2025-02-12 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 12 February 2025

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

 

STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 1 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Women's Health 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 4 09:24 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper by leave—I move: That further statements on women's health be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. BILLS 5 BILLS Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025 5

Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:25 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I am proud to introduce the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. This bill will help secure access to banking services across the Pacific. It will help ensure our entire region can stay connected to the global financial system. Australia's relationship with the Pacific is a special one. Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has been working hard to be a partner of choice with the entire region. We've been restoring trust and rebuilding relationships. Within our first 12 months in office, Albanese government ministers visited every Pacific Islands Forum member country. To renew our Pacific partnerships, listen to Pacific priorities and deliver on our collective interests. We've been making record investments, and we are the region's largest development partner. Around $1.9 billion in official development assistance to the Pacific last financial year— Which will rise to $2 billion in this one. I pay tribute to the work of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, foreign minister, trade minister, Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and the Assistant Treasurer. When it comes to banking in the Pacific, the challenges in front of us are clear, and confronting. We know the Pacific has seen the fastest withdrawal of correspondent banking services of any region in the world. We know these vital services help communities access foreign currencies and international payment systems. And we also know that without them, large parts of the Pacific risk being cut off from the global financial system. At stake here is the ability of the Pacific to engage with the world. This pressing challenge was one of the main topics discussed with counterparts at the Pacific Islands Forum Economic Ministers Meeting last year. That marked the first time an Australian Treasurer had travelled to the Pacific to attend that forum in almost two decades. It's also the challenge this bill helps tackle. This legislation allows the Commonwealth to use its balance sheet to support Australian banks to maintain their Pacific operations. It will enable the Commonwealth to guarantee an Australian banks' business in the Pacific—either directly or through its subsidiaries—against the unlikely possibility of a default in the region, which may force them to shut their operations. Eligible Australian banks will pay a fee to the Commonwealth for the guarantee, it is not a subsidy. It is highly unlikely this guarantee will be needed. But it is still an important and necessary change to make sure our Pacific family can continue to bank with confidence. This legislation is just one part of the substantial progress we've already made to secure the future of banking services in the region. Working with the Commonwealth Bank to establish banking operations in Nauru this year. Working with ANZ and Westpac to secure their continued presence in the Pacific. Working with the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to develop digital identity infrastructure and improve compliance with regulations. And funding our Attorney-General's Department to help build capacity in Pacific countries, to strengthen protections from financial crime and build trust in the system. We've been able to make all this progress at the same time as also securing access to banking services around Australia. Yesterday the Albanese government announced we've locked in commitments from Australia's biggest banks to stay open in the bush. Because of our efforts, all major banks now have a moratorium on branch closures in regional Australia for two and a half years. And we've helped secure a number of new agreements to shore up the vital services provided by Bank@Post. And here I acknowledge my colleague the Minister for Communications. We worked closely on that outcome. We are standing up for regional Australians, helping to secure the banking services that they need and deserve. But, more than banking, it's about keeping regional communities connected to our national economy and thriving. Banks have a responsibility to regional communities, and we're holding them to it. We'll continue to work with regulators, industry and communities to ensure that our regions have access to fit-for-purpose and sustainable banking services over the long term. This includes a focus on sustainable cash distribution and ensuring that Australians can use cash to pay for essentials if they want to or if they need to. This bill will help prevent the loss of banking services in the Pacific at the same time as we're rolling out our domestic agenda, and the Pacific agenda is vital to the security and economic development of our region. We know that we can't, in this one bill, solve every aspect of this challenge overnight. We'll continue to work with the banks and our international partners to address this issue—to make our region safer and more stable; to make sure that loved ones, families and communities can continue to access their money; and to build a better future for the people of the Pacific. For all those reasons, I'm pleased to present this bill, the full details of which are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 6

Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:32 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Albanese government is committed to putting Australian consumers at the heart of the telecommunications industry. We want to ensure that all Australians have access to reliable, high-quality and affordable telecommunications services, supported by a strong regulatory and consumer safeguards framework. That is why this government has been actively reviewing the telecommunications consumer protection framework and making appropriate changes. This includes implementing new rules to better support consumers who are experiencing financial hardship and, more recently, directing the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, to make new rules to support people who are experiencing domestic, sexual and family violence. The Albanese government understands how critical telco services are for everyone, including those facing vulnerable circumstances, people living in our regions, First Nations Australians and those who rely upon connectivity to support their families and provide services to their communities. Accordingly, we want to ensure that the telco industry is working for Australians, that they have the best consumer safeguards in place to protect their interests, and that there is a strong, clear recourse if telcos do the wrong thing. Nobody wants an industry that sees penalties as the 'cost of doing business'. We've listened to wideranging feedback from industry, regulators, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and consumer advocates to develop these reforms. The Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill will improve compliance and enforcement of telecommunications consumer safeguards and constitute a comprehensive package of reforms to those arrangements. They will help to ensure that the ACMA is an empowered and effective regulator and that appropriate incentive structures are in place to drive better behaviour by telcos. The bill improves compliance and enforcement of consumer safeguards in several important ways. Schedule 1 will establish a carriage service provider registration scheme. The scheme will increase visibility of carriage service providers and enable the ACMA to stop providers who pose unacceptable risk to consumers or cause significant consumer harm from operating in the market. Increased visibility of the market will provide improved pathways for the ACMA (and other government agencies) to educate carriage service providers on their regulatory obligations, streamline complaints and compliance processes and create better overall market accountability. Empowering the ACMA to stop providers operating in the market will provide a deterrent for significant noncompliance and increase trust by consumers in registered providers—including new or smaller ones. Schedule 2 of the bill will make industry codes directly enforceable. This allows the ACMA to take immediate and appropriate action to address consumer harm and will incentivise industry compliance. Currently, the ACMA cannot take direct enforcement action against breaches of industry codes, no matter how significant, without first issuing a direction to comply, and the ACMA can only take further action if noncompliance continues. The proposed changes remove this two-step enforcement process so that the ACMA can act quickly and appropriately to address consumer harm arising from code breaches and hold telcos to account. Schedule 3 will increase the maximum general civil penalty for breaches of industry codes and industry standards from $250,000 to 30,300 penalty units, which is currently $9.9 million. This aligns with penalties currently available for breaches of service provider determinations, meaning the penalty amount for these three types of regulatory instruments will be aligned. The schedule will also modernise the penalty framework for these instruments to allow penalties based on the value of the benefit obtained from the conduct or the turnover of the relevant telco—allowing for greater penalties in certain circumstances. Overall, this penalty framework better aligns with those in other relevant sectors like energy and banking, and under the Australian consumer law. Schedule 4 of the bill expands and clarifies the authority of the Minister for Communications to increase any infringement notice penalty the ACMA can issue for breaches of telecommunications rules. Taken together, the reforms in the bill strengthen consumer protections and enhance compliance and enforcement of telecommunications consumer safeguards, for the benefit of the whole community. They reflect the Albanese government's commitment to making sure Australians are appropriately protected and supported in their interactions with telecommunications service providers. Importantly, these reforms have received strong support from stakeholders, including the: Australian Communication Consumer Action Network; Consumer Action Law Centre; Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman; Australian Communications and Media Authority; and Communications Alliance. This comprehensive support, from consumer groups, regulators and industry alike, demonstrates the importance of these commonsense reforms and is representative of close engagement with these key stakeholders over the past year in particular. I thank them for their ongoing engagement and support and acknowledge the important work they do. Noting this level of strong support for these reforms, and the important outcomes they enable for Australian telco consumers, I encourage all representatives in this place to give it their support as well. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 8 BUSINESS Rearrangement 8 09:38 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring: (1) government business order of the day No. 5 relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 being called on immediately; and (2) all questions required to complete passage of the bill being put without delay. I won't detain the House for too long, but this should be a very uncontroversial motion here today. Standing orders ought to be suspended so that the House can finally conclude consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024. This bill has been sitting in this House since November last year. Everyone in this place, until yesterday, thought the bill was ready to go to the Senate, but the government on Monday, very abruptly and unusually, postponed debate on the bill in the middle of consideration in detail. No public explanation has been offered by the government as to why this bill has been stalled. And absent any credible explanation from the government, the bill should be passed today. Because the Assistant Treasurer is responsible for the bill, it may not be surprising there has been some stuff-up along the way. Part of the object of the bill is to obviously legislate the instant asset write-off, which is a proud coalition reform. But sadly 27,000 small businesses have closed under this government, and it beggars belief that in the situation where we have small businesses struggling that this measure would be delayed any further. The instant asset write-off is a proud coalition policy, which was unfortunately adjusted by this government. We are enthusiastically willing to support it, so why don't we do it today and support small businesses? This has been sitting here since November. Let's get moving! To be clear, the coalition's position, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in last year's budget in reply, is to extend the value of assets that are eligible for the instant asset write-off to $30,000 and to make this permanent for small businesses. There are small businesses throughout our country who are struggling like never before. They have an increasingly aggressive ATO pursuing tax debts. They have a weak economy and very little consumer confidence, which I know is weighing on small businesses in every single member's electorate. On that basis, one would imagine that government MPs in particular are keen to get this measure through the House, get this measure into the Senate and ultimately deliver the tax relief that small businesses need. Unfortunately, Labor voted against a series of amendments to achieve this eight times last year. It's pretty clear the government have made a decision that they're going to slow ball this. They're going to filibuster this for as late as possible. But every single day of delay creates uncertainty for small businesses. There's no reason why we can't come together as a parliament today and pass the bill. This unexplained delay is highly unusual. One can only imagine the sorts of errors that have occurred or are occurring and the busy fix that's going on behind the scenes, but the parliament has not been advised of what that is. The parliament has no explanation as to how the government may have stuffed up this bill, to put it in that ineloquent way, and so on that basis it should be debated immediately. We should conclude this bill today, get it done right now. Ultimately, if the government truly cared about supporting small businesses, which I'm sure many members opposite do, they would support this motion. End the uncertainty on the instant asset write-off scheme and let's get the bill through the Senate today, without delay. There's absolutely no reason why this cannot be dealt with immediately. This could be a moment where we move swiftly to help small businesses throughout our country, and the opposition is keen to swiftly facilitate that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the motion seconded? Mr Hogan 218019 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.  

The House divided. [09:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question negatived.

 COMMITTEES 10 COMMITTEES Treaties Joint Committee 10 Report 10 09:52 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, Report 225: Australia-UAE CEPA; Australia-UAE investment agreement. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms CHESTERS 249710 by leave—I'm pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report, Report 225: Australia-UAE CEPA; Australia-UAE investment agreement. The major treaty actions considered in this report are the comprehensive economic partnership agreement between Australia and the United Arab Emirates and the agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Australia on the promotion and protection of investments. The promotion and protection of investments agreement is an integral part of the economic partnership. Whilst the agreements were discussed separately in this report, they were considered together throughout this inquiry. This report also contains three minor treaty actions for which an inquiry was not conducted. The major treaties seek to diversify Australian trade with the UAE on over 99 per cent of exported goods—I'll repeat that, 99 per cent of exported goods. It provides for an expanding Australia-UAE investment in sectors such as renewable energy, agribusiness, tourism, health and aged care, and resources. It also provides investors with greatened certainty of access. The CEPA is Australia's first free-trade agreement with the Middle East, and it sets to increase Australian exports by around $678 million per year. In addition to tariff removal, the two treaties provide scope for expanding Australia's UAE investment in sectors such as renewable energy, agribusiness, tourism, health and aged care, and resources. Once fully implemented, it is estimated that the agreements will increase Australian export by approximately $678 million per year. These agreements include standalone chapters that encourage environmental sustainability, women's economic empowerment, labour rights and improved animal welfare standards. These agreements are trying something new. In a first for Australia, these agreements also include standalone tractors that encourage sustainable agriculture and food systems, and trade and investment, and economic cooperation with First Nations people. In considering these agreements, the committee held two public hearings and received a combination of 24 submissions. A range of witnesses were consulted throughout the hearings including agriculture, farming and livestock industry representatives, representatives from unions, fair trade investment industry and government agencies. The committee heard that these agreements will boost trade and investment between Australia and the UAE, which is great news for Australian farmers, primary producers and associated businesses. It will make goods and services from Australia cheaper for the UAE, making us more competitive on the global market and making Australia more attractive to UAE traders and investors. Throughout the hearing, some issues were raised and discussed. The importance of ongoing and transparent communication throughout the consultation process has been acknowledged by the committee, as have the concerns around labour rights and human rights in the UAE. The committee noted that the UAE is undertaking a process of reform in their practices around labour rights and human rights, and believes these agreements will encourage ongoing productive dialogue on these matters. Some unions and NGOs have expressed concern about the UAE's labour laws; however, it is evident that the promotion of labour protections was a priority in the trade negotiations between the Australian government and the UAE. The UAE has agreed for the first time for a dedicated chapter covering trade and labour. This chapter establishes a dialogue to advance labour rights; promotes compliance with international labour organisation standards and enforcement of labour laws; affirms a commitment to address forced labour, including in the supply chain; supports workforce development and respect for labour rights in the digital economy; promotes public awareness of labour laws; provides procedural guarantees; and enhances cooperation on labour matters of mutual respect. The agreements also include standalone chapters on women's economic empowerment. The UAE CEPA does not include an investor state dispute mechanism, labour market testing waiver or changes to the Foreign Investment Review Board. The committee supports both major treaties and recommends that a binding treaty be taken. The committee also supports the three minor treaty actions that have been included in this report. I would like to thank everyone who has been involved in this inquiry for their time, honesty and participation. Thank you for your valuable evidence. I would also like to thank the secretariat for working to get this done over the summer break. On behalf of the committee, I recommend the report to the House. BUSINESS 11 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 11 09:58 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately: (1) the Member for Calare introducing the Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill; and (2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding for a period of no longer than one hour, after which any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay. Since I introduced the Keeping Cash Transactions Bill to this House, I have been overwhelmed with the response not only from around the electorate of Calare but also from around our nation. The response has been so positive and so forceful because people are worried that cash is going to be phased out. This groundbreaking legislation preserves the use of cash in our national economy. It does this by legislating that businesses operating in face-to-face settings must offer to accept and, crucially, must accept cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000. The bill provides for maximum civil penalties of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for companies—and it should be noted that they are civil penalties as opposed to criminal penalties. The bill also provides some important and practical exemptions to these requirements. They include that offering to accept cash would pose a reasonable security risk; that it would be contrary to another law of the Commonwealth or a law of a state or territory; that it would be contrary to the Commonwealth, state or territory health advice such as advice provided during a pandemic; and that cash in the form of change is needed but not readily available. It defies belief that cash can be legal tender in this country but businesses are not obliged to accept cash for transactions. All they have to do is make it known to a customer that cash is not accepted and they don't have to accept it. This is causing a huge amount of anxiety and grief in our communities, particularly our country communities. Many senior Australians do not want to use cards for their transactions. The Reserve Bank of Australia has found that Australians over the age of 65 are the heaviest users of cash. To many older Australians, cash is not just a convenience; it's a lifeline. In these times of economic uncertainty and rising costs, cash is actually an essential tool for managing finances and sticking to a budget. Many Australians find managing accounts and cards online to be a very stressful experience, and they find it confusing. Many Australians, particularly older Australians, don't want to use online banking or online accounts. I should point out, coming from a rural and regional area, that cash is often used in rural areas by individuals who don't have ready access to banking services. Many constituents in the Calare electorate are also worried that, if they are forced to switch to cards, they will face additional fees in the form of bank surcharges—and that is a very good point. Many Australians are now waking up to the fact that banks and financial institutions charge merchant fees for card transactions which can then be passed on to consumers. It's an insidious tax that is added to transactions just by tapping a card. It's been estimated that Australians are losing more than a billion dollars a year in surcharges when they pay by card and not by cash. I've had feedback from local businesses about my Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill. Many businesses actually want to keep cash as well; they don't want to switch to being solely digital. But, like many in our community, they are worried there may be an agenda either by governments or by large corporations to phase cash out. In country areas, we also need to consider the practicalities of internet connectivity. In many regional and rural areas reliable internet access does not exist, and cash remains a dependable means of exchange that does not rely on electricity or internet access. The bottom line is that cash transactions are unaffected by digital failures. During natural disasters like fires or floods, connectivity can be disrupted for many days—sometimes longer—rendering electronic payments unusable. As I've said, many Australians prefer cash as a means of managing their budget so they can physically see the money and it can be allocated to different expenses. I ask you: how can we teach our children about the value of money and budgeting if they don't actually know what it is? Other Australians worry about privacy and the risk of fraud associated with using cards. Many Australians have been victims of fraud and unauthorised transactions relating to cards and accounts linked to them. Privacy is another reason some Australians prefer to use cash over cards. And some people simply don't like or want corporations knowing every single thing they buy. It should be their choice, and they should have the right to use cash if they want to. This bill is not about imposing burdens and regulations on businesses; it's about striking a balance between innovation and inclusivity and preserving the essence of choice in our financial transactions and in our economy. It's about the freedom of Australians to choose how they will pay for their transactions. I note that the government has responded to my Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill by stating that there is a plan to make cash transactions compulsory for essential services. I accept the Treasurer and the member for Fenner have worked on this with the best will in the world, but unfortunately I don't think it is the approach that most in our communities would support. I think, speaking frankly, it's a second-best approach that acknowledges that the community wants action to keep cash, but I don't think it will be effective. I don't think it will stop businesses phasing out the use of cash. I don't think it will keep cash king in Australia. I think it will only end up applying to big businesses and, while it may force the supermarket giants and big fuel companies to keep cash, it won't go much further. I think Australians around our nation who still want to use cash for everyday transactions will be disappointed by the government's response to this issue. In country areas there are many people who don't buy their food and groceries from major supermarket chains, and they use cash to buy a whole range of goods and services which won't be caught by the government's so-called mandate. What the government is proposing simply is not strong enough. If the government is serious about keeping cash in Australia, it should be backing my bill. That's why this bill needs to be discussed and debated in this House and passed as a matter of urgency. Australians should have the confidence to carry cash in their wallets knowing that they can use their legal tender to make a purchase anywhere at any time As I've said, there are many people in our community who are crying out for action on this, and they haven't received it from this parliament. That's what my bill remedies. I would urge all members to support this bill. I think that this bill is vital to protect the right of Australians to choose how they will pay for their transactions. That's not a choice that should be made for them by financial institutions or businesses. So I commend this motion to the House and I urge Australians all over our great nation to get behind this bill and lobby their members of parliament to support this bill to preserve the use of cash in our society and in our economy. Many Australians are feeling marginalised by the move to a digital economy, they feel that they are being left behind and they feel that their voices are not being heard. They want to keep cash king in Australia. So I would urge all members to back this motion and keep cash king in Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the motion seconded? 10:08 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I second the motion. I'd like to thank the member for Calare for introducing the Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 which we know highlights the fundamental right that many take for granted, and that's the right to choose how we pay for goods and services. I represent one of the most multicultural electorates in the country in the electorate of Fowler. It's home to hardworking families, small businesses and elderly residents who rely on cash for their daily transactions. Walk into any grocery store or restaurant in my area and you'll see signs saying 'cash only'. Cash isn't just a convenience; it's essential to our local economy. While I understand the shift towards digital payments, we cannot ignore the fact that many in our community still depend on cash. Not everyone has access to digital banking and not everyone is comfortable using it. Whether they are seniors who have used cash all their lives, small-business owners managing their costs or families sending money overseas, cash plays a crucial role in their daily lives. The importance of cash extends beyond convenience. It is also a matter of safety, privacy and financial inclusion. Consider those escaping domestic violence. For them, cash can be a lifeline, allowing them to purchase essentials without fear of financial surveillance by their abuser. Carers of individuals with intellectual disabilities have also shared with me their struggles when their loved ones cannot navigate online banking. For these families, cash is the only way to ensure independence and dignity in managing their finances. This bill does not force businesses to accept cash for every transaction; it simply ensures that cash remains a valid option for purchases up to $10,000. Businesses remain free to set their own policies for larger transactions. This is a reasonable, balanced approach that acknowledges both consumer rights and business realities. As it's called, the bill is about respect—respect for diverse communities, different traditions and the right to privacy. Cash payments provide anonymity, allowing Australians to donation to charities, support small businesses and make personal purchases without unnecessary tracking or oversight. As we move further into a digital age, we must not leave behind those who are not part of the online economy. Excluding cash from transactions risks isolating vulnerable groups—the elderly, people with disabilities and those in difficult financial or personal circumstances. We must ensure that no-one is forced into a system they do not trust or understand. In Fowler, we are a community built on diversity, resilience and mutual support. The Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 is about protecting the right of all Australians, regardless of background, age or financial situation, to participate fully in our economy without fear of exclusion. I think the bill is about choice, it's about fairness and it's about ensuring that our economy works for everyone. I remember when the member for Calare introduced the bill last year and I supported that and spoke on it. My community, often when there are bills debated in here, do not really engage that much. But, for keeping cash in the economy, I was inundated with people emailing me, contacting me, messaging me, saying, 'This is such an important bill,' and, 'Please fight to ensure that cash is still kept in our economy.' I will ensure that I will fight alongside the member for Calare and those members in the House who realise—who have to realise—that, I'm sure, people in their electorate are still finding that cash is a currency that needs to be retained and not everything has to be digital. We are definitely going to exclude people if we just move everything over to digital. So I urge all members to support this in the interests of freedom, security and inclusion for every Australian. 10:13 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner At the outset, I'd like to acknowledge the hard work that the member for Calare has done, not only on this bill but on a whole range of issues through his career. He served with dignity in the New South Wales state parliament, and then in the federal parliament since 2016. He stood up for veterans, making the case to his own party that they needed to deal with the backlog in veterans' claims, and he has taken a principled stand to move to the crossbench. I haven't heard any members of the National Party in here with the passion, dedication and focus on the issue of cash that the member for Calare brings to the debate, and the government acknowledges his important contribution. The Treasurer's office has been pleased to discuss the issue with the member for Calare on 11 occasions since June of last year and welcomes his thoughtful engagement with it. We've seen a significant change in Australians' spending patterns over the course of the last couple of decades. As the government's consultation paper on the cash mandate makes clear, in 2007, the Reserve Bank estimated that about three-quarters of retail transactions were conducted by cash. In 2022 that number was down to 13 per cent. That's why, on 18 November last year, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer announced a cash mandate for essential services which would ensure an ongoing place for cash in society. Right now, 94 per cent of businesses accept cash. We know that the risk of cash not being accepted looms large for particular groups of vulnerable Australians. Some of those have been mentioned in this debate: older Australians, migrants, lower income Australians and the unbanked. These are Labor's people. These are the people who typically suffer when the coalition is in office and who Labor has fought to look after in every budget we've brought down since we've come to office. There are around 1.5 million Australians for whom cash makes up over four-fifths of their retail transactions. For them, it's more than a payment method; it is a lifeline. But cash is also an important backup in instances of natural disasters. It is a form of financial system resilience. The government's consultation paper quotes numbers from the Reserve Bank around the frequency of such outages. They have occurred hundreds or, in some categories of outage, thousands of times per year. While the system has a resiliency rate of over 99 per cent, those outages, when they occur, can be extremely damaging. We've seen, in the instance of floods and fires, the online payment systems struggle to keep pace. It is therefore critical that cash is available. So the government has announced a mandate to ensure that Australians can continue to pay cash for essential items if they want to, while providing appropriate exemptions for small business. That announcement has been well received by community groups, by the business community and by individuals who prefer to use cash. Cash Welcome campaign spokesperson Jason Bryce said: This is exactly what we have been asking for. Whether it's at the supermarket or filling up at the petrol station, when Australians are paying for things they need they will have the comfort of knowing that they can pay in cash. Labor's targeted approach balances the needs of the community with the impact on business. We want to avoid putting extra pressure on small businesses through big fines, particularly at a time when they're doing it tough. We are consulting on exactly what the definition of 'essential services' would be. The consultation paper sets out a proposal that essential goods and services would include: most bread and cereal products; meat; seafood; milk and cheese; fruit and vegetables; tea; coffee; children's clothing; utilities, including water, sewerage, electricity and gas; child care; cleaning and maintenance products; personal care products; medicines; fuels; spare parts; car maintenance and repair services; postal services; pet products; veterinary services; preschool; primary and secondary education; and compulsory insurance. The government recognises the importance of cash being available in those categories. A cash mandate isn't unusual. A range of US states have them in place, including Colorado, Massachusetts and New York, as do a range of countries, including Austria, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. There is also a pleasure in using cash. As the assistant minister responsible for the Royal Australian Mint, I can't help noting that the Mint is the biggest manufacturing enterprise here in the ACT, churning out a range of fabulous coins that Australians can enjoy. The Bluey Dollarbuck, the Donation Dollar, the Year of the Snake lunar coin, the tooth fairy coin and the desert life series of coins are among the wonderful coins churned out by the Royal Australian Mint, encouraging Australians to continue to reflect on our culture and our history while paying in cash. The government has also been concerned about securing regional banking services, because, if you don't have regional banking services, it can be hard to get hold of that essential cash that the member for Calare has so rightly talked about in this debate today. This week the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Communications have announced that they have secured from the major banks a moratorium on bank branch closures for 2½ years. That involves the National Australia Bank committing to a new moratorium on regional branch closures and the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac extending their existing moratoriums, alongside the conditions imposed by the government on the ANZ and Suncorp, ensuring no regional branch closures by those banks before 31 July 2027. This is important because, since 2017, 36 per cent of bank branches in regional Australia have closed. The government is stepping up to arrest the decline in regional banking services, and we've asked the banking sector to increase its commitment to and investment in regional banking through the new Bank@Post arrangements with Australia Post. Following discussions with the government and Australia Post, the Commonwealth Bank, NAB and Westpac have all reached in-principle Bank@Post agreements, and ANZ has agreed key terms on which it will join the service. That shores up the financial outlook for Bank@Post and provides greater certainty and choice to banking customers, particularly in rural and regional areas. The government also welcomes the decision by Macquarie and HSBC to start negotiations with Australia Post on Bank@Post services. The government will continue to work with regulators, industry and the community to ensure that our regions have access to fit-for-purpose and sustainable banking services over the long term. The Albanese government is standing up for the regions and standing up for vulnerable Australians on the issue of cash. The government's consultation paper is available on the Treasury website. Submissions are open until this Friday—Valentine's Day. So, for those listening to parliament who are wondering what they will be doing on Valentine's Day, well, penning a submission to the government's cash mandate paper is an option for how you can spend your Valentine's Day! The issue of cash acceptance is one of great importance to the government. The government wants to get this right. We intend to have that mandate in place from the beginning of next year. Again, I want to thank the member for Calare for his thoughtful engagement on this and many other issues of public policy. The parliament is better for his energy, for his activism and for his focus on issues that are so often neglected by the National Party, which says that it looks after regional Australia but too often turns its back on the bush. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 12 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Sharkie, R. C. C. Steggall, Z. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 43 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 15 BILLS Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 15

Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Second Reading 15 Consideration in Detail 15 10:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Page 3 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Capacity Investment Scheme Program Climate Change Act 2022 1 After Part 4 Add: Part 4A — Capacity Investment Scheme 15B Simplified outline of this Part The Capacity Investment Scheme Program must be implemented to achieve at least 23 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity and at least 9 gigawatts of clean dispatchable capacity. 15C Administration of the Capacity Investment Scheme Program (1) If, at the commencement of this subsection, the Capacity Investment Scheme Program is prescribed by legislative instrument under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, then: (a) the Commonwealth must make, vary or administer arrangements in relation to the carrying out of activities by one or more persons under the Capacity Investment Scheme Program; and (b) those arrangements must result in, by the end of 2030: (i) at least 23 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity; and (ii) at least 9 gigawatts of clean dispatchable capacity. Note: The arrangements referred to in this subsection may include arrangements made, varied or administered before the commencement of this subsection. (2) If advice of the Climate Change Authority under subsection 14(1) indicates a material risk to the achievement of subsection (1), the Minister's Annual Climate Change Statement under section 12 must provide a response to that advice. 15D Amendment of the Capacity Investment Scheme Program (1) An instrument made under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (the amending instrument), that varies or revokes another instrument made under that subsection that prescribes the Capacity Investment Scheme Program, does not come into effect until the amending instrument has been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament. (2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument made under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 that varies or revokes another instrument made under that subsection if that other instrument does not prescribe the Capacity Investment Scheme Program. One thing we know for sure is that the Liberals will stop at nothing to attack renewables. We have seen this in the past, where they used every opportunity to try and get rid of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency as well as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Those two agencies have driven huge investment in renewables in this country and given great confidence to the renewables industry, which we know we need to grow if we're to get out of coal and gas—which the scientists are telling us we must do if we are to have any chance of tackling the climate crisis. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition's dangerous nuclear fantasy is a ploy to extend the life of coal and gas in the system and threaten investment in renewables. We've even heard the Leader of the Opposition say so himself—that, under his dangerous fantasy of a plan, coal and gas will have to stay in the system for longer. In many respects, that is what his agenda is all about. We know that the opposition's energy policies have been written by the coal and gas industries because they know now that renewables are not only the best way of cutting emissions but the cheapest form of electricity. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Australian Greens, but we are in consideration in detail. He has moved an amendment to schedule 2—Capacity Investment Scheme Program. He will need to confine his remarks to the detailed amendment he's moving. It is not a general debate. Mr BANDT M3C I understand that, Speaker, and that is exactly what my amendment goes to. We are on clear notice now not only historically, having seen the Liberals, when they are in power, do everything they can to attack renewable energy; we are now on notice that this Leader of the Opposition will do everything he can to slow down investment in renewable energy and storage in this country. The amendment I am moving will enshrine the government's Capacity Investment Scheme in law in order to oblige the next two governments to meet the 32-gigawatt-by-2030 renewables and storage target, which is made up of 23 gigawatts of renewable generation and nine gigawatts of clean dispatchable energy. We know we need these protections in law. Even now, even from opposition, the Leader of the Opposition's announcements are designed to threaten the unstoppable growth of renewables in this country by giving public support to coal and gas. It should be the other way around. Public money should not be going to prop up coal and gas or nuclear. The support that is needed is the support that is going to drive down emissions and also deliver people the cheapest electricity, which is renewables backed by storage. For a long time the Greens have called for a renewable target and a storage target to be enshrined in law, to give the industry the certainty it needs and to ensure that we make the shift in an orderly and planned way that drives down the cost of electricity and also drives down our emissions. The Capacity Investment Scheme put forward by the government is not necessarily the way that we would have done it, but it is a scheme that is going to assist with that transition—so we have given it our support. What this will do is essentially Dutton-proof that scheme, Leader-of-the-Opposition-proof that scheme. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member— Mr BANDT M3C I withdraw. It will ensure that scheme is protected in law. We know from history that Liberals will stop at nothing to attack renewables and storage and to try to direct public money into coal, gas and now nuclear. We also know that if there is protection in legislation for good measures, like we saw with ARENA and the CEFC, then they can be protected and industry can be given certainty. We know what the Leader of the Opposition's plans are for the future and that he is trying, even from opposition—where I hope he stays for a very, very long time—to stop the growth of renewables. These amendments will give the industry support they need by safeguarding and enshrining protection for support for renewables and storage. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 86 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 50 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:46 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 86 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 50 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Third Reading 18 10:47 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 18

Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025

Second Reading 18 10:48 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Early childhood education is an essential service that families rely on to study, to work and to pay the household bills. That's how the minister introduced her bill last week. And I must say, I found myself agreeing profusely with that statement, as that is exactly why this legislation should be voted down. When the coalition brought in the biggest reforms to the sector in decades by introducing the childcare subsidy and the activity test, it was because we recognised the very fact that she highlighted in her introduction: it was to strike a balance between targeted childcare support for hardworking families who rely on it, a generous safety net to protect the most vulnerable and, most importantly, ongoing support for high-quality learning. Labor's proposed changes are a slap in the face for working parents—parents who want to work and those who have to work because of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Once again, this is what they do, those opposite—they are at war with aspiration. They are removing the priority of access for working Australian families. What Labor is proposing, to remove the activity test for three days, is fundamentally unfair, and it's divisive. It's pitting working families against non-working families—pitting them against each other. And it's pitting those who access early childhood education against those who don't, whether that's by choice or because there are no available options. Increasing access to early childhood education in this way, without any meaningful policies to address supply, does not equate to quality education. A three-day guarantee means nothing if you can't access a place. Labor has completely neglected this part of the equation, and this policy does not address the current cost-of-living pressures that families face all over the country. But what more could you expect from a Labor government that has been using early childhood education as a political plaything, as its political pawn in the lead-up to the next election? Let's face the facts. If this is such a good policy, which Labor introduced last week, they could have passed this legislation this fortnight. But they haven't. 'Why haven't they?' I ask Australians. Why haven't they? Because it's all just a political game for the Labor Party. Time and time again, Labor has shown its true colours. It only cares about the headlines and the spin, not the substance and not delivering for Australian families what they need. This legislation is all about Labor's legacy, and Labor's legacy is driven completely by this Prime Minister's ego. What it isn't driven by, however, is what our families, our educators and our service providers need. They need access, they need affordability and they need quality. Labor is spending around $15 billion a year on early childhood education, and, since the election, they've announced around $8 billion worth of new policies. But, despite that, Labor hasn't delivered a single new place for those families with little or no access. And get this: they've even used the Community Child Care Fund—created by the coalition to address gaps in regional, remote and rural areas—to fund metropolitan and inner-city seats, including, colleagues, the very regional seat of Grayndler! While they say they'll build 160 centres, history tells us not to expect much on that front. They won't deliver on their promise, like so many others. The reality is that there's no point having access to three days of subsidised care if no care is available in the first place. Labor's done nothing to address this—nothing to address access. The vast majority of families accessing the Child Care Subsidy are already eligible for 72 to 100 hours of care per fortnight. While those already in the system may be impacted in a limited way, it's the new working families seeking to enter the early childhood education system that will be forced to compete for new places alongside those who do not meet the top activity test levels. The coalition has always believed in choice and in flexibility. This policy does absolutely nothing for families who choose something other than child care or for families who need the flexibility. Things don't always happen exactly the way we plan, so it's important—so important—that our early childhood education system can offer some flexibility. But, again, Labor's policy offers nothing for families who work non-standard hours—people like our hardworking nurses, our shift workers, our emergency services, anyone who works the night shift. There are no options for them. Ultimately, the biggest losers of this policy are families living in those thin markets and childcare deserts. Very many members sitting behind me have communities that cannot find a place in child care because this government has not delivered any new places to them. Increasing their access to 72 hours a fortnight might sound good in a headline, but there's no point if there's no care available in the first place. The member for Fenner said earlier, which brought me to a giggle, that he was standing up for the regions. This is a slogan that Labor throws at regional Australia, and regional Australia just does not buy it. Labor likes to say it's the party for workers, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Labor doesn't care about what workers need, and it doesn't care about the regions. Labor only cares about what Labor needs. We're in a cost-of-living crisis, and families are counting every single dollar and trying to make it go as far as possible. But then they see Labor spending taxpayers' money—their hard-earned money—like it's an endless pot of gold. In a cost-of-living crisis, the government must be intentional with every single dollar it spends. Instead, Labor's been on a reckless spending spree with temporary sugar-hit solutions, making the situation simply worse for families. Since coming to power, Labor has added $347 billion in spending. That's around $33,000 per household. But families aren't $33,000 better off—that's for sure. In fact, a family with a typical mortgage has spent $50,000 more in interest on their home loan. Their living standards have collapsed by almost nine per cent. And we're in a deep household recession. Added to that are the soaring out-of-pocket costs for their child care. That's why it's crucial to make sure that taxpayers' money goes to those who need the support of early childhood education the most. The activity test inherently rewards effort and aspiration. It incentivises people to contribute to society through work, through study and through volunteering. But, under Labor's policy, families who are working hard to create a better life for their children get nothing; meanwhile, families who might spend their days—gosh!—doing an activity like yoga or going to the shops will have the same level of access. Labor continues to punish and disincentivise hardworking, aspirational Australians. There are also serious questions about the costing on this policy. The bill says it'll cost $426.7 million over five years from the 2024-25 financial year—even though it's not being rolled out until January 2026. No doubt that's a sneaky little tactic to try and make it sound better, because that's what matters to Labor—it's the headline and the spin; it's not the reality. But, more importantly, the Productivity Commission said that removing the activity test completely would cost $2.3 billion a year. So, somewhere in there, something is rotten. The government wants us to accept its modelling that removing the activity test for three days will only cost $426.7 million over four years. It's also worth noting that the vast majority of families are already eligible for 72 to 100 hours of subsidised care, meaning that this policy will barely move the dial on increasing access. Importantly—and this is so very important—exemptions already exist under the current system to assist children and families who are most in need. Labor wants you to think that this policy is revolutionary—that it's going to change millions of lives. But it's simply not going to. We can't trust the future of our children in the hands of an Albanese Labor government—that's for certain. Over the last three years, they've failed to deliver for the early childhood sector. The Prime Minister promised cheaper child care for families, and to say the government has failed to deliver on that promise is an absolute understatement. Under Labor, these are the facts. The cost of early childhood education has risen by 22.3 per cent, which isn't surprising when you remember that, the last time Labor was in government, childcare costs soared by 53 per cent in just six years. It appears this Labor government is no better, because, at their current rate of increase, families can expect prices to skyrocket under them, if they keep going at this rate, by 124 per cent by March 2032. While Labor's been patting itself on the back, saying parents have saved over $2,000 thanks to its changes to the childcare subsidy, the reality is that out-of-pocket costs have soared by 12.7 per cent since those changes came into effect. So affordability is a big fail for the Labor government. The very policy that was supposed to bring costs down for families has forced families to pay more. Plus, there's been an increase in services charging above the hourly rate cap as they also struggle to keep up with soaring costs. This is more proof of Labor's utter incompetence and their policy failures in this sector. They're so obsessed with the spin. Australian families and educators deserve so much better. Let's think about Labor's bungled worker-retention payment. Labor promised that up to 200,000 educators would have a pay rise by the end of last year. It was an early Christmas present, they said. The education minister stood up on 5 December and declared it was 'pay day for hundreds of thousands of educators'. But it wasn't, because we know that only around 15 per cent of educators are employed by services that have been approved for this payment. It's just another proof point that Labor doesn't actually care about early childhood education and is using it all as spin. Labor is failing educators and failing families. Labor's three-day guarantee is typical of the Albanese Labor government. It has been accompanied by big headlines and big promises by this government. Let's think about the first promise that they still haven't delivered: that $275 electricity bill! They still haven't delivered that. In fact, prices have gone up by a thousand dollars when it comes to electricity. So this is just another broken promise in the litany of broken promises with no detail. Australian families and Australian educators deserve better than another three years of Labor. The coalition's track record in early childhood education speaks for itself. We undertook the biggest reforms in over 40 years. We locked in ongoing funding for preschool, with increased access to early childhood education for more than 280,000 children. We brought down costs, and we increased women's workforce participation. They are all the measures we should be looking at to make sure we also maintain quality in the sector. They deserve better than a government that only cares about the headlines it can generate, not the impact that its policies will have on hardworking Australian families who need to access early-childhood education and care. That is why the coalition will vote against this legislation. 11:02 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell In my time in this parliament, I have had the privilege of meeting children and educators and families right across the Central Coast of New South Wales. From The Entrance to Wyong, Long Jetty to Wyoming, Lake Haven to Lisarow and Warnervale to Bateau Bay, I have seen the magic of these early learning centres. I have sat in awe of the educators who bring them to life. I've visited with the minister and with my colleague the member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid. Deputy Speaker Freelander, like you, I have now been here long enough to see many of those children grow up and start primary school and even to see some of them start high school, taking with them the foundational skills and capabilities learnt in those very early years. This stage of education is key to future learning and growth in everyone. It's as much about their education as it is about their personal development and their socialisation. This early stage of education is key. The evidence on that point is well and truly settled. We in the Labor Party come to this policy area with a simple goal: how do we give every Australian child the best start in life, and the opportunity to benefit from early education and enjoy the life opportunities which flow from it? The answer, like the question, is a simple one: we reduce the barriers to early education for those who are missing out. In my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales, where many families face these barriers, this legislation presents a big opportunity: the chance for real change. The bill before us offers a possibility for all Australian families to be guaranteed three days of childcare subsidy each fortnight. It will replace the Liberal Party's activity test, with a three-day guarantee to operate from the beginning of next year, from 2026. For First Nations children and those with parents in work, study and training, the guarantee will be 100 hours of childcare subsidy per fortnight. The activity test didn't work. It didn't work in my community; it didn't work across the country. It did not support parents into more paid work. It just penalised children from low-income families and left them further behind. In the space of one year under the activity test, the number of children from low-income families in early education plummeted from around 32,000 to just 6,500, an 80 per cent decline in young children from low-income families being able to have the best start in life due to early childhood education. It's time to rectify this major policy mistake and the impact that it's had on young children and families. This bill will increase entitlements to more than 100,000 families across the country, growing education opportunities and easing cost-of-living pressure for families and household budgets. It's a big step towards universal early education, building on our government's cheaper childcare policy and our 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators. I recently visited some educators. I visited Woongarrah Goodstart in my electorate. It was the day after the older children had graduated. They were very excited to have been graduating from early learning and being off to start school. The educators, when I visited, just wanted to let me know the difference that some of Labor's policies in this area are making to them but more importantly to the children and families that they have the privilege of working with. This is what the centre director, Shann Crain, told me: 'The wage increase has had a massive impact for educators. Most members of the team have worked here for 10 years. This increase has meant that they can stay in their roles, continuing to provide the high-quality care and support our families have come to expect. The increase will also help to recruit and retain new staff as our community's needs expand, with a waiting list of over 530 children for our centre alone.' These are the words of the centre director, who I had the privilege of catching up with not long after, as I said, the students had graduated. It was evident from the young children in that centre the educational opportunities, care, support and dedication provided by the early childhood educators. For a long time, they have been undervalued and haven't been properly remunerated for the contribution that they make. I'm so pleased to be part of a government that's improving that. I know it's been very well received in my electorate. The individual stories I have heard are backed in by substantial evidence and expert advice, including through the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee report from last year and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce before that. Going further back, the Lifting our game report of 2017 by Sue Pascoe AM and Professor Deborah Brennan offered the then government the platform to push this work forward. It's worth reflecting on. I'll quote from some of this report. It says: Children who participate in high quality early childhood education are more likely to complete year 12 and are less likely to repeat grades or require additional support. It goes on: High quality early childhood education also has broader impacts; it is linked with higher levels of employment, income and financial security, improved health outcomes and reduced crime. It helps build the skills children will need for the jobs of the future. Quality early childhood education and care is best considered as an investment, not a cost. Investment in early childhood education provides a strong return, with a variety of studies indicating benefits of 2-4 times the costs. I know, Deputy Speaker Freelander, as a paediatrician and someone who represents a community not dissimilar to mine in terms of families and their circumstances, your strong push for the first 100 days— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The first thousand days. Ms McBRIDE 248353 The first thousand days, sorry—and the difference that makes to young people and families. This report goes on to say: Significant fiscal benefits flow to both the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. This is clearly good for young children. It's very beneficial to their families. It makes an incredible difference to communities. But it also helps the budget. This drives the economy. It helps the budget bottom line. There are so many benefits of this type of policy. Recently we had the minister, Dr Anne Aly, come and visit the Eleanor Duncan centre in my community of Wyong and speak about the work they're doing, particularly with First Nations young people, where they're combining the benefits of early learning with health. We know that bringing these two together will make such a big difference in addressing the social determinants of health and education. I was so pleased to be able to have the minister in my electorate and to be able to talk about this, including in preschools like Wyong Preschool where this is being introduced. Leaders from across the early education sector support this change. The experts support it, the educators support it and families welcome it. I believe parliamentarians across a broad range of backgrounds representing electorates from across the country also support it. I ask the Liberal and National parties to put Australian children first, to show their support and to help our nation grasp this opportunity for our future. I commend the bill to the House. 11:10 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein We have a real opportunity to transform early childhood education and care in this country. I cannot overstate how important this is for children, women, families and the economy. What could be more important than giving every child the best start in life? The early years are critical. They set the foundations for a child's development and learning trajectory. By the age of five, 90 per cent of a child's brain is fully developed. The barriers some children face, socioeconomic disadvantage, unstable homes and limited access to education and care can lead to gaps in learning that become increasingly difficult to bridge as children grow older. Early childhood education and care can level opportunities from the start, with lasting economic and social benefits. Children who attend quality care are twice as likely to reach their development targets when they get to school. Quality care also leads to reduced crime rates and improved health, which ultimately reduces the costs to society. Unlike interventions aimed at addressing inequalities later in life, early childhood education and care is a cost-effective way to close these gaps before they widen. All the evidence is there. 'Early childhood education is the golden ticket for children', as the Parenthood describes it. It also unlocks the economic potential of women. Early childhood education and care is the centrepiece of my work to accelerate women's economic security in Goldstein and Australia-wide. Women in Australia are among the most highly educated in the world and have similar levels of labour force participation to men until they have children, when they begin to fall behind and never catch up. The differences are most pronounced in families with children under the age of five. The extent to which child care is available and affordable has consistently been found to lift rates of female participation. The Impact Economics and Policy 2023 report found that if labour force participation rates for females in families with children under five were to increase to match male participation rates, there would be an additional 301,000 women in families with children under five in the labour force. More women working boosts economic growth and tax revenue. Our job as policymakers is to remove this barrier of returning to work for the sake of women and families, many of whom are facing real cost-of-living pressures. The cost of early childhood education and care in Australia is among the highest in OECD countries and is often the second-highest expense in a household after the mortgage. For a lot of parents, the cost of care means they simply can't afford to work. It's often referred to as a 'cost-of-working crisis'. The HILDA Survey collects data on spending from more than 7,000 households every year. It found that about 83 per cent of families spend more on child care than on utilities or clothing for all members of the household. Seventy per cent spend more on child care than transport, and 30 per cent spend more on child care than groceries. Unaffordable child care often results in parents, usually women, deciding not to work. This begins lifelong gendered financial disadvantage. According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, more than half of Australian women reported turning down a new job or promotion because additional childcare costs made it not worthwhile. The latest ABS data shows that 140,000 women in 2023-24 cited the cost and lack of availability of child care as the reason they either don't want to work more or are unable to work more. All the arguments for accessible and affordable early childhood education stack up. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce put it firmly on the political agenda when it stated that Australia should move towards adopting a universal childcare system. The Productivity Commission explored the path to universal early childhood education and care and recommended that every child have access to three days of quality child care per week. It's a position shared by the Parenthood, the Centre for Policy Development, Early Childhood Australia, the Business Council of Australia, chief executive women and others, and the Prime Minister has given his commitment to working towards a universal system. In his words: … child care isn't a luxury—it's an essential service for modern families. The Prime Minister gets it. He understands the power of early childhood education, but I urge him to be bold. I urge all members of parliament to zoom out and see the big picture—healthier and happier children, women engaged in the workforce, cost-of-living relief, higher productivity and a stronger economy. The case for reform is strong. This is not women's policy, as some like to suggest. It's economic policy. The three-day-guarantee bill is a small step on the path to universal care. It replaces the existing activity test with a three-day guarantee in early childhood education and care. All families will be guaranteed three days, or 36 hours, of child care subsidy each week. Removing the activity test is long overdue. I've been calling for this for several years now. It's a barrier to women's economic participation and prevents children from accessing early childhood and care, especially vulnerable children. The focus should now be on replacing the subsidy system with a timely pathway towards a universal system with a low-cost fee. As a nation, this is where we need to get to. Universal early childhood education that is affordable would be life changing for so many children, and it would take cost-of-living pressure off families. According to leading economist Dr Angela Jackson, the impact of female participation in the workforce would provide the biggest immediate economic benefit. In her report, Time to stop throwing good money after bad: delivering universal child care through market reform, Dr Jackson identified several limitations in the modelling approach used by the Productivity Commission in its recent report, which stopped short of recommending a flat, daily fee. The commission's modelling shows that a universal system with a flat $10-a-day fee would only lift labour force participation by 7,200 people. If this modelling is correct it would mean that female participation would only increase one day for every eight additional days of child care. But Dr Jackson says that these findings are not consistent with current childcare use or stated preferences of mothers to look after their own children. As a result, the modelling underestimates the benefits of universal early childhood and care. For now this bill is a small but important step; however, I am disappointed that this legislation in the last days of this parliament is being referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. It should be debated and passed this week. This is too critical to get caught up in delaying tactics and political games. There is no need for a Senate inquiry. The weight of evidence is there. From leading economists to experts from the early childhood sector, support for replacing the activity test with three days of access to early childhood education is strong. In fact, the only negativity seems to be coming from the opposition. Again I ask: where is Labor's courage? Early childhood education and care is supposed to be one of the government's signature policies. I urge the Minister for Education and the Minister for Early Childhood Education to secure the passage of this bill as soon as possible. This bill will help give children the start they need by increasing attendance, especially for those experiencing disadvantage. What could be more important? It will alleviate cost-of-living stress for families, and it will advance gender equality by getting women back into the workforce. I've said it so many times in this place: affordable and accessible child care is good for children, families, women and the economy. It ticks all the boxes. I promised the women of Goldstein I would fight for their economic security, and I will continue to do so. I will continue to push the government to be more ambitious with its pathway to universal care and to keep things moving in the right direction. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that universal high-quality, accessible, low fee Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) would improve childhood outcomes and equity, enable more women to work, boost productivity and support families with one of their biggest household costs". We must be bold. As businesswoman and now Governor-General Sam Mostyn said last year, universal early childhood education and care is as important as public schooling and as transformative as Medicare. As a nation, we must embrace this opportunity for real change. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the amendment seconded? Dr Ryan 297660 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 11:21 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills The Labor Party has been a party of fairness and equality of opportunity, a party that supports working people and their families. In less than three years the Albanese Labor government has put forward what I would consider to be transformative policies to build a universal early childhood and education system accessible to all Australian families. I will tell you about a specific example of these transformative policies and their impact on people. In my electorate of Wills a young family, recently migrated to Australia, have a young daughter who didn't speak a word of English when she came to Australia with her family. She started at a childcare centre in Brunswick, in my electorate of Wills; as soon as she came to Australia, that was the beginning of her education. She gets a fair bit of fairy bread—hopefully not too much because there's a bit of sugar in that—and the sandpit is her favourite place to play; that's what I was told by her. Within six weeks of her arrival she was speaking fluent English. She was even saying 'mate' and 'g'day', so she had a bit of Australian slang as well. That is the power of early childhood education. It is not just child care. The people that work in this sector are early educators. They are trained and have specific qualifications—tertiary qualifications and diplomas—that go to the very important development of young children and their early education. That's why we respect the work they do and why we supported pay rises for those workers. I can't remember the last time those opposite, who are resisting and opposing this bill, advocated for families, for equality of opportunity, for choices for women or for an equitable and open education system to give every single child the same start in life; I don't think they ever have. In contrast, this is a Labor government, the Albanese government, that is building Australia's future, and the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 is an important part of this. We want to make sure every child gets the best possible start in life. That's why we've introduced the three-day guarantee for all families. This is to guarantee all families three days of the childcare subsidy each fortnight, with 100 hours guaranteed for families caring for First Nations children and families who work, study or train. This three-day guarantee will increase entitlements for over 100,000 families across the country, with more than 66,000 families expected to be better off in the first full financial year of implementation—and, importantly, no family is worse off. That's at least 100,000 children—probably more, because parents sometimes have more than one child; I don't know why because it's a lot of work having two and a lot more work having three! Mr KHALIL 101351 The member for Fremantle is saying how much work it is! But it is a great joy of our lives to be parents, despite how challenging it can be. We are talking now about well over 100,000 children that are going to benefit and access this transformative benefit of early learning. Think about the ripple effect of that for a moment—the young girl who learned English within six weeks and how that impacts her engagement with her parents, who are also learning English. Think about the ripple effect of over 100,000 children getting access to early education. If one child in my community of Wills has the potential to make a difference to the lives of her family and the community around her, each of those people will do the same and contribute positively to the world around them. Times that by over 100,000. It's such a positive and wonderful thing for the members of the community across the country. This bill is another step in our plan to build a universal early education system and—an economic point here—it saves parents around $1,370 in the first financial year. It replaces the former activity test put forward by the former coalition government, the Liberal government, with a new three-day guarantee in early education. When the former coalition government delivered their 2018 childcare package, they actually halved the number of subsidised hours of care that low-income families could access. That went from 48 to 24 hours. The number of low-income families accessing care went from 32,000 down to 6,500. That wasn't an accidental policy; it was built on the ideological position of those opposite, which led to increasing inequity and excluded communities of people from accessing early education and care. That also has a ripple effect—not a very good one; a negative ripple effect. That is what is most disappointing about their opposition. In government they can do things like that and have a negative impact, but, when we try and do something positive, they still stand in the way of that and they still say no. This bill builds on the Cheaper Child Care reforms, where we cut the cost of early education and care for more than a million families and introduced a 15 per cent pay cut—pay rise, I should say—for early educators. I spoke earlier about the importance of early educators, the work that they do to teach young children. That very formative part of their development in the early years is so critically important. That 15 per cent pay rise—I had a slip of the tongue earlier because I was looking over at the opposition. I think they might have cut if they had the chance. We supported a pay rise for early educators, and that is so important. These reforms are all part of our expansive commitment to early education across the country. Since we came into government there have been 1,083 new services, including 325 in regional and remote Australia; and more than 90,000 additional places in early education and care. This is part of a package establishing the $1 billion Building Early Education Fund to build and expand childcare centres in areas of need, including the outer suburbs and regions, as I mentioned. Under our government, with Cheaper Child Care, we increased the childcare subsidy, meaning a family earning $120,000 with one child in care three days a week saved around $2,140 last financial year. This is thousands of dollars back in the pockets of parents, back in the budget for families, to provide vital cost-of-living relief so that they can invest in their children's future. We know that investing in child care has that ripple effect. It's about early education. It's about the children's development. It's about the ripple that they will cause and their positive impact across community. It's about the economic impact for families and their ability to relieve some of the cost-of-living pressure but also re-invest in their children in many other ways. We invested around $3.6 billion to make the wage increase for early childhood educators happen. That was a serious commitment because we value the work of those educators. It is a largely feminised workforce. I think around 90 to 95 per cent of workers in that workforce are women. They were seriously underpaid for the work that they do. If you look at the equivalent tertiary diplomas in education, the cert IVs and so on, in other sectors where it isn't as feminised, they were getting paid more. They were really underpaid. This was a real correction—an absolutely necessary correction, given the importance of the work that that sector does. Typically a full-time early educator was paid an award rate. They will receive a pay rise of at least $103 per week, increasing to at least $155 per week from December this year. We know this is a feminised industry. We know there is a serious challenge with the gender pay gap. This was the Albanese government taking real action, $3.6 billion worth of action, to try to address that gender pay gap, which still exists in many sectors. It certainly was the case in the early education sector. I hope no-one here undervalues the work of these early educators. They're not just babysitters, which was a prevalent view or a stereotype. The work they do in the development of a child's learning and education is of critical importance, and so many studies have shown how important that baseline is in those early years. The work they do is professional, it is informed by evidence and it is critical to the development of our children. Our commitment to these workers is also a commitment to women, given the very high percentage of women in that workforce. We are also committed to giving all children equal opportunity. I mentioned the Labor Party being the party of equal opportunity and fairness, and this is about equal opportunity for early childhood education and care. We're also committed to giving families the choice to work out childcare arrangements that work for them. Some of us who have smaller children know how difficult it is to juggle their schedules and taxi them around, to be a taxi or Uber driver for your kids; but, more than that, there's the emotional investment we make, the planning and the investment we make in children's education. That is so important. Parents of families need choice to be able to manage this and to have flexible arrangements. We understand more choice and support for families, particularly for women, is so vital, giving them that ability to be flexible and to make their own arrangements. Unlike those opposite us, we are working towards a universal early childhood education so that families choose rather than feel compelled to stay home with the kids or send them to child care. It should be up to the families. We all know how vital it is for parents to have time to care for and bond with their child. This is for the wellbeing of children, their parents and the broader community. That's why we expanded the Paid Parental Leave scheme to a full six months by 2025. That's why we added superannuation to that scheme as well. We have made it more flexible to support parents in the transition back to work and made it much easier for parents to share care by creating a single gender-neutral entitlement that both parents can access. I think that's great for dads—and, again, we're removing stereotypes about that because it is important that families have that flexibility to choose their arrangements. We've heard before about needing a village to raise a child and having a community to raise a child. It might be a cliche, but there is great truth to that. It does take a multitude of different members of the community and the environment that our children develop in and learn from in so many ways across the community. It takes good policies as well to give that scaffolding and that framework for the development of children and raising them in the best possible way. The transformative policies we have put in place in a very short time under the Albanese Labor government, in early education and child care with respect to families and flexibility and with respect to health as well, are so important in that respect. That is why a re-elected Albanese government post this election—I don't know when it's going to be, but post this election—if we are re-elected, is going to establish the $1 billion Building Early Education Fund, which will build and expand on more centres in areas of need, including outer suburbs and in parts of regional and remote Australia. All of this is important to us. Many of us who are either parents or have nephews and nieces or whatever it might be understand how significant it is to have quality early education and development for children in those early years. That's why this government is so committed to it. We care about this. We are doing the work to put in place policies that make a difference for families, for children, for parents, to give them flexibility in their arrangements and in their commitments. We value the work of early educators and we're putting real money on the table, as far as wage increases go, because we care. We care about these things because we know how important the start that our children have is for our society. That's why the Albanese government is working to build this universal early childhood education and care system. It's something that we will always be committed to because it's in our DNA. As I said at the start of this speech, Labor is the party for fairness and for equality of opportunity—that means something to us—and for support of working people