change their lives. They are where students from all walks of life—school leavers, career changers, parents returning to the workforce and lifelong learners—come to gain skills they need for better jobs, better pay and better careers. On these campuses, students are learning to build, create, care and innovate. They're training to become nurses, chefs, electricians, IT specialists, tech workers and, importantly, early childhood educators. These are the skills that we'll need to keep our economy running and growing. These are the workers who'll help us transition to a renewable future, who'll build our homes, who'll staff our tech industry and who'll build the infrastructure that Bennelong and Australia need to thrive.</para>
<para>TAFEs, like Meadowbank and Ryde, are pillars of our community. They embody the values that we hold dear in Bennelong: opportunity, fairness and the belief that education is a pathway to a brighter future, and they give us real examples of the profound impact that occurs when we invest in people not just for their benefit but for the benefit of our whole society. Since we've come to office, fee-free TAFE has been a game changer. In just 18 months, fee-free TAFE has changed the lives of more than half a million Aussies; 508,000 people have accessed this extraordinary policy in training and education, setting them on a path to well-paid and secure jobs. They're real people with real stories—a single mum retraining to be an aged care nurse, a young tradie who we need to build more homes and people like Clare from Ryde, who has retrained to become an accountant with the ambition to start her own small business.</para>
<para>The Free Tafe Bill 2024 that we're debating today locks in that great Labor TAFE policy and seeks to make it permanent. It'll mean that more people, regardless of their background, will have the chance to gain the skills they need for better pay and a better life. Permanent free TAFE is our answer to the skills crisis that has plagued Australia for too long. Industries across the board are crying out for skilled workers. Childcare centres need early educators, aged care homes need carers, construction sites need tradies and tech businesses, many of which are in my electorate, need tech workers. By providing free training we're not just providing cost-of-living relief; we're helping address skills shortages in industries that we know need support. We're bringing everyone to the table to build a TAFE system that works for Australia—its students, educators, industry and employers—because we don't want to go through another skills crisis in our modern and changing economy. Nine in 10 new jobs over the next decade will require post-school study, and half of these will need vocational education and training. Fee-free TAFE ensures that we will be ready to meet this demand.</para>
<para>But, while this government is driving forward, the opposition wants to drag us back. Let's be real about what's at stake here. Under the Liberals and Nationals, they have made their stance clear. They don't believe in this bill. They don't believe in TAFE. Their actions—and their lack of action when they were in government—speak volumes about their priorities. When in government, we're committed to removing barriers to education. The coalition record was the opposite. They slashed $3 billion from the VET system, and they left us with one of the largest skills shortages in the OECD. Under their watch, housing projects stalled because there weren't enough workers to lay the foundations, and today we all know we're still catching up. Hospitality businesses were struggling to get the baristas, chefs and staff they needed to grow post-pandemic, and many businesses were forced to look overseas to fill skills gaps that should have been filled by trained Aussies. This wasn't an accident. This was a direct result of the short-sighted policies under the former government.</para>
<para>When the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals talk about vocational education today, it's not to support it; it's to dismantle it. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party called fee-free TAFE wasteful spending. Tell that to the aged-care nurse who's retraining to provide really important care. Tell that to the early childhood educator shaping young minds. Tell that to the tech worker building the digital economy that we need for the future. The fact that they find TAFE wasteful spending tells me that they don't value the vital role that TAFE plays in our communities nor do they understand the economic and social benefits that a TAFE education brings. The Liberals' approach to vocational education reflects a broader problem that they have. They don't believe in investing in young people. They don't trust in Australians' aspirations, and they certainly don't see TAFE as a way to change people's lives and increase people's wages. Under their vision, or lack thereof, older workers looking to retrain will be left behind. Their decades of experience will be wasted because they might not be able to afford access to the education they need to re-enter the workforce. Young people eager to step into that tradie job will be locked out because they might not have the $5,000 or $10,000 they need to train in TAFE.</para>
<para>This isn't just a hypothetical; we saw this happen under their watch. They devalued TAFE. They cut funding to the VET sector. The coalition continues to send a clear message that they do not believe in TAFE. That's not the Australia I believe in. It's not the Australia that the Labor Party believes in. Their approach is one of destruction. They view public TAFEs as a liability, not an asset, and they treat Australians' aspirations as an inconvenience and not an opportunity.</para>
<para>So the choice before us couldn't be clearer. On this side, we have a government committed to public education, committed to fee-free TAFE, opportunity, fairness and progress. On the other side, we have an opposition that has consistently demonstrated its disdain for TAFE and the VET sector and its disregard for the aspirations of young Australians. It's not just about this policy; it's about values. It's about whether we see TAFE as the cornerstone of our skills policy and as a cornerstone of a way for people to get better jobs and better pay. It's about whether we invest in these people who want to retrain or whether we abandon them. This fee-free TAFE bill is more than just a response to immediate challenges. It's a vision for the future. It ensures that our workforce will be prepared to meet the demand from emerging industries, from renewable energy to tech jobs, advanced manufacturing, construction work and hospitality. It will provide ongoing cost-of-living relief, not through short-term handouts but through a permanent policy to provide at least 100,000 fee-free TAFE opportunities every year. It's part of our broader commitment for a future—that we want a government to tackle the big challenges that face our nation, whether it's to ease cost-of-living relief pressures, to address climate change or to strengthen our care systems or our health system. We're focused everyday on delivering for Aussies, particularly in Bennelong. Fee-free TAFE is just one example of how we're doing that.</para>
<para>It's a policy that will create jobs, build industries and ensure that industries where there is a skills shortage it will be addressed. And it will ensure that, if you want to earn more money, you can go and do that through TAFE. It reflects our belief in the power of public education to change lives and our commitment to build a fairer and more inclusive Australia.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>8203</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>World AMR Awareness Week, Camp Quality</title>
          <page.no>8203</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over this term of parliament, I've had the privilege of meeting many passionate professionals and volunteers dedicated to improving the health outcomes for all Australians are. They wake up each day with one goal—that is, to make a difference to the lives of others. Tonight, I want to highlight two.</para>
<para>Antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, occurs when bacteria, fungus, viruses and parasites become resistant to the drug's designed to kill them. This growing resistance is making infections harder to treat and poses one of the greatest threats to global public health. In Australia, AMR is linked to more than 5,000 annual deaths, a statistic that cannot be ignored. AMR threatens the very foundation of our health system, and without effective treatments, critical procedures such as surgeries, cancer chemotherapy and childbirth can become increasingly unsafe.</para>
<para>This week marks World AMR Awareness Week, driven by the AMR network, a multistakeholder group dedicated to combating this issue. The network highlights a concerning reality that Australians lack access to many of the newest antibiotics already available in countries like the US and the UK. This gap puts patient safety at risk.</para>
<para>The Australian government has acknowledged the severity of AMR, and I welcome the policy reforms being progressed, particularly through the health technology assessment review. However, acknowledgement isn't enough. What we need is action. We need these reforms to be implemented in order to improve access to new and effective antibiotics, to bolster research into future treatments. The time to act is now.</para>
<para>I also want to share the inspiring work of Camp Quality and is volunteers who transform the lives of children impacted by cancer across Tasmania. Every day in Australia, two families sadly hear the devastating words, 'Your child has cancer.' Their world is immediately turned upside down, as they watch a childhood stolen and moments of joy disappear. Camp quality works tirelessly in order to give these moments back to kids, creating opportunities for fun and happy memories that aren't centred on illness.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge the Rotary Club of Devonport South East, which is supporting Camp Quality's Christmas party this weekend, providing lunch for those kids and their families. The club has secured Devonport's iconic <inline font-style="italic">Julie Burgess</inline> tall ship next year which will be transformed into a pirate ship. I'm sure the kids will have enduring memories of that experience.</para>
<para>Camp Quality is a magical experience. Throughout community support and organisations like Rotary, Camp Quality provides camps and fun days for over 120 Tasmanian families impacted by this disease. This year, their puppet show program will visit eight schools, reaching more than 1,000 children. Their program dispels myths about cancer. It teaches kids about cancer—that it isn't contagious—and it shows them how to be more supportive around friends.</para>
<para>I would like to recognise the extraordinary generosity of eight Tasmanians who, over the past three years, have left Camp Quality more than $1 million worth of gifts in wills. Their legacies will provide positivity, fun and laughter for families facing cancer. It is a testament to the power of community and passion. Camp Quality is changing the cancer journey for so many families, ensuring that no child in Tasmania faces cancer alone, and I encourage everyone to support the incredible work through donations or volunteering.</para>
<para>The Australian AMR network and Camp Quality remind us of the extraordinary power, dedication and community action happening across our nation. Whether tackling the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance or bringing joy to those kids that I talked about who are affected by cancer, these efforts are making a tangible difference to so many. I commend the AMR network, Camp Quality and the countless individuals and organisations committed to improving the health and lives of all Australians. Let's continue to support and celebrate these remarkable initiatives that embody the spirit of care, compassion and innovation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gilmore Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>8204</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Even before I was elected as the federal member for Gilmore, I'd pounded the pavement collecting signatures, attended rallies and meetings and shouted from the rooftops calling for improvements to the Princes Highway and local roads in the Shoalhaven, Eurobodalla and Kiama council areas. I'm immensely proud of the role I have played and continue to play in securing federal funding to get important road projects off the ground in my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast. When I drive around Gilmore, I'm pleased to see roadworks underway for major infrastructure projects like the Jervis Bay flyover and the many smaller-but-just-as-important roads that connect our smaller villages and towns.</para>
<para>In the Shoalhaven area alone, I have delivered more than $1 billion for roads. Just last week, another significant milestone was reached on the Jervis Bay flyover project as work commenced on foundations for the bridge, utility relocation and drainage work. An injection of $100 million in federal funding I've delivered will provide a grade separated flyover-style intersection with an overpass across the Princes Highway and two roundabouts to deliver safer and smoother connections. I worked alongside community groups, including Vincentia Matters, to significantly improve the road safety and reduce travel times for local residents and the many thousands of visitors to Jervis Bay. I've also delivered $400 million for the upgrade of a six-kilometre stretch of the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Hawken Road to two lanes in each direction as well as upgraded intersections at Hawken Road and Blackbutt Range road at Tomerong. Residents are also extremely pleased to see pavement repairs underway on the busy Jervis Bay Road between Woollamia and Falls Creek under disaster recovery funding arrangements. Anyone that drives Jervis Bay Road every day knows how badly it needed to be fixed following a series of floods.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is dedicated to improving investment in our transport networks and our roads. These investments support a range of economic and social objectives, including regional connectivity, liveability and safety. In my electorate of Gilmore, that includes an additional $2.4 million in this year's budget to ensure the completion of the far north collector road and $25.1 million to wrap up the Nowra bridge works. I've delivered $97 million to get the Nowra bypass going and $752 million for the Milton-Ulladulla bypass, which is in the planning stage. The $40 million Shoalhaven local roads package which I've delivered means that Shoalhaven Council is getting on with upgrading key local roads, including Forest Road, Callala Beach Road, Callala Bay Road, Culburra Road, Worrigee Road, Greenwell Point Road intersection and Callala Bay Road intersection. There is also black spot funding in the Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven. I've secured significant natural disaster roads funding, which has helped to repair many roads in our villages, including at Jamberoo, Bawley Point, Conjola Lake and Sussex Inlet, and repair 38 significant landslips around Kangaroo Valley. The latest round of funding makes a total of $18.84 million dollars in Roads to Recovery grants I'm proud to deliver for Shoalhaven road projects.</para>
<para>This government is committed to addressing longstanding problems with our local road networks caused by extreme weather events and to futureproofing the network for expected population. Roads are always at the top of my to-do list and, when I'm out and about in my community, I'm often asked for updates on major projects. Hardly a day goes by when a resident doesn't ask about the Nowra bypass or Milton-Ulladulla bypass. We all know these massive projects can't be built in a day. They require significant planning, environmental assessments and community consultation, which is why I continue to be involved and informed every step of the way.</para>
<para>I'm really excited that the wheels are turning on the proposed Milton-Ulladulla bypass, with Transport for New South Wales last month applying to have the project declared a state significant infrastructure project due to its complexity. This government's contribution of $752 million will design a bypass that meets community needs while also ensuring endangered species and ecological communities are managed appropriately. Essential planning work for the Nowra bypass is also moving along, with traffic modelling and preliminary environmental investigations underway. More than 1,000 pieces of feedback were received during the consultation period, and we must ensure we get the planning right because the Nowra bypass will deliver huge benefits for our region. I'm pleased that residents and motorists on the South Coast will benefit for years to come from the roadwork I've championed and that has been funded by the Albanese Labor government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fairfax Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>8205</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Youth entrepreneurship is where it's at. When big demographers like Bernard Salt talk about the Sunshine Coast being the entrepreneurial capital of regional Australia, it's not because we import entrepreneurs; indeed, our entrepreneurs are homegrown—in particular, young people. The youth entrepreneurship sector on the Sunshine Coast is absolutely booming. It was only last Sunday when I went to the Fishermans Road Market and I met an extraordinary young bloke, 13-year-old Hugh. Hugh, together with help from his younger brother Finn, runs his own business; it's called Dirty Ventures, a tremendous stall. I couldn't help myself; I had to buy one of his designed shirts. An absolute champion family. Right next door was another venture from 11-year-old Phoebe, and you should have seen the most extraordinary colourful jewellery that she has made herself. There she was, manning the stall. I have to say, whether it was Hugh, Finn or Phoebe, the customer service was second to none. Again, I couldn't help but make a purchase from Phoebe. On the Sunshine Coast, entrepreneurship is absolutely firing on all cylinders, and it's the younger generation which is leading the way.</para>
<para>Around 25 per cent of the Sunshine Coast population is over the age of 65. This is a good thing; it goes to the fact that we are a lifestyle capital. As the federal MP, it's a reminder for me, too, that I need to make sure I'm doing everything I can to represent older Australians in my part of the world. Since I was elected, I have been so fortunate to have a group of people who have been advising me—a seniors advisory committee, very ably led by the wonderful Carol Cashman. Every year I host what I call seniors forums. These seniors forums look at key issues that the advisory committee tells me are key to seniors in my area. Only recently I was delighted to join with the Blackall Range Care Group to jointly host a seniors forum focusing on a range of issues. We looked at aged-care services, Centrelink services, legal services and financial services, with demonstrable experience from those presenters who came along and shared their knowledge. Nearly 100 locals participated. I was delighted to have my friend and colleague Senator James Paterson join me for that forum, where he spoke about the importance of cybersecurity and provided basic tips that we could all learn from—and I know that the feedback was excellent. Thank you to the Blackall Range Care Group—I acknowledge the wonderful work they do in our community—and to my seniors advisory committee.</para>
<para>Christmas isn't far away, and there are some people who won't be having much joy this year. We know that times are tough. While there are people who will be celebrating Christmas, there are going to be a lot of people who will find it the toughest time of the year. My Christmas appeal this year is with IFYS, an organisation that does extraordinary things for people in need right across the Sunshine Coast. For anybody who wishes to make a contribution to those families—children in particular—who might be in need, I encourage them to please purchase any nonperishable food items or maybe even a gift voucher. Feel free to drop it off at my electorate office. My team is working very closely with IFYS to ensure that they will receive those gifts from you and can pass them on to those families and individuals who might be lonely and really in need amidst this cost-of-living crisis this Christmas time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>8206</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government is firmly focused on easing cost-of-living pressures for Australians. Our record on this is clear. There are fairer taxes, with a tax cut for every taxpayer in the cities, in the towns and in the bush. We've boosted Medicare and made medicines cheaper, we've implemented energy bill relief and we're holding the big supermarkets to account. These measures are beginning to make a significant impact, and we're doing it while we're building Australia's sustainable future.</para>
<para>And that's where higher education comes in. Labor is supporting current students and those with student debt now, while planning for Australia's future needs. We know that by 2050 this nation will need a workforce where 80 per cent of people have a university degree or a TAFE qualification. The Albanese government understands that post-school education, whether it's uni or TAFE, is a key part of individuals setting themselves up for the future. Prime Minister Albanese said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it's also an investment that government makes in the future of our country: the creativity and innovation that Australia needs to grow and thrive. … it's discovery and research, industry and ideas, a more productive workforce and a more equal society.</para></quote>
<para>That's why the Labor government is committed to legislating for 100,000 fee-free TAFE places annually right across the nation. We want to break down the barriers that are stopping people from pursuing further education. The fee-free TAFE program has been a huge success. There have been 508,000 enrolments since January last year—enrolments that bolster the workforces in the care sector, in technology and digital, in early childhood education and in the construction sector, all areas where there are skill shortages.</para>
<para>Labor is also giving current students and those with HECS or HELP debts a fair go by wiping $3 billion off student debt by capping the HELP indexation rate at the lower of either the CPI or the wage price index, and backdating this to 1 June last year. Teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students will benefit from the Commonwealth prac payment—vital financial support to help them undertake the mandatory practical components of those courses. And we're helping more Australians access uni by expanding the fee-free university-ready course program.</para>
<para>But stop. That's not all. There's more. When Labor wins the next election, three million Australians with student debt will have their debt cut by 20 per cent. For the average student this will mean their debt is reduced by more than $5,000, and obviously it's more for those with more costly degree debts. One of my constituents said that he'll save around $14,000 off the cost of his university courses. Another undergraduate I know—and it's not my son Stanley; all he said was 'thanks, Dad'—who is already aiming for postgraduate study, said, 'Cutting 20 per cent off my student loan helps ensure that future study is feasible, as I won't be as worried about my HECS.'</para>
<para>Labor also intends to increase the minimum amount before repaying HECS kicks in. We'll increase it from $54,000 to $67,000. That will reduce the annual payments just while people are trying to get their life sorted. For example, someone who is earning 70,000 per annum will have to repay roughly $1,000 less per year.</para>
<para>This is all part of Labor's drive to fix generational inequality. It's more expensive to get a tertiary education now than when I was a uni student back in the eighties and nineties. This isn't just due to cost-of-living pressures. The HECS system originally required graduates to pay about 24 per cent of the cost of their degree; in the late nineties, this increased to just over 35 per cent; and then, under the former government, the coalition government, the contribution increased further, to around 45 per cent. So I wholeheartedly back cutting student debt by 20 per cent and making it a more affordable option for more Australians.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government currently has six pieces of education legislation on the go. We're committed to reforming education and tackling educational inequality from early childhood education onwards. We want to ensure that those who teach our preschool-age children are paid well and valued by the community and can buy a home. We're also fulfilling the recommendations of the Gonski report and funding public schools properly—the schools that do the heavy lifting in our community. We're making the international student program sustainable, and we're focused on improving safety on campuses, with the creation of a national student ombudsman.</para>
<para>Students and people with HECS-HELP debts are better off under a Labor government. We will always focus on talent and opportunity rather than privilege and anti-intellectualism. Don't let the Trump-lite leaders in this parliament ever try to lead our nation down that cul-de-sac.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement</title>
          <page.no>8207</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no doubt that in Victoria we're being let down by a lack of leadership at the federal level from the Albanese Labor government and at the state level from the Allan Labor government. I experienced that firsthand with my family on Saturday night. After spending the day at the Lilydale show, talking to locals, I went out for dinner at a local Thai restaurant with my wife and daughter. We were then walking through Main Street, Lilydale, where I came across a gentleman who had had so much to drink that he'd fallen over on the footpath and was unable to walk. With another bystander, we helped that gentleman to a seat. He assured us he was okay and he wouldn't let us take him anywhere or call anyone for help.</para>
<para>I sensed that things weren't right. We moved on, but I made sure I could continue to observe him because his story had changed between having a car and walking home. I didn't feel right, so I called the police to ask for assistance. As I was on that call, the gentleman got up, because he'd got his composure, and walked to his car. I ran to his car, stopped him from driving off and, as I was on the phone to the police, asked them to come and assist me. The police officer apologised to me and said, 'I'm sorry, sir, we are not able, because of changes in the laws by the Allan Labor government, to help you. Unless this gentleman is drink driving, we can't come and intervene. You can call an ambulance.' I explained he didn't need an ambulance. She said, 'I'm sorry, the law has changed. There's nothing we can do to help.'</para>
<para>I had a choice: let this gentleman drive home drunk, with children and families walking home, or try and do something. In the end, I had to take his keys and drive him home myself while my wife and daughter followed us to pick me up, because the Allan Labor government changed the laws and removed the ability of police to arrest, detain or transport people at risk to themselves and others because of public intoxication. The next day, at the show, I ran into a friend of mine who's a police officer and he shared a story of how they came across a young woman who was intoxicated. In unparliamentary language, she told them to bugger off, so I won't use the words, although I'm sure you can imagine them, Mr Deputy Speaker Gorman! They had no choice but to leave that young, vulnerable, drunk lady, because she didn't want assistance.</para>
<para>This is the reality of Victoria and these are the dangers that we are under. As I was driving this man home, I literally had to stop at a pedestrian crossing so that two families could walk past after being at the show. Imagine if this drunk driver was in that car. That's what the Allan Labor government have made happen in Victoria because of their law changes. At the time of this change, the Victorian Liberals and Nationals, led by the shadow minister for police, Brad Battin, sought to ensure that our police retained their existing powers to keep Victorians safe in circumstances where alternative supports were not available. Victorians have died because of this change. Labor were warned of the shortcomings, and we're living with the tragic consequences now. The Allan Labor government must restore community safety powers to the Victorian police. I would urge the Attorney-General, being a Victorian, to have that discussion with his colleagues in Victoria.</para>
<para>As a federal coalition, we know we need to do more. We can't make the states do anything, but we can make it an offence to use mobile phones and computer networks to cause an intimate partner or family member to fear for their personal safety, to track them using spyware or to engage in coercive behaviours. We will toughen the bail laws that apply to these new Commonwealth offences, because tackling crime in our communities also means tackling crime online. There's been an uptick in young Australians committing, filming and uploading their crimes to social media. Local police have told me stories of young people posting their crimes online to get more views and increase their followers. That's why a coalition government will make it an offence to post criminal acts online.</para>
<para>Many locals have raised these concerns about crime. It's why I've been working with the local police to see if we can reinstate the safer communities program—the same program that my predecessor, Tony Smith, was able to achieve for our community to keep it safe—which will help communities like ours get CCTV and other security infrastructure. I lived it firsthand. The rules and laws that we make here in Australia and in Victoria have consequences for our community's safety.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Big Issue Australia, Street Soccer, Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>8207</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning I had the great pleasure of joining the Big Issue for the parliamentary street soccer cup. Teams from across parliament participated in a round robin competition on inflatable soccer pitches along with a local street soccer team from here in Canberra. I don't want to miss anyone, but I did see the member for Fremantle, the member for Moreton and the member for Burt doing some excellent soccer this morning. There was also a team from Canberra Airport, a team from the press gallery and, of course, as I mentioned, the street soccer team from here in Canberra. I didn't actually play, but I was cheering them all on.</para>
<para>It was a fun and fast-paced competition. We heard from Michael Wilson, a member of the Street Socceroos team, who represented Australia at the Homeless World Cup earlier in the year in Seoul, South Korea. Michael shared how profoundly street soccer had changed his life. It helped him overcome drug addiction, secure stable housing and find a sense of community. It was a critical factor for managing the stresses that he faced.</para>
<para>Michael's story is not unique. In fact, an incredible 98 per cent of people surveyed through the street soccer program reported having a more positive outlook on life, while 96 per cent said they felt motivated to improve or maintain their physical and mental health. Participants also showed significant improvements in accessing education, housing and employment.</para>
<para>Many of us are familiar with the Big Issue and their outstanding work helping people experiencing homelessness find employment. By selling the Big Issue magazine, individuals can earn a meaningful income and gain valuable work experience. Many of us will be familiar with the vendors around our cities all around Australia. It's also a fantastic magazine—and I'll just do a quick plug for their 2025 calendars that they're selling at the moment, which would make a great Christmas present as well. Since 1996, this work has had a profound impact, putting $35 million into the pockets of Australians experiencing disadvantage. Their subscription service also provides employment opportunities for women experiencing disadvantage, offering a critical pathway to financial independence.</para>
<para>Despite the great work done by organisations like Big Issue, homelessness remains a serious issue in Australia. Current estimates from the Australian Human Rights Commission reveal that one in 200 Australians lacks a safe, secure or affordable place to sleep each night. There are of course many reasons why people find themselves in this situation. Poverty, unemployment, and a shortage of affordable housing are major factors. However, the leading cause of homelessness is domestic and family violence.</para>
<para>According to Homelessness Australia, 45 per cent of women and girls experiencing homelessness cite domestic violence as the primary reason for their situation. Older women face particularly high rates of homelessness, often due to domestic violence compounded by systemic issues such as lower lifetime earnings and inadequate superannuation, leaving them financially vulnerable in retirement. Shockingly, one-third of people experiencing homelessness at any given time are young people under the age of 18. These young Australians often face insurmountable barriers to securing long-term accommodation, especially when family circumstances force them to the streets.</para>
<para>Experiencing homelessness is devastating, with profound impacts on mental and physical health. It disrupts education, creates gaps in employment and forces people to live without an income for extended periods. The longer someone is homeless the harder it becomes for them to break the cycle.</para>
<para>We have a responsibility to support people through these challenging periods and ensure that they have the help they need to rebuild their lives. Our government is increasing funding for homelessness services and advancing an ambitious housing agenda to ensure affordable housing is available for those who need it most. I am proud that we have adopted the National Housing and Homelessness Plan to address this issue, but there is always more work to be done.</para>
<para>Importantly, the impact of initiatives like street soccer demonstrates the critical role communities play in improving lives. But it's so important that governments are right behind them, laying the foundations to fight against poverty and the circumstances that lead people into homelessness.</para>
<para>Across Australia and the world, street soccer has empowered thousands of players to reconnect with society, find stability and take steps towards a brighter future. It was wonderful to meet with some of them this morning. I wish all the people involved with Big Issue and the vendors in my electorate of Canberra and around Australia the very best with what they're doing and encourage everyone next time they see one of the vendors to pick up a copy of the magazine or the great 2025 calendar.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>8208</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>8208</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 20 November 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mrs Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:29.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>8210</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>8210</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week was Remembrance Day, and I was privileged to attend Forestville RSL Club in my electorate of Mackellar to honour service men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. Our veterans deserve more than remembrance. They need far greater support than they are currently receiving, particularly during the often difficult transition from service to civilian life. As a GP, I'm aware of the devastating impact service may have on the lives of veterans. There may be physical wounds and there may be deep psychological wounds. The transition to civilian life can often be extremely challenging because of the loss of community, camaraderie, supports and routine.</para>
<para>We have just seen the completion of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and, in the last sitting week, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill passed through this House, but on the ground, in Mackellar, veterans often still lack the support they need. They lack simple things, like adequate support for health services.</para>
<para>As an example, a number of physiotherapists in Mackellar have written to me to explain what is, really, an unacceptable situation. Currently, Department of Veterans' Affairs reimbursement rates are insufficient to cover the actual cost of physio care, leaving physios unable to provide critical services such as pain management, rehabilitation, falls prevention and musculoskeletal treatments without financial loss. These services are essential to veterans' physical and mental wellbeing, as noted by the royal commission, which highlighted the impact of chronic pain on mental health. Many physios, out of their compassion and commitment to the veteran community, have continued to provide care despite being out of pocket. However, this underfunding and reliance on physios' goodwill is not sustainable and will compromise veterans' access to this important aspect of their health care. The Australian Physiotherapy Association suggests aligning DVA rebates with the NDIS fee schedule to ensure fair compensation for physiotherapy services. I have written to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and urged him to act to ensure our veterans are getting the health support they deserve.</para>
<para>I would also like to take this opportunity to make a shout-out to the fabulous Saltwater Veterans, whose core vision is to cultivate a connected community of veterans and their families through engagement with water activities. The Saltwater Veterans Sailing Project is all about supporting fellow wounded, injured and sick veterans and their family and friends. If you are a veteran, get on down to the Royal Prince Alfred Yacht Club in Newport, on Sydney's northern beaches, and join and support this terrific endeavour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory: Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>8210</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In a sobering public statement on 15 October 2024, following the latest senseless killing—this time out at Lajamanu—Assistant Commissioner Travis Wurst of the Northern Territory Police Force echoed the thoughts of many of us. He said of the continuing deaths:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… that tragedy is one that the Northern Territory cannot ignore—seven matters are being investigated by the Northern Territory police as domestic homicides since 1 June of this year …</para></quote>
<para>A further death happened last week in Katherine, with a woman dying at the hands of her partner.</para>
<para>The new CLP government has a mandate to address crime issues. They would no doubt say that it is a matter for them as to how they go about doing that, but, when it comes to revisiting legislation, it was surprising to me that it was not a priority step to reinstate the sentencing arrangements—which have been in place, under both Labor and CLP governments, for many years—for breaching domestic violence orders. The rule was very simple and straightforward: there was a minimum mandatory sentence for breaching a domestic violence order, and it could not be doubled up with any other sentence imposed on the offender.</para>
<para>This is not to say that enforcing the law in relation to breaching DVOs is, in itself, going to stop domestic homicides, but it is about sending a message. What message are we sending out there if sentences for breaching DVOs can get buried in and made meaningless by the imposition of concurrent sentences for some other offences? I've written to the Chief Minister, proposing a number of things, and said that we would work with her to try and address this increasing rate of Aboriginal women dying, in a terrible way, by their partners. It has to stop.</para>
<para>Lastly, there is a rallying call to men to say: it has to stop. On Monday 25 November in Darwin and on 5 December in Alice Springs, Aboriginal men and male leaders right throughout the Northern Territory will come together to say: we have to be the solution, not the problem. These deaths have to stop. We have to do everything in our power, whether it's federally or with state or local government, to stop these deaths.</para>
<para>It's surprising—and it shouldn't be surprising—that not one of these women's faces or names get lit up in the media when they die at the hands of their domestic partner. That is a crime in itself—that nobody sees the urgency in these deaths, which are increasing throughout the Northern Territory.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>8211</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In a recent conversation with a good friend, I was told the bipartisan support for a social media ban for kids under 16 was a bad move. 'It should be up to families to govern access to social media,' he said. It's a fair and reasonable point, one with which, on a matter of principle, I would normally agree, but today's culture of breakneck busy parenting makes that a painfully optimistic view. Families do not govern access to social media. Parents are flat chat working two jobs to cover their surging mortgage repayments, and, in Melbourne, 36 weeks of digital homeschooling smashed all semblance of digital diet moderation.</para>
<para>From the time Facebook and Instagram introduced the 'like' button, creating an immediate dopamine loop, social media's maxim has been user engagement. The addictive qualities of these attributes get their richest rewards from those whose prefrontal cortex, regulating human impulses and driving reasoning, is as yet underdeveloped—those who are under 20. To capture an audience, each scroll or autoplay serves up slightly more scintillating or extreme versions of whatever it is the user wanted to watch. This is why, as Reset Tech was able to prove recently, a teenage boy will move from a self-actualisation motivational talk by Jordon Peterson to violent misogynistic content from Andrew Tate within 70 minutes of scrolling. With each autoplay, the content just gets more scintillating or more extreme.</para>
<para>According to the Australian Gaming and Screen Alliance, the average Australian child spends nine hours a day on screen-based leisure time—nine hours a day! We need to think about the opportunity cost of those nine hours. In <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">he</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Anxious</inline><inline font-style="italic">G</inline><inline font-style="italic">eneration</inline>, Jonathan Haidt talked about the loss of the play based childhood. In her work <inline font-style="italic">iGen</inline>, Jean Twenge's list was even longer: the loss of adequate sleep, physical health, face-to-face socialising and the rites of passage of adulthood, including getting a job or a car licence or even a boyfriend or a girlfriend. As Haidt argues in his other works, we have entered an era of 'safetyism', thinking that kids are safer on the couch with their digital toys than at the shopping centre or on the footy field, but they are not safer. The Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society heard evidence of the real harm done by social media, and it was nothing short of heartbreaking. I recommend to all the testimony of parents Ali Halkic, Dany Elachi, Emma Mason and Wayne Holdsworth.</para>
<para>Young people will of course protest—they want their online lives—but the world will not end. Children will go back to being children, and maybe, in time, social media platforms will take their responsibility to our children more seriously. It will right; I am confident. There will be ethical social media one day, as the French postulate in their <inline font-style="italic">Enfants et ecrans</inline> report, released earlier this year, but we will not get there without some form of regulation. Leave things as they are, with the huge profit that comes from commodifying our kids and their concentration, and we will just get more of what we have today: social media that is driving our children to distraction and stupidity at best and to real harm at worst, via bullying, sextortion, scams and fraud as well as radicalisation, extremism, child sexual abuse and other illegal activity. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory: Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>8211</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Community mental health, including youth and veterans mental health, is a matter that's very close to my heart. I'm committed to delivering hubs in my electorate of Solomon that engage and support youth and veterans. We delivered a veterans and families hub last year, with the opening of the Mates4Mates Veteran and Family Wellbeing Centre in Stuart Park, and there are outreach services to Palmerston. Previously, there was an interim wellbeing centre in Palmerston. This centre in Darwin provides vital services to veterans and their families in the Top End.</para>
<para>I look forward to working with the NT government to realise our government's funding commitments to deliver the Darwin Youth and Community Hub in Casuarina and the Scott Palmer Services Centre in Marrara. We are investing $5 million to build the youth engagement hub in Casuarina, and the NT government will provide ongoing operational funding and the land. The hub is another step closer, with the recent removal of the old Casuarina Fire Station, and that part of the project is almost complete. I'm absolutely delighted to see this progress on the Casuarina Youth Engagement Hub. However, there's much work to do still, and there should be no delays. This hub will provide vital support for young Territorians. The design and consultation work has been done, so better support and facilities for our young people should not be far away.</para>
<para>I'm also committed to working with the NT government to deliver the Scott Palmer Services Centre. Scott Palmer was a commando and the only Territorian killed in the conflict in Afghanistan. He tragically lost his life in a helicopter crash on Monday 21 June 2010. Scott's parents, Ray and Pam Palmer, have turned their grief from losing their son into a passion for assisting veterans not just in the Northern Territory but around our nation. The Scott Palmer centre will support veterans and first responders who either are homeless or are at risk of homelessness. The Albanese Labor government committed $3.6 million for this supported housing hub for veterans and first responders in Darwin, at the site of the old Darwin North RSL, and the NT government committed $300,000 to make the site ready for the handover and for construction to begin.</para>
<para>I look forward to working with the NT government on these very important projects for young Territorians and for Territory veterans.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>8212</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to welcome the important body of work undertaken by Frontier Economics and recently released by the shadow minister for climate change and energy. It's a very important contribution to public policy and, frankly, something that is also highly alarming and concerning because what it has revealed is that the current government's plans for this country's energy generation into the future, which they claim would cost a little over $100 billion, will in fact cost more than $600 billion—thanks to this independent analysis from Frontier Economics. We welcome that important clarification, and that is on the record and is not being disputed in any academic, significant or scientific way by anyone that knows anything about this topic.</para>
<para>In fact, Frontier Economics have quite a heritage in working for Labor governments, and they are very highly respected by those Labor governments. Mr Danny Price, the founder of Frontier Economics, is a very consistent adviser to the South Australian Labor government, in my home state. Both former premier Jay Weatherill and current premier Peter Malinauskas have engaged him to undertake major analysis and consultations for them when they've been undertaking significant policy development related to energy. So it's no surprise to me, given Danny Price is such a consistent adviser to Peter Malinauskas, that the current premier is such a consistent advocate for nuclear. Indeed, it was just a few months ago that Premier Peter Malinauskas made this important point:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm okay with the presence of a nuclear industry within our country and I mean more broadly, I actually firmly believe that nuclear power is a necessary part of the global energy mix if we're going to achieve net zero.</para></quote>
<para>And the Labor Premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas, is not a Johnny-come-lately to this debate, either. In fact, before he was in the parliament, he was a very consistent advocate for nuclear energy in this country. When he was the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association state secretary—this is back in 2014—he said the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I believe climate change is a real challenge we need to face up to, and nuclear energy can be a safe source of base load power, with zero carbon emissions. Thus, I find it contradictory and irresponsible when I see the Greens and environmentalists outright opposing nuclear power.</para></quote>
<para>That's the view of the Labor Party in my home state of South Australia. Whilst I don't make a habit of agreeing with the South Australian Labor government, I do on this issue. Peter Malinauskas is quite right; we do need nuclear power in this country. It's a vital part of securing our energy security into the future, and I commend him for his bravery in standing up to Anthony Albanese and his petty opposition to nuclear.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Rights</title>
          <page.no>8212</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, the member for Hughes came into the chamber to question the government's advocacy for women and girls around the world. Her statement was factually incorrect, politically motivated and deeply offensive, so let me set the record straight. The Albanese Labor government has a proud record of advocating for the rights of women and girls both at home and abroad. We believe that the women and girls of Afghanistan deserve the full enjoyment of their human rights. That is why we have taken unprecedented action to hold the Taliban to account for its violation of obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.</para>
<para>The Albanese government was the first Australian government to sanction Iran for the oppression of women and girls. I remind the member for Hughes that this government successfully advocated to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The former coalition government was silent when Iran was elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. For the women and girls in the Middle East, the Albanese government has consistently condemned Hamas for their actions and called for the release of hostages.</para>
<para>In October last year, both houses passed a bipartisan motion that unequivocally condemned the attacks on Israel by Hamas and their targeting of women and girls. It is a shame that the member for Hughes did not pay attention to this important debate at the time. When the foreign minister went to Israel, she met with the chair of Israel's civil commission on the October 7 crimes committed by Hamas against women and children, where she again condemned Hamas's use of sexual violence as a weapon. In this debate, the only hypocrisy comes from the Liberals who refuse to acknowledge the humanitarian crisis Palestinian civilians are facing—men, women, girls and boys.</para>
<para>There is a little girl born today who will never know physical safety, who will never be able to go to school, who will be forced into marriage at 14 and who will not be afforded the opportunities given to little girls in Australia. Her wings will be clipped because of the country she was born in. Grandstanding speeches from the member for Hughes will not help that little girl, won't end the cycle of violence in the Middle East, won't bring justice to women and girls in Afghanistan and won't help women in Iran, but the consistent hard work of this government will.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moncrieff Electorate: Volunteering</title>
          <page.no>8213</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A cost-of-living crisis, increased energy costs, higher interest rates and soaring inflation have made this year a tough one for Australians. In 2024, we've seen the cost of all essentials rise by at least 10 per cent and the standard of living in our great country simply go backwards. Australians are poorer under this government and are feeling the pinch as we enter the festive season. Through what has been a particularly challenging year, our dedicated community leaders in Moncrieff continue to step up to support Gold Coasters in addressing their needs.</para>
<para>I want to thank the many community groups that serve Moncrieff through what has been a particularly challenging year. The volunteer work of our dedicated community leaders in Moncrieff, St John's Crisis Centre, Serving our People, Havafeed and OzHarvest, has eased the burden and brightened the world for so many locals. The Frizelle Foundation, the Gold Coast Community Fund, the Ray White Surfers Paradise Ball Muscular Dystrophy Charity Ball, the Abedian Foundation, and so many more have donated and fundraised to help those less fortunate. Thank you for always going above and beyond to provide critical support for those who suffer food insecurity, homelessness, and domestic violence or abuse. In the lead-up to and over the festive season, there becomes a heightened need for this support. As your federal member and someone who cares deeply about everybody in Moncrieff, I thank you for all the work that you do. I also want to thank the Moncrieff community cabinet made up of community and faith leaders and the Gold Coast Youth Cabinet for your commitment and dedication to Gold Coasters.</para>
<para>I acknowledge our Gold Coast business leaders, the great captains of our engine room, for your resilience this year in the face of significant uncertainty, rising costs, and a Labor government actively working against you. I thank the nine surf clubs in Moncrieff and their volunteers, Southport, Surfers Paradise, Northcliffe, Broadbeach, Kurrawa, Mermaid Beach and Nobby's Beach, Miami Surf Club and North Burleigh, for the integral role you play within our coastal community and ahead of time for the big hours that you'll put in over the Christmas break and summer holidays to keep us all safe between the flags.</para>
<para>The good people of Moncrieff, I admire you greatly and I admire your determination, discipline, hard work, good humour and, of course, dedication to your families and our communities. It continues to be a great privilege and honour to represent you in this place. May you all have a very safe and merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year for 2025. I look forward—particularly in the coming months—to seeing you out and about in our beautiful electorate at engagements and events across Moncrieff.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Milpera State High School</title>
          <page.no>8213</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are 50 schools in Moreton, one I particularly love to visit is Milpera, because they produce people like Corporal Husham Hamid, who is here in the chamber. He was born in Egypt of parents from Sudan and then ended up in the Australian Army. Milpera educates the children of refugees and people from migrant backgrounds. It's essentially Brisbane's intensive English language preparation centre. Milpera aims to facilitate good settlement and a strong sense of belonging through carefully chosen learning experiences. Students learn how to thrive in an Australian classroom. In some cases, these children have never, ever been inside a classroom or taken any formal education classes in their first language or even their second language.</para>
<para>The teachers at Milpera are very experienced and qualified to teach English as an additional language. Milpera also has a number of bilingual teacher aides, who provide cultural support as well as helping students with their acquisition of English. Children learn the ways of working in an Australian classroom through the school's key values of being hardworking, respectful, kind and ready for learning. The student centred curriculum uses highly contextualised language learning experiences and ensures that students develop the English language needed for their future learning pathways, whether that be in the Army or other directions.</para>
<para>The school has also developed one of the Queensland Department of Education's largest volunteer teams. Children spend about 18 months at Milpera, on average, before they are then able to attend a school closer to home, such as Yeronga State High School. I went to Milpera for their recent NAIDOC Week celebrations and had a quick talk with acting principal Julie Peel. She introduced me to two students, Ang and Rachel. Ang had arrived from Vietnam and Rachel from France via Canada. Ang and Rachel took me through a PowerPoint they'd prepared as part of their assessment to build an argument and convince the audience of their point of view. Ang and Rachael had carefully structured their arguments and provided well-researched evidence to support their points of view in their new language, English.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> of Representatives</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 09:52 to 10:05</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>After meeting Ang and Rachel, we then joined Milpera's NAIDOC Week celebrations. It was wonderful to see the voices of our oldest living culture speaking as well as this nation's newest voices. To quote the poem: 'Irrespective of where my ancestral village is, the earth feeds the heart—great affection for there, loyalty to here. To tell people they can't serve two masters starts with the assumption that they are a servant. The free serve no-one. The good ones help all but serve nobody.' Thank you, Milpera. Thank you very much to Ang and Rachel. Thank you, Milpera, for a wonderful experience at NAIDOC and for all the many students you have turned out over the years, including for giving us Corporal Husham Hamid, who I hope will go on to have a long, healthy career in the ADF and not be scarred by his time here at parliament.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Morocco</title>
          <page.no>8214</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Between the dates of 27 October and 2 November, I was given the great privilege as co-chair of the friends of Morocco at the request of the Moroccan government to lead a delegation to Morocco. One of the reasons I am signed up to be a friend of Morocco is that I had the privilege of visiting the country before I entered parliament, in fact. What I saw there at that stage was quite impressive, but I was very much more impressed with what I saw on our trip back to Morocco just a couple of weeks ago. It is a vibrant democracy and, I would say without any shadow of a doubt in my mind, the most successful democracy in the Arab world. It's enlightened. It's led by a vibrant parliament and a very enlightened king, Mohammed VI. They are a very tolerant society, where women are encouraged in education, in the workforce, in management and in parliament, and they have very good representation. It is wonderful to see that in a predominantly Muslim nation in a fairly troubled part of the world. I think they set a wonderful example.</para>
<para>They are having huge investment in education and training. We visited some of their facilities. They have a free trade agreement with Europe. In 2012, Renault opened a car factory near Tangier, where they now make 340,000 units a year. Most of them are going directly back into the EU tariff free, of course. They built a port, Tanger Med, which they opened in 2007. It is now the biggest port in the Mediterranean. It's shifting nine million containers a year. As a result of that, they are building another port down at Laayoune, which is in the contested area of the Western Sahara. Morocco would like our support, along with 100 other countries around the world, to recognise their autonomous administration there. They are building a third port in eastern Morocco on the Mediterranean.</para>
<para>I'm indebted to the help of Madam Wassane Zailachi, the ambassador here in Australia. The Moroccans have asked that we try and get the government moving in the way of free trade agreement with Morocco. Subsequently, since I've come back, I have written on behalf of the delegation, which included the member for Adelaide, to ask the trade minister, Don Farrell, to open those negotiations. Verbally, I think Steve Georganas has had advice that he will be open to that, but I'll looking forward to pushing forward with that agenda.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>8214</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to give voice to my community—to their grief, their horror, their distress, their sorrow and their anger. As I have before, today I speak of Gaza. It has been over a year of deliberate, targeted and unrelenting carnage. Let me be clear: there is no possible justification for what has happened, for the tens of thousands of deaths that have occurred in the past year alone. I condemn the Netanyahu government's senseless murder of innocent civilians, of innocent children. I repeat: there is no justification for the murder of children. I condemn Netanyahu's wanton destruction that has killed aid workers and journalists. I condemn the barbaric campaign that is set on ensuring the utter annihilation of the Palestinian people. The Netanyahu government has blocked humanitarian aid. They've locked down the borders, trapping those trying to flee. They've cut off access to the most basic of human needs—food and water.</para>
<para>Israel cannot be allowed to continue their campaign against the Palestinians or the people of Lebanon. I call on the Netanyahu government to cease all hostilities immediately, withdraw all troops and instate a ceasefire. This is the bare minimum that must be done right now—today. This is what the people in my community are asking for. I've had many conversations with residents. Last week, I spoke with a community representative, Julie Karraki. Overall, their message is that they feel a sense of powerlessness and that they are not being listened to. They see unimaginable suffering occurring and they need it to stop. Suffering is suffering, whether you see it 12 kilometres away or 12,000.</para>
<para>I thank everyone in my community who has contacted me and spoken to me about this. I recognise and admire that, in spite of their feelings of despair, they believe they can make a difference, the world should make a difference and they need their voices to be heard. They still believe they do, indeed, have a say in this country. I'm honoured to represent them and say with their voice that we all—the whole world—must do better and must represent them. The only path forward is for the Netanyahu government to stop now, for justice to be administered and for the implementation of a Palestinian state, with Israel and Palestine equal partners in the area.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8215</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8215</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7276" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8215</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've seen someone rise to power in the US trying to get around the legal system, ignoring the courts and punching down on migrants. That sort of politics makes the world a worse place. The Migration Amendment Bill, though, is part of that race to the bottom on migration that we are seeing from Liberal and Labor. This bill builds on the cruel regime of offshore detention and processing that started over a decade ago, deliberately subjecting thousands of people to torturous conditions.</para>
<para>The High Court found in YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs that the government cannot inflict punitive conditions—like ankle monitors and curfews—on people recently released from detention. Instead of listening to the courts and listening to the rule of law, the government sought not only to get around the courts but also to introduce sweeping changes to the migration system.</para>
<para>This bill will effectively allow governments to bribe other countries to take people that Australia is forcibly removing from Australia. Someone can be removed to a third country when they are without a visa or on a bridging visa R, a BVR, and cannot return to their country of origin. That is thousands of people. This law cannibalises part of Labor's failed Trump-style travel ban bill. In particular, it allows the government to force people to choose between indefinite detention or forced removal to a third country where they have no rights or protections. Based on past practices, these third countries are likely to be Nauru, PNG or even Cambodia. It could be countries with very poor human rights records and indeed where it can be a criminal offence to identify as LGBTIQ+.</para>
<para>Many other countries would point to laws like this to legitimately criticise Australia's human rights protections. Once people are deported to that third country, there are no protections, and the country does not even need to be a signatory to the refugee convention. It would even be lawful under this bill for people to be deported to a third country only to be placed in jail or immigration detention immediately on arrival. It is most definitely not a requirement of this bill that people are given work or other basic rights on arrival.</para>
<para>In fact, the only protections in this bill are for the decision-makers, who cannot be held liable for sending people to third countries even if they are aware it is likely to cause them serious harm. That's what this bill does. It provides immunity for the government and decision-makers to send someone to another country even if they are aware it is likely to cause that person serious harm. You know that the government is about to do something very bad when a large part of the bill is dedicated to making sure that people cannot be held to account for the decisions they are making. We've already seen in the context of Nauru and PNG that Australia effectively bribes third countries to commit what on any reasonable interpretation are human rights abuses on Australia's behalf, and it has lasting damage on people—to the people we send there but also to political and moral standards here.</para>
<para>This bill also gives the government the unrestricted ability to share criminal records with any other government to help facilitate the removal of people to third countries. This means you could have a situation where someone could flee Saudi Arabia because they criminalise homosexuality there, only to have the Australian government force that person into a third country that also criminalises homosexuality and share their criminal record. All of that is now permissible under this bill. That is what people are voting on here.</para>
<para>There are principles that we in the Greens hold dear and that most people in this country, I think, would hold dear. When someone commits an offence, they go to court, and the judge decides what happens. That is how the law works, and it only works because everyone is treated the same. The government here, though, wants to create a new quasi-legal system to allow politicians and bureaucrats to punish people outside the courts. That is a clear threat to the rule of law in this country.</para>
<para>Just this week, I met with people who were subjected to the cruel and unfair fast-track system. This system was abolished because Labor worked with the Greens to end it. However, those who were failed by that system remain in limbo, without a pathway to permanency. I met someone who came here alone as a child more than a decade ago. The government prevents him from studying. I met another man who was working in construction, building homes, and then, out of nowhere, the government stopped renewing his visa, and he has been unable to work. Under this bill, that person, who fled a country fearing persecution, lived here for more than a decade, worked here and paid taxes, can now be forced to choose between detention forever or forcible removal to a country like PNG or Nauru. That's what this bill does.</para>
<para>The government, we know, will try to demonise and dehumanise migrants and refugees when passing this bill. But make no mistake: the people who will be punished are those like the people rejected from fast-track—people who, in many instances, want nothing more than to live here and live a good life for themselves and their families. For this reason, we support the member for Wentworth's amendments, which seek to address some of the bills cruellest aspects such as reducing who can be forcibly removed. However, we still reject the fundamental assumptions that this bill makes that the government is able to extrajudicially punish people. The High Court made it clear that the law needs to be applied equally to everyone, no matter where you come from, and you cannot have bureaucrats and politicians punishing people outside the courts. That's what the High Court decided.</para>
<para>It does not need to be this way—as is set out in the legislation. The Greens are asking Labor to work with us to protect multicultural Australia and to stop the fear and division around migrants and refugees. For example, it was very concerning to hear even the minister for immigration in question time yesterday giving repetition to the argument pushed by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow people who are unable to find a home have migrants to blame. We are witnessing a very distressing race to the bottom again at this election where Labor and the Liberals outcompete each other as to who can punish migrants more. We have seen this happen at previous elections. One of the things about the Leader of the Opposition is that, when it comes to punching down on migrants, he'll just keep going.</para>
<para>I urge Labor to stop joining in this race to the bottom, because it's a race you can never win, and it will hurt multicultural Australia. It will hurt migrants and refugees. The only way to take on those who seek to demonise migrants and refugees is to stand firm on principle, including on the principle of the rule of law and the principles of multiculturalism. This election could be a very dirty and distressing race to the bottom on migration, and it looks like it's going that way. This bill is another example of that. You don't beat the politics of Dutton and Trump by rolling over; you beat it by holding firm to core principles.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment Bill 2024. Many of my constituents deeply care about our international obligations when it comes to people coming to Australia seeking protection. Over my years as the member for Indi, they have continuously urged me to say to parliament that refugees are welcome here. I'm concerned that the bill before us does not send this message. For this and other reasons, I will be opposing it.</para>
<para>In speaking to this bill, it's important to be reminded of the context in which it was introduced. It was introduced in response to the High Court's decision to strike down the government's legislation that was passed following their decision in the NZYQ case. It said that the government could not indefinitely detain noncitizens. In response to the NZYQ decision, the government, with the support of the opposition, rushed legislation through parliament that meant that any person released from indefinite detention must be subject to ankle bracelets and a curfew. I opposed this legislation at the time, in part because I had concerns whether it would withstand a High Court challenge. It turns out that I was right to be concerned, because the High Court then considered the case of YBFZ, an Iranian released following the NZYQ decision who was subjected to these restrictive curfew and ankle bracelet conditions. As it found with NZYQ, the High Court found in the case of YBFZ that the government is once again breaching constitutional principles of the separation of powers by imposing punishment on individuals when this is solely within the remit of the courts. Once again the government have received a High Court decision that doesn't suit them, and once again they are introducing legislation that seeks to get them out of this problem.</para>
<para>I will address a number of themes in this bill that I have a significant concerns about. Firstly, there are the provisions that are relevant to the NZYQ cohort and the recent High Court decision. Under the bill, the minister can still impose ankle bracelets and curfew conditions, but he must first be satisfied that the imposition of these conditions is necessary to protect the Australian community from serious harm. This is an improvement on the previous legislation, and I very much accept that some of the released individuals may indeed pose a risk to community safety, and we absolutely must respond to this risk. However, legal experts have expressed views that the legislation may not resolve the issue of whether the imposition of the curfew and monitoring conditions is punitive or reasonably necessary. Constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey is quoted as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's fairly likely someone will challenge it, and there is a reasonable chance it will be struck down.</para></quote>
<para>I cannot in good faith support a bill unlikely to withstand yet another High Court challenge. It is important to remind ourselves that every High Court challenge to government legislation costs a significant amount of taxpayer dollars. I must be able to satisfy myself that the legislation I'm voting on is protected as much as possible from this occurring, and, right now, I cannot assure myself of this in this particular case.</para>
<para>I now want to move to the other provisions of the bill that really have nothing to do with NZYQ and YBFZ. First, under the bill there are now broad powers for the minister to reverse a protection finding. Just sit with that. This is a deeply concerning issue. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… refugees who have been living in our community for years can be exposed to deportation …</para></quote>
<para>This includes people who have Australian citizen family members.</para>
<para>Second, the bill provides expansive powers for the Australian government to deport people to unspecified third countries. The minister says this is about deporting people who have no legal right to be in Australia. I seriously question which people we're talking about. Under the bill, we're not just talking about people that have criminal records. We're potentially talking about a much wider group of people, including people that have lived in and contributed to the Australian community many years. It could include people that haven't been found to be owed protection, because they've been subject to the extremely flawed fast-track process. Further, under the bill the government can now pay countries to take people they're deported to. This could create a very real risk of a new offshore warehousing program. If the Australian public want to know how much the government is spending to do this, that will only be revealed by freedom-of-information requests or Senate estimates hearings. I've got real concerns about ensuring the transparency of such a use of taxpayer money.</para>
<para>Third, I'm concerned about provisions in the bill that give the Commonwealth civil liability immunity. This goes beyond a long-held principle that the government should be subject to the same liabilities as any individual. The Commonwealth has previously paid significant amounts of compensation for actions that have taken place in regional processing countries. While the amendments are prospective and do not extinguish claims for conduct that's already occurred, they will—make no mistake—significantly limit the rights of persons in immigration detention to seek compensation from the Commonwealth in the future. According to recent research conducted by the University of New South Wales, the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder was 20 times higher for people held in offshore detention. But, if this bill passes, these people will have no legal rights to ensure the Commonwealth is responsible for causing this harm.</para>
<para>Since this bill was introduced, constituents have written to me, urging me to oppose it. One constituent said, 'This bill is a continuation of the dehumanising treatment of people seeking asylum who, through no fault of their own, are unable to safely return to their own country.' Another wrote to me: 'In this bill, it appears the major parties are competing with each other in their efforts to be the most hardline.' And another said: 'Both major parties pursue this unconscionable abuse of the world's most vulnerable people for political pointscoring. It's confounding.'</para>
<para>When considering this bill, I am also reminded of the tireless work of Rural Australians for Refugees, who have chapters right across my electorate of Indi. Through their work and, more importantly, through their actions they've supported refugees through fundraising and sponsorship. I know that many Australians, like these constituents of mine, are compassionate and humane. They expect their government to be the same. But, with this bill, their expectations are not being met. I urge the government to consider amendments to the bill to ensure it is consistent with their objective of removing serious offenders from Australia, as they have stated, and not just any noncitizen. I also urge the Senate to send this bill to a full inquiry for adequate scrutiny so that we can understand the full impact of these proposed laws. Until I see improvements and understand this impact, I will not be supporting this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I start by thoroughly agreeing with the member for Indi that the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 should go to a Senate committee. That's the position we have outlined. The lead speaker, the member for Wannon, made it clear that in principle we hope to support this bill if it indeed does what the government claims it will, but regrettably the government have made these claims before and this is a subsequent piece legislation they are bringing into this place.</para>
<para>It's nearly 12 months after the NZYQ decision was handed down last November and we still don't have a proper legislative framework in place to deal with dangerous, hardened criminals who are out there reoffending against Australians as we speak. The November decision of the High Court was thoroughly foreseen in comments by Justice Gleeson months earlier in the High Court which clearly foreshadowed that there was a risk that this decision would be made and that the High Court would go down this path on the current arrangements that are in place to keep detained dangerous people who have had their visas cancelled, some of them child sex offenders and rapists and all sorts of heinous criminals, who we don't want to this country, who don't deserve to be in this country, who don't follow the laws of this country and who are not safe to be on the streets of this country.</para>
<para>Regrettably, despite a great deal of warning via Justice Gleeson's commentary months before, the government was completely flat-footed and caught completely by surprise when that decision was handed down and we immediately had hundreds of people let out onto the streets. Regrettably, the most tragic episodes in this whole sorry saga of government incompetence are the Australian victims of the reoffending of these criminals because they were released by this government. The government have tried to claim that they had to do it because of the High Court decision. We happen to be debating a year later legislation that they're claiming will fix this problem. Why weren't we debating it the day this decision was handed down? Why wasn't the now sacked minister on his game, on his brief, and having his department properly preparing this legislation which now we are told will address the issues of releasing these criminals into Australian society? Why was this bill not ready to go the day on which that decision was handed down? It is because of the complete incompetence and uselessness of the now removed minister from that portfolio.</para>
<para>This is why we have got a great deal of scepticism and concern in just taking the government at their word on these matters when they say, 'This legislation is going to address these issues.' They've said that before in this House. I concede that other members have made the comment that there are legal scholars making commentary about the risk of this being struck down again by the High Court and having constitutional issues. The previous speaker mentioned that we shouldn't be passing legislation through this chamber when we think it has a risk of being unconstitutional, which is an excellent point and is why people shouldn't have supported the misinformation and disinformation bill going through this parliament. That is the piece of legislation that has the highest chance of being struck down by the High Court as being unconstitutional. But, thankfully, that looks like it has Buckley's and none of passing the Senate.</para>