and working families, and for giving families the best start in life and their kids the best start in life. 11:35 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney In October last year, I hosted the North Sydney Deliberative Democracy Forum on early childhood education and care. The event brought together 35 randomly selected but demographically representative members of our community, with experts from academia and industry, to discuss the affordability and accessibility of early childhood education and care services right across our country. Their goal was to arrive at a consensus on a policy approach that they wanted to see the federal government pursue to ensure these services are affordable and accessible to everyone. There were lots of ideas that participants supported, including equalising the pay of early childhood educators with primary-school educators and requirements to build early childhood education and care centres alongside new public primary schools. But the core of their final recommendation was that the government should provide universal free or low-cost early childhood education and care services to all children from birth, regardless of their families' financial circumstances. I can't tell you how pleased I am, then, to say that, with the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, the government is moving Australia towards my community's final recommendations and aspirations, and we could not be more pleased with this reform. I want to thank everyone who has fought so hard for it over many years. Indeed, when I first announced that I'd run as the independent candidate for North Sydney, it was people who were advocating in this area who were among the first to approach me to ask for my support, and, as a consequence, it was one of our key policy platforms during that campaign. This win, then, is not just for parents but specifically for all children right across the country. That's because this bill does two really important things. Firstly, it winds back the activity test to ensure that all families have access to 72 hours of subsidised care a fortnight, regardless of how many hours they work, study or volunteer. This is what is known as the three-day guarantee. At the same time, it allows families caring for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children, or those who work, train, study or volunteer for more than 48 hours a fortnight, to have access to 100 hours of subsidised care. It's not an understatement to say that this reform is incredibly important, as we've known for a long time that, rather than acting as a stimulus for workforce participation, the activity test has been acting as a barrier, particularly for many lower-income families and families with irregular patterns of work. Indeed, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee itself called the test 'poorly designed' and 'punitive', highlighting the barrier it creates for many parents wanting to participate in the workforce, while research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found no evidence—no evidence—that the test had increased workforce participation. The minister herself noted in her speech that in 2021 only 54 per cent of children in the most disadvantaged areas were enrolled in early childhood education and care, compared with 76 per cent in the highest socioeconomic areas, whilst an Impact Economics and Policy analysis found removing the activity test could allow around 126,000 children from lower-income families to access early childhood education. Ultimately, although ostensibly designed to encourage work, the activity test has failed, instead excluding many struggling families from access to early childhood education and care for no substantial gain. For this reason, countless researchers, peak bodies, committees and, indeed, many on the crossbench have been calling for the end of this test for years. As Georgie Dent, the CEO of The Parenthood, said: Removing the Activity Test is the most significant step towards creating truly universal early education and care. At the heart of the problem with the activity test is the fact that it places the focus on the parents, when, ultimately, many—including myself—argue the focus should be on children and on ensuring every child, regardless of their circumstance, has the same opportunities from the earliest days of their life. With all that said, I acknowledge some people are struggling to understand why those who ostensibly can afford to pay for it will not be charged under this new reform. But I'm comfortable the reform is absolutely the right thing to do as it essentially aligns our attitudes and the attitudes we have always espoused as a nation when it comes to public education. As someone who was educated through the public system, I am so proud of that attitude and I will defend it to the death knell as, ultimately, I do not believe a level of education or care a child receives should be based on an accounting declaration, nor should we as a society aspire to create a two-tiered system where those that can afford to pay get access to some form of high-end silver-plated service, while those relying on a public assistance are only offered a white-label experience. As I said, as someone who was public school educated through the seventies and eighties, I think that is what we have created on other levels of education and we should wind that back and get it right for early education and care. No public school asks you how much your parents work before letting you in the door; rather, it is accepted that no matter where you live or what you live in, or what your parent does, every child in Australia needs and deserves access to an education without having to crunch numbers about their parents' circumstances. But this does represent a major philosophical shift in our approach to early childhood education and care, and some who may have made a lot of money in this space or who just think some people have too much and, therefore, should be paying for it, will be uncomfortable with what I have just said, so I accept it may take time for everyone to convalesce around the idea, even though I think it is brilliant. Having grown up in a regional community and now representing a wonderfully vibrant and diverse community, I believe communities are their strongest when environments that surround our kids expose them to all sorts of people—to those who have and those who do not have. In addition to all of that, however, this bill will bring us further in line with countries like Italy, Sweden, South Korea, Germany and others, who already operate more universal systems for early childhood education and care, and we know their systems work. In Germany, for example, researchers found the expansion of the government's childcare system to children aged one to three significantly improved the socioemotional development of less advantaged children. In the Nordic countries, which have generous and robust early education and care systems, they consistently rank as the best places in the world to raise children. But of course, the bill doesn't fix everything. For one thing, the sector has and is still facing a workforce crisis, losing workers to primary education and other careers due to the fact this work is historically poorly paid and supported. While the recent pay rise legislation is a welcome improvement, we do still need to ensure we are investing in workforce training and development, and improving working conditions on an ongoing basis. As it currently stands, around one in four Australians live in a childcare desert, with services few and far between. This leaves many families completely unable to access care for their children, which adds to their overall struggles. This inequity is stark in some regional areas. In this context, I support the efforts to build early childhood education and care centres, especially in rural and regional areas, and to work with communities and not-for-profits to ensure every town has access to the services its citizens need, regardless of whether there are five, 15 or 500 kids in the area. Finally, although subsidies are important, the out-of-pocket costs for many families, including those in my community of North Sydney, continue to be far too high and often prohibitive. Moving towards a truly universal system with a low out-of-pocket cost for five days of education and care without any form of activity requirement will take some work but it is work that is worth doing. Ultimately, I am only one of literally thousands of voices that have been calling for these changes to early childhood education and care, and I feel for the families that have been struggling to afford these services for years while they waited for the government to act. I was also so drawn to this point of argument because, as a mum of three kids of her own, I really struggled when they were young to get them into the services that they needed. Whether it is here in this place or in the wider community, I will continue to fight for this reform, and, while this is an excellent start, we should go further. In closing, I want to thank everyone who has engaged so passionately with this issue over the past three years. To my community, who know all too well the challenges of high costs, thank you for sharing your stories and for being prepared to advocate for a program that sought to remove barriers for any child or family based on income, location or class. I encourage you to see this as a positive reform, and to ensure that, no matter the way the election goes in 2025, you back the people who are prepared to deliver this. To the participants of the North Sydney Deliberative Democracy Forum on Early Childhood Education and Care, thank you for transforming the community's values into policy recommendations. To the researchers and advocates, thank you for fighting so tirelessly for the reforms. This win is yours. You deserve to bask in it. But, finally, to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, the Minister for Youth and Minister Assisting the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Hon. Dr Anne Aly, thank you for finally bringing this to life. I have no doubt that having a cabinet that finally has equal representation of both men and women has been instrumental in getting this reform done, so please keep up the good work. Thank you. 11:45 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide It gives me great pleasure and pride to be here supporting the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. I do so because we on this side want to make sure that every child gets the best possible start in life, and we believe that every child has the right to go to early education, to help make sure they don't start school behind. This Labor government is going to make that possible. The bill replaces the old activity test with a new three-day guarantee in early education, starting from 5 January 2026. The activity test requires that parents meet a minimum level of approved activity, such as work or study, before qualifying for the child care subsidy. This has created some barriers, and we've identified so, for families accessing the CCS, for example, where a parent needs educational child care in order to look for work, or before they can commit to study. The bill will provide that all families will be guaranteed three days, or 72 hours, of childcare subsidy each fortnight. Families who work, study or train will continue to be eligible for the 100 hours of childcare subsidy each fortnight. The three-day guarantee will increase entitlements for over 100,000 Australian families, with more than 66,000 families expected to be better off in the first full financial year of implementation, and absolutely no family to be worse off. The reform is part of the next steps to building a universal early education and care system, expanding access to quality early education across the country. It does a number of things. It builds on cheaper child care, which will cut the cost of early education and care for more than one million families, and, on top of that, our 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. This pay rise has been a critical achievement for early childhood education and care workers, who have traditionally been some of the most important workers in the country, who are dedicated to looking after our children in those very early formative years and those very early years of their education in and around the country. They're also important for our economy, and they deserve to be paid fairly. This government recognises that and pushed for it. Achieving quality outcomes for children relies on a highly skilled, well-supported and professionally recognised early childhood education and care sector. Decent wages are absolutely critical for this sector to reversing the attrition and growing this crucial workforce. Everyday Australians trust early educators with the most important people in our world, and that is the next generation of Australians and our very young children. We ask our early childhood educators to do some of the most important jobs imaginable, and they desperately deserve that pay rise and to be paid accordingly. That's what this government has delivered—a 15 per cent rise for childcare workers, a 10 per cent pay rise from December 2024 and a further five per cent pay rise from December of this year. A typical early childhood educator receives an additional $103 extra a week from last December, and that will increase to at least $155 from this coming December. So, wages in the early childhood education and care sector—a heavily female dominated workforce—are amongst the lowest in the caring professions, with award rates for professional qualified educators often comparable to rates of pay for unqualified workers, such as those in retail and hospitality. An effective supported bargaining process will lift pay and conditions for the workforce and contribute towards the government's ambition for that universal, high-quality sector. This is important because what happens in early education and care is important. It's not just babysitting; it's early education, and 90 per cent of brain development occurs in the first five years of life. Research and experts and professors around the world all have one common thing to say when it comes to early education, and that is that the earlier you start the better off that person's education will be. That is a proven fact. It's not just about babysitting or caring for kids while parents are at work—which are also very important for working families—but also about the development of the child's education for the rest of their life. This pay rise will encourage more people to stay in or come back to the industry and more people to think about becoming educators—and having more educators means that more children and more parents can benefit from the life-changing work these educators do. The Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 also supported affordability for families by establishing the fee increase cap in the terms and conditions of the worker retention payment grant. This means that providers are not able to raise their fees by more than 4.4 per cent in the first year. This will put downward pressure on fees, helping to make education and care more affordable for families. Why am I saying all this? It is because all of it is part of a package to ensure that we have a professional early education industry that provides the utmost and best for our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren so that they can develop and have the best education possible to them, which will then benefit the nation as a whole. We're committed to a package that establishes building an early education fund to build and expand childcare centres in areas of need, including outer suburbs and regions, where perhaps people are not as able to access these centres as we are here in the cities. As part of this package the government will also develop the early education service delivery price to help better understand the cost of delivering the services around the country and to underpin future reform. Going back to the bill: the bill provides that all families will be guaranteed three days, or 72 hours, of subsidised childcare each fortnight, and that is a great start. We hope we will build on and future governments will build on those three days. Families who are caring for First Nations children will be guaranteed 100 hours each fortnight. Families who work, study or train will continue to be eligible for 100 hours of subsidised care each fortnight. This is extremely important across the nation. For example, ABS census data showed that 2,280 childcare workers were working in metropolitan Adelaide in 2021, which compares with 862 in 2011. This is an increase of 1,418, or 164.5 per cent—a huge increase. As at July 2024 there were 157 early childhood education and care services in my electorate of Adelaide. These include centre based day care, outside-school-hours care, family day care and preschools. There were 70 centre based daycare services and 50 outside-school-hours services in the Adelaide electorate—all playing a crucial role in early education and educating the next generation of Australians. There are 9,800 families benefiting from cheaper child care in my electorate alone. As many of us do in this place, I have had the privilege of visiting quite a number of childcare centres. I always enjoy going along and seeing the work that the early educators do and the activity of the children. I have always been received with open arms wherever I have gone. In the electorate in recent times, I know how well the news that I have just explained is being received in such centres. I'll just name a few of them. One that has been there for many years and which my own children attended is the Lady Gowrie Child Centre. My kids, by the way, are now 40 and 36. That's how long the Lady Gowrie Child Centre has been at Thebarton. They do amazing, incredible work, and they have educated thousands of children in their early years. I've seen the benefit to my kids and my grandkids on top of that. I visited the Goodstart Early Learning at Plympton about six months ago. There is the Goodstart Early Learning in Prospect, which I am visiting again next month. They've invited me to go down. There is the Parkside Community childcare centre and the Unley Community Childcare Centre, where I had a great meeting with parents, educators and the committee of the centre. They told me about their trials and tribulations a couple of years ago. I fed all of that back to the minister. I hope those discussions that I had played a role in developing some of these policies. Other great ones are Precious Cargo and Little Oxford Montessori early learning centres. When you visit these centres, you get a great sense of the importance of their work. As I said, I met with the parents, the committee members and some of the early childhood educators who work there. I sat and spoke with them, and they showed me the centres but also told me about their work and how hard their work is. A few years ago, we had a program through the childcare centres and their union. They ran a campaign saying, 'Walk in their shoes,' where they gave us the opportunity to go to a centre and sit and actually do the work of an early educator for just one hour. I went to Camden Park back then when I was the member for Hindmarsh. I recall it clearly. Part of the role was lunch, reading a book and then playing some games. So I sat there with the childcare worker who was guiding me. I was absolutely exhausted after one hour. It is not as simple as you think having 15 to 20 young toddlers in front of you, reading the story, making sure they all eat their fruit and carrying out the activities. I recall that I left exhausted after just one hour. So the work these early childhood workers put in to looking after our kids is very important. They do it because they are so committed to it. They do it because they love it. They do it because they're passionate about it. I really appreciate, as we all should, the work that early childhood educators do for our children. About a year ago, I met with staff, advocates and parents at the Unley Community Childcare Centre. They also told me about their trials and tribulations. They told me about the long hours of work, their difficulties in recruiting staff and the difficulties in running a family household with such low pay. All of these policies that we have put in place will ensure that they attract more staff, that they are paid a decent wage and that we continue to offer education in the early years of our children. I am also looking forward, as I said earlier, to attending the official opening of the Prospect Goodstart Early Learning childcare centre next month. Goodstart employees were among the first early childhood workers to receive a pay rise. I know they appreciate the support that they and their families and the children they care for are receiving from this government. Indeed, the management of the centre had this to say: 'The past year has been an immensely exciting one for the early learning centres, with major policies and investments from the Labor Malinauskas and Albanese governments paving the way for improved access to high-quality early learning for children and families. So Goodstart is excited to be a part of the ECEC reform process and we deeply appreciate your ongoing support for high-quality, not-for-profit early childhood providers, which helps ensure quality and affordability remain at the heart of early learning.' It's clear how critically needed this government's reforms to the childcare sector are and how important it is to retain childcare workers and help parents and carers struggling with cost-of-living pressures. These important reforms ensure that not only will children get the early education access they need to help develop them and improve their entire educational life but parents will get cheaper childcare services, ensuring that we're putting downward pressure on the cost of living. 12:00 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong We all recognise the importance of quality education, but that of early childhood education has historically been undervalued. As businesswoman and now governor-general Sam Mostyn said last year, 'Early education and child care are as important to Australia's economic future as the introduction of public schooling and of Medicare.' In this parliament the cheaper-childcare reforms of July 2023 improved childcare affordability for all types of care and for households across the income spectrum. That reduction was proportionally largest for the lowest income families, but they do still continue to spend the largest proportion of their disposable income on child care. I note that the affordability benefits from those changes to the childcare subsidy were unfortunately quickly eroded by price hikes in childcare centres. Providers' profit margins are higher in the major cities and in more advantaged areas. There are more services in those areas, where demand is generally higher and households generally have a greater ability and willingness to pay for them. The availability and quality of educators and staff have a significant impact on the quality, reputation and profitability of childcare services. Stable staff tenure and community also contribute to the viability of those childcare centres. We know that labour shortages are affecting childcare services across Australia but particularly for those in rural and regional settings, for First Nations communities and for children with a disability who have complex needs or those experiencing disadvantage, as well as children aged under two. In a time of stagnant productivity, access to child care remains the most significant barrier to workforce participation in Australia. Child care is unaffordable for as many as 40 per cent of Australian families. The average family with two children in early learning spends 16 per cent of its income on childcare fees. Twenty-four per cent of Australia is considered a childcare desert, in which there are at least three children fighting for every available spot. Only eight per cent of the country currently has enough access to centre based day care to provide at least three days of care for all children aged zero to five. This is the result of decades of policy failure by successive Australian governments. As a result, for many parents, usually the mothers, it's just financially not worth it to go back to work. Others have to choose to work fewer hours. That costs them doubly. Mothers who are out of the workforce or underemployed while raising young children have slower career progression and lower salaries even after they return to the workforce. This impacts their financial security and their accumulation of superannuation. It exacerbates financial stress on families. It decreases national productivity and it perpetuates gender inequality and the gender pay gap. There is ample evidence of not only the substantial economic benefits of investment in early education but also the benefits for children. As the only paediatric neurologist ever to occupy a seat in this parliament, I can tell you that children's brains develop more rapidly in the first five years than they do at any other stage in their life. Children develop better when they're stimulated. Quality early childhood centres don't just babysit children; they educate them. They help them gain early numeracy, literacy, problem-solving and social skills. It's really important to note that the disadvantaged children who might not be benefiting from a rich learning environment at home are those who benefit even more from quality early childhood education. The current activity test determines the number of subsidised childcare hours that Australian families can receive based on their engagement with recognised activities like work or study. It effectively limits many Australian families access to ECEC, particularly those with lower incomes and those with irregular work patterns. Families with fewer than eight hours of such activities per fortnight currently can't access subsidised care unless their income is below $83,000. Those with an income over that income threshold currently receive no subsidised care. It's good, therefore, to note that the bill now before this House modifies the childcare subsidy activity test so that now all Australian families can access at least 36 hours of subsidised care every week, regardless of the time spent in recognised activities. The bill also guarantees 50 hours of subsidised care a week for those with more than 24 hours of recognised activities per week, as well as families caring for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. These changes are a definite improvement on the existing arrangements such as they are, but they still fail to accord with the advice of the experts, which was to abolish the activity test altogether. The activity test is inconsistent with international best practice, which is for the universal provision of early childhood education for all preschool aged children. The contemporary labour force requires flexibility, and the activity test is a poor fit for its needs. Impact Economics and Policy has reported that at least 126,000 Australian children from the poorest households are currently missing out on childcare because of the activity test. Reviews by the Productivity Commission, the ACCC, the Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, the Australian Childcare Alliance and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce are unified. They have all called for the removal of the activity test. They found those families which need more childcare than they are currently able to access with the existing activity test, particularly the lower income families, are being disadvantaged and actively stopped from accessing the best-practice childcare. The test has significant administrative complexity for little benefit. It makes it harder for parents to access the support that they need when they're actively looking for a job or when they're struggling with variable shifts, and irregular and unpredictable working hours. Both the ACCC and Early Childhood Australia have also recommended a minimum entitlement to three days of quality ECEC for all Australian children. The Centre for Policy Development went a bit further and suggested we create a single legislated national entitlement for all children which includes both childcare and preschool. The legislation before the House will improve affordability of childcare for a small proportion of families, but its settings for subsidised care remain complex and will still act as a barrier for many Australian families. We should work to the abolition of the activity test. A universal access model in which every child is entitled to a minimum number of subsidised hours per week, regardless of their parent's activities or income, would reduce administrative burden, and it would make the system easier to understand. We could also streamline the subsidy calculation process by using a flat rate or a simplified sliding scale based on income alone without considering activity levels. It would make it easier for all Australian families to understand their entitlements. There is, of course, a cost to all such measures. Abolition of the activity test and provision of universal access to subsidised childcare would carry a significant cost. The childcare sector is chronically short of staff. Increasing demand will only exacerbate that issue. We'll also need to increase the number of childcare places to meet the increased demand generated by these changes. But, if something matters to a country, it finds the money for it. This is such an important issue for our economy, for Australian parents and for Australian children. The ACCC has found that the current one-size-fits-all policy approach cannot meet all needs across the childcare centre. They said: … the highly localised nature of childcare markets; the way parents select services based on availability and informal assessment of quality; and providers' supply decisions mean … that market forces alone are not meeting the needs of all children and households. We need a mix of different regulatory measures to improve outcomes for households in diverse circumstances and in locations across the country. As Gina Cass-Gottlieb, the chair of the ACCC, has said: Market stewardship roles can be effective in care-based economies where competition-driven market dynamics do not always achieve the desired outcomes, The ACCC recommended that: … the Government consider providing funding or grants directly to providers to assist with the costs of supplying services in areas that are considered unprofitable, or supplying services to groups within the community where costs of providing care are higher … We know that First Nations children are less likely to be enrolled in child care. There are a number of reasons for that. The burden of the administrative process can discourage carers from using formal childcare services, but also many families are hesitant to provide the information required because of their previous negative experiences in dealing with government departments. In addition, the childcare subsidy system doesn't always recognise First Nations kinship care relationships in a timely way, and that can deter families and carers from seeking to access the subsidy. The subsidy also has limited influence on reducing childcare fees or prices for family day care, outside-school-hours care and in-home care. Family day care is an important alternative childcare choice for many families as it may offer more flexible hours of care and adjustable session lengths, and sometimes it better caters to cultural and linguistic needs. Despite that, since 2018 the number of family day care and in-home services has declined in this country; 116 family day care services and 19 in-home care services have closed. This decline in family care services has disproportionately affected culturally and linguistically diverse households, low-income households, those living in very remote areas and carers working non-standard hours. Offering universal childhood education and child care is not as simple as merely making existing centres free or nearly free. We have to have an overarching vision for best practice child care. My colleague the member for Goldstein, in her amendment today, which I supported, called for the establishment of an early childhood development commission. Such a commission, which was recommended by the Productivity Commission, could play a crucial role in enhancing the quality, accessibility and equity of early childhood education and care across this country. It could offer many benefits. Firstly, a dedicated commission would provide centralised oversight and coordination of early childhood education and care, policies and programs. It would ensure consistency and quality across the country. It could address disparities in access to and quality of care, particularly for disadvantaged and vulnerable children. It could set and enforce high standards for early childhood education, developing and implementing best practices and professional development for educators, leading to improved outcomes for our children. The commission could analyse data on early childhood development, providing valuable insights to inform policy decisions and improve practices. This evidence-based approach would help identify gaps and areas for improvement. The commission could offer resources and support to families, helping them navigate the ECEC system and access the services they need. This would include providing information on available programs and subsidies. With a focus on long-term planning, the commission could develop strategies to address future challenges and opportunities in early childhood education, ensuring sustainable and ongoing improvement. The quality of our early childhood education has to be high. Workforce issues and barriers to access must be addressed; the sector must be valued. We need to have a concerted effort to ensure that all disadvantaged families can access the services and support that they need and deserve. It's a lofty goal, but it's worth pursuing. Universal early childhood education has the potential to be a game-changer for Australian children and families, and for our economy now and into the future. Universal early childhood education has the potential to benefit children through quality learning environments, to reduce financial pressure on parents, to reduce gender inequity and to enhance economic outcomes for Australia. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House. 12:14 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I also rise to speak on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. The member for Adelaide reminisced about the 'Walk in their shoes' campaign, and it brought back memories for me. I recall a similar experience, working for a day at the magnificent Wonderschool in Conder. That work wasn't limited to the soft stuff. It included some of the dirty work too, and it was a reminder for me of what amazing work our early educators do right across the country. As the member for Bean, which is home to thousands of young families, I'm pleased to speak in support of this bill. But let's be clear. The Liberals won't support cost-of-living relief for early education and care or kids need access to ECEC, but they will support free lunches for bosses. We know that these legislative changes will be on the chopping block, but they won't be on the menu after the election if the Leader of the Opposition gets his way. Like all my Labor colleagues, I want to make sure that every child gets the best possible start in life. I know the benefits that my family have received from access to early education, particularly at the Jenny Wren Early Learning by Busy Bees centre in Mawson, in the electorate of Bean. I'd like to thank those early educators who did so much great work for my family, as well as all early educators right across Bean. As a government, we believe every child has the right to go to early education to help make sure they don't start school behind, and our Labor government is going to make this possible. This bill will replace the activity test introduced by the Liberals with a new three-day guarantee. The three-day guarantee will deliver additional cost-of-living relief for more than 66,000 families after the changes commence in 2026. The young families and children who live in Bean will benefit from this move. This reform is just part of Labor's next steps to building a universal early education and care system, expanding access to quality early education right across the country. It builds on cheaper child care, which cut the cost of early education and care for more than one million families across the country, as well as our 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. Child care is of critical importance to the residents of Bean. Availability, cost and quality are issues that are raised with me as I do my job listening to the views, concerns and aspirations of local residents right across Bean. I believe that all those involved in the early education and childcare sector—state and territory governments, which regulate the industry, the private and public bodies which participate in the industry, and the national government, which provides considerable funds into the sector—have a duty to update the rules and arrangements to meet the needs of today. For many, family life in Australia—and no less so in Bean—is changing. The nature of work is also changing, with more and more workers not having regular hours or work patterns. Consequently, the rules around child care and early education need to be adjusted to make sure that all kids, particularly those in disadvantaged groups, get access to the services that are available. As outlined by the minister and previous speakers, the bill provides that all families will be guaranteed three days, or 72 hours, of childcare subsidy each fortnight. Families caring for First Nations children will be guaranteed 100 hours each fortnight, and families who work, study or train will continue to be eligible for 100 hours of subsidised care each fortnight. The background and context to the changes are important, and I'll now address the background to what we're discussing today and cover some of the other essential actions being taken by this government that are complementary to the bill under consideration. As reflected on by the minister when introducing this bill, when the Labor government came to office in 2022, we came with a commitment to make early childhood education and care more affordable through our cheaper childcare programs. We quickly turned that commitment into progress, with more than a million families benefiting from those changes. Recent data shows that an Australian family on an income of $120,000 a year, paying the average quarterly fee for 30 hours of child care per week, has saved approximately $2,768 since September 2023. This is of great assistance to the young families of Bean and throughout the nation. We also commissioned the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Productivity Commission to each do a review, providing guidance on how we can achieve our vision of a universal early learning system—a system where every child, no matter who they are, no matter their background and no matter where they live, has access to quality early childhood education and care. The Productivity Commission inquiry, in its interim report, told us that the early childhood education workforce should be the first priority for reform, including through better pay and conditions. The Productivity Commission made it crystal clear that the workforce is fundamental in addressing any changes in availability. Last year, we passed the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers Act, supporting a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood education and care workers—increasing the wages of up to 200,000 early educators—and addressing exactly this issue. Significant, momentous, historic, a monumental moment, proof that early learning matters and life changing—these are just some of the descriptive words that early childhood education advocates and workers have used to describe this government's 15 per cent wage increase. We know that the foundation of a universal system relies on a stable, secure and valued workforce, and this wage rise will help achieve that by retaining our existing early childhood educators and attracting new workers to the sector. Recent Jobs and Skills Australia data indicates that workforce vacancy rates in the early childhood education and care sector have plummeted over the last 12 months, with internet vacancy rates down 22 per cent since December 2023. But that's not all. The wage rise is linked to caps on fees. For providers to be eligible, they must not increase their fees by more than 4.4 per cent in the first year and 4.2 per cent in the second year. This is putting wages up for workers and keeping costs down for families. Over the last 2½ years, we have made significant progress in building these foundations for a universal early childhood education and care system, but we know that there is still more work to do. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry recommended that the government consider removing, relaxing or substantially reconfiguring the current activity test. In their final report, the Productivity Commission recommended all families who to choose to use early childhood education and care 'should be able to access at least 30 hours or three days a week' of high-quality early learning. The Productivity Commission also noted that ensuring that all children aged zero to five years have access to some form of high-quality, subsidised ECEC for at least three days a week, or 30 hours, for 48 weeks per year, would accommodate the needs of families and deliver the benefits of ECEC participation to children. Again, the government is acting in introducing the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill, guaranteeing families at least 72 hours of subsidised care per fortnight. The three-day guarantee is about making sure that every child can have the best start in life—that all children are ready to learn and ready to start school. It's about making sure that every child, no matter their background and no matter where they live, has access to the transformative benefits of early childhood education and care, and that's as important to the families of Bean as it is to families right across the country. We know how precious the first five years of a child's life are. It's a time of extraordinary growth—of emotional and intellectual development. In these years, children learn foundational skills. They learn to socialise and develop emotional skills that they can then build on when they start school. Replacing the Liberals' activity test, which locked out children and families, with Labor's three-day guarantee is such a crucial step in delivering on our commitment to universal early learning. When the Liberals introduced the childcare-subsidy activity test in 2018, they stated that it was designed to encourage workforce participation. But, as Thrive by Five's Jay Weatherill states, while the activity test was intended to encourage parents into work, in fact it has done the opposite. It has limited choices and made it harder for parents, especially single parents, to make an income. An evaluation by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found no evidence that the introduction of the activity test caused any increase in workforce participation. The Productivity Commission—that well-known socialist organisation!