<para>We would like to see a proper Senate inquiry into this legislation because we're sick of passing legislation that the government says is going to protect Australians that subsequently fails to do so. There have been innocent Australians that have been victims of these awful criminals that were let back out into the community because of this government's incompetence.</para>
<para>We don't want to see legislation that doesn't achieve what it claims to, which is the track record of this government in this area of policy, and again let down the people of this country and leave them unsafe. We don't want to look at any more victims on the front pages of newspapers with black and blue faces, because someone that shouldn't be out on the streets in the Australian community has offended against them, because this government can't keep these people where they should be—off the streets and away from innocent Australians.</para>
<para>We are not standing in the way of the passage of this bill through the House of Representatives, and, of course, hopefully—there's a first time for everything—the government is right this time when they say that this legislation will address the enormous loopholes that have opened up which are letting these awful criminals walk the streets and offend against innocent Australians. But we do need to test this through a Senate inquiry because we've been told all this before and have been let down by this government making commitments about legislation that was meant to achieve the protection of Australian citizens in our society but failed to do so.</para>
<para>We commend the second reading through the House. In the Senate, we will be supporting a full inquiry into this legislation to properly probe and understand that it is indeed going to do what the government claims it will.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment Bill 2024. Just on 12 months ago, the High Court of Australia handed down a unanimous judgement in a case that is now known as the NZYQ case, confirming that detention is a form of punishment and indefinite detention of people is unlawful and unconstitutional. Given Australia's long history of political bipartisanship around the horrendous offshoring of those seeking refuge in our country, the court's finding was welcomed as a watershed moment in Australian legal history.</para>
<para>It could have been a watershed moment for immigration policy and this nation, more broadly. It could have been a critical juncture to interrogate the double standards that this country places on citizens compared to noncitizens, brown and black people compared to white. It could have been a moment to reflect on our treatment of noncitizens. Eleven years after reopening Australia's offshore processing regime, this could have been an opportunity to ask ourselves, how can we do better? Instead, the NZYQ case saw this government thrown into panic, rushing so-called emergency legislation to reinstate the status quo, and bowing to the opposition's political attacks and misleading narrative of community safety—I'm sorry, I'm going to start again, if I may.</para>
<para>Just on 12 months ago, the High Court of Australia handed down a unanimous judgement in a case that is now known as the NZYQ case, confirming that detention is a form of punishment and indefinite detention of people in this country is unlawful and unconstitutional. Given Australia's long history of political bipartisanship around the offshoring of those seeking refuge in our country, the court's finding was welcomed as a watershed moment in Australian legal history. It was a moment that should have seen our immigration system called more broadly to account and our government take the opportunity to reconcile itself with over 30 years of significant human rights breaches. Yet, rather than use this critical juncture to interrogate the double standards this country places on citizens compared to noncitizens, or to reflect on our treatment of noncitizens, immigrants and refugees, and the way politicians and the media have raged a campaign of relentless demonisation against them, the government, kowtowing to the opposition's political attacks and misleading narratives around community safety, was thrown into a state of panic and rushed through so-called emergency legislation to reinstate the status quo.</para>
<para>So 11 years after reopening Australia's offshore processing regime, we find ourselves yet again with a government determined to legislate its way around a legal finding. When it comes to almost any issue related to immigration in this country, the rhetoric that pours from the mouths of the people on both sides of this parliament is frequently abhorrent, and deliberately intended to support the ongoing operation of an egregious system that suits a political duopoly determined to frighten the masses into submission.</para>
<para>The laws introduced in response to the NZYQ case again attempt to criminalise and control people released from indefinite detention, forcing them to wear ankle monitors and follow curfews. Here we are again, with the High Court just last week ruling that these conditions are also an unlawful form of extrajudicial collective punishment. I know we shouldn't be surprised that, rather than accepting the legal finding of the High Court, we are here yet again debating a government's rushed attempt to ensure they can continue to impose their own political will, rather than abide by international law.</para>
<para>This bill not only seeks to reinstate monitoring conditions, including ankle monitoring and curfews, but also introduces sweeping power to deport thousands of people. According to the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, this bill would allow the government to send more people to third countries, give the government sweeping immunity from being sued by people harmed when deported, allow it to revisit protection findings—meaning people previously found to be refugees could be returned to their home country—and impose harsh visa conditions for those who do stay.</para>
<para>To be clear, the safety of the community should always be top of mind. As such, this nation urgently needs stronger measures to address violence both broadly and specifically against women. But we must not lose sight of the human rights considerations. We need sustainable, long-term solutions, not reactive and rushed responses that feed off fear, equate foreign bodies with criminality, danger and distrust and ultimately embed inequity, continuing to support an us-versus-them mindset. The way we protect the community from the risk of individuals who have committed serious violence or sexual offences should be the same whether those people are citizens or not.</para>
<para>With all of that said, the fact of the matter is that this bill uses the latest High Court finding to go even further in introducing wide-ranging powers. It creates powers for the minister and other officials to collect or share details of a person's criminal history, including sharing that information with foreign countries. To be clear, this is illegal. In fact, the bill overrides the state and territory laws that make it illegal and validates any unlawful sharing of information that may have little to no relevance to the current situation, as the offence may have been committed in the distant past. While the government pats itself on the back for recently reforming privacy protection, it is at the same time granting itself the powers to invade the privacy of noncitizens.</para>
<para>Additionally, the bill enables the government to enter arrangements with foreign countries that would see us pay them to accept deported bridging visa R holders. Under this system, the person's bridging visa R would automatically be cancelled as soon as they have permission to enter and remain in a third country. In context, there are more than 200 people in Australia on BVRs, many of whom were released from detention following the High Court's decision. Yet, for this arrangement to be pursued by the government, there is no requirement to prove these individuals pose a risk to the community. There's no requirement for a person to have any permanent right to reside in the country they are sent to; there's no guarantee of their safety. In fact, the third country could legally detain people or even return them to their home countries to face serious harm or persecution. All of this will be conveniently paid for from our public purse.</para>
<para>We know how horrific the conditions in detention centres like Nauru and Manus Island have been. In fact, Betelhem Tibebu, a human rights activist and former refugee in Nauru, described it as a place with no privacy and no safety. She lamented the fact that she could not see her family, and she had no hope for the future. Another former detainee declared: 'It's not offshore detention. It's not a processing centre. It's a suicide centre.' A recent study found that refugees detained offshore for any amount of time face a 20 times greater risk of PTSD and other mental health problems compared with asylum seekers who are detained onshore for less than six months. Ultimately, as someone who has long argued for our nation to not only abide and uphold but champion international humanitarian law, I and my community firmly believe that Australia's law should leave no room for the possibility of prolonged detention here or offshore. That is why I moved a private member's bill last year to limit immigration detention to 90 days and why I continue to call for an end to this inhumane practice.</para>
<para>I recently spoke to a group of refugees who have been failed by the government's fast-track system. One of them, Milad Makvandi, fled Iran 12 years ago to escape from an oppressive regime that puts its citizens' lives at risk. He's worked as a truck mechanic since coming to Australia, paid his taxes and employed others. Despite his contribution to the community, his asylum application has been rejected several times, and he is still awaiting the decision of the Federal Court. People like Milad deserve to be given a clear pathway to permanent residency. Instead, many on bridging visas fear they could have their visas cancelled or not renewed at any moment. Under this new legislation, they could even be transferred to a BVR, leaving them vulnerable to deportation to a third country, where they could suffer detention or other harms. Even if the government doesn't intend to use these powers against people like Milad, the fact is that this bill makes it possible.</para>
<para>The bill also grants powers to revisit and overturn protection findings for 'removal pathway noncitizens'. The definition of this group would initially apply to refugees on certain bridging visas but could also be extended to other visa classes in the future, threatening people who have been living in our communities for years. Refugee status should be durable and lasting, and not open to reversal at a government's whim. To add insult to injury, the bill contains measures that would give the government and immigration officials immunity from civil liability for their actions in deporting people. To be clear, these provisions protect the government against accountability for the harm that people suffer when they're sent offshore. That means, for example, that if someone was sent to Nauru and was assaulted, they would have no recourse to hold our government to account.</para>
<para>People held in offshore detention have limited options to have their voices heard and legal rights tested. One of the few paths available to them is the tort law system. As a consequence, refugees have rightly used tort law to hold our government to account for damages and breaches of duty of care. This includes the largest human rights settlement to date, which happened in 2017, between Manus Island detainees and the federal government, following claims of negligence and unlawful detention. In addition, dozens of refugees have secured court orders to be brought to Australia to access urgent life-saving treatment unavailable on Nauru or Manus Island. I've heard from legal practitioners in this area about cases where a former minister refused to act on medical advice to bring to Australia people who were at serious risk of death. Civil liability claims were often the only way to secure these people's transfer to Australia, where they received the medical care they needed. Many were hospitalised, not just for weeks but for months after they were transferred, and many are still ill now.</para>
<para>Human rights organisations have warned that the provisions in this bill would close the door to these pathways for legal recourse and even necessary medical care. It's telling that the government feels the need to ensure immunity from being sued by people harmed when deported. I can't help but feel that the government is the last public entity I would ever want to give complete immunity to.</para>
<para>Ultimately, this legislation raises a number of human rights issues. The bill's own statement of compatibility with human rights references infringements against the rights to liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention, the right to an effective remedy, rights relating to equality and discrimination, and many more. The statement of compatibility with human rights also explicitly mentions Australia's obligations arising from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Article 3 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No State Party shall expel, return … or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.</para></quote>
<para>It is frankly astonishing to see this passage being used in referencing a bill that the government is trying to rush through this House. In fact, many of the other rights listed, from privacy to equal treatment, would be equally trampled on by this legislation. The conclusion of the statement of compatibility says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To the extent that the measures in this Bill limit human rights, they do so in order to maintain the integrity of the migration system and protect the safety of the Australian community.</para></quote>
<para>Numerous human rights and refugee law experts in my community of North Sydney would argue otherwise. The measures contained in this bill must be thoroughly examined and debated to ensure Australia's immigration policies are just, humane and legal—an ambition that we would have to say is well beyond our reach in the current circumstances.</para>
<para>While it's good to see this bill being referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, it is unreasonable to expect that committee to report back on it within just one week, given the substance and potential ramifications of this bill and the current workload of this parliament. The bill deserves proper scrutiny, and the government needs to be held to account. Ultimately—let's be clear—we need real, long-term solutions for the challenges we face as a nation when it comes to managing migration. I fear that those things are not contained in this legislation, and I am almost certain that, 12 months from now, the parliament will be back on its feet debating yet more flawed legislation, which will result from the court challenges to this latest iteration. Our community deserves better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The first priority of this parliament is keeping the community safe. I acknowledge the community's deep concern about the release of detainees from the NZYQ cohort, following the High Court's decision on indefinite detention last year. I share that concern. It's absolutely appropriate for this House to take steps to protect the public from those who have committed very serious crimes in the past and those who may pose a risk to the public in the future. A few of the provisions in this bill go to this kind of community protection, but most do not, and it is on those that do not that I would like to focus my comments.</para>
<para>Having consulted with the legal experts and refugee advocates, I have three key concerns with this bill. First, this bill contains very broad powers which go far beyond the scope of dealing with the people in the NZYQ cohort who have committed serious and violent crimes. The bill creates new powers to forcibly deport a very broad range of noncitizens to unspecified third countries without the need to show that they pose a risk to the Australian people. Noncitizens could be put in detention in Australia until such time as they can be deported. I understand that this could include refugees and people seeking asylum who have lived in and contributed to our community for years. So, understandably, I have been told that this bill is causing widespread concern amongst affected communities.</para>
<para>I'm particularly concerned by the potential impact on people who've been failed by the so-called fast-track process. These people arrived in Australia over a decade ago, and many were genuine refugees whose claims were never properly assessed. Labor has admitted that the fast-track process was neither fast nor fair, abolishing a process and the body that administered it. I have met numerous people in this cohort—numerous honest, hardworking compassionate people—who have been stuck in limbo for over a decade and just want to build their lives. Yet feedback I've received from refugee law experts is that those failed by fast-track could be subject to the deportation arrangements in this bill.</para>
<para>I want to share the story of one of them, which has been provided to me by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. Geetha fled Sri Lanka and applied for a protection visa. She was subjected to this fast-track process, and her protection application was refused by the department and the Immigration Assessment Authority without a fair opportunity to present her protection claims, which included experiences of severe gender based violence. After years in the courts, Geetha had sought ministerial intervention in order to lodge a new protection visa application and to raise her gender based violence protection claims. Geetha has been granted a six-month BVE on departure grounds while she waits the outcome of her ministerial intervention request. If the bill is passed, once Geetha's BVE expires she will be exposed to detention and deportation to a third country—including Sri Lanka, from where she fled gender based violence.</para>
<para>Beyond people like Geetha, I'm also concerned about others who may be unfairly affected, including those who have compassionate or compelling reasons to remain in Australia, such as being married to an Australian citizen or having Australian children—surely good reasons for you to stay in this country. Given the delays in visa processing, many of those people have been living in Australia for years and have laid down roots here.</para>
<para>I accept the minister's argument that Australia should have the mechanism to remove people who do not have the right to be here and who have a safe place they can go instead. I absolutely accept that. If an unlawful noncitizen without family in Australia is offered a safe place to live in New Zealand, it is perfectly reasonable for them to be made to take it. But, if a refugee who was failed by the fast-track system and has lived in Australia for a decade and has a partner and child here is being forcibly deported to Nauru, where they may be detained indefinitely with no rights, that's a very different situation.</para>
<para>They are the two extremes that we are contending with in this bill, and the nature of the third-country deportation arrangements is my secondary concern. While we all hope that Australia would enter into third-country agreements only with countries, such as New Zealand or Canada, with strong social safety nets and respect for the rights of refugees and individuals, there are no guarantees in this bill. The government has not provided clear information about which countries it plans to enter third-country arrangements with or about the rights that people will have once they arrive. This has led legal experts to raise concerns that this bill could allow for people to be held in foreign countries with no safeguards to ensure they are treated humanely—all at the Australian taxpayers' expense. They could be detained in places like Nauru, potentially indefinitely, and nothing in the bill requires that a lasting solution is found for them. The harms of Australia's offshore regime on Nauru and Manus Island are well documented, as is the huge cost to Australian taxpayers.</para>
<para>This brings me to my third concern, which relates to the lack of transparency and accountability in this bill. As the member for Indi rightly pointed out, there are no requirements in this bill to publish how much Australia is paying third countries to accept the people that we're deporting. I understand there are not even new requirements to publish how many people we are deporting and which countries they are going to. In an area where past Australian governments have a very chequered history when it comes to the morality of their actions as well as the value for money of offshore arrangements, it is vital that there is transparency over how these new provisions are being applied.</para>
<para>The bill also attempts to stop the government from being sued for any actions that it takes to remove people from Australia or for the subsequent treatment of those people in the third country. This may remove an important accountability mechanism for those transferred offshore, like the dozens of refugees who secured court orders to be brought into Australia to access urgent lifesaving treatment unavailable on Nauru or Manus Island. By shutting the door to future legal challenges, I am concerned that the government would effectively remove one of the few proven checks on its power in this area.</para>
<para>These are complex issues, and there are no easy answers. The bill has come about in part because the government's previous attempts to respond to the High Court's NZYQ decision have been rushed, poorly thought through and given limited opportunity for pulmonary scrutiny. In the end, the High Court found this parliament's rushed attempts to paper over the cracks in Australia's migration laws were unconstitutional, the possibility of which was pointed out by the crossbench on numerous occasions during the debate.</para>
<para>If we had an asylum process that was both fair and efficient, if safeguards were ensuring the safety and rights of people in the countries we were sending them and if we had more transparency over the arrangements proposed in this bill, I would be more willing to accept the minister's assertion that there is no reason why noncitizens without a visa should be allowed to stay in Australia. But history has shown that that's not the case, particularly for those failed fast-tracked visa holders. So I have major concerns with this bill, and I believe it warrants further legislative scrutiny.</para>
<para>The government has already made regulations, which the minister has stated allow him to 'continue to use curfews and electronic monitoring devices' on the NZYQ cohort, so there does not seem to be an urgent reason to pass legislation today. I urge the government to refer the bill for an inquiry and await the inquiry's report before attempting to pass it in either the House or the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The saying goes that history repeats itself. This is certainly the case with ongoing back and forth between the High Court and the executive that has unfolded over the past year, the latest iteration of which is the Migration Amendment Bill. And while the High Court's actions reflect the separation of powers working as intended, the government's repeated attempts to thwart the court's intentions with patchwork legislation is concerning.</para>
<para>In late 2023, the High Court's NZYQ decision on the illegality of indefinite detention provoked a wave of bills to manage the criminal and political risk of the cohort of potentially dangerous individuals being released into the community. Community safety is critically important. There is absolutely no argument about that. The release of potentially dangerous and violent offenders, sexual predators and others into our communities absolutely requires a response, and, in some cases, targeted deportation may be warranted. However, the cohort of individuals affected by the High Court's decision-making is not homogenous. These people are not all the same, and imposing a one-size-fits-all approach on them is therefore flawed. Indeed, this bill captures people who should not be caught in it and goes far beyond the NZYQ group. All of these bills have been complex and rushed. In many cases, they have not undergone proper committee or external consultation, and many of their key provisions are the result of deals between the major parties, which I would argue, in some cases, have been politically motivated.</para>
<para>It has been over two decades since Australia began sending refugees and asylum seekers offshore, and our nation is still living with the stain of offshore detention on our national character. Humanity should be at the centre of any conversation about war and its consequences, and this principle must be the starting point for policymaking on migration and refugees. Indeed, Australia's conversation and history of policy in this space has been fought one, one which has not lived up to these ideals. I think that's obvious. Punishment is a matter for the courts, not any minister. Most refugees and asylum seekers are no threat to Australia, and they deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion. These are core principles that should guide Australian migration policy—indeed, principles that I've spoken to on each of the bills the government has introduced to manage the NZYQ division.</para>
<para>Last century, Australia provided a home for those fleeing wars across South-East Asia, including those who fled the Vietnam War and the horrors of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. We welcomed people from war-torn Sudan, Syria and Afghanistan. We provided a safe haven for the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors in the world, and they and their descendants now call Melbourne and Sydney home. But our national conversation on refugees and asylum seekers this century has been horrible. It has again turned—indeed, degenerated—in just the past year, including rhetoric in recent months over visas for Gazan refugees and echoes of Donald Trump's toxic Muslim ban of 2017. I will say that we must not follow the path of the US on refugees and migration. Following the American people's decision on 8 November and the president-elect's stated policy of mass deportation, this is perhaps more important now than it ever has been.</para>
<para>But the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 debate does not reflect this sentiment. Indeed, it represents a broadening of the executive's power and goes well beyond the scope of NZYQ. The Human Rights Law Centre says it could apply to refugees and asylum seekers holding temporary visas, including those who've lived in Australia for years. These individuals have deep roots in our communities. It risks creating a system of deportation where decisions are made not based on due process but on politics. And the bill provides immunity for the government managing that system, even if people are being deported to environments where there are known risks of harm.</para>
<para>I reflect on the case of one of my constituents in Goldstein, currently on a temporary visa. This constituent is a father, a business owner, a taxpayer and an employer. This individual has been in a state of legal limbo for 12 years and lives under a cloud of uncertainty in relation to his ability to remain in our community. His wife was a refugee who's been granted Australian permanent citizenship. They have a child that was born in Australia. What is the outlook for this family under this legislation? Is this man, who is Iranian, facing deportation to a third country? This legislation exacerbates the anxieties felt by many like this across the nation. This is particularly the case for those who have been subjected to the appalling fast-track program for more than a decade and remain in ongoing limbo with limited rights to work, study and health care. I have met many of these hardworking people, some just yesterday, and they do not deserve this torture.</para>
<para>This bill would provide the government with unprecedented powers, including the ability to overturn protection pathways and deport people, uprooting them from their families and communities, to third countries via so-called reception arrangements—deportation regardless of the risks they individually may face at their destination or even the risks these individuals may pose themselves to the communities that live there, if they do have a criminal history. This is not a theoretical scenario. The government refuses to specify which third countries it may negotiate with or intends to reach agreement with.</para>
<para>I note the concerns of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre that this may represent a continuation or escalation of the offshore detention policy by stealth. The government has not ruled out that the third country could be Nauru, for example. The bill does not rule out deportation to third countries that are not a signatory to the international refugee convention. It is entirely conceivable that an individual could be deported to a third country where they face persecution, discrimination and serious harm. It grants the minister authority to overturn protection findings and permits the government to share personal information with foreign entities and to withhold it from the Australian public. Only indirect transparency measures apply. The public, apparently, must rely on Senate estimates and freedom-of-information requests for insight into the government's deportation arrangements—or at least that's what the minister has told me. The legislation, as I've said, grants immunity to Commonwealth officers from civil claims related to harm caused during deportation processes, shielding government actions from proper legal scrutiny.</para>
<para>The High Court has repeatedly affirmed that the punitive measures of ankle bracelets and strict curfews represent executive overreach and are unconstitutional. The reintroduction of these measures in this legislation is a blatant attempt to circumvent the decision of the High Court. Rather than respecting the High Court 's repeated affirmations, the government is once again seeking to undermine them. This behaviour arguably risks eroding the judiciary's independence and also public trust. As I forewarned 12 months ago during the last iteration of this process, this legislation just sets the stage for yet another High Court legal contest. And again now, as constitutional expert Anne Twomey says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's fairly likely someone will challenge it, and there's a reasonable chance it will be struck down.</para></quote>
<para>We must engage in meaningful consultation with legal experts, human rights advocates and affected communities to create policies that reflect our national character and ethical responsibilities. National security and compassion are not a zero sum game. We can govern with humanity as the guiding principle of migration policy. Indeed, we must. I've had many emails from constituents opposing this bill. Here's one. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… will you publicly oppose this bill as it is inhumane.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We need to deal with this complex problem with a lot more understanding and compassion. Would you kindly let me know your thoughts and intentions.</para></quote>
<para>Thank you for writing. Yes, I will let you know that I will not be supporting this bill in its current form.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to point out to the House that the individuals that will be subject to the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 generally have very serious and/or lengthy criminal records and their visa cancellations have been determined based on the national interest and the expectations of the Australian community. In almost all cases before a person's visa is cancelled they are issued with a warning letter. Many of these individuals are issued with several warning letters—not one but two, three or four—before the decision is made to cancel their visa. In all cases, people are offered procedural fairness and the opportunity to respond to a prospective cancellation of their visa. We are talking here about individuals who have committed serious crimes and it is the expectation of the Australian community that they will no longer be able to hold a valid visa here in Australia. It must be recognised that we need a robust legislative framework that allows us to manage the migration system in the interests of the Australian people and, most importantly, meet the expectations of the Australian people about keeping Australians safe. There is no more important element of the system than decisions on who may come to Australia, who may hold visas whilst they are in Australia and who has to leave.</para>
<para>There is an ongoing problem that Australia faces in sending home individuals who will not cooperate with the department's removal efforts. Some of these people are in immigration detention and some are in the community on temporary bridging visas. In addition, there is a group of countries that will not accept individuals who are citizens of their country if that person has indicated they do not agree to go home. There are other countries that are very reluctant to receive their own citizens returning from Australia. This bill creates a ceasing event so that a bridging visa removal pending ceases once permission is obtained from another country for the holder to travel to and remain in that other country and a notification of grant of that permission or authority has been given. This will allow us to negotiate agreements with third countries about acceptance of noncitizens who have exhausted all avenues to stay in Australia but who cannot be removed to their home country.</para>
<para>I can confirm that Australia does not return individuals to countries in respect of which they have been found to engage Australia's non-refoulement obligation. That is an important point to make—that non-refoulement obligation will not change under this bill. However, for persons found not to engage Australia's non-refoulement obligation and who have exhausted all avenues for appeal and have no lawful basis for remaining in Australia we need to use all our tools and levers to remove them from this country.</para>
<para>Further, the bill provides that disclosure of personal information to foreign countries may be made in support of determining whether any noncitizens may be removed except where Australia's protection obligations are in play. This bill also includes amendments that would clarify that officers under the Migration Act and the Community Protection Board may continue to take into account spent convictions when making decisions or recommendations on community protection or character-related matters. The bill also includes amendments to ensure that sufficient legislative authority is in place to support unauthorised spending on third country resettlement and Commonwealth action in relation to third country resettlement should that be required.</para>
<para>The various provisions in the amending bill are necessary for maintaining a robust and effective removal program for those who have no right to remain in Australia but can no longer be detained. This bill sends a very strong signal about Australia's intentions and expectations of cooperation with removal efforts, and reinforces the integrity of the overall immigration system. But, most importantly, it is about ensuring that we are maintaining the safety of the Australian population, which is certainly what they expect from their government. I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8224</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7256" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8224</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 and the need for the right adjustments to be made as quickly as possible not just for the people of Australia but also particularly for the people in my electorate of Cowper.</para>
<para>I am very proud to represent a coastal regional electorate that is growing at an exponential rate. As someone who was born and raised there and now raising my own family, I have personally witnessed the ever-expanding list of reasons why the Mid North Coast of New South Wales is so attractive to metro migrants, regional seachangers, retirees and tourists alike. We are a region overflowing with natural beauty from stunning beaches to our rivers, mountains and forests. In recent decades, our liveability credentials have expanded to include better healthcare infrastructure, world-class community hubs and sporting facilities, a wide range of schools and tertiary education options, and, importantly, increased access to job opportunities, which have radically enhanced since COVID.</para>
<para>Part of this expansion in opportunity has been a direct result of our airports in Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour and the ability to travel to Sydney or Brisbane on a one-hour flight. Since COVID, the demand on our local airports has increased month on month. Unfortunately, the competitive landscape has declined over that same period, resulting in airfare charges that have become untenable for many people. In Coffs Harbour, people are now resorting to driving more than two hours north to Ballina in order to take advantages of airfares that are a third of the price that are offered locally. Even when you factor in petrol and parking costs—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 11:14 to 11:42</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was saying, just before the break, that people in Coffs Harbour, because of the systems that have been put in place and the imbalance, are now travelling to Ballina, which is over two hours north, to take advantage of airfares that are a third of the price of those that are offered locally. So they're travelling from Coffs Harbour to fly to Sydney instead of flying from Coffs Harbour down to Sydney because the prices are $200 or $250, as opposed to 600-odd dollars, because of competition. It doesn't make much sense when Coffs Harbour is a regional city of almost 100,000 people with an established airport that can, in fact, take aircraft that can fly internationally. It beggars belief that available fares from a city half the size and hundreds of kilometres away can be cheaper to fly to Sydney.</para>
<para>For regional towns and cities, our transport networks are critical. There is a need and an expectation that these grow with the population and the demand, but unfortunately for the Mid North Coast we have seen the opposite occur. Our supply has dwindled, pushing up prices as much as 300 per cent on what we were seeing in 2019, when I was first elected. I receive daily correspondence from a wide section of the community lamenting this fact—and that's fair enough. It makes absolutely no sense. There are those in aged-care facilities and on home-care packages with families who are no longer able to visit because of the cost of these flights. Local businesses that rely on the seasonal influx of tourists have seen a drop in revenue because of the prices to travel to the destination. There are students who came to our region to study at Charles Sturt University or Southern Cross University who are now feeling extremely isolated from their families who might live in Sydney or Melbourne.</para>
<para>Of course, it's those fly-in fly-out, FIFO, workers who do go to Sydney or choose to go to Melbourne who, prior to the pandemic, made a decision to come to our regions because the flights were available and affordable. Now, it's almost impossible for them to travel on a weekly basis. I know that in some cases it has ended up that these people are no longer in employment because they cannot pay those fares to travel to Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane from Port Macquarie or Coffs Harbour.</para>
<para>One of the notable problems is the slot allocation inefficiencies at Sydney airport. I would like to make the point that the company that manages the slot allocation—and I'll make a declaration here. I do have a Chairman's Lounge membership, but that doesn't stop me being critical of Qantas, just as I'm a customer of the Commonwealth Bank and I'm constantly criticising them. I'll continue to do my job on behalf of my constituents. I'll make this point: of the company that allocates the slots for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Airport Coordination Australia, 46 per cent is owned by Qantas, and 37 per cent—I'll be corrected, but it's in the 30s—is owned by Virgin. That is letting the fox run the henhouse. It really is. It is outrageous.</para>
<para>I find it entirely unacceptable that Qantas and Virgin have a monopoly over the slot allocation of flights, where you see them not use those slots, in a predatory fashion, to push out smaller airlines. That is exactly what we've seen in Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. We have had Bonza. Bonza were trying to go to different routes, but, of course, they still need a cashflow. Bonza were pushed out because of lack of slot allocation. We had FlyPelican, which was fantastic. It only flew on Thursday and Sunday. It flew from Port Macquarie direct to Canberra, Canberra direct to Port Macquarie and other locations. They're no longer with us because it was not financially viable for them because of the slot allocations.</para>
<para>Now we have seen Rex, similarly, and Rex is so important for regional and rural areas. They service the people that Qantas and Virgin consider a by-product. Rex, as we all know, is in voluntary administration. Hopefully we see them back with some sort of government intervention. But the fact that Qantas and Virgin can actually continue on with this predatory practice needs to be stopped, and it needs to be stopped right now—not just for the reason that it's a predatory practice but because it affects people in the regions. Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour are classic examples of that.</para>
<para>If I can go to the bill itself, the bill seeks to introduce a new recovery framework which is intended to limit delays, cancellations and redirection of the flights that occur during significant weather events in the Sydney airport space—a framework that the coalition wholeheartedly supports. It is hoped that under this framework there would be capacity to operate an additional five flights above the hourly cap for a limited two-hour recovery period following a declared significant event. The bill also seeks to improve the governance of the Slot Compliance Committee. We certainly hope that happens. It harmonises the rules underpinning the demand management scheme with the internationally recognised Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines.</para>
<para>It provides the minister with the ability to determine the demand management scheme and provide directions to the slot manager. While the detail will be covered in the proposed regulations, it's critical that improvements to the Sydney Airport demand management scheme are effective at addressing longstanding concerns about slot allocation and compliance at Sydney airport to ensure that good performance by airlines is rewarded, anticompetitive behaviour is prevented and new entrants are able to get access on fair and reasonable terms.</para>
<para>We will look to the Senate inquiry to see to what extent the bill addresses the productivity and competitive challenges measured against the recommendations of the Harris review. We feel that this is necessary given the lack of effective community consultation that has been undertaken to date and the fact that the regulations have not yet been formally drafted. The coalition wants to see a more affordable and reliable competitive aviation sector. I say 'the coalition', but I honestly believe that everybody in this place wants to see a more affordable, reliable and competitive aviation sector. With that in mind, we have concerns and issues in relation to the government's bill, which we believe should be raised and examined through the Senate inquiry process.</para>
<para>At the end of the day, all Australians want and deserve an aviation industry that not only gets the basics right but is also accessible and available for everyone. We need planes to take off and land on time, we need choices when it comes to carriers, we need choices where it comes to routes and we need airfares that are stable and affordable. Without this, regions like Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey and all the way in between won't prosper. It's as simple as that. The inquiry process will inform the coalition's final position on the government's bill, but I do reiterate that we support the intent and the goals herein, and all of our constituents deserve our full attention and support in relation to safeguards in this critical transport link now and for years to come.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 imposes an 11 pm to 6 am curfew and 80 per hour movement cap at Sydney Airport, protecting the inner Sydney community from the worst effects of aircraft noise; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) other airports around Australia, including Brisbane, Melbourne, and the soon-to-be-opened Western Sydney International Airport are not subject to an equivalent regime; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the government to consider whether an equivalent movement cap and curfew scheme should be applied to other airports in Australia, including Brisbane Airport".</para></quote>
<para>For nearly three decades, Sydney residents have enjoyed the protection of a flight movement cap of 80 per hour and a curfew from 11 pm to 6 am. Obviously, this isn't a perfect solution, as inner Sydney residents are still subject to substantial aircraft noise, but the curfew provides important protection against the worst health effect of aircraft noise, which is disturbed sleep, and the movement cap provides certainty about the maximum levels that are possible during the day.</para>
<para>While the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 makes slight changes to the movement cap in certain circumstances, the Greens are actually pleased to see that calls from the aviation industry to substantially weaken the movement cap and the curfew have been resisted. The real question, then, is: when the government is taking such care to preserve the substance of the movement cap in Sydney, why are they so resistant to new movement caps at other airports around the country? Western Sydney international airport is due to open in 2026 with no curfew and no movement cap. Western Sydney and Blue Mountains residents are being treated like second-class citizens compared to their inner-city Sydney neighbours.</para>
<para>The transport minister has recently approved a third runway at Melbourne Tullamarine airport. That airport has never had a curfew or a movement cap, and that's despite the lack of an overwater option like there is in Sydney and Brisbane. Indeed, aircraft noise is being dumped on the residents of western and inner Melbourne. We learned at the recent Senate inquiry hearing that the transport minister ignored an independent health assessment showing developmental delays of up to six months in children as a result of Melbourne's third runway. She ignored that study, sadly, instead relying on the one conducted by the airport itself—hardly independent, I would argue.</para>
<para>Then we have Brisbane, where calls for a movement cap and a curfew have been strongly resisted by the government, the airlines and the Brisbane Airport Corporation. The botched community engagement prior to the opening of the second runway there misled people to believe that aircraft noise would decrease over the city. Instead, the exact opposite happened. And it's not just disturbed sleep; it's the long-term mental and physical health effects that come from increased levels of noise. These are not trivial; they are very well documented. Brisbane residents have a very simple ask: a movement cap and a curfew like Sydney's. I don't think that's too much to ask, but instead residents have been mocked and dismissed by politicians from both major parties, by the airport and by the aviation industry.</para>
<para>The Greens, backed by the community, have had some important wins on this, including establishing the Senate inquiry and the ministerial direction to make SODPROPS, which is the best operating mode at the airport for noise reduction, the preferred mode at all hours at Brisbane Airport. That's going to be coming in at the end of November. But these measures will only go so far, as Brisbane Airport is on track to double the number of flights by 2035. That means the SODPROPS mode can't be used as often, and it means more noise over people's homes, more disturbed sleep and more adverse health effects. Sydney gets this special treatment, which we argue should be universal across the country. Everyone deserves it. But elsewhere people's health is being sacrificed to the profits of the aviation industry. It's got to stop. The government must take implementation of movement caps and curfews at airports like Brisbane's seriously.</para>
<para>Labor and the previous Liberal-National government have effectively encouraged monopolies and duopolies in Australia by refusing to step in and hold big corporations to account. We've seen it with Coles and Woolworths and the big four banks, and now we're seeing it in aviation, sadly, where Qantas and Virgin are bullying the competition through a practice called slot hoarding, as the previous speaker mentioned. Slot allocation might seem like an abstract concept, but it impacts every traveller. Here's what it means: big airlines like Qantas book up far more flight slots than they need and then repeatedly cancel these flights. Frustrated passengers buy tickets for flights that these airlines know won't even leave the ground. Last year alone, the ACCC alleged Qantas cancelled 15,000 flights for this very reason. And, to make matters worse, the slot management organisation that oversees Sydney airport slot allocations is, again, as the previous speaker mentioned, majority owned by Qantas and Virgin—a complete conflict of interest. Qantas and Virgin shouldn't be selling themselves slots. It shouldn't be hard to rule out airlines holding a full or partial shareholding in the slot manager.</para>
<para>This is problematic for everyday Australians. New entrants like Rex and Bonza are shut out, unable to access the slots they need to establish viable routes, as the previous speaker mentioned, to those regions in particular. That means fewer choices and higher costs for Australians, especially in those regional areas. People pay more, often to find that the flights they booked may not even exist. Merely tinkering around the edges with slots reform will not fix the fundamental issues with the Australian aviation industry—that it's a highly concentrated, monopolised market that pursues corporate profit over the interests of communities, customers and workers.</para>
<para>This week we've seen just how eager airlines are to offer freebies to politicians who keep their interests safe. The perks flow both ways. The Liberal-National government's actions during the pandemic are a perfect example of this cosy relationship. Under the Morrison government, Qantas received a staggering $2.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies—money that, by the way, has never been repaid. While millions of Australians were doing it tough, Qantas got a free lifeline to the tune of billions of dollars of your tax money. How did Qantas repay that generosity? They fired 10,000 workers in the middle of a pandemic, including 1,700 illegally, as found by the High Court. This is a clear and shameful indictment of the state of our aviation sector and a reminder of successive governments' truly lame responses to corporate wrongdoing.</para>
<para>To further rub salt in the wound, Qantas brought forward their losses from the pandemic and paid no income tax last financial year—zero—despite posting a record $2.47 billion profit. No income tax—it's completely rigged against us. Nurses, who are at their breaking point, stretched to their absolute limits, and who actually risked their lives during the pandemic, paid more income tax than Qantas and Virgin did. It's absolutely insulting. Australians have had enough of a system that rewards bad behaviour and gives massive handouts to corporations who need it the least. When politicians are getting all of these freebies, it's completely understandable for people to be questioning Qantas's relationship with the very same MPs and ministers that regulate them.</para>
<para>Ultimately, this bill represents more of the same: performative aviation industry reform with some piecemeal changes to a system that fundamentally undermines the real interests of our communities. The Greens will support the passage of this bill through the House, and we will reserve our position in the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment. Back in the seventies, the International Air Transport Association, the IATA, came up with an airline slot system to reduce airport congestion. The initial aim was to regulate and improve the air traffic flow during busy travel times at busy airports. Some airports in Australia fall into the category that this system regulates.</para>
<para>It's supposed to be a 'use it or lose it' system, where airlines have to use their slots at least 80 per cent of the time, or they become available to other airlines. But over time we've seen airlines manipulate the system by slot hoarding. This is a practice whereby airlines schedule a flight and then cancel it closer to the date of departure. This makes it look like they're using their allocated slots so that they don't lose them. It's anticompetitive, keeps competition out and keeps fares higher. It's also incredibly frustrating for customers because they are having constant schedule changes and cancellations of their flights. We absolutely need to reform slot compliance and enforcement and make transparency mandatory. We cannot have a system whereby slots are hoarded by airlines and managed by airlines. It makes zero sense.</para>
<para>But let's zoom out for a moment. There is so much more that needs to be done to fix the root issues of the aviation industry in Australia. It's a highly monopolised, highly concentrated market. The likes of Qantas and Virgin are after corporate profit while the interests of consumers, workers and communities take a back seat. During the previous government, the Liberals and Nationals gave $2.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies to Qantas, and, in exchange, what did Qantas do? They fired 10,000 workers. And the High Court found that 1,700 of those workers were fired illegally. We fast forward to the 2022-23 financial year, and Qantas recorded a record profit of $2.47 billion. They paid no income tax, and of course they've made no mention of repaying any of the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies that the coalition handed out to them. If we are going to hand over that volume of money to private companies, the very least we should get in return is a stake in them. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 makes changes to the slot regime at Sydney airport to ensure viability of operations. It also works alongside the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act, which opposes a curfew between 11 pm and 6 am, as well as hourly caps on aircraft movements. It's not a perfect set-up, but inner Sydney will remain protected, by the curfew and these caps, from the worst of flight noise.</para>
<para>Excessive noise pollution has serious health impacts, so much so that an independent health assessment into the third runway at Melbourne's Tullamarine airport showed potential six-month developmental delays in children due to excessive aircraft noise. This bill once again raises the question: why is such a scheme good enough for the Prime Minister's electorate, in Sydney, but not good enough for our community in Brisbane or for Melbourne or for Western Sydney? I've met with countless constituents that are seriously impacted by flight noise, especially with the long-haul heavy flights that land and take off at Brisbane in the middle of the night. I encourage the Labor government to vote with the Greens to pass our amendment to ensure that our Brisbane community have the same protections that are afforded to communities in Sydney.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill is an attempt to reform the slot management at Sydney airport, following extensive criticism of the current system. It's an amendment to the original legislation that put in a cap and curfew at Sydney airport. Sydney communities fought hard to get that cap and curfew in the 1990s. They're not perfect, but they are effective and they protect Sydney residents from the worst of flight noise from the airport. Now we see the government preserving and protecting the cap and curfew at Sydney airport, and the Greens have moved an amendment calling on the government to consider a cap and curfew for other airports, including Brisbane. We ask again: if it is good enough for Sydney, why is it not good enough for Brisbane? Why is it that Sydney gets a cap and curfew but Brisbane gets none of those protections?</para>
<para>All we're asking for is reasonable reforms and regulations, not to shut down the airport. All we're asking for is exactly what Sydney has. The Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance recently ran a community pulse survey of 1,600 residents, and they found some pretty shocking results. As the member for Ryan and the member for Brisbane have said, the impact of flight noise and flight noise pollution on residents across Australia is devastating. It is not a trivial issue. It has serious impacts on health—physical and mental—and, as we've found out from recent independent health surveys in Melbourne, it can also affect childhood development. Here's what the survey found.</para>
<para>Ninety-four per cent of the 1,600 respondents said their sleep is disrupted by aircraft noise, and 53 per cent said it's at least twice a night. Sixty-six per cent of respondents said they are considering moving house to avoid flight noise, though many of them feel trapped and can't afford to. Fifty-seven per cent said they have physical symptoms of stress caused by aircraft noise. These are devastating impacts for the people being impacted by the issue in Brisbane but also residents across Australia being impacted by flight noise and flight noise pollution.</para>
<para>The only real, substantial shift in reducing the impact of flight noise in Brisbane has been achieved by the Greens. We have secured a direction from the minister to ensure that SODPROPS—in other words, flights departing and arriving over the water—is the preferred operating mode, 24 hours, at Brisbane airport. This is the first big shift we have seen since the second runway at Brisbane airport was proposed.</para>
<para>The question everyone is asking is: why is it so hard to get reasonable regulations? Qantas and Virgin certainly wield enormous amounts of power over our political system and functionally act like a duopoly, similar to Coles and Woolworths. We have seen their political power and the impact it has on decisions that are made in parliament. Tinkering around the edges with slot reform won't fix the fundamental issues with the Australian aviation industry, which is a highly-concentrated, monopolised market that pursues corporate profit over communities, customers and workers.</para>
<para>When in government during the pandemic, the coalition gave $2.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies to Qantas, which was never repaid. They still fired 10,000 workers, including 1,700 illegally, as found by the High Court. In the 2022-23 financial year, Qantas recorded a profit of $2.47 billion yet paid no income tax, by bringing forward the losses from the pandemic, so shouldn't they be repaying those subsidies that were paid to them by the federal government?</para>
<para>When it comes to flight noise, we know that the previous Queensland government was subsidising late-night flights—50 a week, or thereabouts—to the tune of $100 million. Those are flights flying inside what should be a curfew period—not only are the federal and state governments refusing to support a curfew; they're actually funding flights to fly during what should be a curfew period. This includes the 1.55 am Emirates flight. Emirates, who just recorded a $4 billion profit, is getting paid by the Queensland taxpayer to fly in the middle of the night, disrupting people's sleep.</para>
<para>It's not just Brisbane. We saw a third runway proposed for Melbourne airport. An independent health study commissioned by council found that impacting sleeping patterns could potentially lead to increased rates of cardiovascular disease and may affect children's cognitive development. In fact, those zones that were most impacted by overnight flights and that could be impacted by the third runway found that children could experience a delay in reading and oral comprehension of between three and five months compared to children in lower noise areas. It makes you wonder what impacts the flight noise is having on Brisbane residents where they are already exposed to it.</para>
<para>All the Greens are proposing is that we have fair and reasonable regulations on airports across Australia, including Brisbane. All we are proposing is a curfew and cap similar to Sydney Airport; all we are proposing is a bit of balance. What we have right now is an airline industry that maximises profits at the expense of everyone else. All we are proposing is that we find some balance between the profitability of the airline industry, the need to service people across Australia and the impact it will have on communities.</para>
<para>Going forward right now, Brisbane Airport hopes to double flight traffic by 2035. That is not just unsustainable when it comes to flight noise; it's unsustainable when it comes to air pollution in the city. It's unsustainable when it comes to meeting our climate and CO2 reduction targets. It's unsustainable on every level, except for Brisbane Airport Corporation's bottom line and Qantas and Virgin's profit margins. Are we really going to allow a political system to sacrifice the needs of ordinary Australians to help pad the profit margins of Qantas, Virgin and Brisbane Airport Corporation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Act and associated legislative instruments establish a framework for the management of air traffic demand at Sydney Airport. The act and its regulations and schemes set a limit of 80 aircraft movements per hour at the airport, provide for a slot management scheme and guarantee access to regional services. The framework was initially introduced largely to address community concerns about aircraft noise and the capacity of the airport. The limit on aircraft operations at Sydney Airport was established to reduce the impact of noise on residents under flight paths.</para>
<para>The slot management scheme gives airlines protected times for landing and take off at Sydney Airport. Slots allocated under the system permit a specified aircraft movement at a specified time on a specified date. All commercial and private aircraft require a slot to land or take off at Sydney Airport. The scheme has not functioned as intended. The Productivity Commission in 2019 and the Harris review in 2021 identified significant deficiencies in the scheme. Firstly, it hasn't kept pace with increasing competition for slots. Aviation industry stakeholders have long called for reforms to address the efficient use of slots, particularly regarding the curfew at the airport, the movement cap, and the issues with regional access.</para>
<para>Achieving a balance between certainty of slots for existing airlines and encouraging competition from new entrants is a key challenge of the scheme. The concept of historical precedence has been problematic. It's fundamental to the allocation of slots. Essentially, if you have one, you keep it unless you misuse the scheme by flouting the 80-20 rule. That rule requires the airline to satisfy the relevant gate requirements for at least 80 per cent of the slots allocated to it. So airlines can keep these slots indefinitely as long as they operate the slot as they're supposed to at least 80 per cent of the time.</para>
<para>This is a system that favours incumbency. When an existing carrier seeks to change its slots, those changes are prioritised before new entrants. This effectively restricts competition for those new entrants trying to gain access to the market. Removal of that fact was recommended by the 2021 Harris review but is not included in this legislation. There is also an issue with the scheme's definition of a 'new entrant'. At present, following the allocation of slots based on historical precedence, the slot manager is supposed to make sure new entrants get fair access to any remaining slots, but how new entrants are defined remains problematic and, again, has not been addressed by this legislation.</para>
<para>There are some important reforms covered by this bill. They include a requirement for additional reporting by airlines and by the slot manager on how slots are allocated and used. There is a provision for a temporary increase in the number of movements allowed immediately after significant or sustained disruptions to air traffic. That is a sensible change. It will enable the airlines to catch up after disruptions and prevent unnecessary diversions to other airports.</para>
<para>But it has been suggested by experts in the industry that these changes are too limited in their scope and their length and they still don't override the curfew at the Sydney airport. The minister can extend those recovery periods, but the process for this, it has been suggested, is unnecessarily cumbersome. The bill introduces a range of new civil penalties and reporting requirements to deter the problem of slot hoarding. We have this existing allocation of slots based on historical precedence and this slot hoarding 'use it or lose it' test, which requires that airlines use at least 80 per cent of their allocated slots. If they don't, they can lose that historical precedence. But there have been suggestions, including by the administrators of Sydney airport, that both Qantas and Virgin have repeatedly taken more slots than they intend to use in order to block other airlines from gaining fair access to Sydney airport. The airlines then spread their flight cancellations across slots to make sure that each slot is used at least 80 per cent of the time and they can maintain that historical precedence. Both Virgin and Qantas have denied engaging in slot hoarding, but there have been many suggestions that it is, in fact, one of their preferred modus operandi.</para>
<para>There have also been many concerns in recent years regarding the lack of competition between airlines in this country, not just anticompetitive behaviour, like slot hoarding, but the effect of the regulatory restrictions that we see on competition in this country in both the domestic and international aviation airline markets. This has also been exacerbated by the Albanese government's 2023 decision to reject additional international flights by Qatar Airways into Australian capital cities. Of particular concern was the impact on competition in the domestic industry from the 2024 collapse of Bonza and Rex. At that time, access to slots was specifically raised by Rex as a significant barrier to its commercial competitiveness.</para>
<para>The minister announced measures to stop this slot hoarding earlier this year, in February, but they have not worked. The most recent data that we have suggests that cancellation rates on the Sydney-Melbourne route remain very poor. In September 2024, Jetstar cancelled 9.9 per cent of its flights, Virgin cancelled 9.3 per cent and Qantas was the best of a very bad bunch with 7.4 per cent cancellations. The airlines would have us believe that these cancellations are unavoidable, due to bad weather or a lack of air traffic controllers, but in that month of September 2024 on 17 days there were no weather or air traffic issues but still 184 cancellations. In what industry is it considered acceptable to cancel up to one in five services? The fact is that the 80-20 rule continues to actively incentivise slot hoarding. As long as it remains in place, slot hoarding will continue and Australian consumers will continue to pay the price.</para>
<para>This bill fails to address a number of the significant reforms which were put on the table by reviews of the Productivity Commission, the Harris review and the government's own aviation white paper. It doesn't increase flexibility for the slot manager to re-time slots or give airlines greater flexibility to use different sized aircraft. It doesn't adopt the suggested international definition of 'new entrants' or the internationally adopted definition of 'slot misuse'. It doesn't change how the hourly movement cap is actioned. Those reforms, which would likely lower prices and increase choice for consumers and give efficiency benefits for airlines and airports, are expected to be included in the slot management system but that is not in this legislation and we will almost certainly not see them in this term of parliament. I believe the potential effectiveness of this legislation has been overstated by the government, which has provided a flawed impact analysis that's based on the assumption all the reforms suggested in the aviation white paper would be adopted, which, as I have already covered, is not the case.</para>
<para>I'd like to point out as well that Australian travellers are still, every day, dealing with constant failures in customer service in the aviation industry. While other industries have a dedicated ombudsman to deal with customer complaints, the airlines have the Airline Customer Advocate, which is funded by the airlines. In 2021 the Airline Customer Advocate was described as a 'glorified post box' and awarded a Shonky Award by CHOICE. The aviation business in this country is big enough and valuable enough to the people of Australia to have its own ombudsman. I ask why the government has not enacted this important suggestion which has been made by a number of independent experts including, most recently, the chair of the ACCC. This week, the Airline Customer Advocate released its 2022 scorecard for the airlines, which I think is a fair demonstration of the timeliness of its responsiveness to the need for feedback on consumer services. The timing of that 2022 report—we're receiving it in November 2024—reflects the effectiveness of the authority. Unsurprisingly, the Airline Customer Advocate basically gave the airlines a fail for 2022. It's very clear that we need an ombudsman to oversee this industry more effectively.</para>
<para>I have also called repeatedly in the last 2½ years for a compensation scheme for the industry. Between grumbling airports and the behaviour of the airlines, Australian passengers need to have somebody on their side. When a flight is delayed by more than three hours in the EU, every passenger receives $415 on top of a full refund. In Canada, it's Can$400; in the US, it's US$100. Australian air travellers are disadvantaged by some of the worst customer protections in the Western world. When our flights are delayed or cancelled, we count ourselves lucky to receive a $20 meal voucher. While the airlines will point out that their on-time performance has improved significantly since 2022, poor service levels remain a really touchy subject for Australian travellers. Just how committed Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin are to delivering good service to their customers will be very severely tested as the Christmas holiday season rolls in.</para>
<para>We've heard time and time again in this place in the last 2½ years that we have an increasing number of industries dominated by one or two firms which essentially represent duopolies. We all know that we have to ensure that the balance is right between business profits and consumer rights and protections. We do not have that in the Australian aviation industry. We need a new robust set of consumer laws for air travellers to be overseen by an airline ombudsman. That would shift the burden of proof back onto the airlines, and it would create a powerful incentive for the airlines to reduce their delays and cancellations more effectively than they currently do.</para>
<para>I will continue to push hard for change in the airline industry not just for the implementation of the other remaining recommendations of the Harris review but also for an aviation industry ombudsman and a mandatory compensation scheme. With cost-of-living pressures continuing to hurt everyone in this country, these would be simple measures to take to make sure that the airlines aren't taking us for the worst kind of ride.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024. I welcome that this is finally here, and I urge the government to do more when it comes to increasing the choice for consumers when it comes to airlines in Australia. We need to make sure we don't have locked-in monopolies or duopolies and that there is competition. This bill addresses a longstanding issue that has compromised both the integrity of our aviation sector and the trust of Australian travellers. For years airlines, airports and industry leaders have raised concerns about large airlines engaging in slot hoarding, particularly at Sydney airport. This practice involves airlines scheduling more flights than they intend to operate, only to cancel them strategically, allowing these airlines to attain valuable slots at the expense of potential competitors. Long-term cancellation data is showing that one in 10 flights between Sydney and Melbourne is routinely cancelled.</para>
<para>The Australian public needs an aviation industry that is reliable, transparent and above all ethical. The challenges with Sydney airport's slots management are not a new problem. Last August, the ACCC launched legal action against Qantas for failing to inform travellers of flight cancellations, alleging the behaviour was partly motivated by a desire to hold onto slots at Sydney airport. The now-defunct airline Bonza—and we know Rex has gone the same way—said that they had been shut out of Sydney airport because of slot hoarding by the duopoly of Qantas and Virgin. This shows how the misuse of airport slots can directly affect consumer experience and industry competition. The 2021 Harris review of the Sydney airport demand management scheme recommended a number of initiatives to improve the situation, but they have not been acted upon by the former government and are only being acted upon slowly by this government. When one considers our reliance on air travel in Australia, it's imperative that the government enact those recommendations with urgency to ensure more competition is available for Australian consumers and travellers.</para>
<para>In Warringah, my community relies heavily on tourism. Tourism plays a critical role nationally, in our broader economy, but also locally, in Warringah. Local businesses and jobs are reliant on a steady influx of domestic and international visitors. We know the COVID years were incredibly difficult for so many local businesses, and the difficulty that travellers experienced in dealing with airlines was often unacceptable. That's why so much more rigour and scrutiny needs to be applied to this sector.</para>
<para>A number of my constituents have written in, very concerned about the lack of competition in the airline industry in Australia. Constituents have also raised their concerns about the government's rejection, earlier this term, of the Qatar Airways application to increase flights to Australia. This was a decision that directly affected consumer choice and market fairness. It's incredibly important for the government to make sure it enacts all recommendations of the Harris review but also ensures there is greater choice.</para>
<para>The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 introduces much-needed reforms to crack down on slot misuse, enhance transparency and foster a more competitive aviation industry, but more can be done. First, this bill will modernise compliance by establishing new civil penalties for slot misuse. This will provide a clear deterrent for airlines that may otherwise take advantage of the current system. The proof will be in whether or penalties are high enough for that deterrence to happen. That will be something to monitor, to make sure that airlines don't just think of this as the cost of doing business. Second, the bill strengthens transparency by mandating that airlines regularly disclose slot usage. This includes reporting how slots are allocated, how they're used and when slots are lost due to rule violations. By making this information public, this bill increases accountability and gives consumers and stakeholders insight into airline practices. Third, it enhances access for regional communities by allowing these services to apply for any available slot during any new peak-period hours. This provision is critical, as it offers regional travellers improved connectivity and addresses the often uneven accessibility that regional communities face.</para>
<para>Additionally, the bill introduces a new extreme weather recovery period, which allows for a temporary increase in flights following severe weather disruptions. Given the rising frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, due to climate change and warming temperatures, this measure is particularly important. We know this is going to happen more and more—it's a fact—so many of our systems, including in this area, have to adjust to those realities. This provision will ensure airlines have the processes in place to respond to weather disruptions, reducing delays and minimising the impact on passengers.</para>
<para>Overall, the aim of this bill is to increase competition, demand greater accountability from airlines and offer better protections for Australian travellers. I welcome that. These are much-needed reforms to the slot management system, in particular at Sydney airport. Any measure that promotes integrity and transparency in business operations is a welcome measure, but there are further recommendations that need acting upon, and I urge the government to do so as soon as possible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the busiest airport in the country, Sydney airport is undoubtedly one of Australia's most critical infrastructure assets, yet it faces significant operational challenges due to its residential setting, its limited ability to expand and the variety of aircraft it is required to service. Domestically, the reputation of the airport has been enmeshed in an at times anti-competitive landscape, with practices such as slot hoarding by the major airlines leading to increased flight cancellations, delays and passenger backlash.</para>
<para>More recently, Bonza's financial collapse and Rex Airlines entering administration arrangements highlighted how difficult it is to competitively service New South Wales without access to peak time slots and major routes at the Sydney airport. As someone who grew up in the bush and now represents one of the most significantly impacted communities in the Sydney basin when it comes to aircraft noise and pollution, this piece of legislation is one that really matters to my electorate of North Sydney.</para>
<para>From the outset, I want to confirm that my community does, at this stage, broadly support much-needed reforms to the Sydney Airport demand management framework, but it must be said that this support comes with a caveat. The community expects to be respected and fully engaged in any reform process. Ultimately, the proposed reforms to the slot management scheme generally align with the various recommendations of the Harris review undertaken in 2021 and, before that, the Productivity Commission's 2019 inquiry into the economic regulation of airports.</para>
<para>Let's face it: many of us have all been on the wrong end of a cancelled flight and left with a sinking feeling that we may not even get to our destination that day. We all want a more efficient and reliable airport experience. Reducing or removing the ability of major airlines to strategically cancel flights at the last minute will be hugely beneficial to both passengers and potential competitors alike.</para>
<para>In addition to reduced cancellations, a more transparent and flexible slot management arrangement will allow new entrants and regional airlines to compete for peak slots, improving the efficiency of operations and hopefully resulting in lower prices. Meanwhile, the requirement for airlines to report on slot usage, tighter rules around transferring unused slots, and other measures that increase operational efficiency and transparency are all desirable and again welcomed by my community. Backing this up with civil penalties for anticompetitive slot management practices is long overdue.</para>
<para>However, without discounting the significant and positive reforms contained in this bill, I want to spend some time highlighting what I see as an unnecessary amendment to the longstanding 80 aircraft movements per hour cap on air traffic. In reflecting on the original intent of the Sydney Airport demand management framework, I think this legislation potentially overlooks a key issue. In 1996, following the introduction of a second north-south parallel runway at Sydney Airport, there was widespread public outcry at the exponential increase in aircraft noise and pollution impacting communities living under and surrounding the north-south flight paths. In recognition that these communities deserved protections and that a balance was needed to be found, one that weighed the interest of the aviation industry and the desires of the travelling public with the rights of communities living under the flight paths, John Howard and his Liberal Party took a proposed cap of 80 aircraft movements per hour and the fundamental principle that aircraft noise would be shared to the general election, and they won.</para>