—found that the effects of the activity test on workforce participation were, at best, ambiguous. Instead, the activity test has made early learning harder to access for many families. It has disproportionately affected those families that may be experiencing disadvantage—possibly the families that could benefit most from this access. The children who'd benefit the most from high-quality early education and care are, right now, the least likely to attend—this is what we're aiming to address. In 2021, only 54 per cent of children in the most disadvantaged areas were enrolled in early childhood education and care. This compared with 76 per cent of children in the highest socioeconomic areas. These same children are more likely to be developmentally vulnerable. The most recent Australian Early Development Census report found that only 42.7 per cent of children experiencing the highest level of socioeconomic disadvantage were developmentally on track upon starting school, compared with 54.8 per cent of all children. These changes are critical to address this disadvantage. In conclusion, as the member for Bean, which is home to thousands of young families, I'm pleased to speak in support of this bill. I know how critical the work of our early educators is right across Bean. I'm fortunate in that my family has benefited from access to early education for each of our children, and I want to see that access provided to families right across Bean. I want to make sure that every child gets the best possible start in life. But the truth is that the benefits of these reforms are at risk from those opposite. Free lunches for bosses take priority over cost-of-living relief for early education and care. We know that this is likely to be one of the areas that will be part of the $350 billion of costs that, maybe, the constituents of Bean and the constituents of every electorate across this country will find out about the day after the election. But that's not good enough for the people of Bean. It's not good enough that we put such critical reforms at risk. The new three-day guarantee meets the needs of families today. It will benefit many families and children in Bean and right across Australia. Don't put these critical reforms at risk. Make sure that they don't go on the chopping block. Support early educators, not just across Bean but right across the country, for the extraordinary work that they do now and for the extraordinary work that they can continue to do across some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. 12:28 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. As has no doubt already been highlighted, the opposition will be opposing this bill for some of the reasons I intend to set out. If we just go back to the background of this legislation, the bill's intended to amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, and replaces references to the childcare-subsidy activity test with a new three-day guarantee. The legislation, at this point, is set to commence in January 2026, and the three-day guarantee is intended to provide all families that have up to a combined income of $533,000 with access to 72 hours a fortnight of subsidised childcare. That all sounds absolutely fabulous as a motherhood statement—no pun intended—but this legislation does not guarantee or prioritise access for working families over non-working families, and it's absolutely crucial, when parents return to work, that they are able to access and have choice about the type of childcare and early learning that is most appropriate for their family. The government estimates the cost of the measure is $426.7 million over five years, despite the policy not rolling out until January 2026. That's $426.7 million over five years from 2024-25. The Productivity Commission's report on this, though, estimated the cost of the full removal of the activity test, which this legislation would do, as being over $2 billion per year. As usual, the Albanese Labor government love to spend money, splash money around and make headlines, but, as always, the proof is in the pudding and whether or not this will actually deliver any additional assistance for working families is really completely questionable. To highlight the finances of this, the explanatory memorandum to the legislation states that the activity test changes will cost, as I said, $426.7 million, but the MYEFO outlook for 2024-25 stated the measure would cost $291.2 million over three years. The Productivity Commission did some preliminary modelling of a similar change to the activity test for its 2023 draft report, and, in that report, the commission found that relaxing the activity test so that all families could access at least three days or 30 hours of subsidised universal early childhood education and care a week would increase cost to the government by $1.1 billion per year. So it's really unclear. We actually don't know how much this policy is in fact going to cost. The amount splashed around by Labor is completely at odds with the Productivity Commission's detailed work on this proposal. Personally, I know that I relied very much on the kindergarten model when my boys went to preschool. They went to a community preschool, and the community preschool was run by a parent board. I was very grateful that I had the ability to make a choice. I live in a metropolitan area and we do have shortages, but, at the time in 2009, when my children turned three and could start preschool, they went to Gymea Community Preschool. It was a great experience, and it was right for my family. That's what childcare and early childhood education should be about. It should be about ensuring that families can make the right decision for them because each family has different needs, different priorities and different circumstances. The reason that the coalition opposes this legislation predominantly is it does remove the priority access for working families. In that way, we say it disincentivises aspiration and increases access without addressing supply issues. I know that's a very big issue out in the regions particularly, and I know many of my colleagues on this side who represent those electorates will be speaking about that. The legislation also does nothing to increase access or flexibility for families, and it doesn't attempt to address the current cost-of-living pressures. That is a summary of why we on this side will be opposing this legislation. We are relieved to see that the bill has at least been referred to a Senate inquiry, with a reporting date of 21 March this year. On the background to this, the Prime Minister first announced this policy on 11 December last year. At the time it was described as the next steps in the Albanese Labor government's plan for a universal early learning system. In some of the commentary that went with the introduction of the legislation, Labor estimated that over 100,000 families will have access to more subsidised care and more than 66,000 families will be better off overall. But 66,000 families represent only about six per cent of all families that are currently engaged and utilising the childcare subsidy system. This is a big cash splash with very little return for the majority of parents and families who are using this system. One of the other important reasons that we oppose this legislation is that we say this guarantee is fundamentally unfair and divisive. A three-day guarantee will only increase access for a very small number of families—as I said, about six per cent—but will have a wide-ranging impact on all families. Families who need access to early childhood education so they can work—and many, many Australian parents are in that position, particularly with the cost-of-living crisis we are subject to because of this government—will be competing against families who now have extra subsidised access but may not be working, studying or volunteering at all. That is the unintended impact and implication of this legislation. Families already in the system are unlikely to be impacted, but working families about to enter the system, or trying to enrol a new child, will be greatly impacted. This appears to be, once again, Labor simply at war with aspiration, with working families and with working parents. The other, and the biggest, problem with this bill is that it simply fails to address the supply-side constraints. We've heard Labor championing, particularly, cheaper child care. But what is the point of cheaper child care if you cannot access a spot for your child when you need to return to work or study or other obligations? Modelling from the Productivity Commissioner shows most of the children affected by the activity test changes live in major cities. Families in what we call thin markets and childcare deserts who have little or no access at all to child care will be the most disadvantaged. They're already disadvantaged, and this is going to make them more disadvantaged. There is no point bringing in legislation that states, 'Yes, you've now got three days guaranteed care' if there is no actual child care available where you live. I think this legislation shows the divisive nature of this government; we've seen it over the almost three years that they've been in power. This is pitting working families against non-working families, and metropolitan families against regional families. This is inherently unfair and not the Australian way. It doesn't reflect Australian values. The Prime Minister should be here bringing the nation together and governing for all Australians instead of continuing this divisiveness that started back in May 2022, when he was elected. This legislation also does not provide sufficient choice for families. It does nothing for parents who need flexibility, families who do shift work, for example, or who work non-standard hours. There is no provision whatsoever for those. Those families will see no benefit from this change. But we on this side of the House well and truly believe that families need a choice as to the sort of care and the type of care that they can access to suit the individual needs of their families. This legislation, we say, will reward families who already access child care at the expense of families who are unable to access it or who choose not to access it. To conclude, we on this side of the House are absolutely committed to assisting families to access child care and early education. However, we say that this legislation, for all of the reasons that I have just set out, will not do the job that it is intended to do. 12:41 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Early education is so important. The evidence is clear that children benefit from access to early education and care, and that it sets them up for the best start in life, so it is confounding to hear those opposite, including the last speaker, try and paint the making sure that all Australian children get the best start in life as being divisive. In what world is that divisive? It would only be in a world where you're prepared to stand against the best interests of Australian children. It does seem that is what those opposite are prepared to do because they are opposing this bill that gives all Australian children the best start in life. That is the hill they've chosen to die on and that is their choice. But, I must say, I am very, very surprised. Our government started this term delivering on our commitment to deliver cheaper child care to Australian families, and families across Australia have saved up to $2,768 since our government's childcare subsidies took effect. This is real cost-of-living relief that's going back into the pockets of Australian families. Now we are once again delivering reform in early education. We are replacing the activity test introduced by the previous Liberal government. We're introducing the new three-day guarantee from January next year, guaranteeing 72 hours of childcare subsidy each fortnight. We do believe that every child has the right to early education, to the best start in life, and this reform will help make that a reality right around the country. From early education through to school education, university and TAFE, our government has been delivering the investments we need to make sure that Australians are set up to get quality education, to get the education they deserve right through life. Of course, we have been opposed by those opposite, who do not share our belief that the best way to support Australians is to support them with education, with the best start in life, all the way through to a tertiary degree and their best start into a career. Early education is the starting point. It does set children up for their educational journey. I have seen this in my community, where I get to visit childcare centres from Watsonia to Bundoora to Eltham North, and talk with the wonderful educators there about the difference they are making in those children's lives, and see the many special moments that add up to giving those children the skills they need for heading on to school. I also get to see it in my own life. My four-year-old is a strong participant in the early education system, and every evening I get to come home and hear from him about what he's learnt during the day. Sometimes it is a fact or a figure, sometimes it's a new letter or number, and often times it's learning some of those other skills he gets in this setting—who he played with, how he worked out the disagreements with them, and how he worked out his relationship with the early educators who do a fantastic job with him. It makes me aware of how much growth he and other young children get through that system. No Australian family should be shut out from that because of an unfair activity test. Yet that is what those opposite are doing by opposing this bill. They are saying that my child should have the privilege of having that best start in life because I can afford to pay for it but that others should be locked out of a system that gives their child the best start in life. Well, I am proud to say that our government has brought an unprecedented focus to early education over the past 2½ years. We know how important it is to get the building blocks in place for a child to be ready for school and for what comes next. It's why we took to the last election our commitment to cheaper child care—a measure to help families with childcare costs. But we also did it because we want to support families to make the most of early childhood and care. As I said, this is good for children. It gives them the chance to learn and grow in an environment alongside other children, with the guidance of those fantastic educators. But it is also good for families, helping them to save costs on child care and providing more choice for parents, particularly women, who may want to return to work or pick up more hours—and, of course, it is good for the economy and for our country as a whole, encouraging more parents back to work and allowing them the flexibility to do more hours, setting up our next generation for the future. All of this brings economic benefits. Alongside the work we have done to support families in early education, we have been supporting early educators, because we recognise that this environment, where our children are being set up for the best start in life, does not just happen. It happens because there are qualified, wonderful and dedicated staff who are in there every day, thinking about creative ways to teach our children, to guide them on their journey. I am sorry to say that for far too long those wonderful early educators were underappreciated—and they were certainly underpaid. This is a heavily feminised industry, and like many highly feminised industries, such as our aged-care industry where we have also raised wages, for too long it wasn't recognised through its wages as it should have been. I am very proud to say this government is fixing that. We are raising the wages for those who are taking our next generation on the path that is going to set them up for a quality education and a quality start in life. So we are respecting those educators while also making sure that we are keeping costs down for families. This is really important. The next part is what this bill does, which is replacing the activity test and introducing the three-day guarantee. This is another part of our government's ambition to make our early education system the best it can be. I did say I wasn't surprised that those opposite are opposing this, because they regularly come into this place and oppose measures that are good for Australian women and for Australian families. In fact, in responding to this announcement, some of the rhetoric from those opposite has been—I wouldn't say 'unhinged'— Mr Burnell 300129 Some could say that. Ms THWAITES 282212 Some might say 'unhinged', but I probably wouldn't—so detached from the reality of the lives of Australian families and Australian women's lives. We saw Senator Simon Birmingham, in an opinion piece at the end of last year, making an incredibly out-of-touch and frustrating claim, suggesting that changes to the activity test would mean that women would be dropping their children off to child care so that they can go and play golf or do Pilates. That is not the reality of Australian women's lives. They are not thinking: 'I've got two hours. I will pop off to Pilates.' They are thinking: 'How do I hold down a job? How do I support my family? How do I do all the other things I need to get done?' And I hope they do get a bit of time for some Pilates and some exercise, but certainly they are not thinking, 'Well, I'll just pop my child into child care for two hours now, because the government has taken away the activity test, to go to Pilates.' I would encourage those opposite to get in touch with some Australian women, to get in touch with some Australian families. It is concerning that someone who, up until very recently, was such a senior member of the Liberals frontbench team would show such disrespect to Australian women and Australian families. This is a benefit for Australian families, and, in particular, it is a benefit for those families who can get locked out of our early education system—not because they're going to Pilates but because they have other strains and pressures on their lives that make it difficult for them to access early education. This is actually about making sure those children who most need that support to get the best start in life are able to access it. Again, it is something that those opposite should be able to bring themselves to support, but, once again, they are saying no to Australian families and no to Australian women. They are diminishing the value of this really important service for all children in our community and diminishing the value of the work that our early educators do. Of course, it's not, as I said, just in this area, when it comes to the difference that this government is making for women, where we see opposition from those opposite. We see time and time again that, when this government brings forward measures that are designed to support the lives of Australian women, what we get from those opposite is a no. Just last week, again in the Senate, Senator Canavan was targeting the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, suggesting it was a form-filling agency that was taking away from businesses judging people on merit. Gee, I wonder who he's been listening to. For someone who was a minister in the last government, it is surprising how little Senator Canavan understands not just about a government agency but also about women's lives. Through WGEA our government has been driving forward gender equity in Australian workplaces. Again: this is good for Australian women, it is good for Australian families, it is good for Australian business and it is good for the Australian economy. This term, we have worked and we have closed the gender pay gap to its lowest level ever. There's more work to do, but that's the achievement we have already made. We have helped employers make their workplaces more flexible for staff with caring responsibilities, through our reforms to paid parental leave. We are working to remove barriers to workforce participation, with measures like this three-day guarantee. We're collecting the data, through WGEA, that lets us know that we are making this progress. This is not a form-filling exercise. This is about making sure that Australian women are supported, that Australian businesses are better off, and that Australian children get the best start in life. Those opposite should really have a look around, read the room, talk to some Australian women, find out what's going on in their lives and get behind these measures. Our government has taken a deliberate view that education in this country does need to be looked at from all levels—from early education, through to primary and secondary schooling, and up to university and TAFE. We are investing, across all of these levels, to give Australians the best education they can have. As a Victorian, I am particularly pleased to say that last month we reached a historic funding agreement with the Victorian government to put all public schools in Victoria on the pathway to their full and fair funding. Through this agreement, our government will be increasing our funding to Victorian public schools by $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. This is the biggest ever investment in Victorian public schools by an Australian government. We will see this play out in our schools in an incredibly positive way for students in my community and in schools right across Victoria. It goes to all those things that I know parents want to see in our local schools—more individualised support for students, mandated evidence based teaching practices and more mental health support in schools. Coupled with these broad reforms that we're delivering in the early education sector, this full and fair funding for public schools in Victoria is a massive win for children in my community and for students in my community. Right across Victoria they will be getting the support and quality education that they need, all the way from those early childhood years right up to year 12. Wait—it doesn't stop there. At the tertiary level, our government is making significant investments to support both university students and TAFE students. We have, of course, already delivered cost-of-living relief to students with HECS debts, cutting $3 billion worth of HECS debt through our changes to the student loan indexation formula. Around 22,000 people in my community saw credits on their HECS balances last year. We've been clear that, if our government is returned at the coming election, we are taking HECS relief even further by cutting 20 per cent off of all student loans. This will wipe $16 billion in student debt, benefiting three million Australians. Of course, today, the Treasurer has also announced that he is making moves to make sure that HECS debts don't get in the way of students being able to apply for a mortgage and their first home, and that is a very important reform. Thousands of students in my community continue to benefit from the fee-free TAFE, enabling access to courses in important industries, like early education and like construction, nursing and technology. At every level, we are doing the work to allow Australians to access quality education. Again, I come back to the fact that this is what this particular bill is all about—making sure that every child in Australia gets the best possible start in life. Every child in Australia does have the right to the best possible start in life, to a quality early education. The activity test introduced by those opposite has been a barrier for those families who most need that access, and we are taking it away. We are supporting Australian families. We are supporting Australian women. We are doing the work to build our country, to make sure that there is a positive future, and we are doing it while supporting early educators. We are doing it while bringing costs down for families. This is the work we will continue to do in the face of opposition from those on the other side, in the face of an opposition that cannot see when a measure is good for Australian families and good for Australian women and, in fact, that actively works against our efforts to support the lives of Australian women and Australian families. We won't be deterred. We will continue the work up, and I am very pleased to support this bill. 12:56 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest It was interesting to listen to the government now saying that the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 will actually support every child in Australia. Well, if they're going to get the best start possible—it's supposed to be a Labor guarantee—that's, of course, except for rural and regional families, where there actually is no child care available today and won't be in the future. This will guarantee 72 hours a fortnight of taxpayer subsidised child care but certainly not if you're in a childcare desert, where there is no child care available at all. It's supposed to be three days for all families. Well, it won't guarantee that for those families in rural, regional and more remote areas, where there's actually no child care at all. What this bill does not guarantee is that it will actually prioritise places and access for working families or single parents over non-working families. What will a single mum do, one who has to work to keep her children, especially during a cost-of-living crisis? What does she do if she cannot access child care at all? How does the government think she will feel when she looks in the door at the childcare centre and sees children from families where the parent or parents are not working or not having to work because they are earning up to $533,000, which this bill actually allows subsidised child care for? What are her options? Not only is this unfair; it is divisive in communities. Removing priority access for working families is a terrible decision by Labor. I can only imagine how this will pit family against family where there are and where there will be no childcare places available for the families who need it most. This is divisive, not only for family against family but for metro verses rural, regional and remote. Where is the child care for those in our regional and rural areas that don't have access to any child care at all? How can this be for each and every child in Australia when there's no child care available in our communities? That's how out of touch this side is. I look at the divisive nature of this. For the ones for whom there is no childcare centre or places available because there's no child care or no workers and no accommodation, especially in our smaller regional towns and communities, this bill does absolutely nothing. Why not? I don't know why not. Why does this Labor government continue to ignore regional communities that don't have any child care available at all? And what do these families do right now in the midst of Labor's cost-of-living crisis, where both parents have to work probably more than one job because the interest on their mortgage has gone up by thousands of dollars? The cost of their energy, their fuel, their food and their insurance has gone through the roof under this government. Many of these people don't have family living close by who can babysit for them. When you live in a regional and remote community—or you're a farmer, and you've got to get on a tractor because it's hay season—what do you do if there's no child care? That's what's happening in our communities. There are so many childcare deserts in Australia where there is no child care available at all. This bill does nothing for them, and it's a false claim to say that every child in Australia will benefit from it. What do you do where there is no child care available? What are they supposed to do when they haven't got family living close by? And why do they have to continue begging for the government to act on their behalf—to actually look at the childcare needs in their small communities? Keep in mind that these people, who don't have access to child care, work in the regions where Australia's wealth comes from—in the mining and ag sector, often in remote locations. What good is a three-day guarantee for families living in a regional and remote area where there are no childcare centres or services available? What do you do? It's obvious that Labor is only interested in supporting inner-city and metro areas, because they've completely ignored this fact. Come and live in regional, rural and remote Australia, and see how you go with a three-day guarantee when there is no childcare centre or facility available, and you've got no family, and you have to work because you can't make ends meet. It also does nothing for parents who need flexibility, for the families on shiftwork or for those needing out-of-hours child care. Only Labor would think that taxpayers on a modest income of just over $45,000, who are paying 30c on the dollar in tax, should be subsidising child care for families earning up to $533,000. How on earth is that fair? I've got a prime example of a childcare desert that's been in my electorate. For several years, I've been working with a wonderful but desperate group of women in the small town of Augusta in my electorate. They've been working their hearts out constantly to provide Augusta parents, families and small businesses with access to child care. They know how important this is. Prior to their efforts, there was no child care available at all in Augusta. How good is this 'every child in Australia' promise when it ignores this fact? There was no child care without these women getting busy, and this group of amazing. persistent women have never given up. Recently, they finally secured some funding to renovate a building and, with the previous federal approvals, have successfully run a vacation program for three years now. Unfortunately, they were not successful in their application to the current government for a Community Child Care Fund grant in 2024. They were classified as inner regional, when they're well over 300 kilometres from Perth, 3½ hours away. They've told me there are many regional areas in the same predicament regarding lack of child care and resourcing, because others are getting in touch, saying, 'We've got no child care—we can't work, we can't support our local businesses and we can't support our families.' But, in spite of their setbacks, they're hoping to open their early childhood project in mid- to late 2025. Good on them. After all these years and all this work, they cannot wait to see the impact that a childcare centre has on their small town of Augusta and its littlest residents. They've said they're hoping to inspire other country towns to keep speaking up. I'm speaking up in here for those country towns that don't have child care. So don't come in here and say that every child in Australia is going to benefit from this, okay? They are really focused and hoping to inspire other country towns to keep speaking up regarding the importance of child care for their towns to thrive. They have also said, 'We hope that, in the years to come, childcare deserts are a thing of the past.' They won't be, with this bill. There's nothing in it for these small communities. They said, 'Rural children and families deserve equal access to early learning, regardless of their postcode.' What help is this bill to them? These are the words of Kylie Lucas, the Augusta & Districts Community Childcare Inc. Treasurer. She's the local pharmacist, and she's been desperate for child care in Augusta. That's what she's been saying. It should not be this hard or take this long and take so much effort for rural and regional families to have access to what people in metro areas often take for granted. Why are the people, the families, the small businesses that desperately need these workers in these areas and the families that are doing it tough less important and less valued and not covered under this legislation? It's an absolute disgrace. It should have been a priority for the Labor government. Why doesn't the Labor government fix the childcare deserts before offering subsidised child care to families earning $533,000? What a disgraceful slap in the face for those of us who live in the regions. Equally, how fair is it that Labor are subsidising child care for families earning up to $533,000 while at the same time capping access to independent youth allowance at a parental income of $160,000? How fair is that? Once again, this affects students and families in regional and remote parts of Australia—the areas Labor clearly does not care about. These are the young people in our electorates who often have no choice but to leave their homes to go to university, because the courses they need to study—in our case, in Western Australia—are available only in the city. These are courses such as medicine, law, pharmacy and engineering. But Labor applies the $160,000 threshold for access to independent youth allowance while at the same time providing taxpayer subsidised child care for families earning $533,000. In every instance it is regional and rural and remote families and children and the small businesses that are desperate for these workers and these professionals who are missing out under this government. It should not be forgotten that since Labor came to government the cost of child care—for those who can get it—has increased by 22.3 per cent. Since Labor's cheaper child care policy came into effect, actual out-of-pocket costs have increased by 12.7 per cent, and one in three services are charging above this fee cap. Childcare providers have also been hit by increased operational costs and increased regulations. Labor has estimated that more than 100,000 families will have access to more subsidised care and more than 66,000 families will better off. Well, that is not every child in Australia, as we keep hearing about here. It represents only about six per cent of all families currently engaged with the childcare subsidy system. What happens to the rest? And where will the extra staff need to come from? Even with this commitment, we are so short of childcare staff. Once again, I want to reiterate that if the government thinks that every family in Australia that needs child care currently has access to child care then the government is certainly out of touch with rural and regional Australia. The number of childcare deserts that exist, where there is absolutely no child care: I wonder whether the government has that list and whether they've actually looked at it, and looked at the numbers of small communities in rural and regional areas that have no access to child care. Why wasn't that part of the consideration in this bill, if we're talking about every child in Australia? That's what we just heard: every child in Australia—except if you live in a childcare desert, where there is absolutely no child care. What do they do, and what does this bill do for them? 13:08 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Every now and then in our lifetime there comes a moment when we have an opportunity to change the course of history. In the years leading up to my coming to this place, I never thought such a moment would happen for me, but today I am proven wrong. Today, the text of this legislation gives me, along with every other member in this place, the opportunity to change the course of history and the opportunity for every young person to have a better future as they continue to grow. The reason I say that is that the research is very clear around the positive impacts of early childhood learning. Those years, from zero to five, are some of the most important years that a child can be exposed to the benefits of an education, to ensure that they have the basis for a successful learning pathway throughout primary school, secondary school and then VET or university. I'm the benefactor of a VET qualification. Many in this chamber have got one, but probably a much larger number have got a university degree. They were probably, for the most part, set up because of the learning that they were exposed to when they were between the ages of zero and five. We know that it has become harder for parents to be able to look after or raise their children, with the pressures of keeping a roof over their head, putting food on the table and paying for the cost of an education. That's where the role of government comes in: to level the playing field and provide opportunities for everyone to have access to a fair education and a fair level of care. That's what this legislation goes to; it's at the very heart of this legislation. I want to address some comments made by previous members who have come into this place and have had their moment behind the microphone. I want to start with the member for Forrest and her conversation around the childcare deserts. It's important we do address that, and I don't for one second contend that there aren't concerns and issues with remote and regional areas where we're having difficulty with the provision of childcare and early learning centres. But I also want to be very clear on this front that, for the nine years before those in this government came to find ourselves on this side of the chamber, there was another government. It had an opportunity to change the course of history and the direction that our early learning centres took and the opportunities provided for our youngest citizens, and that was not taken. It is why this government has had to put so much emphasis into training early childhood educators. It's why we've had to fight to lift early childhood educators' wages by 15 per cent because we had a retention issue. I want to let the House know that, because of our measures, there are 1,083 new services, including—the member for Forrest should take note of this—325 in regional and remote Australia and more than 90,000 additional places in educational centres across Australia. It is an important point. Yes, we know there is an issue, but we are getting to work and we are getting it done and we are making sure that we fill those gaps. That's what good governments do. That's what this government is doing. The member for Moncrieff came in here earlier, and disappointingly—I say 'disappointingly' because I know the member for Moncrieff has a personal connection to my electorate. She knows my electorate probably better than most people in this chamber. She knows the level of disadvantage that exists in my electorate, the electorate of Spence—specifically, around places like Elizabeth Vale, a place I speak about on a regular basis, Davoren Park and Elizabeth Downs. There are numerous suburbs I can list off in my electorate. Deputy Speaker Georganas, you know this all too well; you reside in Adelaide and not too far from my electorate. We have significant challenges, and one of those is equitable access to early childhood education for our youngest people. This removes barriers and gives you, regardless of your socioeconomic background, an opportunity to provide your child with the early education they deserve, to give them the best start, so that they, one day, very well might be standing here in my place, giving a much better speech than I am right now. It wouldn't be hard. Mr BURNELL 300129 The member for La Trobe and the member for Casey are aptly chiming in here. I think we all know that there are much better orators than I, but it starts in those early years. There's a great quote from the former premier of South Australia. He talks about one of the things that this bill removes—that is, the activity test. He says, 'It has always been punitive and unfair.' I think that's what makes Labor governments so distinctively different from other governments—that is, we take the 'un' out of 'unfair'. We make sure that it is about fair and is about equity for everyone in our community so that they aren't left to the side. I want to get into the actual content of this bill, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. I spoke about the activity test. That is part of the core function of this legislation. It removes the activity test from the childcare subsidy. It is something that came about in 2018, introduced by the opposition, which, in fairness, did limit the scope of two existing childcare affordability schemes. They were the childcare benefit and childcare rebate schemes. It merged them together and put in place this activity test. For those who don't know what the activity test is, it refers to the hours a caregiver will need to work, study or look for work to determine the amount of hours childcare is subsidised under the CCS, the childcare scheme. We've taken that away because we see that as a punitive measure, as the former premier of South Australia has said. We want to put the fair back into equality for early childhood education. The Liberals' approach via the activity test has the minimum childcare hours for a family at up to 24 hours per fortnight or two days per fortnight for families under $83,000 per annum or zero hours for families over that threshold. The member for Forrest came in here and talked about fairness and how it's unfair for people in the regions and remote Australia, but here we have legislation currently in place that says, if you earn under $83,000 a year, you are able to access 24 hours a fortnight of subsidised care, but, if you're over $83,000, you get nothing. I just don't understand that. If you look at what we are proposing in this bill, it is 72 hours guaranteed, three days, for every family in Australia. That's improving the lives of over 100,000 young Australians and putting the fair back into equality. That's what good Labor governments do. In 2019, the Department of Education told us that low-income families accessing care went from 32,000 in 2018 to around 6½ thousand in 2019. That implies that, without that help, nearly 30,000 children would've been left worse off. The approach that, if something's free, you don't value it has left childcare unaffordable for families in Spence, where people are already disadvantaged. It goes to a lot of what I've said. As of 2021 there were over 13,000 single parents in Spence, with 6,000 of those parents listed as either not in the labour force or unemployed. Those parents not only had their children's education cut short by the activity test; they also didn't end up in the workforce as the Liberals promised, further entrenching the challenges we face in the north. As I said earlier, we are scrapping the activity test and we are guaranteeing every Australian family 72 hours a fortnight, three days a fortnight, regardless. It's fair and equitable. That will benefit over 100,000 families directly affected by the text before the House today in the most crucial stage of their development. Beyond that, it is estimated that more than 66,000 of those families will be better off in the first full financial year of implementation. Moreover, this policy leaves no families worse off. That's why we are retaining the measure to provide 100 hours per fortnight to families who record more than 48 hours of activity. Families that are relying on child care for their work need to be assured that these subsidies will remain. Also, families caring for First Nations children will be guaranteed 100 hours each fortnight to help close the gap. I think this is very timely given Friday this week marks 17 years to the day since the formal apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples by Kevin Rudd. The previous system made it harder for low-income families to access the childcare subsidy. We are making it easier. We are making it easier because it's the right thing to do to ensure that our youngest people have the best opportunity at a better future, an opportunity that has been afforded to every person in this House, an opportunity that was afforded to every person that has been able to get ahead and can consider themselves thankful for the place where they find themselves. In closing, I refer back to my electorate of the northern suburbs of Adelaide. In our community in the north, which, again, is one of the most disadvantaged metropolitan areas in the country, there are very young children who worry about the cost to their parents when they go to the shops. There are children who turn down the chocolate bar, the bag of lollies or whatever it may be they want when their parents offer it because those children have developed in a household in Elizabeth Park, Davoren Park, Salisbury North or many other areas north of Adelaide where the financial pressures felt by their parents have filtered down into the character and behaviour of their children, where kids of a single-digit age have the household budget at the forefront of their minds, feeling their parents' stress, because they have developed under the sheer stress their family is under to provide. No child in Australia should ever have to feel that way, and I fight to correct that record. The three-day guarantee helps do exactly that because, by guaranteeing 72 hours of subsidised early childhood and care and giving families unconditional and affordable access to these essential services, no matter who they are or what they earn, we take another step towards ensuring families can live without those pressures, towards ending cycles of poverty in the north and towards ensuring our children can live the way they should. I commend this bill to the House. 