<para>That movement cap has been the cornerstone of Sydney Airport's social licence since 1997. To change it, as this legislation proposes, requires careful scrutiny. Currently, all non-curfew hours—that is, between the hours of 6 am and 11 pm every day—are what they call regulated hours, which means not all hours are subject to the cap of 80 movements per hour. Under the new section 9A, the minister will have the power to make a recovery period declaration following 'a significant disruption to airport operations', and that might be a weather event or a major technical failure or security breach. The recovery period introduces a new concept of a recovery hour during which the cap may be temporarily increased from 80 to 85 movements per hour. The idea is that some flights cancelled as a direct result of a significant disruption can be caught up on the same day.</para>
<para>In her speech, the minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This strictly controlled 'recovery period' will be implemented … to temporarily allow up to 85 movements per hour for a maximum of two hours on the same day …</para></quote>
<para>According to the minister, this change will not increase the impact of noise on communities. This change was something that Peter Harris recommended in his 2021 review of the Sydney Airport demand management framework. He based his recommendation on the premise that, if consulted, impacted communities might tolerate a small increase to operations for very short periods of time while the airport recovers from a well-defined major incident. In effect, he suggested that communities could be convinced to help affected passengers.</para>
<para>Importantly, his review highlighted that, for the increase to be warranted, the following two hours after a serious disruption should already be fully allocated to the maximum of 80 aircraft movements per hour, and that is where this legislation now potentially introduces a rub, in that it does not require that any additional capacity in alternative hours is already completely utilised before an increase in the number of flights is granted. Hence, he conceived that the impact of increasing the flight numbers might result in an additional 10 flights only over two hours and in very rare circumstances. However, this important qualification has not made it into this piece of legislation. Instead, the minister may make multiple recovery period declarations on any given day with no requirement that the subsequent hours be fully allocated or that the flights being caught up are the ones that were cancelled. So the increase to the cap is not limited to two hours, would not be limited to 10 make-up flights a day and may not, therefore, be for a very short period. To put this in context, over the course of 2024, based on data available from the Airservices Australia website, the number of aircraft movements during the peak hour of 9 am to10 am on a weekday was around 66. So there is already capacity in the system to accommodate recovery flights under the existing cap. If a cap of 85 were allowed, the number of increased flights in one recovery hour alone could be closer to 20. I think it goes without saying that none of us would be indifferent to an additional 20 fights over our backyard in an hour.</para>
<para>In addition to the cap, the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport provides a comprehensive technical plan for aircraft and air traffic management that requires Airservices Australia to implement various noise-sharing modes, which are effectively different flight paths that utilise both the parallel and east-west runways across the day, to ensure aircraft noise and emissions are minimised or shared as widely as possible. The long-term operating plan is the subject of a ministerial direction, and Airservices is required to report on its implementation. In my role as the member for North Sydney and as a member of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, I've learnt more about air traffic management and the impacts of aircraft noise than I ever thought was possible. I know that under the long-term operating plan my community should receive roughly 39.5 per cent of air traffic overhead, and what is clear right now is that Airservices Australia is either unable or unwilling to implement the long-term operating plan in a way that it was originally conceived. As a result, the north-south parallel runways are overused, and those living under the north-south flight paths are being unfairly impacted.</para>
<para>Not surprisingly then, my office has received steady consistent correspondence from constituents at their wits' end with the relentless aircraft noise overhead. It is difficult to hear themselves speak some days. They can't work from their home, their ability to enjoy being outdoors is compromised, they cannot sleep and ultimately it's making them sick. And it's not in their heads. Instead of the 39½ per cent of air traffic agreed to, communities living under the north-south flight paths are being subjected to upward of—wait for it—90 per cent, contrary to the long-term operating plan and contrary to the ministerial direction. This growth divergence is known and acknowledged by both Sydney Airports Corporation and Airservices Australia. This divergence, then, is something I have repeatedly raised on behalf of my community at the Sydney Airport Community Forum meetings, in my submissions to the Senate inquiry into the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise, and I raise it again now.</para>
<para>While the report due back from the Senate inquiry investigating the health impacts of aircraft noise has once again been delayed, the negative health outcomes from prolonged exposure to aircraft noise and air pollution have already been well documented internationally. Aside from the impacts of wellbeing and other psychosocial outcomes, there are clear links to increased cardiovascular disease and adverse learning outcomes for children. The ability of Airservices to manage 85 aircraft movements per hour and maintain noise sharing protocols has not been modelled. Given they are already failing to meet agreed noise sharing targets under the existing cap, I would say that it will be, quite frankly, a miracle if this legislation works as intended and does not significantly impact my community detrimentally. In practice, this will mean any time a recovery period is declared, all flights will operate on the parallel north-south runways. If a disruption occurs in the morning, the ability of the minister to make multiple recovery period declarations means that this could last for the rest of the day.</para>
<para>So the effect of this legislation could be to entrench the already disproportionate and unfair allocation of aircraft noise and emissions to communities like mine that live under the north-south flight paths. This is not consistent with the right to health outcomes as purported by this bill. While the overall numbers of flights may be within the daily cap, which is presumably the basis on which the minister can state that this change will not increase noise impacts on communities, the reality is that the negative impact of increased movements will be borne by a very small subset of the community who have not been consulted and who will not be indifferent. Given this, I think it's incumbent on the minister to show why the additional capacity is required at all and why recovery flights cannot be accommodated within the existing operational capacity.</para>
<para>Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the definition of a 'serious disruption' has not been provided, and there's no indication that it will be put into writing in this bill. Rather, this critical definition is currently being negotiated behind closed doors between the minister's office, the department, Sydney Airport and Airservices Australia—none of whom, I would argue, have the best interests of the communities living under the flight paths at front of mind. The Harris review repeatedly made the point that support for temporarily increasing an hourly cap and the circumstances in which that might occur should be developed in conjunction with the community to foster understanding and to maintain confidence in the demand management framework. I would have thought that the Sydney Airport Community Forum representatives would have had a seat at the table in the early stages of these discussions, rather than having to wait to see the exposure draft.</para>
<para>As I mentioned earlier, when John Howard, then both the Prime Minister and the member for Bennelong, enshrined 80 aircraft movements per hour as a cap, it was fundamentally a promise from all Australians to the negatively impacted communities that their rights mattered, their health mattered and their interests were being acknowledged and upheld. I now represent those same communities—residents in Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Boronia Park and the surrounds—and it's why I felt compelled to focus on this issue today, despite supporting the bulk of the proposed reforms contained in this bill. That the current Prime Minister and the current member for Bennelong aren't standing here beside me is actually really surprising. With the abolition of the seat of North Sydney at the next election, the communities I'm fighting for today will revert to Bennelong at the next federal election, and they would expect their member to be in this chamber. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's own community of Grayndler is possibly the only community that stands to be more adversely affected than my own.</para>
<para>It's unfortunate that a bill that has many positives also potentially reopens the door for a renegotiation of the longstanding social licence under which Sydney Airport operates and that we are once again debating important legislation that transfers significant powers to a minister without complete information. Ultimately, our communities deserve better, and I call on the government to strive to deliver just that—better for all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>An overhaul of Australia's aviation sector is long overdue. From flight delays and regular cancellations to the decline of low-cost carriers that provided important competition to the sector and opaque government decisions to deny greater access to overseas carriers, the system is not delivering to customers. My constituents consistently vent to me each time airlines are in the news that all they want is reasonably priced and reliable flights. But the system doesn't change, and instead they're continuously met with poor-quality services and limited options for recourse. I welcome the introduction of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024. While this bill just relates to the operation and efficiency of Sydney airport, competition and efficiency for Australia's busiest airport has ripple effects throughout the entire system.</para>
<para>In 2023, national cancellations were at just 3.6 per cent; however, nearly one in 10 flights between Sydney and Melbourne—Australia's busiest route and the fifth-busiest route in the world—were cancelled. While I support this bill, celebration is a bit premature. This bill will make rather modest changes to the operations of Sydney airport, with only three of the eight reforms signalled in the <inline font-style="italic">Aviation white paper</inline> covered. The remaining five are expected to be delivered under reforms affecting the slot management system and demand management regulations. The government has not shared details of what these changes will be, and we cannot be sure if they will go appropriately far enough. I also note that we have not yet seen the government's response to the Senate inquiry into the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise and do not know how the government proposes to address community concerns about aircraft noise and questions about whether Sydney Airport's long-term operating plan is fit for purpose.</para>
<para>I want to briefly speak to that because certainly some of the residents in my community are concerned about Sydney Airport's long-term operating plan in terms of both whether it is adhered to currently and whether it is fit for purpose. In particular, there's a concern with the lack of adequate transparency in relation to what is actually happening in terms of aircraft movement. A lot of that data is available, but that data is quite opaquely available, and it is very difficult, as a member of the public just trying to understand what's going on, to be able to access that data very easily. I know that is not the subject of this bill, but I want to highlight that there are many in my community who are concerned about this, and I certainly support further engagement on this important issue and through the Sydney Airport Community Forum.</para>
<para>Let me return to the bill. The bill amends the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, following the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports and the subsequent Harris review in 2021. Both inquiries found significant issues with efficiency, competition and governance at Sydney airport, and recommended changes. The biggest impacts this bill will have are through the introduction of recovery periods, reporting requirements on airlines and the slot manager about slot allocations and cancellations, and more stringent reporting and expanded civil penalties for slot misuse.</para>
<para>I welcome the introduction of a recovery period that will temporarily increase movements. This will allow the airport to return to regular operating capacity more quickly, following weather events. I welcome the penalties and stricter reporting obligations on airlines for cancellations and irregular slot movements. However, I question whether the penalties are a sufficiently strong deterrent to prevent slot hoarding and other forms of slot misuse that make it difficult for new entrants to compete. I welcome the decision to appoint the slot manager by a process of competitive tender, but I note that the bill is silent on the issue of airline ownership.</para>
<para>These changes are positive, but they are unlikely to significantly move the dial on competition in the aviation sector. I acknowledge that further changes have been slated under the foreshadowed changes to the slot management scheme, and I eagerly await this detail, but there are also some missed opportunities. Stakeholders in the aviation sector that I have spoken to are disappointed with the decision not to make changes to the 80-20 rule. This rule adopts a 'use it or lose it' approach to gate movements, requiring airlines to use the allocated slot for at least 80 per cent of the time. While the Harris review discussed but stopped short of shifting to a stronger test, such as 90-10, stakeholders I have consulted consider 80 per cent to be too low a threshold to genuinely open up competition and limit slot hoarding. Similarly, both the Productivity Commission and the Harris review found that the 15-minute rolling window in the movement cap had outlived its usefulness and that removing it would allow movements to happen more smoothly and reduce delays. It is unclear why this modest change was not adopted.</para>
<para>The changes that the bill proposes are positive, but they are late. The Productivity Commission review was conducted in 2019 and the Harris review was conducted in 2021. The issue with efficiency and competition in the airline sector has been a problem known to governments of both stripes for a long time, yet it took until last year to get a green paper and until August this year to get a white paper. That's a space of six years and four years between the respective reports and the release of an action plan, not to mention legislation. I note that this is not all to do with the current government—the previous government also delayed taking action on these issues—but it is something that concerns me.</para>
<para>This is reflective of a broader problem we have: governments commission reviews, reports and recommendations, but those reviews, reports and recommendations are sometimes not made public and are often just left to gather dust. Rarely is the government fully obliged to respond and provide clear guidance on whether it is going to go ahead with the recommendations. For instance, I look at the Productivity Commission's report. The productivity gap is one of the biggest issues facing our country at the moment, in terms of economic performance. We have the <inline font-style="italic">5</inline><inline font-style="italic">-year productivity inquiry: a</inline><inline font-style="italic">dvancing </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">rosperity</inline> report, released by the Productivity Commission, whose main job is to enhance productivity in this country. The report was released in 2021, and it still does not have a government response. We have two separate reports criticising the allocation of billions of dollars in federal infrastructure investment, and again we do not have formal government responses.</para>
<para>In New South Wales, where I'm from, tabled reports require a government response within six months. Our track record suggests that some sort of legislated discipline is what governments of all stripes need—including a legislated obligation to actually table commissioned reports, in full, for the benefit of the community who pay for the reports and the stakeholders who advocate for them, so that those reports have the consideration of the government of the day.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sydney airport is the busiest airport in the country, with 38 million passengers coming through the airport last year. It's also an economic powerhouse: it employs well over 30,000 people in high-skilled, important jobs.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 12:49 to 16:02</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8235</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7280" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>8235</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<para>This amendment would pause the commencement of the administrative funding provisions until the government has undertaken an independent audit of the administrative expenditure incurred by registered political parties. This is modelled on what happened in South Australia, which has undertaken an independent audit with Deloitte to audit major party accounts to determine whether the level of administrative funding provided under the bill is actually justified. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended administrative funding due to the increased donation disclosure requirements under the bill.</para>
<para>I want to be clear: I unequivocally support the lowered donation disclosure threshold and the real-time disclosure provisions in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. I can't emphasise this enough. This is really important—and I'm very pleased that the government has gone to this level of detail around this issue—but JSCEM did not recommend how much this administrative funding should be. According to the Australia Institute, 85 per cent of the new administrative funding will go 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 political party, who likely will.</para>
<para>I question whether the major parties will need $30,000 per member in the House of Representatives to undertake these new administrative burdens, especially when new entrants or challengers are getting zero—nothing, zip—to help them comply with this disclosure threshold. They will get no financial assistance at all for the new donation disclosure requirements that they are equally subject to under the law. I question whether this creates a level and fair playing field. As an incumbent, I will benefit from this funding, 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 we have seen that they only improve the competition.</para>
<para>These amendments are in good faith. We should have solid evidence that underpins the numbers that we are given in this legislation. As far as we know and as far as the taxpayer knows, these numbers could have just been plucked from thin air. What we do know is that this amount of money is going to advantage the major parties to an extraordinary level. These amendments would make sure that the government does the work to justify not only to us as a parliament but to the Australian taxpayer how they have come up with the numbers they have.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (5) to (7) together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 7, item 3, page 172 (after line 5), after the paragraph beginning "The amount of the funding for a registered political party" in section 302AA, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amount of the funding for a registered political party's expenditure group is subject to a cap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 7, item 3, page 172 (line 26), omit "The amount", insert "Subject to subsection (2A), the amount".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 7, item 3, page 173 (after line 24), after subsection 302AB(2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) The amount worked out under subsection (2) must not exceed an amount equal to $3,750 multiplied by 32.</para></quote>
<para>It's not clear to me as yet—and won't be until the minister makes his response—if the government want to justify the amount of administrative funding they have set up under this bill. I really hope they will. But, in case they don't, I need to have these amendments. These amendments apply a reasonable cap to the administrative funding received by the major parties. The amendments apply a cap after an equivalent of 32 members of parliament across the House of Representatives and the Senate receive administrative funding set at a rate of $3,750 per quarter.</para>
<para>You might ask how I arrived at those numbers. Well, I did the homework. This is based on South Australia, which set a cap of administrative funding for 10 MPs. It would take into account economies of scale of parties, which is not recognised under the current bill. It would ensure there is not a disproportionate amount of administrative assistance funding going to the major parties.</para>
<para>I urge members to support these amendments. Spending $30,000 per member of the House of Representatives and $15,000 per senator is an enormous amount of taxpayer money. It's not justified. It can't be set out in any evidence that would give us comfort. We need to curtail this. So I put these amendments to the House and I thoroughly recommend any thinking member in the House of Representatives to back in these very, very sensible amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will start by thanking the member for Indi for her engagement on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. I want to address a few of the issues raised across the collective of the amendments that have been circulated—the one that we have deferred a division on and the ones that the member has just spoken to. This will probably be my major substantive contribution at this stage of consideration in detail on the member for Indi's contributions, but I may, if I can, come back a little bit later in the discussion just to address some other matters that were raised in the House prior to question time.</para>
<para>When it comes to administrative expenditure, one of the things we're doing in this bill is providing more scrutiny of money that's provided to political parties than currently applies to public funding that already exists for political parties. As we see on page 144 of the explanatory memorandum, it very clearly states that, in terms of the use of this money, whether it be provided to an Independent member, an Independent senator or a member of a political party:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This funding cannot be used on campaign advertising in any election, whether federal or state. Administrative assistance funding that is not spent in the calendar year it is received must be returned to the Commonwealth the following year.</para></quote>
<para>That's a good assurance measure. Further, it outlines on that same page the framework through which we have compliance and auditing controls. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This framework will be subject to compliance and auditing controls, including the AEC's strengthened investigative powers provided by Schedule 9 of the Bill. If a recipient provides the AEC with incorrect or incomplete information about the recipient's administrative expenditure in its annual return and subsequently refuses to provide further information on request, the AEC will have powers to reduce future payments of administrative assistance funding or recover amounts paid.</para></quote>
<para>As the member just noted, this gives effect to recommendation 8 of the JSCEM interim report to 'introduce a new system of administrative funding'. The model we've introduced is consistent with the existing framework that people are familiar with in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.</para>
<para>I want to address the question of the suggestion in the circulated amendments around an independent review. As a longstanding practice in this place, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will do a review. After every election, different ministers of state have added additional questions to those inquiries, and some of those questions are why we now find ourselves here. The government appreciates the suggestion of what else can be done to look at the review of this. I want to thank the member for Indi for her constructive engagement on that question and note that conversations are ongoing around what that may look like.</para>
<para>I'll go to the amendments regarding targeting of funding in a particular division. It's worth noting that, where you have a party that is contesting every seat, as is common across a range of parties represented in the parliament, that effectively introduces a cap that they can spend in that particular seat of $600,000, whereas an Independent member contesting can spend $800,000.</para>
<para>It is also the government's view that there has been extensive consultation on this. No-one in this parliament is part of every single conversation of that consultation, but I have outlined in detail in previous answers not just the consultation that has happened when we've had conversations through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the report, having been out there for a year, but also extensive consultation that the Special Minister of State has led with people who are here in the Federation Chamber now. Parties or other bodies may interact in detail with them. With regard to third parties, there have been a lot of representations for the charitable sector to ensure they're not unnecessarily impeded in their work. We've had consultations with smaller community organisations. We might have incidental activity. That's one of the reasons we've lifted the reporting cap for those third-party entities to $20,000.</para>
<para>I'll conclude where I began: by thanking the member for Indi for her suggestions. While the government won't be supporting this amendment, we will continue to have conversations around how to make sure we can get this legislation done and make sure, as we have done through the normal Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters or through other processes, to continue to refine and review initiatives of this parliament, particularly when it comes to electoral reform.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 100 (lines 29 to 30), omit "is not mainly communicated to electors enrolled outside Divisions", insert "is communicated to electors enrolled in the Division".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, item 2, page 101 (lines 9 to 19), omit subsection 302ALC(3), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Electoral matter is express coverage matter for a Division, State or Territory if the electoral matter is communicated to electors enrolled in the Division, State or Territory.</para></quote>
<para>These amendments ensure electoral expenditure targeted at a division counts against the division cap regardless of whether it mentions the candidate. This goes to the heart of the concern of the crossbench. You've heard us speak about this time and time again in this rather short debate. In fact, only the crossbench has been speaking in this debate, if we're perfectly honest. This is the bit that matters. This is the bit that seems to be dismissed—well, not seems to be but is dismissed by the major parties, and there's a very good reason for that. Under the current expenditure caps in the bill, major political parties could spend up to $800,000 in the 30 or so marginal seats they're focusing on to form government.</para>
<para>The assistant minister's quick to say that the major parties would be contesting every seat across the nation, but let's be absolutely honest. We know that major parties target some seats more than others. There's $800,000 in the 30 or so marginal seats they're focusing on to form government. They can then spend significantly less in other seats and still not reach their $90 million expenditure cap. But, under the bill, registered political parties won't exceed the $800,000 cap if they don't target that division. That means that, if advertising or other electoral spending doesn't mention the candidates, electorate name or refer to their likeness, it doesn't count towards the $800,000 for that seat. This goes to the heart of our concern.</para>
<para>We've all gone through elections where the entire electorate is just blanketed in major party paraphernalia. Vote Labor, vote Liberal, vote National—whatever it might be—and this would be allowed. This means that you could be in the main street of Wodonga, in Indi, looking at a billboard for an Independent—maybe it would be me, with my smiling face—that counts towards the $800,000 spending cap. That's all within the rules, that's good. On the other side of the road, however, the billboard that says 'vote Liberal' wouldn't count towards the cap at all. Isn't that cute? This is deeply concerning. These caps still mean the races in particular seats can be completely distorted by who can spend more than the other person, and it will be the major parties who can spend more, because this legislation makes sure of it.</para>
<para>This amendment would curtail this egregious problem in this bill. It would mean that regardless of what electoral expenditure major parties spend in a seat—and let me be clear about this because I was misrepresented last night by the assistant minister. I agree with expenditure caps. Make no mistake, I do. But this amendment would curtail this massive loophole that you could drive a B-triple truck through. It would mean that, regardless of what electoral expenditure major parties spend in a seat, whether it mentions the candidate or not, they cannot exceed the supposed level playing field of $800,000. This is the cap that independents are subject to; this is the cap that the major parties must be subject to if this is to be a fair and reasonable electoral reform.</para>
<para>This amendment would help level the playing field, and it would help ensure that Independents, whether they're incumbents or challengers, are not drowned out by the major parties. I, again, ask all members of parliament to read the legislation and see what you're signing up to. I would say to you: you should support these amendments if you truly believe in electoral reform.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the amendments just moved by the honourable member for Indi, because, when all is said and done, she has really hit the mark when it comes to the heart of what is the key issue here. People like myself have copped a lot of criticism in this parliament because of the amount that was spent to see the seat of North Sydney turned Independent. In part, that's because there is no doubt about how much money was spent in North Sydney. The seat is fully accounted for in terms of what was invested. We do not, even under the current system, have the same line of sight when it comes to the major parties. We do not know what the major parties spent to win Macnamara. We do not know what the major parties spent to win in Bradfield. All we know is the combined campaign spending.</para>
<para>I actually find it pretty extraordinary that, when you go to look at the returns during the 2022 election year, there are members currently sitting in seats in this House that have a zero next to their name in terms of how much money was spent in their electorate during the 2022 election. How does that work? What we've seen in what the member for Indi has brought forward here is a complete acknowledgement. We're very happy to see expenditure caps introduced, as long as the expenditure caps are the same for everyone and that the transparency around that expenditure is the same for everyone.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Indi for continuing this fight. She has very clearly articulated the upside of looking at this piece of legislation through what she's proposing. I would welcome the government seriously considering this amendment as a true show of faith that they are looking to create an equal playing field, not just embed a political duopoly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would also like to stand in support of the member for Indi's amendment. I agree that it absolutely goes to the heart of probably what is the major problem with this piece of legislation, and that is how unfair the structure is—sorry, I agree with the member for Indi, and it goes to the crux of what the major problem is, and the major problem is how it bakes in unfair spending caps. We've talked about this before when we were debating in the House. Currently as it stands, an Independent or a new entrant can spend $800,000. That is their cap. A member of a party can spend $800,000, but an additional amount—who knows how much—in the millions can also be spent on top of that, as long as that candidate's name is not mentioned specifically. It does mean that there's a very unfair advantage for that person who is the member of a party. How is it that this is fair competition? It is absolutely not fair competition. We know that our democracy should be a contest of ideas, but this is baking in an unfair advantage. But the member for Indi's amendment really goes to the heart of sorting out that major problem. Thank you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 12 to 22), omit clause 3, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Review of operation of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act before the end of 12 months after the first general election that is held after 1 July 2026.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting the matters to be covered by the review, the review must consider the following matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the effectiveness of the amendments in achieving transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and its participants;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the impact of expenditure caps and gift caps on the election, the electoral process and its participants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment ensures that this bill goes to an independent statutory review before the end of 12 months after the first election that is held after July 2026. Currently, under the bill, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is required to undertake such a review. But, let's be honest, this is like the fox guarding the hen house. The JSCEM comprises parliamentarians. Parliamentarians actually doing a review of their own expenditure and their own disclosure is problematic when it comes to electoral reform. We need to make sure that the Australian public and, indeed, the parliament can have complete confidence in what is, as spruiked by the government, the biggest reform in electoral matters in 40 years. We need an independent review that would ensure that the amendments to the Electoral Act are scrutinised by an independent panel, not by members of parliament who quite clearly have a direct interest in the bill.</para>
<para>The independent review would directly consider the effectiveness of the bill in achieving transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and its participants, including the impact of expenditure and gift caps. This amendment, I have to say, is a really good amendment. This amendment would ensure we actually know what the impact of these reforms are—some of the biggest reforms, as I've said, in our democratic process. This amendment too, like other proposals I've put to this chamber, is modelled on what's currently in the South Australian bill. Might I say that the good features of the South Australian bill are a direct result of the scrutiny that that bill was given. It's amazing what happens if you put a detailed piece of legislation to parliamentary scrutiny through the committee process. You actually get improvements and good ideas. There is a similar independent review provision in the Victorian legislation. This is sensible; it's reasonable; it's ethical; it dismisses all conflicts of interest, and that's a big deal.</para>
<para>I urge the government to consider these amendments. This can only bolster your case. This makes you look good. This gives the public confidence that what you're proposing is not what the crossbench says. We've been really clear with you that we think there are elements of this bill that, for the unsuspecting eye, could be perceived as one mighty big stitch-up. Prove us wrong. Have an independent statutory review 12 months after the election, when these laws come in, and let's see how it stacks up.</para>
<para>I've been very pleased to work with the minister's office on all of these amendments, and I've done so in good faith. As I've said before throughout this debate, I thoroughly endorse improved transparency and disclosure laws—100 per cent. I've been screaming for it from the moment I got here. I thoroughly endorse donation caps and expenditure caps, subject to the amendments that I've put forward in regard to that. And I absolutely and utterly believe that the statutory review—rather than a JSCEM review—12 months after the election, when these laws come in, can only be for the good of the nation and can only lock in the improvements we might invariably need to have. Let's do that. I urge the government to support that amendment.</para>
<para>I say to members who may be listening—maybe from their offices, given that they're not participating in the debate—that you should really be in here supporting an amendment such as this. I thank the minister. I hope he might respond to that, or perhaps some of my parliamentary colleagues might. I commend these amendments to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise again in support of the amendment moved by the member for Indi. I've just got to say how sensible the member for Indi and her team are in terms of how they approach not only this piece of legislation but every piece of legislation that we see come into the House. There are very few members in this House that have a higher level of integrity than the member for Indi. When you hear the member for Indi suggest that the best way for a piece of legislation to be scrutinised is by an independent parliamentary committee, you can actually pretty much guarantee that she knows what she's talking about. This is a member that has been involved in developing bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is a member who has argued, since she joined parliament, for increased levels of integrity in this place.</para>
<para>But, for those who are at home wondering why you wouldn't just go to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I want to explain the structure of parliamentary joint committees in this place. What usually happens in a parliamentary joint committee is that the party of the government of the day dominates the committee. They have the most numbers on the committee. In fact, every committee in this place, bar one—and that is actually the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission—will be chaired by a member of the government of the day, and the deputy chair will be from the opposition of the day. In the case of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which is a great committee—I think we should have it; we should be very transparent around it—the truth of the matter is it was originally tasked with looking at the results of the 2022 election, an election which created the largest crossbench in the history of the Australian parliament, and that crossbench has the largest number of Independents in the history of the Australian parliament.</para>
<para>Yet, interestingly, for those playing along at home, there wasn't an Independent on that committee until the member for Curtin joined the committee on the last hearing day. For all of the hearings prior to that, there was not a person of an independent political persuasion involved in the assessment. And, in fact, when the report was tabled by what we call JSCEM, the member for Curtin, the only Independent member of that committee, lodged a dissenting report. She provided commentary around where she felt things were heading in the right direction and where things can be improved. In an environment where we do the best we can—and I believe everybody in this place comes to the questions we have in absolute good faith—the truth of the matter is, when we're looking at something as important as this, we should be able to delegate to an independent statutory review. That's where the member for Indi has nailed this recommended amendment to the government.</para>
<para>At the end of the day, this legislation has not had a lot of light during this debating process. If we could go back to our communities and say, 'If nothing more, at least we know in 12 months it will be independently reviewed,' then I think the Australian public could take some faith that there will be somebody other than the major parties looking at how this is functioning.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Electoral Reform</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Funnelling Public Money to the Major Parties Under the Guise of Transparency</inline>".</para></quote>
<para>In essence, all the amendment seeks to do—it's very brief—is modify the title of the bill, from simply referring to 'electoral reform' to refer to 'funnelling public money to the major parties under the guise of transparency'. This isn't meant to be funny at all. It's a deadly serious amendment and, I think, an appropriate bookend to the case the crossbench has made against these reforms over a number of days now. I have become disillusioned with the practice in this place of naming bills in misleading ways. This is an opportunity to name this bill correctly, because this bill does exactly that. This bill seeks to funnel public money to the major parties under the guise of transparency.</para>
<para>I make the point again that my crossbench colleagues have done an excellent job of prosecuting their argument over the last day or so. I don't think there's any value in me rehashing all of the arguments they have made. But, in looking thematically at the arguments that have been made, there is no doubt whatsoever that these reforms have one principal purpose, and that is to safeguard and entrench the place of the political parties in our electoral system and to prevent emerging talent and new Independents from joining the crossbench, which already numbers 18.</para>
<para>I'm reminded of a comment from the Prime Minister in one of his very first meetings with the crossbench after the 2022 election. I hope he forgives me if I misquote him a little, but he said words to the effect of, 'You're all great, but we don't want any more of you.' I think my colleagues would remember that statement. At the time, we all had a bit of a chuckle. We thought, 'That's all very funny.' Do you know what? He wasn't trying to be funny. He was making a very serious comment, which is reflected perfectly in this bill—that we're lovely, but you don't want any more of us. You don't want any more of us, despite the fact that millions of Australians now have abandoned the major political parties for a range of very good reasons and are now searching for an alternative. This parliament has no right—no right whatsoever—to work so hard at denying millions more Australians from exercising their democratic right to have a ballot paper with a list of good candidates, reflecting a range of views—major parties, minor parties, micro parties, Independents who might be incumbent or might be putting their name on the ballot paper for the first time.</para>
<para>Frankly, I think the government—in cahoots with the opposition, who have cut this grubby deal out the back somewhere—are treating the electorate with complete and utter contempt. For there to be, in this bill, pages—literally pages—of exemptions from what is covered by this bill is scandalous. For this bill to allow, say, the Liberal Party to accept however much money they choose from, say, the Cormack Foundation or, through various underhanded means, for the Labor Party to accept enormous sums of money from the union movement but then to place such limitations—not on us, we're doing fine, with the possible exception of the member for North Sydney, who has a minor difficulty with her electorate! The rest of are competitive. I think we are genuinely competitive. But what about all those brilliant people out there who are even better than us? They deserve a fair go, and the community deserves, or has a right, for those people have a fair go. It is just patently misleading for the government to suggest that they will spend the same amount of money in all 150 electorates next time. They won't.</para>
<para>I close by saying that I'm the first to say let's have almost real-time disclosure. Let's have spending caps. Let's have donation caps. But let's not concoct such a ruthlessly destructive set of reforms that treats the community with such complete and utter contempt. We have no right to do that in this place. The government has no right to do it. The opposition has no right to do it. The reason so many people are voting for people like us now is that we're about the only people in this place who will stand up for the community.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I deem that the proposed amendment is an ironic one, and on that basis it will be ruled out of order.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to respond to a range of the matters that have been raised both here in the Federation Chamber and in the House over the course of today's debate. I committed to a range of members that I would come back to them to ensure accuracy on a range of assertions but also to make sure that there's clear understanding of the government's intent around getting big money out of politics.</para>
<para>First, I'd like to respond to some matters raised by the member for Indi. I did so before, but I will do so again to say that the government acknowledges her genuine questions around a review period and potential amendment to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters review currently included in the bill. I note that the minister has taken that view and agreed to continue consulting with the member on the review mechanisms in the lead-up to the Senate debate. Again, I wanted to put that on the record.</para>
<para>Further to the member for North Sydney, thank you for the genuine questions around administrative spending and the level of the caps. The legislation does make it clear on the definition of 'administrative expenditure'. The bill does not seek to make special exemptions. It does not seek to curtail political organisation or engagement. It seeks to make clear what campaign spending is—money used in the system to influence an outcome—and to restrict the use of that expenditure. Parties do have national caps but are restricted both by the total number and the divisional and Senate limits calculated to ensure that the $800,000 limit for an Independent member is sufficient should various parties also be contesting the seat.</para>
<para>I also want to note that, when it comes to the ability of the member for Curtin to join the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, it was the government who put that forward.</para>
<para>When it comes to the member for Warringah, who asked why we would spend money on strengthening our system, it is the government's view and the minister's view that defence of our electoral system is worth investment. It is worth investing in. Other proposals that the member for Warringah has put forward, like truth in advertising, also cost millions of dollars and will cost millions more over time. In fact, the member's own proposal when it comes to truth in advertising would itself cost upwards of $50 million. It doesn't mean that it's not a worthy policy consideration and that it's not worth debating.</para>
<para>The member for Wentworth raised the issue of nominated entities. I want to clarify this because I think it's important that we're very clear about how this legislation operates when it comes to nominated entities. As the member herself already knows and has been provided in writing, a nominated entity must be registered with the AEC and must be auditable by the AEC. An entity may only be nominated by one party, and only one party can nominate that entity. For all purposes, they are captured and aggregated with their nominating party. That means that any donations to that entity or spending by that entity is captured, auditable and listed against the party. There is no ability to get around the caps by the use of that entity. An entity can share resources with their nominating party, but they share each and every spending cap, therefore restricting any perceived benefit. The amendments circulated by the member for Curtin would remove that restriction and allow those entities to spend without restriction. Again, that's another reason the government does not support them.</para>
<para>In terms of some of the matters the member for Curtin raised, the government rejects the assertions and has made clear its position on the amendments suggested that remove campaign limits. It's not a clarification or a question from the member; it's a policy difference. There is a policy difference here. We believe that spending should be limited. The member for Curtin believes it should be unrestricted. They are two very different policy positions. The government is very clear in our belief that spending should be restricted. It is essential to make sure that we put power back in the hands of the Australian people. It is unsustainable to argue otherwise. If we accepted the member for Curtin's proposition, then those who are already wealthy would be unrestricted in their spending, again giving us an uneven playing field. The member for Curtin hypothecated about 5,000 donors giving $200 or $2,000 each, but that's not what's occurring. In her campaign at the last election, there were 10 individual donations ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 from one billionaire donor.</para>
<para>For these reasons, the government supports the bill in its existing form. For these reasons, the government does not accept the range of amendments that have been put forward today. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers on this bill, as it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8242</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7256" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8242</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thirty-eight million passengers passed through Sydney Airport in 2023. The airport is an economic powerhouse supporting many businesses in my local community and providing 30,000 jobs for people in the Sydney area. An airport in my local electorate is sometimes an advantage, but it can also be a disadvantage.</para>
<para>The advantages, of course, are the jobs. The airport provides so many jobs for locals in my community. So many of my mates that I went to school with have jobs related to the airport. My father worked for Qantas for 35 years. My brother and sister both worked in the travel industry associated with the airport. It provides so much employment for locals in our community, and, as a result, we have relatively low unemployment. That's a great advantage for our community. There is the convenience of having the airport 10 minutes away. When you need to travel, it's quite convenient to live up the road and be able to jump in a taxi an hour before your flight and still make it.</para>
<para>But then there are the disadvantages. One of those, of course, is aircraft noise, which can have an effect on the welfare and the lives of residents. No airport in Australia has residents living as close to an airport as Sydney airport in Mascot. In fact, I would hazard a guess that there are no airports in the world that have allowed residential development to butt up so close to a major international airport. When I lived in Williams Street, in Botany, if 747s took off in the morning on the east-west runway, the house would shake. There were well and truly about 800 metres of homes between me and the airport that were worse affected than we were.</para>
<para>Getting the balance right and ensuring that residents have period of peace and quiet in their homes while still allowing the effective and efficient operation of Australia's busiest airport is a challenge for governments. That is why the curfew arrangements and the cap on movements have been put in place through legislation to manage the operation of Sydney airport. I am very proud to say that this government will keep those arrangements in place with these amendments. This government has acted—and I will pay tribute to the minister in a moment—to balance the rights of residents associated with the effective operation of the airport but ensuring that residents can get some peace and quiet.</para>
<para>During COVID, the Morrison government granted exemptions to freight operators regarding the types of aircraft and the number of flights that could be flown during curfew hours—in other words, during the evening, when residents are sleeping. This was justified under the act because an exemption allows that to occur in exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances were large increases in freight volumes coming into Sydney airport associated with everyone being at home and ordering things online, so the freight levels did increase.</para>
<para>But post-COVID, the freight operators sought to continue those exemptions. They argued that the exceptional circumstances continued to exist because freight volumes remained high. Rather helpfully, we were able to shoot that argument down because the department of infrastructure very graciously publish their freight data in and out of Sydney airport on a monthly basis. That data demonstrated that the volumes of freight coming into and out of Sydney airport had clearly fallen post-COVID. They had fallen back to the normal levels of pre-COVID. That justified the exemptions going back to the original conditions and the curfew being put back in place.</para>
<para>To her credit, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government acted. She saw there was a need there and she made sure that those exemptions that were granted were removed and normal curfew conditions were restored. On behalf of the community I represent, I thank the minister for listening and for acting to ensure that the balance between the effective and efficient operation of the airport and the rights of residents was restored.</para>
<para>The minister also went further. The Sydney Airport Community Forum had representatives from the north, the inner west and the Sutherland area but no community representatives from the east—the area that I represent—despite the fact that the airport is actually in my electorate. I requested that there be a representative from the east and a representative from Randwick council, which also wasn't represented on the Sydney Airport Community Forum. Again, credit to the minister: the minister acted and two new appointments were made to the forum. The representative from the east is Alan Dukes, who is very experienced as a former air traffic controller, and the Randwick mayor has also been appointed to that body.</para>
<para>The government acted to ensure that we restored the balance between effective and efficient operation of the airport, maintaining competition, and the rights of residents in the community that I represent. This all occurred whilst the minister was dealing with the largest and most comprehensive reforms to the aviation sector in our nation in over a decade, through the white paper.</para>
<para>This bill responds to the recommendations in the white paper. The government is boosting consumer rights, increasing competition, protecting passengers with disability, supporting regional aviation and helping the sector to decarbonise. The bill will deliver many of the policies outlined in the aviation white paper. Most importantly, it will keep the airlines honest, putting downward pressure on airfares and ensuring passengers get a better deal.</para>
<para>All this will be achieved through a new, independent ombudsman, helping passengers get better outcomes when things go wrong; a charter of rights for customers, ensuring fair and appropriate treatment; aviation-specific accessibility standards to assist people with disabilities; new requirements and monitoring of airlines to crack down on anti-competitive behaviour and keep the airlines honest; an independent aircraft noise ombudsman—something that will please my community—with the power to conduct independent investigations into the handling of aircraft noise complaints and make recommendations direct to government; enhancing regional connectivity; growing a stronger and more diverse workforce; and reducing emissions in the aviation sector. These are all pretty important reforms to the operation of Sydney airport and aviation throughout Australia, but I do want to mention another important part of this reform, which is colloquially known as the slot management system at Sydney airport.</para>
<para>To encourage competition, the government will update the demand management system so that it better aligns with international standards. The government will significantly increase transparency around how slots are allocated to airlines. Airlines will be required to provide regular information on how they use the slots, such as the reasons for cancellations or major delays, and this monitoring information will be published regularly. To ensure that slots are not misused, the government will modernise the compliance regime to include penalties that address anti-competitive behaviours, along with updated and strengthened enforcement tools for government to watch airlines more closely and take effective legal action where necessary. The government is modernising the process of allocating aircraft slots at Sydney airport to improve competition and ensure that consumers get a better deal.</para>
<para>There are also changes to regional connectivity, with regional New South Wales services able to apply to use any slot during new peak-period hours, not just the slots that are already set aside for priority access by regional New South Wales services. That means better competition and more access for the regions.</para>
<para>The final thing I'd like to speak about is the recovery period. The bill introduces reforms that will increase the resilience of Sydney airport by introducing a recovery period. This will be a strictly controlled recovery period, and I want to thank the minister for understanding the importance of the curfew and the hourly cap in legislating this recovery period. It will ensure that after a severe weather event—I was there on Sunday night and experienced one where we had three- to four-hour delays—and other major disruptions, there will be a temporary allowance for up to 85 movements per hour for a maximum of two hours on the same day following the disruption. It's important to note that there will be no increase in the overall number of flights for that whole day. That's because the scheduling cap of 80 flights per hour will stay in place. Only flights that are already scheduled to happen on that day will be able to take off or land. The recovery period will not extend into curfew hours, and there will be mandatory publication of information about when and why the recovery period is used so that the community can be confident it is being used properly.</para>
<para>This is the government making sure that we are doing our best to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of Sydney airport, to improve competitiveness, to improve rights for consumers and to ensure that consumers get a better deal from the airport. Most importantly, the minister has also listened and balanced those issues with the rights of residents in the local community that I represent to ensure that they continue to get access to those important hours, particularly at night, of peace and quiet at home with their family. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank members for their contribution to this debate on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that this is a really complex area. Airspace, airports and the operation of airports are really complex. Frankly, there are a lot of experts in this field who have lots of opinions and lots of views, and trying to get the balance right is always challenging. That being said, I acknowledge the second reading amendment that has been moved, but you will not be surprised to hear that the government will not be supporting it.</para>
<para>This bill really is a central part of the broader reforms to Sydney airport demand management. That is the subject and focus of this bill. It is another step of the government's active reforms to improve aviation in this country—reforms that will crack down on poor behaviour by the airlines and get a better deal for consumers. Sydney airport is Australia's most significant international gateway and a critical hub of the national aviation network. The efficiency and effectiveness of operations at the airport does have a significant impact on many Australians. So it is right that the reforms proposed in this bill ensure the airport is used to deliver better efficiency, enhanced competition and better consumer outcomes. The bill does this by adjusting the settings of the demand management framework so that access to the airport can be managed more efficiently and effectively while maintaining aviation access for regional New South Wales communities and upholding existing community protections from the impacts of aircraft noise.</para>
<para>Firstly, the bill gives the minister responsibility for developing and making the slot management scheme. This will enable the government to implement and improve transparency and governance arrangements for the slot manager and to provide direction on the administration of the slot management scheme. The government's reforms to improve regional access and improve access to slots for new entrant airlines will be implemented through a new slot management scheme.</para>
<para>Secondly, the bill introduces new civil penalty provisions to strengthen the compliance regime, which will allow anticompetitive behaviour by airlines to be addressed. The compliance committee is also being reformed, with a new membership that will allow the committee to effectively provide independent advice on compliance action.</para>
<para>Thirdly, the bill introduces new transparency powers to support the new stronger compliance regime. This includes requirements for the production of information and documents, the keeping of records and the publication of information. This will help make sure that consumers have better information about airline performance.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill introduces a recovery period to temporarily increase the number of movements at Sydney airport to 85 for up to two hours when a major disruption occurs. The recovery period declaration will only allow flights that were already scheduled to operate on that day to take off or land and will not extend into curfew hours. There will be a mandatory reporting of information on when and why the recovery period is used so that the community can be confident it is being used properly. The bill will deliver a new demand management framework for Sydney airport that enables efficient and effective operation of the airport while ensuring that communities on the ground are not unduly impacted.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Ryan has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8245</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7257" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8245</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 is a landmark piece of legislation that will modernise Australia's merger framework for the first time in nearly five decades. This reform is about striking a critical balance: equipping our competition regulator with the authority it needs to safeguard markets and protect consumers while also enabling it to operate with speed and clarity, providing certainty for businesses and for our economy at large.</para>
<para>Mergers and acquisitions are absolutely essential to a thriving economy. They bring investment and allow businesses to scale and promote innovation. Successful mergers can drive greater efficiencies, expand consumer choices and, importantly, lower costs. However, not all mergers are beneficial for consumers or for our economy. Some entrench market power, reduce competition and, ultimately, harm consumers. For instance, in the supermarket sector, acquisitions by dominant chains have reduced competition in local markets, leaving consumers with fewer options and higher prices, particularly in regional areas. Similarly, in telecommunications, mergers between major providers have raised concerns about reduced market competition leading to higher costs and slower innovation in essential services such as mobile and internet access. These examples highlight how unchecked consolidation can harm Australians in their everyday lives and underscore the need for reform.</para>
<para>Such harmful mergers show why a robust and responsive competition regime is absolutely essential. We must ensure that harmful mergers are identified and prevented, fostering a competitive environment that delivers fair prices, greater choice and innovation for Australians, yet Australia's current system falls short of what a modern economy needs. We are one of only three OECD nations without a mandatory notification system for mergers, leaving our competition regulator, the ACCC, to rely on a voluntary and highly reactive process. This creates significant blind spots, allowing mergers with potential risks to competition to proceed without adequate scrutiny. Meanwhile, pro-competitive and non-contentious mergers often face delays and uncertainty, burdening businesses unnecessarily.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's reforms will bring Australia's merger framework into the 21st century. These changes will establish a mandatory notification system, providing the ACCC with full visibility of significant transactions. This ensures that the regulator can focus on the mergers that pose the greatest risks to competition, while businesses pursuing beneficial transactions are supported with a streamlined and efficient process. The reforms will strengthen the ACCC's ability to act decisively. Pro-competitive mergers will advance quickly, with a clear pathway for approvals within 30 working days where there are no concerns for consumers. Harmful or risky transactions, on the other hand, will be scrutinised and, if necessary, prevented. This balance of ensuring markets are both dynamic and protected is critical to the health of our economy.</para>
<para>The bill also introduces monetary thresholds to focus resources where they are most needed. By targeting mergers with the potential to lessen competition substantially, the ACCC can direct its efforts toward transactions with significant economic impact. Transparency and accountability will also be enhanced for the creation of a public register of notified mergers, giving businesses, consumers and stakeholders a clearer view of the process.</para>
<para>These reforms are integral to our broader economic vision—an economy built on strong competition, higher productivity and good wages for working people. Competition is the lifeblood of a dynamic economy. It compels businesses to innovate, improve efficiency and deliver better value to consumers, but its benefits extend far beyond markets. When businesses innovate and productivity rises, workers are better positioned to share in these gains of secure jobs, higher wages and improved conditions. By fostering competition, we reduce the power of monopolies and oligopolies that distort markets and concentrate wealth in fewer hands. Fairer markets lead to fairer outcomes, lower prices for essential goods and services, greater access to opportunities for workers and more choices for consumers. Importantly, fair competition encourages businesses to invest in their people, recognising that skilled and well-supported workers are critical to long-term success.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's approach reflects our belief that strong competition, higher productivity and good wages for working people are not just desirable but essential for a fairer, stronger and more resilient economy. Through these reforms, we ensure that Australia's economic growth lifts everyone, building a future that rewards effort, encourages innovation and supports working Australians and their families. These outcomes are only possible with a regulator equipped to act decisively and efficiently. That is why these reforms provide the ACCC with the authority and the framework to protect competition effectively. Pro-competitive mergers will move forward without unnecessary delays, while harmful or risky transactions will face rigorous scrutiny and intervention if required. This approach not only fosters market dynamism but also safeguards consumer interests.</para>
<para>These are key foundations for our strong and fair economy. This reform reflects our commitment to ensuring a competition regulator that is both effective and efficient in protecting the interests of Australians, while providing businesses with greater certainty. It demonstrates the Albanese Labor government's dedication to creating a stronger, fairer and more competitive economy that benefits all Australians now and into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  There's no doubt Australia is in a period of significant economic transition. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted many critical industries, both globally and domestically, and it will be some time before our economy fully recovers. Coming out the other side of the pandemic, we've entered an inflationary environment that puts immense pressure on consumers, businesses and governments. At the same time, we are embarking on a much-needed transition to a net zero economy. In this context, competition is more important than ever before. This transition will impact Australia's critical industries, consumers and small businesses in profound ways. New markets are on the horizon, and it is impossible to anticipate how they will emerge or develop.</para>
<para>Competition can be a driving force for investment, dynamism and innovation. All are required to undertake this transition; therefore, it is critical we protect it by getting our competition policy reform right from the start. While most merger transactions do not harm competition and, indeed, provide many benefits, some can and do affect the competitive conditions of an industry. The growing trend of market concentration in Australia since the early 2000s is not one that we should continue to ignore.</para>
<para>According to a 2023 report from e61 Institute, in seven per cent of Australian industries the top four firms had more than 80 per cent of the market share. I just want to repeat that. In seven per cent of Australian industries, the top four firms had more than 80 per cent market share. Compare this to countries like the United States, where only one per cent of the industries have a market concentration that high. Ultimately, however, my community and indeed most Australians don't need statistics to understand the problem. Whether it's electricity, health insurance or retail, the Australian economy is rife with examples of markets where a few big players dominate, and, as a consequence, consumers are arguably missing out while producers and suppliers are squeezed ruthlessly.</para>
<para>We see this perhaps most acutely in the tech and supermarket sectors. In tech, a handful of companies are playing an increasingly significant role in our lives, influencing how we interact with each other and do business. I had a striking real-world experience when I recently tried to plug my iPhone into the jack of a Volvo that my friend owns. I received a message from my phone saying, 'This accessory is not supported by the device.' The Volvo was the accessory that the iPhone wouldn't accommodate! I was struck by Apple's market concentration and their ability to corner the market. Meanwhile, in the supermarket sector, Woolworths and Coles alone control about two-thirds of the market. Again, I've witnessed the implications of this personally, with many orchards in my home town of Coonabarabran forced to bulldoze their trees after the long-term local independent grocer was acquired by one of the two large supermarket chains.</para>
<para>Part of the problem is the ability of large businesses to hollow out markets through targeted acquisitions. As multiple former ACCC chairs have acknowledged, Australia's current merger regime is not well placed to deal with this problem. Under the ACCC's current framework, companies aren't required to notify the ACCC of mergers, leaving the commission most often flying blind. Additionally, the ACCC reviews only a fraction of the mergers that happen each year—an average of 330 annually of the more than 1,000 mergers that occur. This gap leads to situations like that of Petstock, which grew through a series of small acquisitions into the second-largest speciality pet supply retail chain in Australia, unbeknownst to the ACCC. No wonder the former ACCC chair Rod Sims has described Australia's merger regime as the weakest of any country we compare ourselves to.</para>
<para>These trends have consequences for us all. Recent decades have seen businesses increase the mark-ups to goods and services by more than two per cent. As CHOICE and the Consumers Federation of Australia put it, consumers pay the price of highly concentrated markets, including through higher prices, poorer customer service and lower product and service quality. In this context, I largely welcome this bill and commend the government for taking steps towards a regime that more effectively targets anticompetitive mergers while fast-tracking mergers that are pro-competition. It is a step towards a future focused economy that is diverse, efficient and welcoming of new market entrants.</para>
<para>However, there are ways I believe this legislation, and competition policy reform more broadly, could be improved. Firstly, we must ensure that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission are adequately staffed and resourced to effectively manage the significant increase in assessments that will result from the changes outlined in this bill. Secondly, we must strengthen the ACCC's ability to block problematic mergers. Thirdly, we must ensure thresholds for notification capture all anticompetitive acquisitions. Finally, to truly improve competition and innovation in Australia, we must not only prevent anticompetitive mergers but also actively support small and emerging businesses.</para>
<para>I'll go to the specifics of the bill before us. This bill will empower the ACCC as the decision-maker on all mergers. Under this new system, the commission would undertake an economic and legal assessment to determine whether acquisitions are likely to substantially reduce competition or be of public benefit. This would be tied to a mandatory notification system where acquisitions that meet a certain threshold would need to be referred to the ACCC for assessment prior to completion. These key thresholds are (1) when the Australian turnover of the combined business exceeds $200 million and the assets being acquired have either an Australian turnover of more than $50 million or a global transaction value above $250 million; (2) when a business with an Australian turnover of more than $500 million is buying a smaller business with a turnover above $10 million; and, finally, (3) all mergers by businesses with a combined Australian turnover of more than $200 million where total similar acquisitions over a three-year period have a cumulative turnover of at least $50 million. Importantly, the bill allows the Treasurer to adjust these thresholds in response to concerns from the ACCC about high-risk mergers.</para>
<para>The commissions approval system would also be reformed with the goal of completing approvals in under 30 days for mergers that are determined not to pose a threat to competition, and these changes would also provide for the Competition Tribunal to review the ACCC's decisions. Finally, the bill would establish a public register of all mergers and acquisitions, providing all of us a clear line of sight on how our markets and suppliers are developing. As a result of these reforms, there's a lot to like about this legislation. It improves oversight for both large acquisitions and the accumulation of smaller creeping acquisitions, it makes an effort to balance this new oversight with efficiency under a faster approval process for unproblematic mergers, and it allows for the thresholds to be flexible over time.</para>
<para>I've noted that the ACCC currently only assesses a small proportion of mergers, however, and this reform will be a significant change for the commission as it deals with the potential for more assessments and a commitment to faster approvals. The government has argued that the increased resourcing given to the ACCC will be commensurate with the increased workload, and the January 2026 commencement date will give the commission time to prepare for the transition. This may be true, but it isn't guaranteed. We're talking about the biggest merger reform in nearly half a century. The transition will have to be managed properly to prevent a blowout in costs and delays for government and business alike.</para>
<para>Historically, the ACCC has been unable to prevent many large mergers. In fact, just last year, the commission blocked the ANZ bank from a $4.9 billion takeover of Suncorp's banking arm, only to have their decision overturned by the Competition Tribunal. The same thing occurred in 2017 with the merger of Tabcorp and the Tatts Group. This is not to say that the oversight of the Competition Tribunal is a bad thing, but it does suggest that the two organisations are not always aligned on principle, and it's unclear what that means for the ACCC's ability to effectively block what it may deem to be an anticompetitive acquisition.</para>
<para>More importantly, the thresholds in this bill may not capture several kinds of concerning mergers and acquisitions. Under this framework, for example, businesses with a combined Australian turnover of less than $200 million will not need to report unless the business or assets being acquired have a cumulative Australian turnover of over $50 million over a three-year period or a global transaction value of about $250 million.</para>
<para>That is already quite a high bar, but the real problem here is that these thresholds don't consider the size of the market a business is operating in. For large high-turnover markets like medical insurance or electricity retail, these thresholds may be reasonable, but, if the market is smaller, numbers like $200 million may represent a much higher percentage of total market activity, and businesses with significant market share may fly under the radar. We know that the government was considering a market concentration threshold during consultation, so I've got to confess that I'm disappointed to see that it's absent from this bill. Overall market share is a much better indicator of the problem we're trying to prevent than simple monetary turnover.</para>
<para>Similarly, the thresholds don't consider regional market concentration. Again, I speak from personal experience. Having grown up in regional Australia, I'm aware of the limited choices that consumers sometimes face. There might only be one bank, one grocery store and one petrol station in the whole town. Under this legislation, mergers could potentially be used to corner a market in an entire regional area while staying under the notification threshold.</para>
<para>The threshold also wouldn't stop large companies from gaining an early advantage in markets by acquiring early-stage companies who don't yet have a high turnover. The obvious example is Instagram. When Facebook bought Instagram, the company had no revenue. If this purchase happened in the Australian context, this bill wouldn't have required that to be referred to the ACCC. Clearly parts of this legislation could be strengthened. Instead of it simply allowing the Treasurer to adjust these thresholds over time, we should aim to get them right from the beginning. We need merger reform that tackles market share, early acquisitions and geographic considerations.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to speak about the role of small business in the context of these reforms. To truly embrace competition, we must do more than simply regulate big mergers. We need to actively support new and established small businesses. According to the Bureau of Statistics, 2023-24 saw a 1.4 per cent decrease in the number of Australian businesses with one to four employees, while businesses with five to 19 employees remained relatively stagnant with only a 0.4 per cent increase. This is reflected in the GDP figures. In 2006, small businesses contributed 40 per cent of our GDP; now that number is 33 per cent.</para>
<para>Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Bruce Billson described Australia as 'sleepwalking into a big corporate economy'. To increase competition and drive an efficient, diverse economy, we must consider measures to support these small businesses, especially in their early stages. There are many ways we could do this, from expanding the digital learning and practical support tools available online to increasing tax offsets for new small businesses. Of particular relevance to competition reform, however, is the need to implement a ban on unfair business and trading practices which harm small businesses and discourage investment. When there is a power imbalance, big businesses in Australia can impose harsh commercial arrangements or behaviours on smaller ones. Singapore, the United Kingdom and the European Union all have laws that explicitly ban this kind of unfair practice, and Australia should follow suit. In short, we should be using all the tools at our disposal to build a competitive economy with a thriving small business sector.</para>