13:23 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey We all want to see adequate and affordable childcare services available to Australian families. That's not the debate that we are having here. The question we are talking about is how we do that and the best and most efficient use of taxpayer funds to achieve that objective. Child care is crucial to allow parents to work, to make an income and to contribute to their communities. Unfortunately, like so many bills we debate in this House, this is another bill by Labor with a catchy headline but that underneath the spin will make accessing early child care even harder for working parents and all parents. Those opposite use the phrase 'guaranteed access'. Every speaker is talking about guaranteed access. Well, the problem with that in my community is that there is not guaranteed access to child care because my residents are not able to get into a childcare centre, because we, like so many other communities, particularly regional, rural and peri-urban communities, have a childcare desert. I know many members on this side and on the crossbench get frustrated when our comments are construed as anti-childcare, because they're not. Being in government is about choices and priorities and where you invest those taxpayer dollars. This three-day guarantee will provide all families, up to a combined income of $533,000 a year, with access to 72 hours a fortnight of subsidised childcare. As I said, that guarantee is only there if you can find a place. This initiative won't achieve its goal without increasing access and supply, because it's only going to be harder for working families to find a childcare place if more people are trying to put their children into childcare without more places being available. That's supply and demand, demand and supply. That's economics 101, which we know is not the strong suit of this government. And, in addition, there are several issues with the bill, including the removal of priority access for working families. It does nothing to increase flexibility for families and it does not address the rise in childcare costs under the Albanese Labor government. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to speak about the childcare desert in my community. Finding child care has become one of the biggest concerns for parents of young children in Casey, especially in this cost-of-living crisis. Families have been prevented from any attempts to provide additional income, at a time when interest rates and living costs are through the roof, due to their inability to find child care. For these parents, there is little point in having access to three days of care when there's no care available. Many residents in my community work outside our region, with an average commuting distance of 28 kilometres—significantly higher than the Victorian average of 16.7 kilometres. For these families, access to long day care hours is essential to account for their commute times, and limited access to long day care in my community is leaving families without adequate care for their children. It's leaving parents to make that difficult compromise between career advancement, additional income for their family and their family obligations. According to data from the Mitchell Institute, in Coldstream there are still nine children for every one long day care place available. The towns of Silvan, Monbulk, Sassafras, Wandin and Seville have ratios ranging from 10 to over 50 children per childcare place, making placements highly competitive and leaving many parents without options. In Ferny Creek, there are between three and seven children per childcare place, and between seven and 18 children per long day care place. In Olinda, there are between two and five children per place, and between eight and 30 per long day care place. Belgrave, Warburton and the surrounding areas are also facing ongoing shortages in this access to child care. When families in my community are experiencing such difficulties, it's hard to support this legislation, because it does not guarantee or prioritise access for working families who need early childhood care so they can work. But those who are not working, studying or volunteering will also be subsidised, and, over the last three years, Labor has failed to meaningfully address supply-side constraints. Families in childcare deserts who have little to no access to childcare at all will be the most disadvantaged by this policy. This is despite the ACCC's final report into early childhood education finding: A single approach to government regulation and intervention ('one size fits all') is unlikely to deliver government objectives or meet community expectations across all childcare markets in Australia. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Bowman Electorate: Redlands Medicare Mental Health Centre 42 13:30 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman The former Liberal and Nationals government committed $3.4 million over four years to establish and operate a new adult mental health service in my community. Reaffirming the previous government's commitment should have been a simple process for the health minister; instead, this Labor government equivocated for nine months only to arrive at the same decision. After many letters from me and plenty of community advocacy, the project finally got under way but only after a significant delay. I'm pleased to report the Redlands Medicare Mental Health Centre has opened its doors at 40 Middle St, Cleveland, just up the road from my electorate office. I was pleased to receive an invitation to speak at the opening from the provider and Brisbane South PHN. I had to laugh when the assistant minister insisted my invitation be withdrawn. What a sad indictment when it was her government that was the one that tried to kill this LNP project Mental health is a battle many Redlanders contend with daily. The Redlands Medicare Mental Health Centre is a vital step towards addressing this crisis. It offers free, immediate and accessible mental health support to those in need. No Medicare card, GP or referral or appointment are required. Whether someone is seeking help for the first time or continuing a complex mental health journey, they'll find a welcoming team of highly qualified professionals and people with lived experience who will take the time to understand their needs and connect them to support. Thank you for everyone who has been involved in that project. It will serve our community well for years to come. Cunningham Electorate: Corrimal Fire Station 42 13:31 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham Corrimal Fire Station has just celebrated an incredible milestone—100 years of service. This is an incredible achievement and it is due to the amazing firefighters both past and present. Under the leadership of Captain Paul Dorin, its eighth captain, Corrimal Fire Station has continued to excel in serving our community with impeccable dedication and resilience. I met Paul almost two years ago when he and his team were talking about a small project they were working on—Smoke Alarm Action Day. I was so thrilled to see it come to life on 1 June last year. Since then I have taken every opportunity to promote smoke alarm safety, including on my Christmas card, informing all my constituents about this amazing initiative, where they can get free smoke alarms and some advice from our fire team. Corrimal Fire Station's deputy captain, Graham Yates, has spent the past two years documenting the history of Corrimal Fire Brigade. The book, Corrimal Fire Brigade100Years 1925 to 2025, is an incredible tribute to the past 100 years at this station. Congratulations and thank you to Paul, Graham and the rest of the team and their families at Corrimal Fire Station for the incredible work you do in our community. You keep us safe, not only attending to the hundreds of callouts that you respond to each year but also through initiatives like the free fire home safety visits. Thank you again. Braddon Electorate: Don River Railway 42 13:33 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon This weekend we celebrate a remarkable milestone—50 years of the Don River Railway on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Since 1973 this heritage railway has been more than just a collection of locomotives and tracks; it's been a living link to Tasmania's rich rail history, built and maintained by passionate volunteers who refuse to let our past be forgotten. It's from humble beginnings that the Don railway began one of the finest heritage railway experiences in Australia. It has restored and preserved historical locomotives, given tens of thousands of visitors the chance to step back in time, and provided an enduring reminder of the role that rail played in shaping our communities. But this railway is more than just history. It's about people. It's about volunteers past and present who have poured their blood, sweat and tears in order to keep it running. Their dedication ensures future generations will continue to hear the whistle and feel the rumble of the tracks, and experience the joy of heritage steam and diesel travel. To all who have made the Don River Railway the thing that it is today, I say thank you. 'We all love shunting,' said the fat controller, and, if you have a chance, please visit it on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Albanese Government 43 13:34 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley I've been the member for Dunkley for roughly 11 months, and I can tell you that the Albanese Labor government has been laser focused on easing cost-of-living pressures on families in Australia. We know people are doing it tough, so that's why this government has enacted a range of targeted measures to help people. We've given tax cuts to every taxpayer, meaning more Australians are keeping more of what they earn. We've got wages moving again, with our early childhood educators and aged-care workers all receiving a pay increase. We've introduced cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. Every Australian household has received a $300 rebate off their power bill, with each small business getting $325. We've delivered HECS relief with more on offer, with a potential 20 per cent promised in our second term of government. And I cannot forget fee-free TAFE, with over 600 places funded to date and TAFE listed as enduring for years to come. If the opposition get in, all they can promise is a nuclear fantasy—a project that's going to cost $600 billion—and financial cuts across our industries and sectors of $350 billion. The opposition have no plans and no policies to help Australians. They voted against every single cost-of-living measure, and the people of Dunkley will be worse off. (Time expired) Tasmania: Early Childhood Education and Care 43 13:36 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Way back in 2022 the new federal government made much of its commitment to remedy the national early childhood education shortage and to alleviate the prohibitive costs families pay for such services. Almost three years later, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, there is scant evidence of progress, especially in Tasmania where the pace of reform is glacial at best. For example, Greater Hobart, which includes my electorate of Clark, has 27,000 children, with almost 13,000 aged under four, but only 4,000 day care spaces currently available. Astonishingly, since 2022, the only signs of a remedy to this chronic shortage are one development approval and one project in early planning. In other words, for many Greater Hobart families day care is just a daydream. Of course, day care is not simply about returning to work for financial reasons. Early childhood education is also about the many benefits it provides to children, all of which are denied to children if there's no child care available. Newton's first law of motion states that an object at rest stays at rest, which explains Australian childcare policy because clearly a policy at rest stays at rest. On behalf of the people of Hobart and Tasmania, I urge the government to get on their bikes and actually get moving. Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Uyghurs 43 13:37 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin ():  Yesterday the member of Fisher and I, as co-chairs, launched the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Uyghurs with the support of several parliamentary colleagues and representatives of Australia's Uighur community, otherwise known as people from East Turkistan or China's Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region. With their enterprising and strong work ethic, Uighur people have settled well into Australian life and are contributing to Australia's growth and prosperity. They understandably still have a strong attachment to their original homelands, and the family members and friends they left behind, where allegations of widescale human rights violations—including mass detention and re-education camps; slave labour; forced marriages; destruction of culture, language, religion and music; and intense surveillance and brutality—have been the subject of reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and numerous investigative journalists. The priorities for the Australian Uighur community are compassionate assessment and an increased quota for Uighur visa applications to Australia, enforcement of Magnitsky Act sanctions against those responsible for human rights violations and for Australia to stand strongly against slave labour. Whilst we are nearing the end of this parliamentary term, yesterday's launch was an important first step towards an ongoing parliamentary friendship group that will give voice and hope to Uighur people both here in Australia and in their homelands. Mayo Electorate: Drought 44 13:39 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Some parts of South Australia have had the lowest rainfall since records began. In 2024 Strathalbyn received just 68 per cent of their average rainfall; Cape Willoughby, 62 per cent; and Gumeracha, just 59 per cent. The dams are drying up, and there's no feed in the paddocks. While we're accustomed to periods of drought, households in Mayo not connected to mains water are running out of water—no water for drinking, no water for washing clothes and no water for cleaning the children. For many, this is their first time. Typically, water carters fill up empty tanks; however, the demand is so great that some households have been told that they can't get a tanker until March. Some are making the heartbreaking decision to leave their homes. I'm advised that one water carter has more than 50 customers who have run out of water. Domestic demand for water has reduced the water pressure to such an extent that filling up a tank, which once took around half an hour, is now taking an hour and a half, extending critical delivery times. My office has been in contact with the office for the South Australian minister for water. There are practical steps that we can take to improve water deliveries, which are being shared between our offices. We need to work collaboratively and quickly, and I'm pleased that our offices have a mutual desire to fix this issue. Women in Defence 44 13:40 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Australian women represent a vital and growing segment of the Australian Defence Force and receive extensive training in critical areas to defend Australia and our interests. Supporting women veterans throughout their service and when transitioning is crucial to maximising Australia's defence capability and ensuring that we maintain a highly skilled workforce into the future. Like servicemen, we must retain servicewomen and look after them following their service. Women veterans face distinct challenges during service and transition, which can impact their wellbeing and ability to fully contribute to society and to live their best life. These challenges include higher rates of mental health issues, difficulty navigating specialist women's health care, service-related health impacts, and interrupted career trajectories from balancing service and care responsibilities. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide identified some harrowing experiences of women in our ADF. We have listened and we are seriously looking into better ways to support our women veterans. We are consulting women veterans, and I look forward to holding an engagement with women veterans in my electorate, in Darwin, Palmerston and the greater rural area, next week to hear firsthand from their experiences. The Australian Defence Force is a very proud organisation in our country, and we're going to look after every member of it. Health Care 44 13:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with immediate past president of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Dr Megan Belot, who is a Charleville based rural generalist in outback Queensland. Indeed, today I had a meeting with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Rural Council chair, Associate Professor Michael Clements. They both expressed to me great disappointment—huge disappointment—that the Labor government had changed the distribution priority areas for doctors. They changed it such that, when Labor took government in May 2022, what happens now is that Labor consider Newcastle and Wollongong and coastal and peri-urban areas of capital cities to be priority areas, whereas we know that those doctors should be staying in regional and remote areas. What happened when they made the change is that doctors in those areas, in those remote and regional areas, took their shingles off their surgeries and moved to the coast. This is outrageous, because when you are in pain you shouldn't have to catch a plane; you should be able to have a doctor's appointment in your own country town. Yet, unfortunately, Labor has just ignored that. Many women—and I appreciate that Labor has been spruiking its new women's health plan this week—are missing out. Why is Labor shunning country areas and medicine like this? Nuclear Energy 44 13:43 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Imagine spending $91 billion on a power station that's years behind schedule? That's what's happening in the UK right now. In 2010, the United Kingdom's minister for energy announced the construction of the biggest nuclear power station in the country, at Hinkley Point C. The cost:18 billion pounds. The year of completion: 2025, this year. That's correct: it was meant to be finished now. So where is it up to? Current projections expect it will be finished some time between 2029 and 2031, and the cost has increased to 46 billion pounds. That's a cost blowout of more than 28 billion pounds, over A$45 billion, and counting—250 per cent of the budgeted cost. Let's remember this has happened in a country with an established nuclear industry, a country that has done this before. Building nuclear reactors is costly and fraught with risk. Right now, the opposition wants to gamble Australian taxpayers' money on the same reckless path—in seven locations around the country, no less. It's irresponsible economic policy and it's irresponsible energy policy. While those opposite continue with this fantasy—and they've only got two policies, that one and taxpayer-funded lunches for bosses—our government is getting on with the job of transitioning our economy to a renewable future. In just under three years we've approved the construction of 72 renewable energy projects. That's enough to power over eight million homes and create thousands of jobs. Linear Park Connection Project 45 13:45 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Last weekend I was very thrilled to announce to my community that a Dutton government will contribute $10 million to our Linear Park Connection Project. This is going to be a partnership with local government and, hopefully, the state government as well, and the state Liberal team, under Vincent Tarzia, have already made a commitment to match that funding if they're elected in 2026. It is a fantastic project to invest in an already excellent local, recreational and environmental asset that we can make even better. Linear Park stretches from the Adelaide Hills all the way down to the beach, running either side of the River Torrens. The River Torrens is one of the great assets of the city of Adelaide, and we want to make it better still. Central to this is applying for World Heritage listing of the Adelaide Park Lands, which Colonel Light had central to his design of the city of Adelaide. It's one of the great urban parks on the planet, and we need to protect it and get that listing secured. Our $10 million will unlock $30 million of activity on all sorts of projects that will be led by local government, but there'll be a master plan approach that ensures we see the entire stretch developed in a sensitive and environmentally sustainable way and in a way that the families of my electorate of Sturt and all the people of Adelaide can enjoy it day in, day out. Western Australia State Election, Federal Election 45 13:46 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck It's election season in Western Australia. On 8 March Western Australians will go to the polls to, all being well, return a really strong Cook Labor government. And, sometime shortly thereafter, there will be the federal election. What does that mean? It means your doors are going to be knocked on a lot more frequently. I have enjoyed thoroughly, for the past three years and more, doorknocking to understand what my community expect from me as their representative in Canberra. I want to ensure that everyone understands this: when those doors are knocked on, please open them and please enter into and engage in a discussion. I love getting tips on gardening and I love meeting your pets and your children, but what I want you to do right now is ask the right questions. I want you to ask: 'What's your voting record on pregnant women accessing paid maternity leave and superannuation on that leave? What's your voting record on early childhood guaranteed subsidies? What's your record on supporting students in high school and university with fee-free TAFE and subsidised HECS debt? What's your record on tax cuts? What's your record on environmental reform? What's your record on supporting a future made in Western Australia?' There are going to be Liberal members and candidates out and about putting out a whole heap of hype. (Time expired) Wannon Electorate: Telecommunications 45 13:48 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon One of the great things I've been able to achieve with the community in my time as the member for Wannon is over 40 new mobile telephone communications towers. That has really improved telecommunications services right across the electorate. But, with utter dismay, my constituents are now reporting that that telecommunications network has shrunk because the government has completely botched the dismantling of the 3G network. It means you can no longer get coverage in places where you used to get coverage. We've been out right across the community and asked the community where this impact is being felt, and the list is long: Apollo Bay, Colac West, Hawkesdale, Inverleigh, Mafeking, Pomonal, Woolsthorpe, Yambuk—and the list goes on and on. I say to the government: please speak to the telecommunications providers. Find out what has gone wrong with your dismantling of the 3G network. You told the community that this would not have an impact on telecommunications services right across Australia. Your botched handling of it has, and you need to act to fix it. Antisemitism 45 13:50 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Something happened today which shook me to my very core. The footage circulating online this morning, which involves two alleged NSW Health personnel, is revolting, vile and dehumanising. They said they would kill any patient who was Israeli who was admitted to a hospital in the area health service where I have worked for 40 years. I congratulate the New South Wales health minister, Ryan Park, for his rapid response, and I also congratulate the New South Wales Police and those involved in Strike Force Pearl for their investigation and their immediate action. The alleged role of these health professionals is just disgusting to me. They have abrogated their sacred responsibility as health workers. The fact that they come from the area health service that I work in and live in our society is disgusting to me. We are all Australians. Our health workers deserve admiration, and the fact that they could behave like this is just revolting to me. It is important to know that our health workers do not discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Of all the people I've worked with in the health service, of all religions, I honour their responsibility and honour their service. What has happened today has shaken me to my very core, as a Jewish Australian. Cost of Living 46 13:51 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Australian families do not believe the Prime Minister when he says that they'll be better off under Labor again. Aussies are not mugs. They know they've been fooled once, but it won't be twice. His promises that life will be easy have simply not come true. Ask yourself: are you better off now than you were under a coalition government, just three short years ago? No! Under Labor's economic mismanagement, Australians are experiencing the longest sustained period of inflation since the 1980s when Indiana Jones was in the Temple of Doom. We're all feeling doom at the checkout. We're feeling doom when we get our power bills that have risen by $1,000. We're feeling doom that our living standards have collapsed by nine per cent. It's the biggest fall in household disposable income in the developed world. Interest rates have increased 12 times, and 27,000 businesses have gone insolvent. Childcare costs are up by 22.3 per cent. If that's not doom, I don't know what is. It's impacting the lives of Australians and putting pressure on families, especially young people. The Prime Minister is so out of touch with what's happening in the lives of Australians. He should apologise for Labor's economic damage. We need a stronger economy with low inflation and rising living standards, and that's what we're determined to deliver on this side of the chamber. We need a strong and decisive prime minister, not a weak and divisive one— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Macquarie has the call. Australian Public Service 46 13:53 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie We've had to listen to the opposition degrade and attack our country's public services every day of this parliament. They have a plan to cut 36,000 jobs from our vital public services. That's a 20 per cent cut. Imagine the damage of a 20 per cent cut to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Medicare, Services Australia, aged care and NDIS regulators, biosecurity, Defence and the ABC. Labor knows it's important that Australians can access and are protected by a well-resourced Public Service. Labor knows it's important that we have staff in biosecurity to protect Australia from pests, disease and weeds. Labor knows it's important that a new mum can ring Medicare and get her baby onto her card so they can access our world-leading healthcare system or that a senior can discuss whether they are eligible for a pension. And Labor knows that it's important that a veteran can find someone in DVA who knows the systems to help and support them. All the Liberals want to do is sack public servants so they can hand over work to labour hire and their mates in the big four consulting firms, who in the final term of the Morrison government received nearly 10,000 contracts worth more than $7.2 billion. The people of the Blue Mountains, the Plains and the Hawkesbury need and deserve good public services, not a return to the days of cuts, cuts and more cuts. Energy 46 13:54 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Before the last election, on over 90 occasions, the Prime Minister mentioned the figure of $275 over 90 times, yet not once, since the election, has he mentioned that figure. So my hope today is that he will come into this chamber, because we know we're getting near to the end of this parliamentary term, and he will mention the figure of $275 and, in mentioning $275, he will also apologise to the Australian people, because he said that their electricity bill would go down by $275, yet nothing of the like has happened. As a matter of fact, most people's power bills have gone up by nearly a thousand dollars. So, Prime Minister, you've got a couple of days to come into this chamber and mention $275, and, along with that, you can say sorry to the Australian people, because you have driven up their cost of living. Not only have you done it to families; you've also done it to businesses. Here he comes, here he comes—$275 is the figure we want to hear mentioned, and we want to hear an apology to go with it. Albanese Government 46 13:56 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter One thing people always ask me is: what has Labor done for the Hunter? I love that question because I get to tell them all the great things we've delivered. We've delivered a Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in Cessnock. We promised it in 2022; we opened it in 2024. The opposition—guess what? They opposed it and will close it if they get a chance. We've delivered two Medicare mental health clinics, in Cessnock and Muswellbrook. The opposition—guess what? They oppose them and will close them if they get a chance as well. We've restored the after-hours GP access in Toronto, after ScoMo ripped the hours out. The opposition—not interested. We've delivered fee-free TAFE so people can skill up without racking up a debt. They call it 'wasteful spending'. I reckon investing in Aussie workers is a whole lot smarter than spending billions on tax breaks for their mates at the top end of town. We've delivered Same Job, Same Pay. Fair work should mean fair wages. The opposition fought tooth and nail to stop this—to keep those loopholes open. And we've delivered cost-of-living relief—tax cuts, cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing doctors, cheaper child care and energy bill relief. The opposition are like a streaker in a footy game—getting in the way, causing chaos and adding nothing of value apart from a bit of humour. While we're getting on with cost-of-living relief and doing that hard, those opposite are still reading the instruction manuals. And I'd just like to say, while I can, that they think we're doing it tough—I'm out of time. Damn it! Youth Crime 47 13:58 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Youth crime is out of control under Labor, with no consequences for violent crimes. Labor's way of weak bail laws and raising the age of criminal responsibility makes the problem worse. Instead of stringent bail laws, Labor allows violent youth to receive multiple bails for serious crimes. A Dutton-led government would work with the states to deliver strong laws and tackle knife crime. Under Labor, youth gangs post assault videos on social media. A Dutton-led government would punish those posting these videos, removing their criminal glory. Early intervention is crucial to prevent young people from engaging in crime, yet Prime Minister Albanese cut $50 million from high-risk-youth programs, leaving kids and families helpless. For example, Labor cut the funding for regional youth support services in Gosford, New South Wales which helped 3,000 young people and achieved a 25 per cent reduction in crime and an 85 per cent reduction in recidivism. Former member for Robertson Lucy Wicks initiated this program. Now it has been cut, but well done to Lucy, who's standing up for the people of Robertson to have this program recommitted. Under the Liberals, we committed $120 million. This Prime Minister should be condemned for allowing youth crime to go untouched across the nation. (Time expired) 13:59 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Australians are strong, resilient and optimistic people. But over the last few years people across our communities have been doing it tough. We faced COVID and the challenges it brought while the Liberals forgot to order vaccines and squandered billions of dollars on rorts and corporate handouts. As we began to recover, the world faced a global inflation crisis, pushing up costs for families and businesses. When Australians gave Scott Morrison the flick, the Liberals left us with inflation soaring above six per cent, interest rates climbing and a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. Acting in the national interest isn't always easy. It needs more than cheap slogans and angry, divisive politics. Remember, the Liberals have opposed every single cost-of-living measure that our government has put on the table. Our Prime Minister and this Labor government have made the responsible decisions necessary to get the budget under control, get real wages moving and put in place an economic plan that works for Australians. We've delivered tax cuts, strengthened Medicare, reduced energy costs and made child care more affordable. We're building homes, investing in manufacturing and creating secure jobs. While we fight for Australians, the Liberals are backing taxpayer funded long lunches for bosses. The Liberal leader is even goading the Reserve Bank into delaying rate cuts, for his own cheap political gain. Make no mistake—if they're elected, the Liberals will cut Medicare. The Liberals will slash school funding. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 47 CONDOLENCES Hughes, Hon. Thomas Eyre Forrest, AO, KC 47 Reference to Federation Chamber 50 14:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Thomas Eyre Forrest Hughes stands referred to the Federation Chamber. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Antisemitism 50 14:18 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. For the last 15 months, Jewish Australians have been subjected to harassment, doxxing, firebombing, death threats and terror plots. Today we have seen revelations of NSW Health workers calling for Israeli patients to be refused treatment, and claiming to have murdered Israelis under their care. Prime Minister, the Australian Jewish community is living in fear. How did the country get to this point? 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Berowra for his question. I have seen this antisemitic video. It is driven by hate and it is disgusting. The comments are vile, the footage is sickening and it is shameful. These antisemitic comments have no place certainly in our health system but no place anywhere else in Australia either. Overwhelmingly, people in our health system—our nurses, our doctors, our orderlies—go into the health system because they care about their fellow Australians, their fellow humans. The idea that people would perpetrate the vile language and hate that is there in this video. I am not sure of the format. It is apparently some format where people can talk to each other in different countries. The person they're talking to is speaking about peace and is someone who is being very respectful back, in amongst this extraordinary provocation. The New South Wales government has acted—the New South Wales health minister—regarding these individuals. They've been stood down by the New South Wales authorities. They've rightly been referred to the New South Wales police for criminal investigation. I've had a discussion with AFP Commissioner Kershaw about these matters, and the New South Wales police have offered whatever assistance is required at this stage that has not been requested. And I'll make this point. It is very clear to me that these people have committed what are crimes, and they should face the full force of the law. Housing Affordability 51 14:20 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping more Australians into homes? What alternatives would leave Australians worse off? 14:20 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Dunkley for her question and also for being a champion for affordable housing in her community and right around Australia. This government is coming at the housing challenge from every responsible angle, and we've got a really ambitious gender: Build to Rent, Help to Buy, $32 billion of investment, working with the states and territories, training construction workers, and also some important steps which we have announced today. I've asked the regulators and the banks to take a more reasonable approach to student debt and the financing of new apartment blocks, and the regulators have agreed to do that. For too long there's been an ambiguity here, and we are clearing that up. Student debt is different to other kinds of debt. It should be—and now it will be—treated differently. These are commonsense changes which will help build more homes and get more people into homes. The changes were agreed in the Universities Accord. They go hand in hand with our efforts to cut student debt and to take pressure off young people in other ways, including our cost-of-living help. Mr Speaker, you would assume that a change this important and this simple would receive the overwhelming and enthusiastic support of the parliament, but apparently not. Even more surprising was the nature of the criticism in the press release we got from the shadow Treasurer. He said that the problem with this announcement was, 'This announcement provides no new money.' The very important reason it provides no new money is that it doesn't cost any money! The same bin fire of economic incoherence over there that says we are spending too much money on housing now says we are spending too little. What an absolute clown show it is over there. The reason this is so surprising is, if you think about the $350 billion in cuts that they have in store for the Australian people that they won't tell them about, housing is included in that total—billions and billions of dollars that they would cut from housing. Housing is a big part of their secret costs and secret cuts, when as a country we need more homes, not fewer homes. They can't find the $350 billion they say they'll cut or the $600 billion they'll need for their nuclear fantasy without coming after housing. Their cuts to housing are another way they will make Australians worse off and take Australia backwards. They see investment in housing as wasteful spending, but we don't. We see it as a very important way to get more people into homes, to ease the cost of living and to build Australia's future. Economy 51 14:23 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government has created a cost-of-living crisis, a gas crisis, a crime crisis, a rent crisis, an energy crisis and a housing crisis. Living standards have suffered the biggest collapse in the developed world. Australian households have been in household recession for more than 700 days, the longest on record. Prime Minister, why are Australians paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There was far too much noise during the asking of that questions. If members on my right interject they won't be here to hear the answer. It's highly disorderly. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for his very tight question there. I'll try to go through some of the items. Our economy, of course, is growing, unlike most of the advanced economies in the world. We haven't had a single quarter of negative growth; we've continued to have positive growth. Inflation is down to 2.4 per cent, down from the six per cent that we inherited. Wages are up. Inflation down, wages up. As a result, indeed, pay packets are growing at the fastest pace since 2012. It's very important. Of course, at the same time, we have delivered tax cuts for every single taxpayer—opposed by those opposite—because we want people to earn more and we want people to keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want people to work longer for less. Unemployment is, of course, low. We have had the fastest employment growth, faster than any of the G7 nations, and we're really proud of that. On our watch, 1.1 million jobs were created, more than any government since Federation. You would think, at a time where we have had global economic difficulties and global inflation having had an impact around the world, that when you piece all that together—the economy growing, inflation down, unemployment low and wages up—there would be some support from those opposite. Mr Taylor 231027 Why is everyone worse off? The SPEAKER 53517 The shadow Treasurer has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 But, in fact, it has happened in spite of their opposition. Whether it was energy bill relief, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, extra bulk-billed GP appointments, free TAFE, the largest rent assistance increase in 30 years or student debt relief for three million families, they've opposed every single one of those cost-of-living measures. Indeed, if they had their way, Australians would be $7,200 worse off, on average. Australians know the great risk of this mob—it is the $350 billion in cuts that they've said they will make, but they won't tell you what they will be, and that's before they make room for their $600 billion nuclear fantasy. I thank the shadow Treasurer very much for his question. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mucunski, His Excellency Mr Timco, Stefanovska-Sekovska, Her Excellency Ms Biljana, Parton, Mr Mark, Red Meat Advisory Council, Property Council of Australia, Kelly, Hon. Mike, AM, Australia-Israel Allies Caucus, Harriman, Mayor Dale, Gibson, Deputy Mayor Sharon, Sydney Swans 52 14:27 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Wills, I'll just do some acknowledgements and welcomes to the parliament. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of the Republic of North Macedonia, his Excellency, Mr Timco Mucunski, along with the ambassador, her Excellency Biljana Stefanovska-Sekovska. We have Mr Mark Parton in the distinguished visitors gallery, the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly. Also present in the gallery today are representatives from the Red Meat Advisory Council; and members of the Property Council, with their new president, Carmel Hourigan. I see a former member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, who's here today with representatives from the Australia-Israel Allies Caucus, a multifaith and multipartisan network. We have the Latrobe City Council mayor, Dale Harriman, and the deputy mayor, Sharon Gibson, as guests of the member for Gippsland. Finally, members and representatives from the Sydney Swans. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing 52 14:28 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Minister for Housing and Homelessness. How is the Albanese government alleviating housing stress for more Australians, helping first homebuyers by making it easier to save for a deposit, and getting people into their own homes sooner? What are the alternatives? 14:29 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I really want to thank the member for Wills for that question. Housing is an absolutely massive issue in his electorate. We've met together with some of his young constituents, and they've talked to me about the difficulties that they're facing with this urgent national problem. It's partly due to the advocacy of the member for Wills that we are part of the boldest and most ambitious Australian government on housing in more than a generation. When it comes to housing, there's going to be a really clear choice ahead for the Australian people. On this side of the parliament we have a Labor government that's investing $32 billion to build more homes for Australians, to help renters and to support Australians into home ownership. On that side, we have an opposition that wants to cut $19 billion out of housing funding in the middle of a housing crisis. On this side of the parliament, we're working with the states to build 1.2 million homes around the country. On that side, they want to lower the national ambition and scrap the housing target altogether. On this side of the parliament, we're investing $10 billion to build tens of thousands of social and affordable homes through the Housing Australia Future Fund. On that side, they want to scrap the Housing Australia Future Fund, rip up the $10 billion and instead start a $10 billion long-lunch tab for corporate bosses. Are you serious? On this side of the parliament, we're investing in building 55,000 social and affordable homes. On that side, they produced 9,000 social and affordable homes in their entire decade in office. On this side of the parliament, we've invested $1.2 billion in crisis housing in three years. In three years we've invested 20 times as much as the coalition did in their nine years in office—20 times as much. On this side of the parliament, we've helped 140,000 Australians get into the property market with lower mortgage deposits. That's more than double those on the other side of the parliament, who only helped 60,000. On this side of the parliament, we've helped a million Australian households struggling to pay their rent with a 45 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. On that side, they didn't increase Commonwealth rent assistance once beyond CPI in the entire nine years they were in office. On our side of the parliament, we're training 55,000 tradies that we need to help us build more homes for the country. Over there they call fee-free TAFE 'wasteful spending'. We have a really clear contrast here between a bold and ambitious government and a coalition that has absolutely no plan for housing. Remember that when they were last in government, they were so checked out of housing that for most of the time they were in government they didn't even have a Commonwealth housing minister. They've spent the last three years trying to block and delay critical housing measures. There's a choice here between going back to the bad old days with a negative opposition that ignored the problem for a decade, or letting the Albanese government get on with the job of dealing with housing challenges faced by Australians. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, there was far too much noise during that answer. I appreciate there will be interjections, but not continual interjections. Moving forward, to assist the House, I'd like you to cease interjecting. Taxation 53 14:32 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane My question is to the Prime Minister. Currently billionaires are making out like bandits while everyone else is being squeezed. Yesterday the Greens announced a plan for Australia's 150 billionaires to pay an annual 10 per cent billionaire tax on their net wealth, which would raise $50 billion over the decade. Prime Minister, do you agree it is time billionaires paid their fair share to ensure everyone can get access to the services they need, such as seeing the GP for free? 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Brisbane for his question, and I'm surprised that he stopped at 10 per cent. Why not 20, 30, 40, 50? That's the difference between a political party that seeks to form government and a party of protest that can say whatever they like—that is, things don't have to add up as long as it sounds good. We believe very clearly— Mr Wood E0F You still take their preferences! Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll take the interjection. The reason why there are Queensland Greens in this House is because the Queensland LNP chose to target Jackie Trad and put a Queensland Green in the Queensland parliament. That is why they sit up there in the corner. That is precisely why that occurred. When we come to the question that's been asked, I certainly believe in a fair taxation system. I believe that people should pay their fair share. I certainly understand that there is a particular concern amongst young Australians that they aren't getting a fair crack, which is why we have a range of measures, including the measures that the housing minister just indicated to deal with affordability of housing going forward. That is also why we, upon being elected, will cut student debt by 20 per cent, following up from the $3 billion that we've cancelled already. When we weigh up a budget and a fiscal position, we always look for what is fair, but what we do as well is make sure that things are responsible and that they do add up. And the sorts of gestures, I understand—popularism of either the left or the right is a bit of a fashion these days, but what we do as a responsible party of Australia's Centre Left is put forward responsible policies that add up; that seek to keep an economy growing; that seek to have ongoing investment in the creation of jobs and growth in our economy; and that seek to make sure that no-one is left behind by making sure that we have an appropriate welfare system and appropriate social services, be they in education or health. But, also, we make sure no-one's held back. We are the party of opportunity. So we look for opportunity at every attempt, and that is why we are the party of progress, not the party of protest. Aviation Industry 53 14:36 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting regional communities and regional airlines, and what has been the response? 14:36 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and for coming with me, the member for Eden-Monaro and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government this morning, joined by the Mayor of Bega, to Merimbula Airport for the important announcement confirming that, as part of our building of Australia's future, this government will support regional airlines. We have announced that we'll support Rex and ensure that regional communities have access to crucial air services. Without those air services, not only will people not have access to our big capital cities; they won't have access to health services that they need—that visit to the doctor. You won't be able to support the tourism sector. A lot of freight also goes on that transport, which is so important. To ensure Rex operates beyond the administration cut-off date of 30 June, we'll work with shortlisted bidders to maximise a successful sale. If there's no sale, we'll work on contingency plans with relevant state governments, including the potential for Commonwealth acquisition. We'll provide a waiver of the use-it-or-lose-it test for Rex regional flight slots at Sydney airport as well. This comes on top of our $80 million loan to keep Rex operating until 30 June and our acquisition of $50 million of debt from Rex's largest creditor. We also announced, this morning, $12 million for upgrades to regional airports in New South Wales. This airline is absolutely critical for a range of communities that are serviced only by Rex. If you take it away, you isolate those communities. I know the member for Riverina understands this and has, indeed, been an advocate of the sorts of policies that were put forward earlier today. I'm asked about what the response has been. The member for Farrer said this: Governments shouldn't own airlines, because that does mean that taxpayers own them, and taxpayers pay for them … So it's okay for governments to invest $600 billion in nuclear reactors, but it's not okay to invest to make sure that regional communities, like Winton, in the Leader of the National Party's electorate—like Moruya, like Ceduna, like a range of communities—continue to have access to aviation services? It is just extraordinary that, once again, their gut instinct is just to say no. What we will do is work constructively with those regional communities. We'll also work with people in the aviation sector constructively to see—we want there to be a private-sector buyer of Rex. But, if not, we won't leave those communities stranded. (Time expired) Aviation Industry 54 14:39 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out appointing his close friend, Alan Joyce, as CEO of the new Albo Air? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! I didn't hear the end part of the question. I heard about Mr Joyce. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! I just want to make sure we get this right. We'll do this in an orderly way. Every member is entitled to ask the question of their choice. The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, the question is simply out of order. It's as simple as that. A question has to refer to ministerial responsibilities. The tag at the end—I respect you didn't hear it, but to repeat it would be to repeat an abuse. The member knows full well that he was asking that question for the purpose of getting up the nose. He was not referring to a government agency; the question is completely out of order. The SPEAKER 53517 Can I ask for the manager's assistance just to make sure the question is within standing orders and the responsibility of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is happy to answer the question? Okay. The SPEAKER 53517 Leader of the Opposition, I said we would do this in an orderly way; you don't need to jump down my throat. We are just going to deal with one situation at a time. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister for regional development is warned. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:41 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Having seen the mess of the people who were previously operating Rex airlines, who have close links with a political party, not ours, having been given by the former government $150 million untied of taxpayers' money during the pandemic on top of JobKeeper, and who chose, rather than to fix up the Saab aircraft, with delusions of grandeur to lease big aircraft to try and compete on the Sydney-to-Melbourne route and drove an airline into the ground, following the following airlines that were grounded under the former government—Pacific Air Express, JetGo, Skytrans, Aeropelican, Brindabella, Tiger and Virgin; these all either went into administration or fell apart and we fixed the problems that they created—they come up with that sort of childishness. As we have said before, the only time Alan Joyce went to a Prime Minister's residence was under the former government of Scott Morrison. That's the sort of nonsense they come up with. That shows how seriously they take regional Australia. Let me name these towns: Ceduna, Moruya, Narrandera, Parkes, Coober Pedy, Esperance, Carnarvon, Winton and Mornington Island. Do you know what they have in common? They would all be isolated from being able to get health care. They would all be isolated from being able to get freight. They would all be isolated from small businesses being able to operate properly. And every one of them are being represented by those people over there. But they have such contempt for them that this clown asks a question like that. Well, here's what a serious member of the National Party had to say: If not for Rex, those country towns wouldn't be able to get planes into their airports and, therefore, wouldn't be able to get doctors, nurses, vaccines and, most importantly, medication. People in those towns would also then not be able to make it to their capital city medical appointments. But it's more than just health, and we all know that. It's business. It's tourism. It's so many aspects of modern living. He said: I've raised the possibility of the federal government having an equity stake in Rex to ensure the airline's future. That's a real leader sitting down the end over there for the National Party. You, sir, are not fit to represent a serious job in this parliament. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker is now warned. Mr Pasin 240756 Me? The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, you. You may sit a long way away, but—trust me—I can still hear your meaningful contributions. Regional Australia: Aviation 55 14:44 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support and secure aviation in regional Australia. Are there other approaches that will leave regional Australians worse off? 14:44 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I think you just saw the incredible contrast just then with the member for Bendigo, who is serious about regional aviation and knows the economic importance of it to the regions, and the joke of a question that was just asked by those opposite and the deputy opposition leader giggling away about the whole thing in terms of regional aviation. The Albanese Labor government believes that regional and remote communities deserve reliable, affordable and accessible air travel. It is why we are taking steps to ensure that communities outside capital cities aren't just short-changed. Today we announced that the government will support shortlisted bidders in a second sale process for Rex Airlines to maximise the prospect of a successful sale and to ensure that crucial regional aviation services continue beyond 30 June 2025. We have been clear that the Commonwealth is not a bidder in this second sales process and we want to see a successful, market led outcome. This is a strong signal to the market that we are willing to work with them to land a deal. But we have also been clear that, if there is no sale, we will look at contingency options, including preparations necessary for potential Commonwealth acquisition. When markets fail or struggle to deliver for regional communities, the government absolutely has a role to ensure that people do not miss out on opportunities, education and critical connections. The same is true of telecommunications as well. We're recognising that today and stepping in to keep these routes flying. Today's announcement has been welcomed by the Australian Local Government Association, the Australian Airports Association and the Australian Travel Industry Association. But I know who's not welcomed it, which is very surprising: those members of the Liberal and National parties opposite. We saw the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Farrer—who has Rex Airlines flying in there—tell Sky News that she does not support the government's intervention or assistance. The Liberals and the Nationals have made clear they would rather see the largest regional airlines in Australia fail, individual routes flogged off and regional Australians absolutely abandoned. They have no plan to secure regional aviation, and, in fact, they believe government involvement is a bridge too far but $600 billion of publicly owned, taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors is not a bridge too far. You can see the absolute contrast when it comes to supporting regional aviation and supporting regional communities in what we just saw with a joke of a question from the member for Deakin. Energy 56 14:47 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government has created a cost-of-living crisis, a gas crisis, a crime crisis, a rent crisis, an energy crisis and a housing crisis. The Prime Minister promised on nearly 100 occasions that he would cut power bills by $275 a year. With families now paying up to $1,000 more than Labor promised, can the Prime Minister point to a single Australian paying less for energy now than they were three years ago? 14:48 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. We have faced serious global challenges over the past three years— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for La Trobe is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 and Australians have done the hard work to turn things around, and we are seeing results. The fact is that inflation is coming down; it is down to 2.4 per cent from the six per cent plus that we inherited. Wages are rising, making a substantial difference as well. Taxes have been lowered as a result of the government's changes that we made and legislated through this parliament, that those opposite said we should call an election over because they hated them so much. And we have had a range of cost-of-living measures that I'm asked about. All those cost-of-living measures have something in common: they were all opposed by those opposite, including the member for Fairfax. The member for Fairfax was one of those people who opposed our $300 rebate on energy bills for every single Australian household. That has made a difference and it was opposed by those opposite—just like they opposed cheaper medicines that have benefited Australians to the tune of over $1 billion. They opposed cheaper child care that has delivered lower costs, on average, of around about $2,700. They have opposed the measures that we've put in place, but they have come up with some policies, including one by the member for Fairfax. They came up with three policies in total. To give the member for Fairfax credit, he is one-third of the brains trust of those opposite. They came up with a $600 billion nuclear plan. $600 billion! They then came up with, of course, another plan, which is $10 billion for long lunches for business. They had that. But then, of course, they've come up with a third plan, announced on the Insiders program, that they're going to cut everything to pay for it. They won't tell you what they're going to cut— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to hear from the member for Fairfax on a point of order. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 It is on relevance. The question to the Prime Minister was whether he could point to a single Australian paying less for energy now than they were three years ago. He is not addressing that question whatsoever. The SPEAKER 53517 The question had a lot of moving parts to it. The SPEAKER 53517 I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition giving me some wise counsel. On this, with so many moving parts to a question, it can contain a lot—sometimes we've had tight questions this week; I absolutely agree with that. But this is broad by anyone's definition. If the Prime Minister is talking about relief or any of the topics that you had at the beginning, he's going to be directly relevant, and he's going to be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 They don't want people to know about the three policies that they've got. I'm just trying to help them out! But, make no mistake: if this bloke over here becomes Prime Minister, he'll be sending Australians the bill. That is the fact. He'll make you pay. You won't get lunch, but you will pay the bill. When the lunch bill comes, it'll be through your taxes that you will pay for it. You won't get any electricity from nuclear reactors either, but you'll pay the bill. That is all you get from those opposite—just complaints and talking Australia down. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was out there cheering for higher interest rates as well. They don't want Australians to succeed, because they see that as a way through for them. (Time expired) Tertiary Education 56 14:52 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to cut student debt and support students and graduates? Are there any alternative approaches? 14:52 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the phenomenal member for Fraser for his question. He knows that education is the most powerful cause for good in this country, that a good education can change lives and that a good education system can change countries. It's changed ours. But there's more to do to make our education system better and fairer than it is today. That's what the reforms that we're making are all about. Reforms to early education, to help more kids get ready for school; to school education, to help more kids finish school; and to TAFE and to university, to help more people get into the course that they want for the skills that they need to build the career of their dreams and to build the life of their dreams. As part of that, last year we cut $3 billion of student debt for more than three million Australians. This year, if we win the election, we'll go further. If we win the election, Labor will cut another 20 per cent from all student debts. That means, for someone with an average debt today of 27 grand, they'll see $5,500 wiped off it. It will help them to pay it off faster, and that will help a lot of young people to be able to buy a home sooner. The Liberal Party want you to burn through your super to buy a house. They want you to cut into your retirement savings. We want to cut your debt. It's not the only thing we're doing. We're also reducing the amount of money that you have to repay in your student debt every year. That means more money in your pocket, not the government's, and helping people with the cost of living. As the Treasurer announced today, we're also working with regulators and the banks to help make sure that having a student debt doesn't stop you from buying a home, to make sure that you're treated fairly by the banks when you apply for a home loan. This is all part of building a better and fairer education system, to build Australia's future. That's what our education system does. It's what a good education does. It makes sure that no-one's held back and no-one's left behind. That's what Labor governments are all about. It's what we've always been about—helping to make sure that more kids finish school and can go on to TAFE or uni to do the course of their dreams. And there's the difference. The only courses the Liberal Party care about are entree, main and dessert: a bit of gratis gravlax, a bit of subsidised spatchcock and maybe a bit of free flambe. That's their policy: taxpayers' money literally on fire—all courtesy of the Liberal Party of Australia. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 When the House comes to order we'll hear from the honourable member for Dawson. Cost of Living 57 14:56 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government has created a cost-of-living crisis, a gas crisis, a crime crisis, a rent crisis, an energy crisis and a housing crisis. New Motor Trades Association analysis confirms that Labor's family car and ute tax will slug Australians thousands of dollars more for a family car and ute. When Australians are paying more for everything, why is this government imposing thousands of dollars of additional costs on Australians in this Labor-created cost-of-living crisis? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right. I know what the Leader of the House is going to say. I'll predict it, but I'll listen to it. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, the section of standing orders that deals with question time starts with the principle that it has to involve a question. That one went for 30 seconds without a question and therefore the call, ordinarily, would go to the next side. The SPEAKER 53517 Look, this has been a feature of this parliament. When this side reads out their question and it's time, I get the time from that side, and when ministers give the answers I get the time from—you can't have it both ways, okay? There was far too much in that preamble—that is obvious—because it went on for too long before you got to the question. It will make my job easier if people just stick to the time limits: they practise their questions to within 30 seconds, and ministers keep within three minutes. So, for the remainder of this week, I don't want anyone yelling out time, because it cuts both ways. I'm feeling generous today, so the question will stand. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:58 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'll do my best to give an answer to a nonquestion. I'll do my best. But I'm asked in general about cost of living. I'm happy to speak about cost of living, because it's only this side of the parliament that have raised cost-of-living measures, that have taken action on cost of living through each of our three budgets and, indeed, every day in this parliament through question time. Whereas those opposite have looked for culture wars, have looked for things they can create arguments over, which Australians aren't interested in and which have engaged in the sort of nonsense that we've seen here today, expressing, quite frankly, contempt for regional communities that those opposite represent in their own electorates, including, of course, the regional communities in Queensland. Now, it stands in stark contrast, I'm sure, to people like David Crisafulli, who I spoke with this morning as well, who's up there in North Queensland dealing with real issues in those communities. It says a lot about the priorities that those opposite have had, with the nature of the questions they've had today. Having come into this parliament and voted against cheaper medicines, energy rebates, cheaper child care, the crackdown on supermarkets and tax cuts for every single taxpayer, they then try to get their act together with a two-page question which they don't get to. This morning we had production tax credits go through the parliament without a vote because they didn't have anyone in here. I know they're down to 50-something, but you'd think two of them could turn up. Yesterday we had the poor old shadow minister try to call a division but they didn't have a seconder for it. They have lost their way. They have not been capable of developing a coherent policy alternative. As I've said, they will take just three policies to the election at this stage: the $600 billion nuclear reactor plan, the $10 billion for long lunches—and $10 billion could buy you a fair bit, like nine million free services in public hospitals, 139 million GP visits, 78 million prescriptions, or the annual salary of 90,000 nurses, but no, the priority of those opposite is free lunches for some, paid for by every single taxpayer—and the other thing is cuts, but they won't tell you until after the election. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 58 15:01 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government making medicines cheaper for Australian women by listing the first new contraceptive pills and menopausal hormone therapies on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? How is it that these medicines have been left off the PBS for so long? Mr Joyce e5d But you were in government. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England is warned. 15:01 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I appreciate the interjections by the member for New England on women's health. I particularly appreciate the question from the member. She is such a strong advocate for health care here and in the Hunter. She tells me, like so many members of our caucus do, that women, right across the course of their lives, face significant medical and medicine costs not because they are sick but because they are women—particularly around contraception and during menopause and perimenopause. The PBS is a great system, but it has to be kept up to date if it is to serve the interests of Australians. I'm proud we have made almost 300 new and expanded listings for the PBS, including the first listing of a new endometriosis drug in more than 30 years, Visanne, but it has to be said that too often the PBS has not been meeting the needs of Australia's women. There has been no new oral contraceptive pill list for more than 30 years, and no new menopausal hormone treatment for more than 20 years. That is why I wrote to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee urging them to work with industry to rectify that. I'm so delighted to say that all that changes in a couple of weeks' time on 1 March. Two new oral contraceptive pills—Yaz and Yasmin—that are used by tens of thousands of Australian women will finally go onto the PBS, saving those women between $200 and $350 a year. On the same day, three new menopausal hormone treatments, used by 150,000 women every year, will go onto the PBS as well. Treatments like Estrogel Pro, which costs about $670 a year, is truly life-changing, as Allie Pepper, Australia's most accomplished female mountaineer told us on Sunday when we were launching the policy. Women will save up to $580 a year after these listings take effect in a short while. This package reverses decades of neglect and inaction, and finally delivers Australia's women more choice, better care and lower costs in these areas. It builds on all of our other cheaper medicines measures that have already saved Australians $1.2 billion at the pharmacy counter—important cost-of-living relief which was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition. So I was intrigued to read that Senator Cash had said on Sunday that they support our package, because apparently it builds on what they had done in government. This was surprising, because there was not a single endometriosis medicine, not a single oral contraceptive pill, and not a single menopause hormonal treatment added to the PBS in their nine years. Of course, it was only nine years. What on earth can you do in a time that short? New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 58 15:04 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. For too long, Australians were placed at the bottom of the list in terms of priority access to low-emissions vehicles, and, without intervention, transport will be the largest source of emissions in Australia by 2030. The people of North Sydney, who are surrounded by major freeways and roads, are living with the consequences of that in terms of poor air quality. We fought for and welcomed the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard that has come into effect this year. But, with misinformation regarding the impacts of these standards rife, could you please provide an update on them, including their expected impact on both the uptake and the price of vehicles? 15:05 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the member for North Sydney for her question and very genuinely thank her for her leadership and engagement on this issue and other issues across this parliament. As the member for North Sydney knows and as the House will recall, Australia and Russia were the only two major economies without new vehicle efficiency standards. The key word there is 'were' because, on 1 January, that changed with our New Vehicle Efficiency Standard coming into force to give Australians better choices of motor vehicles. It was in the too-hard basket for too long, and we put it on the to-do list and got it done, passed by the parliament with the support of the crossbench and, of course, opposed by the Liberal and National parties despite them trying to do it when they were in office. What this means is more choice for Australian motorists, and it builds on what we've already done. We're already seeing it having an impact even though it only came into force on 1 January. The number of EVs available in Australia and the range of choices have tripled since May 2022. When we came to office, there were no electric vehicles available for sale in Australia under $45,000. There are now eight models available under $45,000. There are now utes available. The BYD electric hybrid ute has sold very well at a cost of $60,000 since it was introduced just before Christmas. These are the sorts of options and choices we want to give Australians, and, of course, this leads to lower running costs and lower petrol costs for motorists. To be fair, and with respect to the member for North Sydney—she did advocate for it, and I'm sure her constituents do benefit from it—the people who really benefit from this policy are people in the outer suburbs and regions, the people who drive for longer distances. That is a fact. They are the people who benefit. For example, an average motorist in the electorate of Mitchell would benefit compared to a motorist in the electorate of North Sydney. There will be $90 billion in overall benefit between now and 2050 in petrol costs but much more in the outer suburbs. Of the suburbs that have taken up the new vehicle discount, the tax cut of the Albanese government, the first in New South Wales is in Kellyville in the electorate of Mitchell. The second is the electorate of Greenway for the Minister for Communications. Third, again, is the member for Mitchell. I've got good news for you, Mr Speaker. The biggest take-up of electric vehicles under our policy in Queensland is Springfield in your electorate, so that's good news for the Speaker, and the second is Blair. In Victoria, the top-selling suburb for electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles is in the electorate of Lalor. The second is Lalor and third is Holt. These are the suburbs and electorates that are benefiting that those opposite tried to deny choice to. They tried to deny choice to people in outer suburbs and regions of Australia because they don't really represent outer suburbs and regions. This side of the House does. Migration 59 15:08 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Why is it important to maintain integrity in Australia's visa system, and is the minister aware of any approaches which threaten the integrity of that system? 15:08 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Robertson for raising an important issue to the House because the integrity of the visa system in Australia is something that needed to be corrected when we came to government given what we'd inherited. In October 2023, this government invested $50 million in compliance. There was a reason why we had to invest additional money in compliance. During the life of the previous government, where the principle person responsible for the portfolio is now the Leader of the Opposition, the number of compliance staff had gone from 360 down to 203. In terms of compliance, one of the most disturbing visas was what was known as the golden ticket visa where, instead of getting a visa on the basis of having a skill, a connection to Australia or a business that employed people, you would get the visa on the basis of having cash. That was how that worked. A number of reports came through, dealing with the huge problems of integrity in the visa system. I have referred previously to the Productivity Commission. We also had the Nixon review. Let me refer to a report a former minister in the Home Affairs portfolio, the member for La Trobe, gave on the regulation of migration and education agents. This gives a sense of what had happened to integrity in the visa system under them. These are the words of the member for La Trobe: Organised crime and illegitimate labour hire companies are using this loophole to bring out illegal workers who are often vulnerable and open to exploitation. This represents an orchestrated scam that enables these criminal elements to exploit foreign workers in Australia until their claims are finalised. They're the words of someone who sits on the frontbench of the Leader of the Opposition—a Leader of the Opposition who gets approached at a fundraiser by someone saying, 'Can we bring back cash for visas?' and he's straight onto it. If only they'd asked for an au pair as well, he would have been able to deliver that too! This is a Leader of the Opposition who, no matter how tough he talks, you should look at what he does. He votes for students to be unlimited. He votes for cuts to compliance and he votes to bring back cash for visas. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Manager of Opposition Business will return to his seat. The Leader of the House has completed his answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions to be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 60 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 23 of 2024-25 60 15:12 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 23 of 2024-25 entitled Strategic water purchasing—bridging the gap 2023: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Presentation 60 15:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 60 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Biodiversity 60 15:12 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need for this Parliament to set aside political difference and do more to protect Australia's nature and biodiversity. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:13 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney As the State of the environment report declared in 2021 nature is in crisis with the general outlook for our environment deteriorating. It showed Australia has one of the highest rates of species decline in the developed world, with more mammal species lost here than anywhere else, and we are the only developed country that is a deforestation hotspot. Yet four years on from that report, logging of native forests is still exempt from federal biodiversity approval processes in some parts of Australia, and hectares of threatened species habitat is routinely destroyed by both approved and unauthorised clearing. And while our legislation does not recognise it, climate change is absolutely compounding the damage from deforestation, invasive species, pollution and urban expansion with species from Australia and New Zealand among the most at risk of extinction globally. As the 47th Parliament enters its final days, it's little wonder that greater protection for nature is the call I hear most consistently from my community of North Sydney. Indeed, my office is frequently inundated by people across my electorate asking me and this parliament to do more to protect nature. Meanwhile the sentiment is amplified when you look at the results of recent polls, with the Biodiversity Council poll showing nearly nine in 10 Australians support stronger national nature laws while two in three people support the establishment of national environmental standards. This is further supported by the results of a YouGov poll that showed seven out of 10 voters want the government to do more to protect and restore nature. Fascinatingly, these sentiments are reflected consistently regardless of age and political allegiance. Yet, after almost three years of discussion, development and debate, this parliament has failed to deliver on any of the ambitions, leaving our communities, rightfully, bitterly frustrated—frustrated at the government, frustrated by the opposition and frustrated by this parliament's forgoing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen Australia's environmental framework. They are frustrated that, according to media reports, a deal on the nature-positive reforms was scuttled at the eleventh hour, following political pressure from Western Australia's Premier. They are frustrated that, since the last federal election, we've approved 10 new coalmines or expansions, with 2,449 million tonnes of lifetime emissions. And they are frustrated because they, like me, recognise both the huge economic potential and the nature-positive potential of the renewable energy transition. The transition to renewables presents a once-in-100-years opportunity to reset how we address environmental concerns, how we engage in community consultation and how we honour First Nations cultural heritage protection, in a way that is fundamentally different to that of the fossil fuel and mining industry of the past. But none of this will be possible without stronger environmental laws and adequate funding. Australia has no lack of environmental expertise, but we certainly need more political ambition, commitment and financial support. We must halt biodiversity loss that is currently occurring both on land and in our oceans, and we must stop approving new coal and gas projects. As a parliament, we should have delivered this reform of Australia's nature laws as a national priority, including legislating an independent and well-resourced environmental protection agency. But, in the absence of this outcome, I would argue this government must invest in nature repair and recovery, while the current opposition must be clear on their intentions in this space in the lead-up to the next election. Current federal government spending on protecting nature equates to just 0.1 per cent of the total budget. While funding has increased in recent years, it is nowhere near the level required to meet our commitments to protect 30 per cent of Australia by 2030 and prevent native species extinctions. Scientists and conservation groups are urgently calling for a measly minimum—just one per cent—of the federal budget to be allocated towards nature protection. The shocking thing is that this would still be a significant increase in nature funding. And the money is there. According to the 30 by 30 alliance, the federal government is currently spending 16 times more on subsidies for oil and gas production and consumption than it is on protecting biodiversity. In this context, surely it is beyond time that we finally break with our fossil fuel reliance and redirect that investment towards nature protection. Everyone in this place could choose to set aside petty political point scoring to make nature a priority at the next election. But, if they're unable to make that commitment, I call on all voters: in 2025, cast your vote like your kids' future depends on it, because it does. 15:17 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing forward this important topic. I absolutely respect her as a champion for the environment and someone who is passionate about the incredible biodiversity in this country, and it is so important that we work to protect that. I agree that this parliament, as a whole, needs to do more to protect Australia's nature and biodiversity. I would hope that this would be an issue where the parliament could come together to get the action that we need to see. Certainly, from our point of view, from the government side, we have been working tirelessly to put together the bills that we brought forward to deliver a new, sensible, federal Environmental Protection Agency. I want to pay tribute to Minister Plibersek and to the work that she's done to bring that proposal forward, because that is what governments do in this place. We bring these really important reforms forward, and we seek the support of a parliament to pass them. And it is important to reflect on how we got to this disappointing place, where these sensible laws are not being passed by the parliament, when, in fact, all of us in this place do know that the current EPBC Act is outdated and does need reform. Even those opposite had an inkling of this, when they commissioned the Samuel review. Yet, when the work was done, when Minister Plibersek put together these laws and brought them to the parliament, we had the typical reaction that we get, particularly from those opposite—obstructionist and negative, saying no. On this occasion, they were joined by the Greens political party. The Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals all worked together in the Senate to block our nature-positive laws. We have been here before, of course. This is, in some ways, history repeating itself, and I know that this has been said in this place before, but it is important that we learn from our past, and, as a parliament, that we learn from some of the mistakes we've made before, because we know that it was that same trio of political parties—the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals—who teamed up to block the CPRS, and it led to 80 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide being in our atmosphere. The reality of this parliament, of how it is made up, means that if the coalition and the Greens both say no in the other place then a bill does not pass. That is what, unfortunately, has happened with our very sensible, very necessary nature-positive reforms. As I said, it is perhaps not all that surprising from those opposite who, in the main, spent almost a decade in government ignoring the needs of our environment, ignoring the pressing need to protect our unique biodiversity. I think it is more disappointing from the Greens political party. For Greens supporters out there in communities like mine, I think there is a sense of disappointment and frustration that the Greens chose to also stand in the way of environmental reform and that they chose to say no to a strong new environmental cop on the beat, an environmental protection agency that could have done the work from a federal level to help protect our environment and our biodiversity. I am proud of our government's efforts. We have engaged across the parliament to try and find a pathway forward, and I thank those on the crossbench who engaged in good faith in those discussions, who did try and help us find a nature-positive way through this parliament. This is my message to voters in my community, and communities right around Australia who value our environment and know how precious the biodiversity we have in this country is and understand how urgent it is: this is unfinished business for a Labor government, and by voting Labor, you are getting our commitment that this is unfinished business that we will complete and that we want to get done. I know there's more to be done, but our government has brought a focus to the environment and to the need to protect our biodiversity that we haven't had in this parliament before. Just like the member for Sydney, I want my kids and my grandkids to be able to grow up and see a koala in the wild. My four-year-old son is particularly obsessed with koalas, so I'm putting that on his list. We don't have much time left. We need to act now. I greatly appreciate all the people in my community who raise this really important issue with me, over and over again, and who urge us to keep doing the work that needs to be done. We have invested more than half a billion dollars to help protect our threatened species. This includes $224 million for our government's Saving Native Species program, which has done important work to protect 73 species, like the swift parrot and the Australian sea lion. We've doubled funding to our national parks. We've added more oceans under our country's protection—an area, in fact, that's larger than the size of both Italy and Germany put together. We've saved the Great Barrier Reef from an endangered listing, investing $1.2 billion to protect the reef with water quality projects, land restoration and much more. Again, I want my kids to be able to snorkel, dive and see the beauties of that incredible part of Australia and the legacy that is there. We've legislated to establish the world's first national nature repair market, we're increasing recycling by 1.3 million tonnes a year and we're keeping more rubbish out of landfill. Last year, $7 billion in green bonds were issued in what was a first for Australia's sustainable finance market, backing projects right around the country that focus on nature repair and restoration as well as energy transformation. We are investing in Indigenous rangers, which is a fantastic program doing wonderful work in so many communities—$1.3 billion, doubling the number of rangers. Twelve new Indigenous protected areas have been established, allowing traditional owners to manage these areas for nature conservation. So there is a lot being done and, as I say, there is more to go. We do know that all of this work is at risk if the Leader of the Opposition and his Liberals and Nationals get the opportunity to be back on this side of the House after the next election. In fact, the one policy pledge in this space when it comes to the future of the environment, the climate and biodiversity in this country that we know those opposite are committed to is slow, expensive, risky nuclear energy, a plan for climate denial, really, dressed up with a risky $600 billion commitment to drive up the cost of Australians' power bills. That is all we have from those on the other side. All we get from those on the other side is denial and a failure to back laws that would have allowed us to do this work on a national level and put in place a sensible Environmental Protection Agency with that national focus, making sure that these unique and precious spaces and species that we have in Australia are protected. We know that environmental action and climate action go hand in hand. That is why we are on track to meet our 2030 targets. It's because of the policies that our government have put in place. It's why we are bringing emissions down in the electricity and land sectors. It's why emissions have fallen to 28 per cent below 2005 levels. It's why again the Minister for the Environment and Water is approving projects for renewable energy—to get that renewable energy that we need into the grid. In fact, our government has boosted the wind and solar capacity in our system by more than 40 per cent compared to what it was in 2022 when we entered office. And it's why we've got our commitment to A Future Made in Australia—to unlock the jobs and the investment that also go with this commitment. So I'm passionate about doing this work. I do want to see a future parliament pick this up and run with it. I say the way to get that done is to make sure that the Labor government is re-elected to this place so that we can make sure that we are protecting our climate, nature and our very important species and special places in this country. 15:27 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing this matter of public importance to the House. Right now, families in electorates like mine are making the impossible choice between paying rent and putting food on the table. In these circumstances, when people are struggling to afford the basics, it is difficult to talk about biodiversity. However, let me be clear: protecting Australia's environment is not just an environmental issue; it is an economic one. The government must not treat biodiversity and the cost of living as separate challenges. They are interconnected, and neglecting one will only deepen the crisis in the other. Our parks, green spaces and bushlands are not just picturesque landscapes; they're essential to our wellbeing and economic resilience. Access to nature improves mental and physical health, reducing healthcare costs. Healthy individuals mean a more productive workforce, fewer sick days and lower public health expenditures—real economic savings for our nation. Biodiversity is a critical asset for current and future generations living in Australia. Healthy ecosystems act as natural buffers against extreme climate impacts, such as floods and droughts. Within the Fowler electorate, biodiversity plays a significant role in producing clean oxygen and the improvement of health, with the benefit of green spaces and minimising urban heat. As we know, in Western Sydney, during the summer, we feel extreme heat. There are an abundance of parks, reserves, wetlands and critical ecosystems such as Chipping Norton Lake, Cabramatta Creek and Bossley Park reserves. I have walked in my local parks and seen how these parks play such an important role for families in Fowler. My local councils have invested a lot of money to develop these parks, because in suburbs big families live in small units and they don't have the room and space to have recreational space. Therefore, it's important to provide recreational spaces. I acknowledge both Fairfield City Council and Liverpool City Council for investing in these recreational facilities for our community. Fairfield city's biodiversity strategy has also set targets for 30 per cent of the city to have tree canopy cover, a 60 per cent reduction of priority weeds, that 30 per cent of both sides of the creek banks will be rehabilitated to a naturalised condition, and to give away 4,000 Indigenous trees, shrubs and ground covers each year to our local community. These efforts are to ensure that constituents can continue to enjoy the green landscape and nature's benefits for many years to come. These natural spaces should not be viewed as luxuries. They are lifelines, particularly in times of economic hardship. I encourage the Commonwealth government to play a much more important role in investing in and preserving this limited but natural environment, especially in communities in Western Sydney. While my community's immediate certain is making ends meet, I understand that we can't ignore the bigger picture. If the government is serious about addressing the cost-of-living crisis then it must see protecting Australia's nature and biodiversity as an investment in economic stability, not an afterthought. We cannot afford to be short-sighted. Protecting nature safeguards our health, jobs, food security and, ultimately, the affordability of life in this country. This parliament must put aside political differences and commit to policies that recognise a deep link between our environment and our economy. By investing in our natural capital, we are investing in our people, ensuring that families, especially those in Fowler, can have not only a thriving environment but also a real chance at a better future. 15:32 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing this topic today in the spirit and which it is brought. I acknowledge her contribution this term, though I am sorry that her seat will no longer exist and that she is leaving the parliament. I have really enjoyed working with the member for North Sydney on a lot of things, as well as her genuine commitment to seeing better outcomes for the environment and a range of other issues. I'm sorry to see her go. This is a really important topic, because we do need to work together. I appreciate the spirit in which this matter of public importance has been brought. We have seen, over many years—longer than the last decade—climate wars in this country. I guess we would have thought that by this upcoming election in 2025 that those wars were over. We hoped that us coming to government at the last election was the end of climate change being a political fight, that the science would finally be accepted and that all people running for parliament in Australia would finally accept that this was a pressing challenge for the entire world that Australia has to play its very important part in. This is something that matters to Australians, not least because of our precious and unique environment that we all value, and that Canberrans value very much. This is the issue that they talk to me about more than any other. Unfortunately, that's not what we see, because we have an opposition that is going to this election with a policy to go down a path of nuclear power and build seven nuclear reactors around the country. It is just laughable. With the really great ground that the Albanese Labor government have made in the last three years, in not much time—what we have achieved in setting targets and being on track to meet those targets, in record investment and in renewable energy—it is devastating that this will again become a fight at the next election and that all of it is at risk. The experts tell us we are at a tipping point for Australia. We are on track at the moment, and if these things do not continue we will be set back forever. This is an opportunity for our economy, as well, and our government wants to make the most of that. We want this to be a jobs opportunity for Australia, to be involved in the manufacturing of what we need for the transition to a sustainable economy. And we want to play our part in a world that is transitioning to clean energy and away from fossil fuels. So I want to say that I agree with the member for North Sydney when she says that at the next election you need to vote as though your children's future and their children's future depends on it, because it does. I couldn't agree more. But I would say that the biggest risk is a Dutton Liberal-National coalition government, because we will see everything that we are trying to do for climate and for the environment completely trashed, among other things. Mr Perrett HVP Trump light. Ms PAYNE 144732 Yes. This is an opposition that still don't know if they believe in climate change. This is an opposition that is suggesting a nuclear policy so ridiculous that even one of their own senators has said it is merely a political distraction. We can't risk that. When members of the Canberra community come to me, though, it is concerning that they don't always realise everything we have achieved. It is ambitious, and I will always stand for the most ambitious action on climate and protecting our environment that we can. But the fact is that it is governments—and Labor governments—that deliver that. We need a government that is committed to this, as we always have been. I had planned to talk about all the things we have done over the years, and I'm nearly out of time, but our record speaks for itself. We are the party of environment; we always will be. 15:37 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein At the 2022 federal election, then aspiring prime minister Anthony Albanese committed to delivering an ambitious package of environmental reform named the Nature Positive Plan. Nature Positive is a global movement to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and achieve recovery by 2050. Three years later, the lack of substantive progress on this critically important area of policy is one of the most substantive failures of this term of government, and it's frequently raised in that vein with me by my constituents in Goldstein. In the final sitting week of 2024, after much political brinkmanship in the Senate, Minister Plibersek was within striking distance of a deal with the crossbench to pass these reforms. But an intervention by the Prime Minister and the Western Australian premier left it and the urgent action that our native wildlife and environment need shelved indefinitely. The government has a record to folding to powerful corporate interests. This is just one example displayed during the term of this parliament. Australia is endowed with diverse natural beauty and unique native wildlife. Both are central to our lifestyles, our culture and our national identity. With that comes a responsibility on us all to preserve and protect it. As an example, data provided by BirdLife Australia shows that 11 bird species that called Goldstein home are now classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable—the Swift parrot, the fairy tern and the blue winged parrot—and 2,142 Australian animals, plants and unique ecological communities were officially recognised as being in danger of extinction last year. Yet, even with clear data on the disastrous outlook for those species, this government's proposal for environmental reform in this term of parliament has not been the systemic reform our environment deserves. It was first chopped up across multiple packages of legislation and now terms of parliament. At every possible opportunity, I moved amendments to strengthen our environmental protection laws—for example, proposing an ambitious and world-leading definition of 'nature positive' and proper parliamentary oversight of the government's proposed environmental protection agency. Neither of these common-sense improvements were supported by the government. This is incredibly frustrating not only for the crossbench but also for our communities who put us here to get this done. National environmental standards are the low-hanging fruit in this debate. Ambitious standards should form the foundation of Australia's environmental protection laws. Standards would provide assurance to conservationists that action is being taken, provide industry with the guardrails needed to make decisions with certainty and provide our environment with the urgent intervention it needs to restore and recover. Indeed, as Professor Graeme Samuel recommended in his review, legally enforceable standards should be legislated immediately. Standards should precede other areas of reform, such as an EPA, because they form the basis for environmental impact assessments across all levels of government, not just the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, this was not the approach adopted by the government. In fact, the government did the opposite. The legislative package didn't even mention standards. It is among the greatest missed opportunities of the 47th Parliament that we could not agree on a package of environmental reform, one with national environmental standards at its core. And I agree with the assistant minister to some degree: that's on all of us. Australia has some of the most biologically diverse and carbon-dense native forests in the world. They're inhabited by among the most unique and diverse wildlife in the world: the koala, the kookaburra and the fierce little Tassie devil. Meanwhile, industrial logging of these natural assets results in huge amounts of carbon pollution into our atmosphere. The regional forest agreements that enable such logging should be abolished. This would be of benefit to a range of sectors, including ecotourism, and enable soil stability for agriculture. Untouched native forests enable more effective bushfire prevention. Older trees are more fire resistant, a healthy canopy holds more moisture and logging often leaves behind debris that can act as extra fuel for fire. The economy is turning away from this anyway and is increasingly taking many state governments along with it, but there's been the usual sluggish approach from the major parties on environmental reform throughout the 47th Parliament, while only the crossbench has stood up for the policies to protect and restore our native wildlife while providing certainty and establishing fair guardrails for industry to operate within. This is a balance that is possible to achieve, one missed by this government and this parliament, and, in that, we have failed our children. 15:42 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Our government thanks the member for North Sydney for moving this matter of public importance. As the member for Canberra did also, I want to personally thank her for the spirit in which she has engaged in her work in this parliament, and I wish her well for the future. The truth is that our government does have some serious runs on the board when it comes to protecting nature and biodiversity. We completely agree that this parliament should set aside its political differences and work to do more to protect Australia's incredible nature and biodiversity. But it was a bit remiss of the previous speaker and others to try and pretend that the coalition, those opposite, haven't partnered with the Greens political party to block more action in this regard. But we persist, and we are doing more and more to protect nature and biodiversity. This is a very important issue to us in the Northern Territory, and that's why our government committed $3.82 million in funding to restore urban waterways in my electorate. In Darwin and Palmerston, we did this through the commitment to the Darwin Harbour Catchment Waterways Project. I thank the member for Sydney for that investment in the capital of the north. Landcare NT welcome this exciting news, and they're leading the project in partnership with local Landcare groups, such as the Ludmilla Creek Landcare Group just near our family home. This is part of our government's Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. Landcare NT represents over 20 community Landcare groups across the NT, in my electorate and in the member for Lingiari's electorate. They play an essential role in the ongoing monitoring and improvement of the health of our natural landscapes. This particular project will help improve the health of beautiful waterways, including Rapid Creek, Ludmilla Creek and Sandy Creek and Mitchell Creek in Palmerston. By enhancing community biodiversity and improving water quality to benefit native species in these regions, the project will ensure that these natural habitats and recreation areas are protected for the future for our Territory children and our communities to enjoy. We are also protecting our nature and biodiversity through our action on climate change and in our significant investment in renewables. The Albanese Labor government are committed to northern Australia, and we're committed to net zero and becoming a renewable energy superpower—and those three things are quite interlinked. Australia is lucky, of course, to be one of the sunniest places in the world, with some of the best solar and wind opportunities in the member for Lingiari's electorate. Our government is harnessing those opportunities and executing the lowest cost pathway to a clean, affordable, reliable and resilient energy system. The north is playing a critical role in supporting our nation's transition to a net zero economy, which, as I'm sure the member for North Sydney would agree, is important as well. The Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct will play a key role in the transition to this net zero economy. SunCable and other companies are set to harness the Northern Territory's world-class solar resource, driving green—or, as I prefer to say, golden—Territory electricity into Darwin and the broader region, including markets such as Singapore. This energy will drive a new wave of green industrial development both at Middle Arm and, I believe, in the future, at East Arm. New green industries include critical minerals processing, hydrogen, ammonia, sustainable aviation fuels and data centres. Of course, there are also very serious CCS proposals to deal with CO2 emissions. For their own narrow political ends, the Greens political party like to pretend that Middle Arm has nothing to do with our renewable energy future, but Australia will only be worse off if they are successful. Territorians know better, Australians know better, and our regional neighbours know better as well. 15:47 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I completely agree that this parliament must set aside political differences and work together to protect our natural environment, because nature in Australia is in crisis. Every hour, we bulldoze an area of unique and threatened species habitat the size of eight Melbourne Cricket Grounds. Over the last 200 years, we have suffered the largest biodiversity decline of any continent, and while we've made progress towards our 2030 targets climate change continues to pose an existential threat to our environment, with reports yesterday that we reached the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees of global warming last year. Now, this is dire, but I want to acknowledge the progress that this parliament has made. We will now have more investment in nature protection through measures like the nature repair market. We stopped fossil fuel exploration in PEP-11 to protect Sydney's coastline from oil and gas extraction. And I want to pay tribute to the communities who have really driven this, many of whom are in my electorate of Wentworth. You have stood up, and government has listened. We have strengthened our environmental laws, with a water trigger to properly assess the impact of major projects on water resources. And, again, this is something I am very proud that I advocated for and am proud to have seen done. Finally, we are now on track for a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. We need to go further, but this is absolutely critical. But this is nowhere near enough. People in Wentworth know we need to do more—people like Marnie, who wrote to me about the need for an independent environmental regulator, people like Nicholas, who are calling for action to protect 30 per cent of our land by 2030, and people like Jennifer, who are demanding stronger environmental laws. I share their concerns and their ambitions. From saving the maugean skate to conserving the northern jarrah forests, the need for urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity decline has never been clearer. To protect our environment for future generations, we need to do five things. Firstly, we need to end native logging. This is an industry that destroys koala habitat, worsens the climate crisis and costs New South Wales's taxpayers millions each year because the state-run logging corporation is not even economically viable. Secondly, we need to fix our broken environmental laws. The EPBC Act doesn't protect the environment and it doesn't work for business. Professor Graeme Samuel provided the blueprint for reform back in 2020. We have not made the progress we should have in this parliament, and this must be a priority for the next parliament. Thirdly, we need to account for climate pollution in environmental assessments. Climate change is the biggest threat to nature, yet our environmental laws don't even consider it. That must change so we can accelerate clean energy projects and take account of harm caused by large amounts of climate pollution. Fourthly, we need an independent environmental protection authority. Our environmental laws are not being enforced, and too many decisions are being left in the hands of politicians. We need a tough cop on the beat to ensure decisions are based on the evidence, not decided by vested interests. Fifthly, and finally, we need to increase our investment in nature. Over the past decade, federal spending on biodiversity has been just 30 per cent of the OECD average—a fraction of what the scientists say is needed. While funding has increased in this parliament, the government still spends 16 times more on subsidising fossil fuels than protecting nature. That must change. None of these actions alone are a silver bullet, but together they would put us on a path to protecting our environment for future generations. Implementing them won't be easy. It will require conviction to change the status quo. It will require collaboration between parliamentarians, business and civil society. We can no longer afford to go back and forth, parliament by parliament and see good work reversed. It will take courage to stand up to vested interests. It is now up to all members of this House to work together to protect the Australian natural environment we all treasure. I want to particularly thank the member for North Sydney for bringing this really important issue to the House today. It is absolutely critical. I know that the environment and climate are issues that North Sydney is passionate about, and the member for North Sydney has represented her community extremely well in consistently advocating for this. I'm sure she will continue to do this after she leaves this House. 15:52 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Thank you to the member for North Sydney for putting up this matter of public importance to the House. Protecting Australia's unique environment and biodiversity is certainly a responsibility that should transcend parties, partisanship and party lines; I agree with that a hundred per cent—that element of her motion. It's very important. With respect to the member for North Sydney and other previous speakers, though, there is a reality that has kind of been glossed over a bit. The reality is that this government, in three short years, has been committed to and delivered real, tangible action to safeguard our land, oceans and wildlife. We know Australia is home to some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. We know they are under increasing threat. We know we must act decisively to ensure our environment is protected for future generations. This government has set an ambitious national target to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030, and we're delivering on this commitment with more than 70 million hectares of land and sea added or provided with stronger protections. That's an area bigger than Germany and Italy combined. Australia now leads the world in ocean conservation, with 52 per cent of our oceans protected thanks to our expansion of marine parks. We've established 12 new Indigenous Protected Areas, covering 7.5 million hectares of land and 450,000 hectares of sea—I didn't know sea could be counted in hectares, but there you go; it's a lot. On balance, I'd be interested to know if there was any government prior to this one that spent as much on or invested more in the environment as this government. The funding of critical programs has been significant: $200 million to restore our city waterways, after the former Liberal government left them to ruin; double the funding for Kakadu and Uluru, after the Liberals let them fall apart; $1.2 billion to protect the Great Barrier Reef, after the Liberals were happy to risk it; and $550 million to protect threatened species, while the Liberals gun for fewer protections. It is interesting that the other element of the member for North Sydney's motion is that we should set aside our political differences in order to make these commitments. I also agree. We had a $353 million investment for an independent environmental protection agency and it was the opposition—the Liberal and National parties, the coalition—and the Greens political party who worked together and voted together to block it. They clearly have a difference of view about whether we should have an environmental protection agency. That is what this place is for, isn't it—debate? We will not agree on everything. They made a very clear statement that they rejected an environmental protection agency. I know that environmental reform requires cooperation and commitment. We have demonstrated that commitment. We hoped to see bipartisanship and cross partisanship in this place when it came to reform yet we have seen again and again the opposition and the Greens political party obstruct progress at every turn. It is odd because the coalition began the review around the Environmental Protection Act. They knew it was something that needed to be reformed, looked at, but now they refuse to support the changes needed to strengthen it. And the Greens political party, a minor party in this place, despite claims to champion the environment, have repeatedly shifted their demands, have repeatedly blocked the reforms, have repeatedly obfuscated and blocked progress that would have delivered real protections for nature, so I have to ask the question: are they opposed because they differ in view? The opposition might have a different position. They might not rate or value those protections, or they don't agree with the amount of investment—many reasons. The Greens political party—why are they opposing? They want to make the perfect the enemy of the good maybe, or they are interested in political point scoring. They both teamed up together and blocked the environmental protection agency. That is just a reality of the political difference in this place. I have no problem and I don't think any of us have a problem with difference that is really based on very well-considered views and on an understanding of what is going on. But that does not seem to be what is happening here, especially with the attempt to do political point scoring with some on the crossbench. This government remains committed to delivering real environmental protection that balances sustainability with responsible development, and we are making those historic investments to safeguard our national heritage, from the oceans to the outback. 15:57 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Through a unified and future-focused approach, Australia can be a super power in an emerging global green economy and protect and incredible and unique environment. I would forgive many of the young people here watching this debate who feel a little bit jaded listening to the hubris we hear on this issue, because there is always blaming the other side and blaming everyone else, when the very topic of this MPI is in fact to put political differences aside and come to this place with a commitment to protect the environment, because we can safeguard the environment for our children. They will inherit it. The degradation of our environment and the escalating impacts of climate change are the worst generational debt any generation has ever left, and that is on all our heads. Our environment needs us now, not tomorrow, not next term—now. The politicisation of environment policy has resulted in a failure to pass necessary laws, resulting in rapid biodiversity loss and degradation of our environment. This ultimately threatens our society and economy. We depend on the systems for clean air, water, fertile soils, crop pollination, for protection from weather events and for the biodiversity that keeps the whole system working. In Warringah, residents are passionate about protecting our environment and nature. At every school visit, children ask me to fight for the environment. It is the No. 1 issue. Locally, we celebrate and value our access to our oceans—the protected Cabbage Tree Bay Marine Park Reserve, the Sydney Harbour Trust and the national parks at North Head and Middle Head, as well as protected areas of Manly Dam and Bantry Bay. These areas have a deep historical significance, and community support has driven stronger government protection. Of course, that community support and activism were all the more obvious through the PEP11 campaign, where, ultimately, that strength, dedication and perseverance of communities, environmental groups and local industries saw the government finally reject that licence. Australia has some of the most unique ecosystems in the world, but they're under threat. My community wants to see greater protection of nature through wildlife corridors and investment in the restoration of nature and biodiversity. The first step must be to stop native forest logging. Members of Labor simply have no credibility in protecting nature by their stated means if they continue to fail to require this within their party room. This has to be a line in the sand—that native forest logging must stop. It makes no sense economically and is quickly driving biodiversity loss. Everyone has to have the courage also to use existing legislation. The biggest threat to our environment is ultimately our rapidly warming climate. Stop approving fossil fuel projects and extending their licences well beyond 2050. You can't say that you want to protect nature and then continue to make the problem worse. It flies in the face of all expert advice about how we can preserve our environment and biodiversity. Respectfully, as much as you want to point the finger at the Greens and at the coalition, you have not lived up to expectations and promises. Protecting our environment is woven within First Australians' love and respect of country. Just today, I met with First Nations Australians from the Beetaloo Basin, who discussed the serious concerns their communities have in relation to water because of fracking. They are desperate for the minister for the environment to use the water trigger to call in and investigate the concerns about groundwater availability, water quality and the increased risk of chemical and wastewater spills, but these concerns have fallen on deaf ears. Whilst we have implemented a water trigger in the legislation, the minister has declined to actually action it and use it. What our future generations need, what children need and what our environment needs is action, not just words and rhetoric in this place. We know that it's not working for communities. A government that cares about safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our communities and is serious about a re-energised and strong economy has to take the protection of nature and biodiversity seriously. This is a must have. Roughly half of our GDP, 49 per cent or some $896 billion, has a dependence on nature. Major industries like agriculture, fisheries, transport, logistics, accommodation and construction will all be impacted if we don't take action. In Western Australia—the ones who we understand have been responsible for blocking some progress—they are exposed to 67% of their gross economic value being dependent on nature. 16:02 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I thank the member for North Sydney for introducing this motion. As my colleagues have expressed, I'm sorry that this is her last term as a consequence of the electoral boundary changes because she has brought a great deal to this House. This motion is a case in point. It is about sensible debate to set aside political differences to do more to protect Australia's nature and biodiversity, and I agree wholeheartedly with the need to do exactly that. When Labor took office in 2007, we worked to create a carbon pollution reduction scheme. The scheme was due to start in July 2010. The Leader of the Opposition, the Liberals' Malcolm Turnbull, supported it. Our hopes were high. In December 2009, there was a leadership spill in the Liberal Party. The member for Wentworth was defeated by one vote by the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott. The member for Warringah opposed the carbon pollution reduction scheme. Did anyone else oppose it? As it turns out, it was the Greens. Two Liberal senators actually crossed the floor when it came to the vote. We could have had the carbon pollution reduction scheme. The Greens senators voted against it. It's been estimated that if that bill had passed, Australia's carbon emissions could be more than 200 million tonnes lower. Electricity would be more affordable and the air we breathe healthier, for all. It didn't happen. But Labor didn't give up. In 2011, the Gillard Labor government managed to achieve the passage of a world-leading package of measures to reduce carbon pollution and shift the Australian economy to a clean energy future. The Abbott government repealed it. Now the coalition and the Greens have teamed up again to block Australia's first national environment protection agency and Environment Information Australia. Contrary to the suggestion from, sadly, the member for Warringah, this is not hubris and this is not rhetoric; this is the real reality of the numbers. We did not have the numbers in the Senate. The Greens had the opportunity in August to vote in support of it. They told us they had no issue with any of the content in that bill, but they chose to play politics and simply blocked it. You can say that was a consequence of anyone else, but it wasn't; the only people that mattered in that time and place were the people in that Senate. They did not pass the bill. My community, like me, want to support better environmental laws, and they've seen how I voted on this matter; I voted in support of a federal EPA. But clearly it was not enough. For this upcoming election, to the voters in my community: you need to understand that if you want these reforms to get through you have to not only vote for me to be back in the House to vote as I did, as my record shows; you need to vote for Labor in the Senate. The Greens and the Liberals have shown their colours. They will not support the environmental change that you are asking us to deliver. We will deliver it but we need your support. We need you to vote for Labor in both the House and the Senate. Unlike that record of the Liberals and the Greens—opposition and blockers—Labor has an extraordinary track record, as I've already articulated. But what about the present time? It's Labor that is saving the Great Barrier Reef and its abundant life forms from the 'endangered' list. It's Labor that's rescuing the Murray-Darling Basin, investing $2.8 billion in new dams; the Liberals promised 100 new dams and they delivered two! It's Labor that doubled the funding to national parks. It's Labor that stopped Jabiluka from being mined for uranium. It's Labor that's worked for heritage listings for places like Cape York and Murujuga. It's Labor that funds the science and teaches us to understand what we need to protect. It's the Liberals who defunded the CSIRO and closed down laboratories. We voted to invest $1½ billion in Antarctic science; the Liberals voted against it. It's completely unbelievable. It's Labor that invested $550 million and saved threatened species. The Liberals want to withdraw us from the United Nations nature treaty. I could go on. Right now I've got Liberal candidates and Nationals candidates, unbelievably, trapsing around our territory in Western Australia, up in the Perth Hills. My community wants people who will vote in both the House and the Senate for environmental reform. It will only be Labor who does it. 16:07 Mr GEE 261393 Calare We take many things for granted in this country. One of them is our freedoms; we take it for granted that we'll always have them. Our national prosperity is taken for granted all too often. Another thing that's often taken for granted is our environment. We just take it for granted that we'll always have fresh air to breathe, that the rain will always fall when we need it and that our land which has always sustained our regions and our country will always provide for us. But, like our freedoms and prosperity, we can't take our environment for granted. My parents ran a wholesale and retail nursery; I grew up working in them and valuing our trees, native shrubs and native flora. They're so crucial in providing shade, stunning beauty and homes and food for our native wildlife and also in combating global warming. That's why last year I launched the Gee Tree Challenge, where we threw down the challenge to schools, community groups and not-for-profits to tell us what they'd do with 24 native trees in 2024. The winners were Deb Porter and her wonderful team from the Bathurst Early Childhood Intervention Service and the team from St Joseph's Catholic Primary School at Manildra. We've already had a wonderful community tree planting at the Bathurst Early Childhood Intervention Service that involved students, staff and parents and the team from Charles Sturt University, and we'll be going out to St Joey's to do their planting soon. I thank Ian and Sue Rogan from the Millthorpe Garden Nursery for their support in this important initiative. I pay tribute to some key organisations in the electorate of Calare doing such a huge amount of work to protect and care for our flora, fauna and land. Firstly, Secret Creek Sanctuary—Secret Creek is situated just on the outskirts of Lithgow on the edge of the Blue Mountains. It was set up to provide a feral-animal-proof enclosure where endangered native species are protected from predators. The sanctuary is best known for the reintroduction of the eastern quoll to New South Wales in 2001, and it's also home to brush-tailed rock wallabies, potoroos, Tasmanian devils, tiger quolls, dingoes, koalas and a growing colony of endangered mountain pygmy possums. The sanctuary was almost destroyed in the devastating Black Summer bushfires, but, thanks to a number of state and federal grants, the sanctuary is being protected and revitalised with a new wildlife hospital and rehabilitation centre; a new cultural community and visitor centre; repairs to the sanctuary, which was damaged during the Black Summer blazes; and also upgrades to the camping facilities. I also want to thank Trevor Evans and his family—he is the founder and owner of the Secret Creek Sanctuary—for his wonderful work. It's a passion. I want him to know how grateful the community is. It was an honour for the member for Bathurst, Paul Toole, and me to recently attend the sanctuary for a pre-opening of the new community centre. I also wish to pay tribute to the hardworking team from Little River Landcare, which is based in Yeoval in the Cabonne shire. Their mission is to engage, empower and support the Little River community to manage and restore natural environments and to improve the sustainability of agricultural activities within the catchment. To date, they have successfully delivered $10 million worth of projects since 1998, one of which is the very successful Soil PET project, which stands for 'people, education and technology'. It's a pilot project involving soil testing right around the Little River catchment and beyond. It's designed to ensure that farmers are getting the best out of the land in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way, and it has been wildly successful. I'd like to pay tribute to the chair of Little River, Don Bruce; vice chair and long-term board member, Allan Nicholson; the secretary, Mel Kiel; the treasurer, Belinda Reynolds; and also Phoebe Gulliver, who is the CEO of Little River Landcare. Lastly, I'd like to pay tribute to the hardworking team at Burrendong arboretum. The Burrendong Botanic Garden and Arboretum is situated on 164 acres just outside of Wellington and Stuart Town and Mumbil. It is basically a native flora reserve. It's a plant bank, and it currently houses over 50,000 specimens covering 2,000 species. The Friends of Burrendong Arboretum do a wonderful job in caring for it. I'd like to pay tribute to Alice and John Newton for their decades of service and also to Rachel MacSmith from the Burrendong Botanic Garden and Arboretum for the wonderful work they all do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 69 BILLS Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 69