<para>I commend the government for bringing this bill before the House to improve Australia's management of large mergers and acquisitions, but I also encourage the government to make sure not only that the ACCC is resourced to handle this transition properly but also that the thresholds truly prevent mergers from slipping through the cracks and that, ultimately, we support new small businesses to create a truly future focused economy for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ensuring suitable levels of competition in the Australian economy has been something many Australians have taken for granted for a long time, but currently, in a cost-of-living crisis, the issue of competition is front of mind for many of my community. Research conducted by e61 last year showed that Australia was far more prone to higher levels of market concentration compared to our peers, like the United States. And it shows. Currently we have two supermarkets that dominate 70 per cent of the food and grocery market, two airlines that represent 98 per cent of the domestic airline market, four banks representing 75 per cent of the market, four media outlets representing 78 per cent of the market, three telcos operating with 89 per cent of the communications market, three insurers representing 74 per cent of the general insurance market and, as of today, we have two political parties hoping to capture 100 per cent of the vote market.</para>
<para>In fact, the e61 research shows that around seven per cent of all Australian industries had more than 80 per cent of the market share, dominated by four companies or fewer. Compare this to the US, where only one per cent of their industries had that level of concentration. I admit that Australia and the US are different countries and have different market dynamics in different scale. I also acknowledge that, in certain circumstances, economies of scale mean that we do get cheaper products to consumers so there are benefits of bigger companies in certain circumstances, but I think there has never been a more urgent opportunity and urgent need for competition to be a focal point for regulation.</para>
<para>I welcome the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 for its intent to modernise merger reforms and introduce an international best-practice approach for dealing with competition considerations in Australia, but I and others do have concerns about the unintended consequences this bill will have for small and, particularly, young firms. While I'm glad to see there are review provisions in this legislation, we will monitor this legislation closely going forward.</para>
<para>The bill would replace existing merger frameworks with one including mandatory notification. In practice, this puts the onus on companies to disclose ahead of time so that proper consideration can take place, instead of requiring the ACCC to initiate proceedings. The law will specify the M&A proposals that meet one of the notification thresholds that would require mandatory reporting. These notification thresholds cover mergers that represent a combined turnover of the business that is above $200 million; part of a series of mergers of the same or similar goods and services within a three-year period; and any merger involving a very large business with a turnover of more than $500 million buying a business where the acquisition exceeds $10 million. These thresholds will increase the number of mergers the ACCC will need to review and will effectively cover many of the mergers or acquisitions of Australia's largest companies. The Senate reports notes that stakeholders are broadly on board with the proposed changes and that there is broad cross-party support.</para>
<para>While the monitoring of competition impacts of M&A is important, I note that this bill is not without the risk of unintended consequences. These risks particularly affect young firms if the ability to be acquired or merge is impeded or restricted. For young firms an acquisition provides one of the few opportunities for early-stage investors to exit and realise gains on an investment often made several years before. If a merger cannot take place, the investor must wait either for another investor to buy them out or for the company to list publicly. Patient capital is hard to find and getting harder, with banks and superannuation funds effectively holding their nominal investments in small-business and venture flat over the past decade. That's not a good for anyone. Acquisitions also provide good businesses and good ideas the opportunity to scale quickly. It's not always the case that a reduction in acquisition is bad. I note that the Treasurer has agreed to review the thresholds after a period of 12 months, a condition that I warmly welcome.</para>
<para>I also note that the impost of this regulation is of concern for different parts of the economy that I've spoken to, including the property sector and other sectors, which are questioning how they will or should be fitting into this legislation.</para>
<para>As I said I welcome this bill. I think it is appropriate. But I do think we need to get it right. And I do have concerns in particular about the ability of the regulator to meet the additional requirements.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 17:21 to 17:56</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, whilst I welcome a best-practice approach, I do have concerns about the ability of the regulator to meet the additional requirements and their ability to undertake their investigations in a diligent and timely way.</para>
<para>The legislation requires phase 1 determinations to be made within 30 days and phase 2 determinations to be made after 90 days. But, as we've seen with other regulatory organisations, these types of benchmarks are easily skirted and often not met, and I hold the same concerns here, including that stop the clock rights exist for the ACCC as we see for other regulators. Additional requests for information are anecdotally used by regulators to create more time when they've got challenges meeting their deadlines. If this is the case, the legislation has the potential to delay mergers, costing money and resources and placing businesses through additional regulatory hurdles with limited benefit to competition and the community. I encourage the review in 12 months to also consider the responsiveness of the ACCC, to assess that as part of the review and also to assess whether measures like stop the clock or other types of additional information measures are being used in ways that are actually delaying the assessment of these applications.</para>
<para>I'd also like to acknowledge that this bill has undergone a Senate review that made four recommendations in light of these concerns and concerns made by others. In particular, I welcome recommendation 2. In addition to the 12 month review, the Senate report recommended an expert implementation advisory panel to be established which specifically called out the likes of the Tech Council of Australia, that represent many of these young and innovative firms. I think it is absolutely critical that young and innovative firms are represented in this sort of panel of review because it is critical that this legislation really enables competition, innovation and dynamism, and there is a danger that there could be some unintended consequences which, under certain circumstances, may actually dampen that competition, dynamism and creation of new firms. I warmly support that recommendation, and I think it would help the business community be reassured that the unintended consequences of the bill will be taken seriously.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I support this bill because competition is a major concern, and I note that similar models are working effectively in other jurisdictions and have the ability to ensure that Australia continues to be a country with effective and robust business competition. I support this bill because I really want to support young, innovative and small businesses, and I think it's really important that we continue to let those businesses thrive. Part of that is making sure that they have and are able to compete with larger businesses.</para>
<para>However, I identify the risks associated with imposing these different burdens on businesses, including stifling exit opportunities and thus investment, and delaying the process of effective mergers through regulatory bottlenecks. I think an implementation review is a sensible recommendation in addition to the 12-month review of thresholds, and I encourage the government to seriously consider implementing the recommendations of the Senate report.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no doubt that a huge number of Australians are suffering serious cost-of-living challenges, and there's significant political pressure to come up with instant solutions to make a real difference to the cost of living. While the government can have an impact on inflation, many of the factors affecting inflation and the cost of living are beyond the reach of the federal government. Geopolitics, pandemics, supply chain complexities—governments may be blamed for these things, but they can't really do much about them. But one of the things that the government can impact is competition. This is not a quick fix for the cost of living, but, over the long term, getting the rules right when it comes to how companies can compete in Australia has a significant impact on costs for consumers. Effective competition drives efficiency and productivity. That means better products at lower prices for Australian consumers.</para>
<para>Duopolies and oligopolies are bad for consumers. While competition law is complicated, most people understand this intuitively and are suspicious of big companies having too much power. For groceries and living essentials, the Coles-Woolworths duopoly has been accused of driving up prices and passing the buck to shoppers. For travel, the Qantas-Virgin duopoly has similarly been accused of forcing out competition and passing on poor service and high costs to travellers. And, here in politics, the duopoly of the Labor and Liberal political parties has been accused of using parliamentary power to shut out new political entrants. Now, obviously the political party duopoly is not considered as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024, unfortunately, but it is good to see the government promoting competition in business. Voters might be stuck with less political competition, but this amendment is a good move for consumers.</para>
<para>The existing merger law and clearance process has been in need of reform for some time. In 2021, the then ACCC chair Rod Sims argued for reform, and his successor, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, an eminent competition lawyer with extensive experience on both sides of the merger regulation process, also supports the creation of a formal merger clearance process. The current law in the Competition and Consumer Act says that companies can't acquire shares or assets in a company that would substantially lessen competition in any market. The key problem with this law is that there's no requirement for parties to notify the ACCC before completing a merger. Because there's no requirement, the ACCC instead has established an informal merger review process, where parties can first ask the ACCC for advice on the competitiveness of the merger before it's completed. This process, which has no formal status in law, lacks transparency and does not provide an informed basis for market participants to understand their legal and regulatory risk. In short, it's not fit for purpose.</para>
<para>This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act to better reflect the requirements of modern markets. This bill introduces mandatory notification when companies involved in mergers meet certain thresholds. Monetary thresholds are the simplest way for companies to know when they need to notify. This regime needs to work for businesses. But the bill also preserves an ability for the minister to introduce market-concentration-based thresholds for compulsory notification in the future. I'm concerned about this. Although these types of thresholds have been used overseas, market-concentration-based thresholds for compulsory notification add complexity and are opposed by many experts in the field of competition law because they add uncertainty, risk and compliance cost to the first step in the clearance process.</para>
<para>For this reason I'll be proposing an amendment to delete section 51ABP(3)(c), to remove the ability for the minister to introduce market-concentration-based thresholds. It needs to be clear to companies when they need to notify. If, after a review of the act, it's found that the existing thresholds are not working, I think this should come back to parliament for consideration so that further complexity is not added for business without appropriate scrutiny and a weighing of the costs and benefits.</para>
<para>The bill also allows the Treasurer to designate high-risk parts of the economy where the ACCC will be able to review all mergers regardless of whether they meet other thresholds. This could be used for airlines, supermarkets, or any industry where there are specific competition concerns. While I support this aspect of the bill, the bill does not require the Treasurer to seek advice from the ACCC before making such a designation. I think this is a problem. ACCC consultation should be a requirement not an option. The government informs me that the ACCC is likely to be central to this process, so I see no need to allow the Treasurer to designate an industry as high risk without the advice of the ACCC.</para>
<para>I'm concerned that this could be used for political purposes, where a particular industry could be kicked with greater scrutiny in an effort to appease the public, rather than where there are specific and well-founded competition concerns. I'm not reassured by the government saying that the ACCC could always participate in a public consultation process. The ACCC has specific expertise and a specific role in this area, and should be consulted specifically in advance of any public consultation process. For this reason, I will propose that section 51ABQ(4) be amended to change 'may' to 'must' to ensure that the ACCC has a clear role in the designation of any high-risk parts of the economy.</para>
<para>I have one more concern. The merger-specific expanded definition of 'substantial lessening of the competition' is a significant change to a concept that's been the subject of decades of judicial application and reasoning. I'm still not clear why a different definition is necessary here, and I'm concerned that it may cause confusion. I'd urge the government to explain this added complexity and use any opportunity to clarify the difference in definitions.</para>
<para>These minor changes aside, the bill increases the transparency and scrutiny of private mergers and makes the regulation a mandatory reporting regime so that the ACCC can monitor how our business acquisitions are affecting competition. I recognise that we do need to reduce red tape so that businesses can get on with doing what they do best, particularly given our period of low productivity. I recognise that this will create a regulatory burden, particularly in the private equity sector. The coalition has pointed out some other concerns, such as ACCC resourcing and the compliance burden, and I respect that these need to be considered. But the benefits of this amendment could deliver for cost-of-living relief, and that's so important that I'm happy to support the passage of this bill, ideally with my amendments.</para>
<para>More competition in sectors like supermarkets, airlines, fuel and liquor should result in lower prices and more choice for consumers. We need to be more assertive in formulating law and policy to address the stronghold the duopolies and oligopolies have on Australian markets. A fit-for-purpose merger clearance process will improve the regulation of competition in Australia, in turn encouraging innovation and new entry into important sectors in Australia. The goal here is lower prices for consumers. The government must pull all levers possible to respond to the cost-of-living crisis, and ensuring better market competition is one lever to pull.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank those members who have contributed to the debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 delivers a new, faster, stronger, simpler, more targeted and more transparent merger system that will help deliver what we all want: a stronger, more competitive and more productive economy. Our country is facing some of the most significant structural changes in our history, with increasing digitalisation, particularly artificial intelligence; the net zero transformation; and the rise of the care economy. We need to ensure workers aren't unfairly prevented from shifting to a better job. We must look after the most vulnerable.</para>
<para>In Australia, productivity growth has slowed and many aggregate measures of dynamism have declined. A range of competition indicators suggest an overall deterioration in competition in Australia since the early 2000s. We've seen the average market share of the largest four firms in each industry increase from 41 per cent in 2001-02 to 43 per cent in 2018-19. Average price mark-ups are estimated to have increased by around six per cent over the past two decades. A range of concentrated sectors are evident across the economy, ranging from baby food to beer. During consultation, CHOICE and the Consumer Federation of Australia highlighted adverse consumer outcomes in highly concentrated sectors: groceries, banking, telecommunications, energy and the digital economy. Farming groups raised concern about market concentration in supply chains, with limited options for buying inputs and selling products impacting their ability to sell at competitive prices.</para>
<para>Competition encourages innovation, puts downward pressure on prices, and leads to improved choice and quality of products and services for consumers and businesses. Merger law is a key pillar of competition policy. It plays a critical gatekeeper role in preventing anticompetitive mergers before they take place, protecting consumers and promoting competition.</para>
<para>Even small increases in prices resulting from anticompetitive mergers can be harmful for consumers. Analysis by the ACCC and their ex post review of Caltex's acquisition of Milemaker found that petrol prices in local areas near the Milemaker sites had increased by 0.8c per litre at the pump or around 0.5 per cent, costing motorists around $6 million every year. The need for merger reform is clear. The current ad hoc merger process is unfit for a modern economy, lagging behind best practice in comparable countries. Australia is one of only three OECD countries that don't currently require compulsory notification of mergers.</para>
<para>For some businesses, the current system can be too slow and cause expensive delays as they wait. We heard from the Business Council of Australia and the Tech Council that the process can also lead to considerable uncertainty and can be unpredictable. The current system relies on judicial enforcement, which can involve delays of multiple years while cases wind their way through the hierarchy of courts at considerable expense to the parties.</para>
<para>The current approach is also not transparent for businesses or the community. There is widespread agreement from stakeholders that increased transparency would help merger parties, other businesses and consumers to engage with ACCC merger reviews. Improved transparency will also allow the community to understand what mergers are doing to the economy.</para>
<para>For the ACCC itself, it has been dealing with inadequate merger notifications, insufficient information and a reactive, adversarial approach from some businesses, with limited capacity to present economic evidence in court. The voluntary nature means that merger parties can proceed to completion or threaten to complete a merger before the ACCC has finalised its review. Last year, over 1,400 mergers were recorded at a value of around $300 billion. Meanwhile, the ACCC looks at an average of 330 mergers a year. But we don't know whether these are the right 330 or the mergers with the greatest potential to cause harm. What we do know is that there are anticompetitive mergers that have escaped detection under our current system only to be found out after the fact.</para>
<para>In one example the ACCC became aware of a large number of acquisitions completed between 2017 and 2022 by Petstock, the second-largest speciality pet retail chain in Australia. To address concerns about the impact on national and statewide chain-on-chain competition in local areas, the ACCC accepted a court enforceable undertaking from Petstock to divest a package of sites and assets, including 41 speciality pet retail stores and 25 co-located veterinary hospitals.</para>
<para>In another example, Steadfast, Australia's largest Strata insurance broker, brokering around 40 per cent and writing around half of Australia's strata policies, has in just over a decade spent more than $1.6 billion in the acquisition of insurance brokers and underwriters. According to the ACCC, Steadfast has amassed a very significant market position with almost no notifications—only one in the last three years, which was very shortly before completion. The ACCC has publicly highlighted this as an example of the critical problem with the current informal, voluntary approach to merger control in Australia.</para>
<para>In a third example, Primary Health Care did not notify the ACCC of their acquisition of Healthscope's pathology assets, which removed a significant third player, leaving just two major full-service pathology providers in Queensland. After investigation, the ACCC accepted remedies to restore a competitive market structure in Queensland.</para>
<para>But addressing the effects of anticompetitive mergers after the harm has already occurred is not a good deal for consumers dealing with cost-of-living pressures or for businesses. The time and difficulty in obtaining information post completion poses challenges in ineffectively remedying the harm and restoring competition. Concerns have also been raised about potential land banking by supermarkets which may block competitors from developing sites and entering local markets.</para>
<para>This bill responds to those issues, bringing our merger system into the 21st century. These reforms will ensure that future acquisitions that meet the notification threshold will be subject to scrutiny, empowering the ACCC to effectively and efficiently detect and prevent anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. The size of the benefit is substantial. Drawing on evidence from overseas, Treasury has estimated an effective merger regime may be worth between $340 million and $732 million a year to the Australian economy, while noting that the status quo settings already achieved some of this.</para>
<para>The gains will build over time, too, as more and more areas of the economy are saved from facing higher prices from anticompetitive mergers. If the new system stops just one additional merger that would have resulted in a five per cent price rise in a market the size of $200 million, it will save consumers $10 million a year. For context, a $200 million market is about the size of the newspaper and book retailing market in Western Australia.</para>
<para>Getting our merger and competition settings right will attract investment and allow startups to enter the market to challenge incumbents, promoting growth and innovation, reversing the concentration of market power in a small number of firms. The benefits from stronger competition are significant. Overall, Treasury and Reserve Bank estimates suggest Australia's GDP could be 1.3 percentage points higher if competition were restored to the same level as the 2000s. In today's dollars, that's $30 billion to $80 billion a year.</para>
<para>This bill introduces a mandatory and suspensory administrative system to better address anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. It'll simplify and speed up the process for the review of mergers and acquisitions for businesses and the ACCC, give the ACCC stronger powers to identify and scrutinise transactions that pose a risk to competition and improve transparency so we're all better informed.</para>
<para>The new merger control system will be mandatory from 1 January 2026. Mergers above certain notification thresholds will need to be notified and approved by the ACCC as the first instance expert administrative decision-maker. Most mergers have genuine economic benefits and are an important feature of a healthy, open financial system. But some mergers can cause serious economic harm. The new system will be targeted and risk-based. Not every merger will be captured, and more resources will be devoted to addressing mergers posing the greatest risk to the economy. The thresholds will be set according to evidence of expected harm, allowing the ACCC to focus its efforts. The system will be responsive to insights from the latest evidence and economic theory as our economy rapidly changes.</para>
<para>Regardless of whether you think mergers are a significant economic problem or not, you should support this bill as best-practice regulation. The notification thresholds will be set through legislative instruments to ensure the system is agile, flexible and able to adapt to evolving issues in the economy. The government intends to set monetary thresholds via legislative instruments following the passage of this bill. There will be three key objective, risk based, targeted thresholds to capture economically significant acquisitions, acquisitions involving very large businesses and serial acquisitions.</para>
<para>We want to see the majority of mergers approved quickly so the ACCC can focus on the minority that give rise to competition concerns. Land acquisitions involving residential property development and certain commercial property acquisitions won't be included, to avoid clogging up the system with simple land purchases.</para>
<para>The bill also provides flexibility to allow the Treasurer to adjust and calibrate the thresholds to respond to evidence based concerns from the ACCC about high-risk mergers, such as in the supermarket sector. On the advice of the ACCC chair, the government also intends to use this power to get the competition regulator to review purchases of an interest above 20 per cent in an unlisted or private company if the monetary notification thresholds are met. This is a significant change for the ACCC, the business and the community, and it will shape the boundaries of merger control over time. These reforms will improve community awareness and understanding of merger assessments, deterring anticompetitive mergers before they are proposed.</para>
<para>To support the transition to the new system, businesses will be able to voluntarily notify and opt into the new system from 1 July 2025. We're also retaining the existing prohibition against anticompetitive mergers for those that are not required to be notified. The ACCC will also be able to waive the requirement to notify, to support businesses to transition to the new system with greater certainty.</para>
<para>There is important work that needs to be done to prepare for the start of the new system, including ensuring the ACCC has economic and data analytics toolkits that it needs ready to go. Passage of the bill this year will give business and the ACCC time to prepare, facilitating a smooth transition and enabling the system to quickly mature. To ensure the system operates as intended into the future, the thresholds will be reviewed 12 months after coming into effect, and there will be a statutory review three years from the start of the new system to evaluate its functioning and effectiveness, driven by data and evidence, designed and supported by the Australian Centre for Evaluation. To promote accountability, the ACCC will report annually on statistics and data underpinning the new scheme. The ACCC is also committed to revitalising and expanding its Performance Consultative Committee to advise on the ACCC's merger review functions as well as the broad range of the ACCC's responsibilities.</para>
<para>Together with the new public register and other safeguards, business and the community can be confident that these reforms will achieve better timing, certainty and transparency around decision-making. Together, these changes will meet community expectations that the ACCC can detect and stop harmful anticompetitive acquisitions, give businesses certainty and predictability and make it easier for the majority of mergers to be approved quickly.</para>
<para>This bill represents the biggest reform to merger settings in half a century. Greater competition is crucial for lifting dynamism, productivity and wages growth, putting downward pressure on prices and delivering more choices for Australians dealing with cost-of-living pressure. The government is committed to building a more competitive, dynamic and productive economy. This bill will help to achieve this.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the work of Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the contributions of the Competition Review Expert Advisory Panel, the ACCC, businesses and the broader community to the consultation and development of this bill. A range of stakeholders have expressed support for reform of Australia's approach to merger control, including business, consumer groups, small business, the agricultural sector and competition law experts. I particularly want to thank Tori Barker and Nick Terrell from my office; colleagues from the Treasurer's office; officials from the Department of the Treasury's Competition Taskforce, including Marcus Bezzi, Jason McDonald, Annalisa Heger, Natasha McNamara, Jack Elliott, Stella Leung, Jessica Kwong, Lilian Yan, Sheena Chen, Geoffrey Go, Rocky Mi and Adam Spence; and officials from Treasury's law design team—Jessica Robinson, Amy Jarvoll, David Haines, Ron Harry and Kurt Nakkan. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume 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.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>8254</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7258" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8254</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Between 2016 and 2019, over 443,000 Australians received notices of debt from Services Australia—443,000. The bare facts of this debt collection process, which became known as robodebt, were the following. Firstly, these notices were false. Secondly, they were generated by a process called income averaging, which failed to produce an accurate debt figure. Finally, the process did not comply with the Social Security Act 1991 or the law. Put simply, this means these Turnbull-Morrison debt notices were unlawful. Those are the facts.</para>
<para>However, what these empirical facts fail to illustrate is the damaging impact these notices of debt had on hundreds of thousands of Australians. The personal toll was significant and traumatising. As I'm sure you well know, people died because of these Turnbull-Morrison debt notices. People died. Many people felt ashamed and stigmatised—the opposite of how Australian welfare recipients should be treated. In many cases, victims were made to feel like criminals as they were relentlessly pursued by outsourced debt collectors. In some tragic circumstances, the receipt of a Turnbull-Morrison debt notice played a role in those subsequent suicides.</para>
<para>The very well respected royal commissioner Catherine Holmes provided the following summary in her detailed report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.</para></quote>
<para>The implementation of the scheme by the coalition governments is a lasting and shameful stain on their political records, but they should not be held accountable just for the initial implementation. The scheme lasted for four long years, and as it progressed there was both increasing public distress and well-publicised criticism. As Prime Minister Albanese said when the royal commission handed down its report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For more than four years, Liberal Ministers dismissed or ignored the significant concerns that were raised over and over again, including in the Parliament, but also by victims, by public servants, by community organisations and of course, by legal experts.</para></quote>
<para>I particularly praise the public servants that had the courage to call out what was a travesty of justice. Some public servants—I won't name them; I'm not one for using parliamentary privilege—I condemn them for their cowardice.</para>
<para>The final royal commission report was damning, and it stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The beginning of 2017 was the point at which Robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent. It should then have been abandoned or revised drastically, and an enormous amount of hardship and misery (as well as the expense the government was so anxious to minimise) would have been averted. Instead the path taken was to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all. The government was, the DHS and DSS ministers maintained, acting righteously to recoup taxpayers' money from the undeserving.</para></quote>
<para>Despite the growing body of evidence, it took a ruling by the Federal Court for the former coalition government to finally end the scheme in 2020. What a disgraceful, cruel and contemptuous way to treat the Australian public, especially some of our most vulnerable Australians.</para>
<para>The Morrison government eventually refunded the unlawful debt repayments at a cost of over $720 million. The refunds came with some sort of grudging apology—it completely lacked grace and contrition and was forced out of the former Prime Minister in question time in parliament. A formal apology, I note, was never made, nor has any member of that coalition government ever personally apologised for the deaths and damage that they are responsible for. Obviously, the Liberal Party is a party of free choice; it's not a collectivist party. They're able to make free choices, and I look forward to them—the members of those two parliaments—making that decision in terms of being able to live with themselves.</para>
<para>The establishment of a royal commission into the robodebt scheme was an election commitment of the Albanese Labor government, and I thank the Hon. Bill Shorten for being the driver of that process. It began in August 2022 and held 46 days of hearings, with over 100 witnesses. The witnesses included victims as well as the Services Australia staff who had been required to implement the scheme, from July 2016 to when it was eventually scrapped in May 2020. The royal commission received 1,099 submissions. Reading the submissions is a sobering experience. It's unthinkable that so many ordinary Australian citizens suffered so much. It is also unthinkable that it was perpetrated by government departments, by public servants, by the federal government—institutions that the Australian public should have been able to trust.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government took swift action when the report was handed down. In November 2023 we confirmed acceptance and in-principle acceptance of all 56 of the royal commission recommendations, and today I stand in support of the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill. This is the bill that implements our response to recommendations 21.1 and 21.2 of the royal commission's report. It focuses on bolstering the oversight capabilities of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman.</para>
<para>Australians have the right to be able to believe that the Commonwealth agencies are fulfilling their roles impartially and with integrity. The public deserves to be able to trust that these institutions are operating lawfully and transparently. That is where the role of the Ombudsman comes into play. The bill will amend the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003, boosting the powers of the ombudsmen and strengthening the foundations of their independent and robust oversight role. This addresses the finding of the royal commission that the checks and balances that should have stopped robodebt were ineffective.</para>
<para>The royal commission found evidence that documentation was withheld from the Ombudsman. This was crucial evidence that called the legality of the scheme into question. The report also detailed occasions when the Ombudsman was 'fobbed off with explanations' and described a situation where the Department of Human Services dissuaded the Ombudsman from mentioning the legality issue at all. Ultimately, the report made it clear that the role of the Ombudsman required bolstering. As a consequence, the bill confers a statutory duty on secretaries and agency heads, and officers of their department or agency, to assist the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman in the event of an investigation. This is a recommendation of the royal commission, and we're extending it by imposing a requirement that these personnel assist the ombudsmen in discharging all their duties.</para>
<para>The ombudsmen will also be granted the power to access agency records fully and directly in the event of an investigation, and the bill makes it a criminal offence to withhold this access and any required assistance. The capability to undertake impartial and transparent investigations will enhance trust in government agencies as well as the offices of the ombudsmen. The bill contains additional amendments to assist in the efficiency of these oversight duties, including the ability to access documents remotely for an investigation. It also extends the duties and power to apply to other roles under the Ombudsman Act, such as the Defence Force Ombudsman and the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. It amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to ensure that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security can access assistance when making inquiries about the head of an intelligence agency.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill are part of a larger suite of reforms that the Albanese Labor government has committed to in response to the damning royal commission report. One of these is the amendment of cabinet procedures to ensure that there is full understanding of legal issues concerning new policy proposals. Yes, it's a radical idea that the laws we implement should be legal, I know, but it's 2024. We're also re-establishing the Administrative Review Council, after its short-sighted abolition under the 2015 Liberal government. The Administrative Review Council is an independent policy advisory body which will inquire into administrative law and monitor the performance of the administrative review system—all important oversight functions.</para>
<para>Labor is prioritising funding for measures to implement the royal commission's recommendations. We're directing $2.3 million over four years from 2023-24 and $700,000 per year thereafter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to boost its oversight over government agencies. A total of $5.4 million over four years, with $1.7 million ongoing funding thereafter, will enable the establishment of the Administrative Review Council. The Office of Legal Services Coordination will receive substantial funding to focus on the identification and management of legal risk, and this will be supported by additional funding for the Office of Constitutional Law to improve how this risk is identified for cabinet consideration. Crucially, there is $5.6 million over four years, with $400,000 ongoing, in new funding for the Attorney-General's Department to develop a legal framework for the use of automated decision-making in government services. Labor has also rejuvenated Services Australia's personnel numbers. The former coalition government reduced staff by 3,800. We've restored funding, staff and efficiency. Human oversight is obviously a necessary part of the system that will ensure that robodebt is never resurrected.</para>
<para>The royal commission was established to apportion responsibility for the design and implementation of robodebt, to work out just how a succession of former coalition governments could impose an unlawful and damaging scheme on the Australian public, especially some of our most vulnerable people. Its other aim was to ensure that something like robodebt can never happen again. This bill strengthens the powers of the oversight function in our democracy.</para>
<para>I will finish by quoting the Attorney-General: 'Oversight keeps government agencies accountable to the people they serve.' This is a baseline standard that should be in place, and this bill is an important part of the Albanese government's wholehearted and committed response to the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The royal commission's findings on robodebt were damning, and rightly so. It was an intentionally unintelligible, unjust and illegal scheme that was shrouded in secrecy and targeted Australia's most vulnerable people. This so-called welfare cop initiative branded 866,000 Australians as noncompliant and deviant, inflicting deep financial and psychological wounds on people's lives, and it did so without accountability, with no clear processes to safeguard against errors or abuses of power. As the commission described it, robodebt was a 'crude and cruel' system, a mechanism that sent letters indiscriminately implying wrongdoing where there was none, forcing recipients to prove innocence under threat of debt recovery. The scale of harm, financial distress, mental health impact and even the tragic loss of life reflects a government failing in its duty of care to the people it served.</para>
<para>Women already facing financial instability were issued erroneous debt notices under robodebt, exacerbating their economic struggles and severely impacting their mental health. Single mothers reliant on support payments were disproportionately affected, with the stress of unjust debt claims undermining their ability to care for their children. For survivors of domestic violence, the situation was even more distressing, as some found themselves pursued for debts accrued during abusive relationships, retraumatising them and hindering their efforts to rebuild their lives independently.</para>
<para>This scandal revealed more than policy failure; it exposed something deeply broken within the heart of government: an erosion of accountability, transparency, integrity and, above all, care. It was a gross breach of public trust, a failure to uphold the duty of care that public administration promises to each and every Australian. We saw a government more invested in recovering debts and achieving financial targets than in safeguarding the dignity and welfare of its citizens.</para>
<para>The numbers themselves tell a story. The $1.8 billion debt recovery target ultimately cost taxpayers $1.7 billion. But robodebt is about more than statistics; it's about people. Behind every debt letter was a person or family left to navigate a complex, opaque, bureaucratic system that couldn't withstand legal scrutiny. The tragedy is not in the dollars wasted but in the individuals harmed and the trust in public institutions irreparably damaged.</para>
<para>People and organisations across a range of positions of authority failed profoundly in their duty to ensure accountability for robodebt. The Australian Public Service Commission offered weak justifications for inaction, more recently followed up by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which initially declined to investigate. The real tragedy of robodebt lies not just in its procedural failings but in a stark failure of humanity, and the failures in follow-up are part of that.</para>
<para>The NACC is now reconsidering its decision not to investigate robodebt after a scathing report from the independent NACC inspector into the referrals. Delayed accountability only deepens the wound for those who are affected, suggesting that even the highest oversight bodies lack the urgency to protect those most harmed by government failures. Australians expect a government that serves them, not one that scapegoats them for financial or political expediency. The NACC bar is high, with corruption defined as serious and systemic, but to assume it's not there without even investigating after such serious consequences goes against public expectations, and at the end of the day the NACC is there to serve. In Goldstein, during my last election campaign, the call for integrity in government was resounding. Increasing accountability was central to my decision to run, and it remains central to my work here.</para>
<para>In response to robodebt, the government has proposed the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The bill is positioned as a corrective measure to prevent further disasters like robodebt by enhancing accountability and expanding the oversight powers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation.</para>
<para>This bill aligns well with the royal commission's recommendations: strengthened oversight, statutory duties for agency heads and expanded access to information. It clarifies obligations for public servants to fully cooperate with oversight mechanisms, which is an essential step forward in addressing the accountability failures exposed by robodebt. Locking in these requirements is a valuable move towards reinforcing a transparent, accountable Public Service, which was lacking in the robodebt process.</para>
<para>Former public service commissioner Professor Andrew Podger, who's written a discussion paper outlining reforms that balance efficiency with integrity, states it plainly: 'Getting the rewards and penalties more in line with frank and fearless advice is crucial for effective governance.' The issue during robodebt wasn't that the ombudsman lacked statutory power but rather that the departments themselves withheld cooperation and did not act in good faith. Real accountability is not legislated into existence by mandates or fear of noncompliance. It is borne from a culture within government agencies that prioritises transparency and is committed to serving the people.</para>
<para>The true lesson of robodebt is that we need a culture of transparency and ethical governance within our Public Service, one that empowers public servants to raise concerns about harmful policies and encourages fearless advice. Systems should encourage honesty and value the voices of those directly impacted by policies. The royal commission's recommendations go beyond oversight. They suggest a transformative approach to policymaking, one that places humanity at its core. As recommendation 10.1 suggests, policy design should centre on the people it serves. This includes using accessible language, fostering engagement and acting with sensitivity towards vulnerable Australians. When policy disregards the dignity of those it impacts, it risks becoming an instrument of harm.</para>
<para>Oversight, while essential, is not a substitute for culture, and robodebt was not merely a failure of process. It was a failure of humanity. It calls for more than just oversight; it calls for a reform of our Public Service culture to reflect empathy, ethical decision-making and a commitment to transparency. We need a cultural shift. Rick Morton from the <inline font-style="italic">Saturday Paper </inline>observed, 'Thousands of decisions are made every day in government, and ministers touch very few of them.' Public servants wield enormous power and must be held to the same standards of accountability and transparency as elected officials. They should not be shielded from scrutiny but must instead serve as models of ethical governance.</para>
<para>Trust in government institutions is alarmingly low, with only 30 per cent of Australians expressing confidence and a mere 12 per cent believing that government is run for all the people. If we're to restore this trust, we must tread carefully. The public needs to see a government that serves with transparency, compassion and respect, and that also applies to the Public Service and the advice that public servants provide.</para>
<para>Last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended legislating a federal human rights act, after receiving hundreds of submissions advocating for stronger protections. The proposal has garnered resounding support from human rights organisations, legal experts and advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Law Centre and a coalition of over 100 civil society organisations. The robodebt scandal, I would argue, highlights the urgent need for a federal human rights act to embed respect, dignity and accountability in government processes, ensuring that no individual is subjected to systemic injustices like those inflicted under robodebt. It would provide clear, accessible standards for treating people with dignity, empowering those affected by unjust policies to seek justice. If robodebt taught us anything, it's that, without a structured legal framework prioritising human rights, policies can devolve into mechanisms of harm, eroding trust in our public institutions. Let us not repeat this mistake.</para>
<para>In closing, I will support this bill, but I urge the government to go further. Australians need reassurance that all the recommendations of the royal commission into robodebt will be enacted, including those it endorsed but did not include in its final report. This is not just about legislating enforcement; it's about building that culture that empowers our institutions to act ethically, transparently and with compassion. Robodebt stands as a chilling example of moral contempt. The path forward is one of careful reform, putting people and not paperwork at the centre of our public systems. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. On 18 August 2022, letters patent were issued to establish the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Subsequently, on 7 July 2023, Commissioner Holmes delivered her report to the Governor-General. A total of 1,099 submissions were received by the royal commission and, coupled with public hearings, contributed to a subsequent 1,052 page report. That report listed 57 recommendations that the bill before us seeks to implement.</para>
<para>The preface to the <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">oyal </inline><inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">ommission into </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">obodebt </inline><inline font-style="italic">Scheme</inline> states, in part:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme's lack of legal foundation coming to light. Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances—the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme's continuance.</para></quote>
<para>The robodebt scheme will surely go down in the history of the country as one of the most shameful chapters of mal- and misadministration. At the time of the release of the commissioner's report, the minister for the NDIS and Services Australia said these eloquent and heartfelt words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To those who took their own lives because of Robodebt and their families, we pay our respects. The horrible pain inflicted upon you should never have happened.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To the activists, advocates, whistleblowers, journalists, members of Labor and the cross bench, and, of course, the victims themselves who fought tirelessly for accountability and justice, today is because of you.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Never again should people receiving government supports be demonised as second-class citizens.</para></quote>
<para>We owe it as a parliament and a nation to ensure that the victims of robodebt are never forgotten, and we also owe it to them to ensure such an evil scheme never happens again. To this end, robust and effective oversight of Commonwealth agencies is essential to ensure that such agencies act with integrity and in a manner that is lawful, fair, transparent and meets the needs of the communities they serve.</para>
<para>Having exposed the failures of robodebt, the Albanese government is committed to implementing the recommendations from Commissioner Holmes's report. In doing so, the government is committed to improve public trust that government agencies are acting with accountability and integrity. The bill implements the government's response to recommendation 21.2 of the royal commission's report. It does this by amending the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003. In effect, the bill will bolster the powers and capabilities of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and the Taxation Ombudsman. Both the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General play crucial and important roles in ensuring that government agencies act with integrity and fairness and in influencing systemic improvement in government administration. Likewise, the Inspector-General of Taxation and the Taxation Ombudsman has an extremely important role in providing assurance to the community that taxation laws are being administered with integrity.</para>
<para>Specifically, in relation to recommendation 21.1, this bill imposes a statutory duty on secretaries and agency heads and officers of departments or agencies to assist the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman in the performance of their functions.</para>
<para>In relation to recommendation 21.2, the bill strengthens the power of the Ombudsman and Inspector-General of Taxation and the Taxation Ombudsman to obtain full, free and direct access to agency records as part of an investigation by requiring officials be provided with all reasonable facilities and assistance to exercise these powers. Further, it will be a criminal offence to withhold such facilities or assistance. Importantly, by providing full, free and direct access to agency records as part of an investigation, the bill will ensure the Ombudsman and the inspector-general can undertake full, independent and transparent investigations.</para>
<para>I commenced these remarks by referencing some of Commissioner Holmes's comments in the preface to the report. Her observation about the disheartening ineffectiveness of institutional checks and balances is a wake-up call and a lightning rod for a call to change. It is a call this government will not ignore. We owe it to the nation and to the thousands of victims of robodebt to ensure our institutional checks and balances are so strong, so robust and so effective that another tragedy such as robodebt will be prevented. That robodebt was ever allowed to occur in the first instance was a tragedy and a national disgrace. It's also damning of the institutions and checks and balances we rely on to prevent such things occurring.</para>
<para>I hope the passage of this bill reassures the Australian public that this government is committed to the highest level of administration and world's best practice of openness and accountability.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak to the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 today, to see implementation of two very important recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. In 2022, a royal commission was established to inquire into the government scheme now known as robodebt. Robodebt used income averaging to pursue alleged welfare debts that in many cases did not exist, and $1.7 billion in debts was unlawfully raised against more than 500,000 social security recipients. A number of those individuals subsequently took their lives as a result of the trauma inflicted by the scheme.</para>
<para>Federal Court judge Bernard Murphy has described robodebt as 'a shameful chapter' which represented 'a massive failure of public administration' and caused 'a huge waste of public money'. The royal commission into robodebt was damning of the ministers and the public servants involved in the scheme. It found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people—</para></quote>
<para>innocent people—</para>
<quote><para class="block">feel like criminals.</para></quote>
<para>The report identified governance issues at the heart of the scheme's failures. It found that the institutional checks and balances that should have raised serious concerns about the robodebt scheme were deliberately blocked by the Morrison government. A subsequent review instigated by the Public Service Commissioner found that 12 public servants failed to act with due care and diligence and to uphold the Australian Public Service's values in their actions with respect to the robodebt scheme. Those breaches included misrepresentations to the Ombudsman. The royal commission found that stronger scrutiny might well have prevented the scheme's continuance and determined that the Ombudsman should not have to depend upon government agencies to undertake searches or to provide documents and information in the course of his or her investigations.</para>
<para>The royal commission made two recommendations of legislative change to the Ombudsman Act. The first was that a statutory duty be imposed on departmental secretaries and agency heads to ensure that their department or agency use its best endeavours to assist the Ombudsman in an investigation. The second was that a corresponding duty should be imposed on the part of Commonwealth public servants and that they must provide all reasonable facilities and assistance to the Ombudsman when the Ombudsman exercises its power to access an agency's records.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill deliver on those recommendations. The amendments improve the powers and capability of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation and the Taxation Ombudsman to investigate complaints concerning administrative actions of government officials and agencies and taxation administration decisions and systems. The agencies will be required to assist the Ombudsman, whether she or he is making preliminary inquiries, conducting an investigation or following up on the implementation of recommendations.</para>
<para>The responsibility to assist the Ombudsman is individually borne by all members of the Public Service. The bill ensures that the Ombudsman has strong powers to obtain full, free and direct access to agency records. The Ombudsman will not need to depend on government agencies to undertake searches and provide documents and information during an investigation.</para>
<para>The new and enhanced duties and powers in this bill will apply to all statutory officers of the Ombudsman under the act. That includes the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, the Postal Industry Ombudsman and the Overseas Students Ombudsman. The bill further recognises the importance of the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman in providing assurance to the community that taxation laws are being administered with integrity. It introduces equivalent amendments for the inspector-general as for the ombudsman.</para>
<para>While most government agencies engage in good faith with the Ombudsman, the findings of the robodebt royal commission demonstrated that the Ombudsman should not have to be reliant on that assumption. Impartial, independent and robust transparency measures are vital to restoring public trust in government. As the Public Service Commissioner has said, robodebt offers important lessons for public servants about ethical decision-making, leadership and accountability.</para>
<para>After the findings of the robodebt royal commission were published, including the referral of six individuals to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for investigation, the public rightfully expected that the conduct of key decision-makers responsible for robodebt would be examined by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC's decision to not even commence an investigation failed to meet public expectations. It risked undermining public trust in a newly established institution of great value and of great significance to the Australian public. In my view, the NACC's position that an investigation would not be of public value was a misunderstanding of the role of the commission to scrutinise government bodies in the public interest. Whatever the findings, the public has a right to understand the conduct of those who oversaw one of the most egregious abuses of vulnerable individuals in the recent history of the Australian Public Service.</para>
<para>A robust, active and vigorous National Anti-Corruption Commission will add further value by creating a culture in government of transparent decision-making, scrupulous record-keeping and public accountability. I acknowledge that the relevant checks and balances do seem to be working and that the NACC's decision was reviewed by the inspector and will now be independently reassessed. An independent 'eminent person' will now decide whether or not the commission should in fact investigate the matter. This is an important opportunity for the NACC to do exactly what the public expects and wants it to do—act decisively to protect public trust in our government and our Public Service. The country looks to see that our premier integrity body has the ability and the desire to seek out and root out corruption in our government. I commend this bill to the House, and I trust that the amendments herein will improve the capacity of the Ombudsman to do the same.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on a matter that stands at the intersection of accountability, justice and the responsibility of government to its citizens, the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This bill is more than just a legislative response; it's a commitment to ensuring past mistakes that affected so many Australians are acknowledged and corrected and that we learn from these errors to prevent such a tragedy ever happening again.</para>
<para>Robodebt was a shameful episode in the administration of income support in this country. It was a shameful episode in public administration and in the governing of this country. To look now at how this was not only allowed to happen but encouraged, cheerleaded and pushed through any barriers or concerns and any warnings of legislative barriers is like watching a train crash in slow motion. But it's a train crash that had so many victims, some we know about but countless thousands we may never know of. It seems so obvious that what was happening should never have been allowed to happen, and yet deliberate decision after decision was taken to ensure that it did. They say hindsight is 20/20, but the advice was there at the time—the legal advice, the frontline public servants raising concerns and the AAT decisions that repeatedly ruled against it. They knew, and they knew the damage that was being done—and they didn't care.</para>
<para>Surely one of the main ethical underpinnings of government is to do right by the people you are serving? We here in this place and the other place are elected to serve the people of Australia, and the public servants are employed to be servants of the public. But, in this case, that was all put aside in favour of money, the illusory surplus that those opposite promised for nine long years and never achieved. Since they couldn't do it through effective budgeting, they instead tried to steal money from Australians through the concocting of fake debts. They chose a vulnerable section of the community—people on income support. They used language and false narratives to demonise them, dividing the community with the idea that these people had taken benefits they were not entitled to. They concocted fake debts with a mathematically nonsense concept that attempted to match fortnightly income declarations, as required under legislation for income support, with annual tax return income declarations by falsely apportioning them evenly across the fortnights of the entire declaration period.</para>
<para>Then there was the program that was increasingly impossible to understand let alone refute, letters with no phone number to respond to and no ability to seek clarification through Services Australia offices, a run-down Public Service with increasingly long waiting times to get through, a presumption of guilt and a presumption that you had accepted the debt if you didn't respond. There was no checking that you'd even received the letter. And there was a presumption that if you agreed that you had declared your tax return income correctly then you had agreed that you owed the debt that they had calculated. If, by some miracle, you did manage to get a complaint lodged within the narrow timeframe, you then had to provide documentary evidence to support your dispute—payslips and timesheets from years and years ago, even if they already had that evidence on Services Australia computers, even if your employers had long gone out of business and weren't able or willing to assist you.</para>
<para>Robodebt, this terrible scheme, came from a position of an arrogant, uncaring government, a government that lacked care for its most vulnerable citizens, where the idea of possibly clawing back money overrode any concerns for the vulnerable individuals being targeted, overrode any ethical or moral considerations, even overrode mathematics and logic, overrode the basic rights of people to be able to understand the debt that was being alleged against them and overrode their right to query a government decision.</para>
<para>The robodebt scheme, as we all know, was a deeply flawed policy that led to widespread suffering. It was designed to automate the detection of overpayments within the social welfare system, but robodebt mistakenly assumed that individuals were incorrectly reporting their income. The program's automation and reliance on annualised income averaging, rather than actual reported income, created situations where citizens were wrongfully accused of owing debts. In many cases—in most cases, in fact—these debts never existed. In many cases, the debts calculated by this method were much greater than actually existed. The error was identified in the initial testing. However, the error was ignored in the interests of being able to allegedly review or audit many, many more cases than could be done by humans reviewing the cases more accurately.</para>
<para>Of course, to generate many, many more debts than actually existed, countless Australians, especially vulnerable and marginalised individuals, were placed under immense financial and emotional stress. Some entered payment plans and paid back thousands of dollars from their meagre income support, going without food and risking homelessness to try to pay down debts that they never owed in the first place. Many struggled with psychological distress and, as we know, tragically, some took their own lives. For every individual who suffered, there were families and friends—their children and their mothers and fathers—who suffered and, in some cases, are still in pain.</para>
<para>This was a profound failure, not just a failure of policy but a failure of governance, oversight and ethics. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme delivered an unequivocal verdict on this tragic and despicable episode in Australian government history. It did not mince words in describing robodebt as a catastrophe, one resulting from government negligence and systemic failures.</para>
<para>The commission's findings make it abundantly clear that accountability mechanisms were insufficient. The need for reform and stronger oversight has never been more evident, because Australians should be able to trust their government, the people they elect, to act in their interest, the interest of the electorate. But robodebt showed us very clearly that the previous government could not be trusted on this, and this is precisely where the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 comes in.</para>
<para>The bill is not just a response; it is a reform. It introduces comprehensive changes aimed at reinforcing the accountability and transparency of our institutions, especially in matters affecting the vulnerable. It seeks to rebuild trust in our system, particularly in how the government interacts with those who rely on social security. I'll turn to some of the bill's key provisions. Firstly, the bill aims to strengthen the oversight of decisions that could impact citizens' rights and welfare. It mandates that any future automated debt-recovery systems in the welfare sector will undergo rigorous scrutiny and independent assessments. Before such systems are implemented, there will be mandatory oversight from independent bodies and human review of high-risk cases. This reform not only protects against a repeat of robodebt but also acts as a safeguard for any future policies where automation intersects with human welfare.</para>
<para>The bill also establishes new reporting standards for government agencies. These agencies will be required to publicly disclose the methodologies and assumptions used in any automated processes. In the case of robodebt, income averaging based on annual ATO data was a root cause of incorrect debt assessments. By requiring transparency on methodologies, this bill aims to ensure that such opaque processes do not put individuals at risk of erroneous debt assessments again. Public reporting will create a form of accountability whereby policymakers and government agencies are required to justify and explain the rationale behind their systems.</para>
<para>Moreover, the bill proposes the creation of an ombudsman specifically tasked with the oversight of government debt-recovery processes. This ombudsman would be empowered to investigate complaints, review practices and make recommendations for reform. The establishment of the position will provide citizens with an avenue for recourse and support if they feel they have been wrongly targeted or mistreated by debt recovery processes. This ombudsman will act as a watchdog, protecting the rights of Australians and ensuring that government actions are fair and transparent.</para>
<para>The bill also includes measures for improved support for vulnerable Australians who interact with government services. It mandates that government agencies assess the social and financial impact on individuals before embarking on debt recovery, and there will be a greater emphasis on support, information access and compassionate handling for those in financially fragile situations. This bill introduces a human centred approach to debt recovery, a significant departure from the cold automated model used in robodebt.</para>
<para>Through the introduction of this bill, we acknowledge the mistakes made and the lessons learned. The robodebt tragedy underscored the risks of unchecked automation, the consequences of inadequate oversight and the human cost of prioritising efficiency over empathy. This bill puts safeguards in place to make sure that the mistakes of robodebt are not repeated. It is in many ways a legislative response to the fundamental principle that governance is about people, not about numbers on a spreadsheet. Legislation alone cannot heal the wounds or undo the harm experienced by those affected by robodebt, but it can demonstrate our commitment to change. It is our responsibility to acknowledge that the mistakes made were more than procedural. They were moral failings reflecting a lack of empathy, accountability and due process. In the wake of the robodebt scheme, we are compelled to put structures in place that better align with these values.</para>
<para>An important aspect of this bill is the emphasis on rebuilding trust. Trust is a currency that is hard earned and easily lost. The robodebt scheme's legacy is a crisis of confidence, and many Australians now feel wary of government systems and question whether institutions meant to serve them will instead turn against them. This bill seeks to restore that trust by embedding transparency, accountability and empathy into the core of government operations. The bill is not just about preventing the past from repeating; it is about building a better future. It represents a new approach to governance—one that views automation as a tool, not a substitute for human judgement and compassion. It seeks to balance innovation with responsibility, efficiency with empathy, and policy with principle.</para>
<para>As we look forward, we need to keep in mind the real people who were affected by robodebt: the families who lost loved ones, the individuals who struggled under the weight of false debt, the families and children who did without in order to repay debts that didn't exist and the communities who lost faith in their government. Let their stories remind us of the importance of getting this right.</para>
<para>This bill is more than a legislative response; it's a call to action, an acknowledgement of responsibility and a commitment to ensuring that the public's trust is not misplaced. Let us honour those affected by robodebt by committing to a system that is more transparent, accountable and compassionate. This bill shows that we are committed to valuing the dignity of every Australian and to ensuring that our government serves with integrity and fairness. The bill safeguards against the actions of a future rogue government because, as we saw with the previous Liberal-National government, it appears this is necessary. This bill is a promise to the Australian people that this government will work for them, not against them, and that we are committed to ensuring justice, fairness and compassion in all that we do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Robodebt should never have happened. It was quite simply a heartless plan that went on for far too long. If there have been much stronger scrutiny of this plan and more effective checks and balances, perhaps this could have been prevented. The hurt, pain and devastating loss suffered by many due to robodebt can never truly be accounted for, but we can take steps to help ensure that it can never happen again. Oversight makes our institutions stronger and our democracy better, and, most importantly, oversight ensures that government agencies are accountable to the people they are there to serve.</para>
<para>The report of the robodebt royal commission made it abundantly clear: strong and effective oversight mechanisms are fundamental to safeguard the community in their dealings with government. Trust in government depends on this very thing. This bill, the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024, helps address two recommendations from the robodebt royal commission and looks to expand the statutory duty to assist the functioning of the Ombudsman. In directly addressing recommendations 21.1 and 21.2 of the final report, this legislation seeks to improve public trust in government. It recognises the importance of ensuring the Ombudsman has the necessary legislative powers to undertake full, independent and transparent investigations. The bill implements this recommendation in full, but it goes further than this. The bill extends its statutory duty to assist the Ombudsman to all of the Ombudsman's functions. This means that agencies will be required to assist regardless of whether the Ombudsman is making preliminary inquiries, conducting an investigation or following up on implementation of its recommendations.</para>
<para>This is about good governance, about having the arms of government be accountable and about the ethics that form how policy is implemented. This is also about providing a measure of justice for the 430,000 people who had unlawful debt notices raised against them. Demonising and victimising welfare recipients is not something that anyone should do, let alone a government. The word 'welfare', as I spoke about in my first speech to parliament in 2023, is not a dirty word. It's for the welfare of people in society who, for whatever reason, need a helping hand. It's for people who are at their most vulnerable. The thing they need least at this time is a fake debt letter generated by a robo-scheme demanding thousands of dollars be repaid.</para>
<para>We are only here because public servants, like the heroic Colleen Taylor, showed incredible courage in speaking up, showing the integrity and empathy that so many of the public servants I have met also strive to show.</para>
<para>I was elected in April 2023 and became the new member for Aston, the second Labor MP for this electorate and its first woman MP in its 39-year history at the time. The preceding member for Aston, Alan Tudge—Liberal MP and former minister in the coalition government—oversaw the Department of Human Services at the time of robodebt. This minister helped wage a campaign of hate and division against the most vulnerable people in society. The widely reported way in which this former minister for human services conducted himself and his office is a reflection on the values that led to schemes like robodebt. The royal commission heard evidence that this former minister, Alan Tudge, sought information from the private Centrelink files of those people who spoke out about robodebt in the media, so he could shut them down. Then, he provided that private Centrelink information to journalists for publication. Who does that to Australian citizens? Who does that to the disabled, to pensioners, to single parents, to people trying to find a job? It's unfathomable. The legacy that Alan Tudge left is one that we will all remember for all the wrong reasons and the pain that has been endured, not just in members in my community, whose stories I've heard, but from all across the country and in evidence to the royal commission.</para>
<para>It's an enduring legacy that cannot and should not be forgotten. The victims hurt by robodebt were fleeing domestic violence. They were homeless; they were sick or frail and those most vulnerable in society. These are the people for whom the term 'social security' is supposed to mean something, as I spoke about in my first speech to parliament. The report may have been released, its findings published, but for those whose lives have been forever changed or, indeed, for those who lost their lives and for their devastated loved ones left behind because of this scheme, the battle goes on. The scars remain.</para>
<para>There are still unanswered questions, and for many victims, no answer will ever be enough. This should never have happened. Lives should never have been lost. The swift establishment of the robodebt royal commission when the Albanese government came into power speaks to how outraged we, like many Australians, felt about this dark stain on our history. There was clear legislation, but successive ministers directed that this legislation not be followed. We only know about this because of the royal commission. We must find a way to move forward, but remember the lessons here.</para>
<para>The reforms recommended by the royal commission are a line in the sand. These changes are part of our larger plan for reform. It's reform that the Albanese government is delivering, because we know that making these changes now means that people who rely on the government for assistance can have trust in the ethics and morals of those in government providing that service.</para>
<para>By providing additional funding for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to boost its oversight of government agencies and new funding to reinstate the Administrative Review Council, to support better decision-making across government, the Albanese government is committed to ensuring that the integrity of government is never compromised again. We can never fully undo that harm, but we can at least promise this to those who had to go through it and to everyone else: never again.</para>
<para>By further investing in better decision-making, through implementing these two recommendations from the royal commission's report, we improve public trust in how governments implement policy and prove that strong institutions are fundamental to government. We must always aim to meet and exceed the needs and expectations of the community. The only way to do this is through consistently proving ourselves to the public as having integrity, accountability, acting lawfully, being fair and transparent. This bill will bolster the powers and capability of oversight bodies so that we can ensure this. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 protects the community against any repeat of the robodebt scheme by ensuring Commonwealth agencies are subject to stronger and more rigorous oversight. By bolstering the capabilities of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to provide impartial, independent and robust oversight, the bill delivers on two key recommendations of the robodebt royal commission.</para>
<para>Firstly, the bill will impose a statutory duty on agency heads and their staff to use their best endeavours to assist the Ombudsman in the exercise of the Ombudsman's functions. This will make it clear that the responsibility to assist the Ombudsman rests with every member of the public service. Secondly, the bill enhance the Ombudsman's investigatory powers by introducing amendments to ensure the Ombudsman has full and free access to agency records, including by remote means. Agencies will be required to provide reasonable facilities and assistance when the Ombudsman exercises these information-gathering powers. Equivalent amendments will also be made to support the work of the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman.</para>
<para>The robodebt scheme that was established by the former Liberal government and the devastating harm that it caused cannot be allowed to be repeated. The public deserve to have the confidence that agencies are acting lawfully and with integrity and remain accountable for their actions. This bill ensures that government agencies are subject to stronger and more rigorous oversight. In doing so, it demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to restoring public trust in our institutions and ensuring that people remain at the centre of policy development and government service delivery.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:2 2</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>