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Consideration of Senate Message 69 16:13 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 70

Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 70 Third Reading 71 16:14 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 71 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 71 Report 71 16:15 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—In August 2023, the Social Research Centre released a report on the experiences of Jewish students on our university campuses. It found that almost two in every three students had experienced antisemitism on campus. Over half the Jewish students were hiding their identity on campus, and almost a quarter of all Jewish students that took part in the survey were avoiding campus altogether. And yet, as many of the vice-chancellors gave evidence in our inquiry, the situation for Jewish students and staff since October 7 2023 has only gotten worse. We have seen students glorify terrorism, alleged Nazi salutes, staff offices occupied, academics doxxed and students' requests for support ignored. For too long, Jewish students have been vilified, intimidated, excluded from societies and clubs, ostracised in student union meetings and fundamentally let down by the university procedures that are meant to look after their safety and their wellbeing. The status quo is not good enough. The status quo must change before students return to campus in a few weeks' time, and that was the purpose of our inquiry. On 29 October 2024, the Attorney-General requested that the committee inquire into and report on antisemitism at Australian universities and consider not only the prevalence, nature and experience of antisemitic activities at universities but also the effectiveness of university frameworks to prevent and respond to antisemitism, as well as the support provided to Jewish students and staff. We received 47 public submissions and held four public hearings during which we heard evidence from numerous universities, community groups, peak bodies, the Department of Education, and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. The committee also had close regard to the public evidence provided to the legal and constitutional affairs committee inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024. That inquiry received over 600 submissions, many from Jewish students and staff detailing their own personal experiences. What became evident was not only were there brazen incidents of antisemitism that went without consequence or leadership by some of the university vice-chancellors but there was a serious lack of consistency across our university sector. Some universities had clear policies on antisemitism, and others were without an adequate understanding or commitment to combating incidents of antisemitism. We heard from Jewish students and staff who did not have faith in university reporting procedures to keep them safe. They didn't feel that their experiences were being acknowledged or taken seriously, nor did they feel they were being acted upon. They felt they were let down by an institution that was meant to be welcoming and safe, and our inquiry highlighted the importance of listening to the lived experiences of Jewish students and staff. There was a stark difference between the universities who engaged proactively with the Jewish community and let their experiences guide the university's response and those who did not. The committee has made 10 recommendations, most of which relate to policies that universities can put into place for the beginning of this academic year, including direct engagement with Jewish students and staff by the vice-chancellors; adopting a definition of antisemitism; introducing antisemitism training; simplifying the complaints process to encourage students to report any incidents; and publishing de-identified complaints reports to improve transparency and trust in the system. Importantly, the implementation of these recommendations must be monitored, and there must be an improvement in accountability across our country. Within 12 months of tabling this report, the National Student Ombudsman should review university practices to reduce antisemitism on campus. Over the summer, we worked tirelessly to be able to table this report today because immediate action is what is required. It should not have taken a national antisemitism crisis and a parliamentary inquiry for universities and vice-chancellors to take the concerns of Jewish students and staff seriously, concerns that they have been sharing for years. It shouldn't have taken this moment for universities to take accountability and consider their own duty of care. It shouldn't have taken our committee's work for universities to stand up and proactively, with firmness, reject antisemitism on campus. Right now, we are at a pivotal point where universities must implement significant changes to ensure that Jewish students and staff go back to campus for 2025 knowing their safety is taken seriously and, if there are incidents on campus, they will be addressed in a timely and transparent way. I want to thank all of the committee members for working together on this report. I especially want to make note of the deputy chair, who was a very fine colleague throughout this inquiry and who brought great intent and effort to this inquiry and was firm and fair and very easy to work with. I thank you, Deputy Chair. The recommendations in this report were bipartisan, and I'm proud of that, and they should be monitored and implemented regardless of what happens at the election. I want to thank and acknowledge the committee secretariat, who spent much of their summer compiling this report and the evidence given in it. I want to thank them for their tireless work in supporting me and all of the committee members. Most importantly, I want to thank the Jewish students and staff who shared their experiences with both our committees. The advocacy that you provided on behalf of the Jewish students and the entire Jewish community as well as all minorities who attend university means that change is coming. For that, you should be proud. For that, we are grateful. Universities must act now. There has been progress. We are seeing an improvement in attitudes by some university leaders, and I have no doubt of the role our committee has played in that. I also want to acknowledge the work that the universities are doing engaging with the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism as well as through the Group of Eight; however, significant reform is still needed so that Jewish students and staff are safe on campus. Our report outlines the policies needed to achieve exactly that. It is now up to the universities. We are watching, and we will continue to ensure that our Jewish students and staff are safe, just as everyone deserves to be. I commend the committee's inquiry report to the House. 16:23 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman by leave—I rise to speak on the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. Coalition members of the committee support the report's findings but believe that stronger action is needed in key areas to drive real change on campus. Our addendum to the report outlines where we want to see further action. The evidence the committee received demonstrated that there has been an alarming and abhorrent rise in antisemitism among students and staff at Australian universities. Ancient hatreds like antisemitism should have no place in Australia. Antisemitism is inherently un-Australian. In the last century, nearly 40,000 Australians sacrificed their lives to bring an end to the evils of Nazism. A generation earlier, over 109,000 Australians served proudly under Sir John Monash, the Jewish Australian considered by many, including myself, to be our greatest Australian. It is a disgrace that antisemitism has now found a home in the very university he attended 130 years ago and where he served as vice-chancellor a century ago. It's a damning reflection on Australian universities that, despite all their rhetoric on diversity and inclusion, these institutions were more enlightened and more welcoming to Jewish students over 100 years ago than they are today. While many vice-chancellors presented to the committee that their institutions were merely subject to broader societal pressures and are a microcosm of broader Australian society, coalition members have come to a different conclusion. We are deeply concerned, based on the balance of evidence presented to the committee inquiry, that Australian universities have become incubators of antisemitic thought in our country. Coalition members concur with the government's antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, that there is systemic, embedded antisemitism within our university campuses. We've been particularly alarmed by the numerous examples of university academics who have espoused antisemitic tropes, the inability of university leaders to appropriately deal with the spread of such rhetoric, the impact of this antisemitism on Jewish students and the broader failure to uphold a safe and respectful learning environment. Coalition members underscore the committee's finding that the rise in antisemitism on campus has been clearly exacerbated by the reluctance of many university administrators to enforce meaningful consequences for misconduct. The committee inquiry has shone a light on the issue and highlighted some key failures. However, the committee's inquiry has demonstrated the limits of a parliamentary inquiry into such an important topic. Despite the best efforts of members to get to the truth and secure answers to our questions, our hearings were a masterclass in obfuscation by university leaders. Coalition members maintain our position that a properly constituted, full-time judicial inquiry, led by a respected and eminent jurist, is the only way to ensure the necessary powers, confidentiality and expertise required to forensically examine and address the crisis. Coalition members support the call of Jillian Segal and representatives of every major Jewish organisation across the nation, who strongly support the establishment of an independent judicial inquiry. Coalition members disagree with the position of the majority of committee members that the government should wait even further to see if Australian universities take appropriate action before establishing a judicial inquiry. While we are pleased to see the majority of committee members agree that a judicial inquiry should be given consideration, coalition members contend that the time for consideration has well and truly elapsed. After extended inaction, despite escalating instances of antisemitic violence across our cities, Jewish Australians deserve immediate and concrete measures from this federal government rather than continued delays that allow antisemitism to continue to fester within our universities. Coalition members continue our call for the government to immediately establish an independent judicial inquiry into the antisemitism on Australian campuses. Nothing else can get to the heart of the problem. I want to thank the committee secretariat, who have undertaken a lot of extracurricular work this term—beyond their usual, enormous work rate in dealing with the committee's scrutiny functions. I'd particularly like to thank the committee chair, the member for Macnamara, for the approach he's taken during this inquiry. I trust we have done some good together. All eyes are on our universities as a new semester begins. If university leaders continue to fail in their duties to protect students and staff, this parliament must act. 16:24 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. I want to start by thanking the chair of the committee, the member for Macnamara, because I think he did an excellent job in holding us all together and holding space for this really important inquiry. I also want to thank all my fellow committee members for their engagement with and participation in the inquiry and extend my heartfelt thanks to all of those who supplied evidence. The testimony of many witnesses was immensely powerful, and the sincerity and frankness they brought to the discussion was invaluable. I'd like to particularly thank the Jewish community, who spoke so eloquently and honestly about their experiences and fears, and, again, reiterate my deep concern and care for them. The testimony of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students in particular stayed with me throughout the hearings—thank you for your courage. As a member of the 47th parliament, I feel the incredible weight that comes with participating in an inquiry like this one. To think our society has reached a point where we needed to hold this inquiry is a sad indictment on the direction we are headed in indeed. As a person the community from North Sydney sent to parliament to represent them during this term, hear me when I say that the people who surround me every day in my community share a common belief that all of us have the right to feel safe, be treated with respect and participate in our society without fear of vilification or discrimination based on our individual characteristics. We condemn all forms of racism and are horrified at the recent antisemitic attacks that we've witnessed across our country. We must do better. To this moment then, while I support the majority of the committee's recommendations and the report as a whole, I do have some concerns with particular recommendations, which I'd like to address. Firstly, while I certainly support the adoption of a definition of antisemitism by universities, I do not agree with the committee's recommendation that this definition must align closely with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. Rather, I believe we heard compelling and legitimate testimony from numerous witnesses and submitters that highlighted concerns regarding the appropriateness of this definition for the university sector. Many posited that it inappropriately captures expression which is legitimate and does not constitute antisemitism, that it poses a threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech on campuses, and that this could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of the government of Israel or the political ideology of Zionism. At the same time, I also believe we received compelling evidence, particularly from the Group of Eight, that there is already an active commitment to developing and mobilising behind a shared definition of antisemitism. In this context, I believe the most appropriate recommendation would have been that universities should, for the purposes of addressing complaints of antisemitism relating to students or staff, adopt a definition of antisemitism that recognises the distinction between antisemitism and the criticism of Israel, the Israeli government and Zionism. Secondly, I disagree with the committee's fourth recommendation that the government give consideration as to whether it is necessary to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to enable disciplinary or other action to be taken in relation to a university employee, on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence or testimony on which to base such a broad-reaching recommendation. The committee did hear ample evidence from several universities regarding their existing disciplinary processes, including some universities that are already in the process of reviewing the rules governing their responses to reports of misconduct. The committee did not, however, receive any evidence proposing specific amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Australian Research Council Act 2001. No witnesses or submitters raised specific concerns regarding either of these acts, yet somehow this report recommends that course of action. Given this, I cannot in good faith let that recommendation go unchallenged. Thirdly, I do not support recommendation 10: … if, following a review of the implementation of these recommendations …it is apparent that the response by universities has been insufficient, the government should give consideration to the establishment of a judicial inquiry. This is because I believe that not only is this recommendation overly speculative but also it was not supported by any compelling evidence to demonstrate that a judicial inquiry is either necessary or of specific use in this context. With that said, I'd also like to make some brief additional comments. Firstly, many submitters and witnesses highlighted that the increase in antisemitism in Australia and on university campuses has been accompanied by a rise in other forms of racism, particularly Islamophobia, following the October 7 attacks. Interestingly, it was the Australasian Union of Jewish Students who first raised this argument, as they identified that addressing antisemitism in a silo fashion may not be the best way of addressing the issue and that dealing with broader racism as a whole is a better approach. Many others pointed out that the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework, which provides a whole-of-society road map for governments, non-government organisations, businesses and civil society organisations to address issues of racism across sectors, is a useful tool to combat antisemitism. Additionally, several witnesses recommended that Australia's existing suite of antidiscrimination legislation be amended. In this regard, I have recommended that the government adopt the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework; that universities address antisemitism as part of broader strategies to reduce racism in all its forms; and that the government consider consolidating Australia's antidiscrimination legislative framework into a single uniform antidiscrimination act. Finally, I'd like to highlight that many submitters also raised the need for a human rights framework or a human rights based approach to effectively navigate competing human rights, such as the right to equity and nondiscrimination with the rights to education and freedom of expression. A number of submitters highlighted the direct relevance of the United Nation's Rabat plan of action on the prohibition of the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. It's a detailed framework for distinguishing hate speech from protected expression. Given this, I've also recommended that universities adopt the Rabat plan of action and that the government introduce legislation to establish a human rights act as per the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into Australia's human rights framework. During my valedictory speech on Monday I reflected on the fact that as a nation we faced significant challenges over the course of the last three years, including increasing global conflict, starting with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Iranian regime's crackdown on its citizens, the appalling Hamas attacks on October 7 in Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza. Every instance has left us shocked as we've witnessed the brutality that people have levelled against one another, with far too many lives caught in the crossfire. Here at home the campaign around the Voice referendum unveiled a schism in our society that stunned many, while more recently the rise of all forms of racism, and in particular the completely incomprehensible instances of antisemitism, has created a sense that hate is boiling over. Surely in this context we must ask ourselves: what is it that we believe in today, and what are we prepared to do to fight for those beliefs? Universities are undoubtedly a direct reflection of our broader society, and they play a pivotal role in shaping thinking and expectations. Given this, I believe they have a great responsibility when it comes to ensuring they are places that value respect and tolerance and foster an environment where everyone feels safe. We must all do better, and I thank them in advance for learning from the mistakes of the past two years and for not only committing to doing better but providing tangible evidence of their improvement in the years to come. Again, I'd like to thank the chair of the committee, the member for Macnamara. You truly were an inspiration to work with through this process, so thank you. 16:36 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 74 16:37 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 74 BILLS Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 74

Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025

Second Reading 74 16:37 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey We always have to be concerned about Labor's costings. We know that in MYEFO there was an $11 billion black hole. We saw that in MYEFO with the Public Service, so for the next four years there will be no increase in spending for the Public Service. The only problem with that is the government had agreed to an 11 per cent wage increase for the Public Service, which leaves us with two conclusions: they're either going to cut headcount, or there is an $11 billion black hole. That's why with every piece of legislation and every commitment from this government we should understand what their costings are. They've estimated that this is going to cost $426.7 million over four years, but the true impact of removing the activity test for three days is not yet fully known. The department is unable to advise how many families are eligible for the childcare subsidy but not enrolling their children. So we've got a situation where Treasury have given an estimate—and I must say that after some of the estimates we've seen from departments in the last few weeks we should question those—but they don't know how many children are eligible. So we would love to know where that costing comes from. At the same time the Productivity Commission said that removing the activity test would cost $2.3 billion per year—$2.3 billion. So, again, we have a big headline from this government that can't be delivered in my community. They can't guarantee access to child care in my community, because of that childcare desert, and now we see a massive black hole and misalignment in the funding. We do not know how much it's going to cost. This is all part of the spin of this government, particularly and gallingly when it comes to child care. During question time we had two things happen. The Prime Minister talked about how much childcare prices have gone down and how much he's saved the Australian people, and how lucky families are. The problem for the Prime Minister is, out in the real world, in our communities, prices have not gone down. Childcare prices have increased by 22.3 per cent since the Albanese Labor government came to power in 2022, yet the Prime Minister talks about how he has supposedly reduced prices. The spin, when it comes to child care, from this government continues even more. The Prime Minister, in question time today and all week, and the Treasurer and those opposite listed off these dot points of things they've supposedly done for the Australian people. They say that they've done all these things and that the opposition has opposed them all. The problem the Prime Minister's got with that line that he spins—and this is the really annoying thing for him—is that all votes are recorded in Hansard. The vote shows that the opposition supported the subsidy that the government brought forward. We raised complaints. I stood here and raised complaints and concerns that it was addressing demand, that it was a subsidy that wasn't increasing supply and that it would lead to—shock horror—higher prices, which we are seeing. We put our counsel forward to the government that it was a mistake, but we still supported it because we knew that the Australian people were struggling under this government, under the mismanagement of this Prime Minister and this Treasurer, and that we should do what we could to support them. We supported that legislation. Yet member after member, and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, continue to mislead the Australian people by saying that the opposition didn't support that legislation. The reason they do that, the reason the Prime Minister has to mislead the Australian people and the reason he is obsessed with the opposition and with the opposition leader, is that after 2½ years this Prime Minister has not delivered for the Australian people. There is no-one better off today than when Anthony Albanese was elected Prime Minister in 2022. He's institutionalised to opposition, and he is focused so much on the coalition that he's not actually solving the challenges the Australian people face at the root cause. We're seeing that when it comes to childcare costs—up 22.3 per cent since his government came to power. You will also hear those opposite crow and talk about the worker retention payment, and how it is going to solve some of the challenges we face when it comes to workers in the childcare sector. This government promised that up to 200,000 early-childhood workers would be over $100 a week better off by Christmas 2024 under its Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers policy. They promised that to the Australian people. The Prime Minister and ministers opposite have crowed about that legislation and how they've helped people. But, again, when you leave the parliament—which the Prime Minister doesn't like to do; he's institutionalised to this House—and when you go to the real world and look at what's actually happening, the Department of Education's own data shows that just 15 per cent of early childhood educators are employed by services that are approved for the payment as of 20 January 2025. It's another example of the spin and the headlines from the Prime Minister and the government, but the reality on the ground is that 200,000 workers are not better off; it is less than that. The reason is that the deal they rushed through was so complex that businesses are not able to apply or understand whether they qualify. Labor have refused to reveal the formula to determine how much services will receive, so they're expecting businesses to apply for a grant with a blindfold on. They've also asked businesses to cap their prices, at a time when energy costs are through the roof, food costs are through the roof and insurance is through the roof for these community organisations in early childhood. Again, the reason all these things are through the roof is the mismanagement of this Prime Minister and this Treasurer—a Prime Minister who promised 97 times before the last election that he would reduce power bills by $275. Instead, Australians are faced with power bills up over $1,000. So, the reason the Prime Minister has to continue to intervene and offer bandaid solutions is that he is not able to solve these challenges at the core. He's not able to treat the cause. He's focused on the symptoms. He continues to spin lines about worker retention, about child care being cheaper, about the opposition not supporting a subsidy that we clearly voted for. This is a government that, after 2½ years, has run out of ideas. It didn't have many to start with, this term. Those that it has implemented have failed. There is not one Australian who is better off today than when this government was elected. The real question the Australian people have to ask themselves is, with so much damage done to Australian families after 2½ years, imagine how much worse off you will be if this Prime Minister gets another three years—of indecision, of weakness, of mismanagement of the economy. The Australian people cannot afford that. Australian families cannot afford that. 16:46 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt A world-class education system is the foundation of a strong economy and a strong nation. It is the bedrock upon which we build a more prosperous and fair society. Education empowers individuals, strengthens communities and drives innovation and productivity. That is why the Albanese Labor government has been working since day one to strengthen our education system, starting from the earliest years of a child's life. Early childhood education and care is not just a convenience for working parents; it is essential for our future. Research shows that quality early education leads to better school readiness, higher educational attainment and improved employment outcomes later in life. Children who attend early education are more likely to develop crucial social, emotional and cognitive skills that set them up for lifelong success. Labor knows that access to high-quality education and care is essential, not just for our children but for our workforce, our economy and our society as a whole. That is why we have already taken major steps to make early education more affordable for families across our nation. Our cheaper childcare reforms have cut the cost of early education for more than one million Australian families. Recent data show that an Australian family with a household income of $120,000 a year that is paying the average quarterly fee for 30 hours of child care per week has saved approximately $2,768 since September 2023. For many families, this relief has made a real difference in balancing work and family life. But affordability is just one piece of the puzzle. To ensure that every child can access quality early learning, we must also invest in our early education workforce. That is why the Albanese Labor government has delivered a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators. For too long, early childhood educators, who play such a crucial role in our children's development, have been undervalued and underpaid. This pay rise will help attract and retain skilled professionals in the sector, ensuring that our children receive the best possible start in life. I have seen the impact with my own eyes. From Bella Estate to Cranbourne West, when I visit childcare centres, the passionate staff have told me about how they're able to focus and put more energy into the job without having to worry about living pay cheque to pay cheque. Minister Clare has said that after Goodstart, one of the largest childcare providers in Australia, signed onto the agreement, they saw a 35 per cent increase in applications. More passionate early educators are entering the sector, ensuring that children receive the high-quality care and education they deserve. This is just the beginning. Labor's vision is clear. We're working towards a universal early education system where every child is guaranteed access to at least three days of high-quality early learning per week. From January 2026, we will replace the current activity test with a three-day guarantee, ensuring all families, regardless of their work or study commitments, will be eligible for at least 72 hours of subsidised early education per fortnight. This initiative represents a significant shift towards universal access to early learning. Currently, too many children who would benefit the most from early education are missing out. The Productivity Commission's final report, A path to universal early childhood education and care, released in September 2024, made it clear that the children and families most likely to benefit from early education are the least likely to attend. Those are children in our outer suburbs, children in communities like mine, in Hampton Park, Cranbourne, Clyde and Narre Warren South. The three-day guarantee will ensure that no child starts school behind simply because their families were unable to access early education. It will provide certainty for families, helping parents, particularly women, return to work, take on more hours or pursue further education and training. We know that a lack of access to affordable child care is one of the biggest barriers preventing parents from fully participating in the workforce. This is why these reforms are also a crucial part of our plan to strengthen Australia's economy, by ensuring parents have more opportunities to work, study or train. We are unlocking growth across the economy. These reforms will help address crucial skills shortages to ensure that Australia has the workforce it needs for the future. In the first full financial year, the three-day guarantee will benefit around 66,700 families, with more than 100,000 families becoming eligible for additional hours of subsidised care. Under the new system, families that meet activity requirements or have a valid exemption can still access 100 hours of subsidised early education per fortnight. We know that we can't get more children into the sector without expanding the number of places available. In suburbs like Clyde, Clyde North and Botanic Ridge, there are over seven children for each childcare place—three times the national average. That is why we have announced one of the largest investments in expansion of childcare centres in history, through Labor's $1 billion Building Early Education Fund. We will build and expand early education centres in areas of need across our outer suburbs. This includes areas in my electorate, like Clyde, Clyde North and Botanic Ridge. This fund will provide grants and invest directly in owning and leasing out services. It will also focus on co-locating early education services on school sites where possible. Our commitment to education does not stop at early childhood learning. Labor will, for the first time in history, fully fund Victorian public schools. Under the new agreement, the Commonwealth will provide an additional five per cent of the schooling resource standard to Victorian public schools. This is an additional $2.5 billion in Victorian public schools over the next decade, bringing them up to the schooling resource standard for the first time in history, ensuring that our public schools are properly funded and that all students have the support they need to succeed. We are also expanding fee-free TAFE and university places, helping more Australians to gain skills they need for the jobs of the future. Through the National Skills Agreement, we are delivering a historic $12.6 billion investment to rebuild TAFE, and we are guaranteeing 100,000 free TAFE courses, permanently. Through our $10,000 apprenticeship support payments, we are encouraging more people to take up apprenticeships in key industries, addressing workforce shortages and ensuring we have the skills to build our nation. While we are making these transformative investments, we know that the Liberals are not on board. They have voted against these policies, including fee-free TAFE, calling them 'wasteful spending'. It's still unclear what the Liberals plan to slash in their $300 billion budget cuts, but we do know that they do not support these programs. They do not support making child care more affordable, they do not support wage justice for early educators, and they do not support building the future workforce this country needs. When the Liberals were last in government, they halved the Child Care Subsidy. This resulted in the number of low-income families receiving care dropping from 32,000 to 6,500. This is their belief: not child care for everyone, but only child care for those who can afford it. Labor is building a foundation for our nation, ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, have access to high-quality education and care from the very start of their lives. The Liberals—they only want to tear those foundations down. The benefits couldn't be clearer. The Productivity Commission supports these changes, the Business Council supports these changes, childcare operators support these changes, and parenting groups support these changes. The Albanese Labor government believes that every child deserves access to quality early child care and also education. That is why we are building a universal early childhood education system, one that is simple, affordable and accessible for every family. We are abolishing the activity test, guaranteeing three days a fortnight of child care for every Australian family so that all Australians get the best start in life. We are investing $1 billion to expand childcare places in suburbs like Hampton Park, Clyde, Cranbourne West and Botanic Ridge to make sure that happens. Labor believes every child has the right to go to school and, just as importantly, the right to early education. This is why we are supporting families, strengthening the early education system and laying the groundwork for Australia's future success. We are building Australia's future. We are doing it by investing in our youngest. I want to thank the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and the Minister for Youth, Dr Anne Aly, for driving these reforms and ensuring that all Australians have the best start in life. I commend this bill to the House. 16:58 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith There's a lot of good in the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025—in particular, getting rid of the childcare activity test, a draconian measure introduced by the Morrison government. To be clear about what it does—it was introduced in 2018 and requires a parent to work, study or volunteer to qualify for the Child Care Subsidy. The effect is to deny around 125,000 kids access to early childhood education—a terrible, terrible measure. While the Greens want it completely abolished, this bill, at the very least, gets rid of it for three days. That's a positive impact on over 100,000 children. That's great. What is very, very frustrating, deeply frustrating, is that a bill that has been Greens policy for a long time is before this parliament and is being effectively delayed. We have heard from the government—despite the fact that the Greens have come out and said, 'We will pass this measure completely unamended,' instead, what the government have said is that they will not pass it in this sitting week, potentially the last week of parliament before the election. You might think: 'Maybe there's just so much on the agenda, and we can't get to helping children access early childhood education. We can't help mothers and fathers get back to work or live good lives.' What's actually happened today is that the government has proposed in the Senate to ram through and accelerate the passage of a stitch-up on electoral reform. The effect of what we're seeing right now is that government has prioritised effectively rigging the electoral system and donation laws rather than passing their own bill— An honourable member interjecting— Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 yes, don't you worry about that!—to help people access early childhood education. It's genuinely extraordinary. Honourable members interjecting— Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Now we see some animation in the parliament. Good! Why is it that, time and again in this parliament, the lowest income people in this society, the people who are often the most downtrodden, are told to wait time and again. The government has proposed a 20 per cent reduction in student debt but said we have to wait until after the next election. We know the impact of this activity test disproportionately affects not only low-income people but also First Nations people. One of the other really good things about this bill is that it ensures that First Nations children will be eligible for 100 hours of subsidised child care per fortnight. Great! We've just had a Closing the gap report that demonstrates the huge gaps in educational outcomes between First Nations children and other children in this country. So why not accelerate this bill? To be clear, this is not directed at some of the Labor members in this House, because I know that it was not your decision. But it is deeply frustrating when we have gone privately and publicly to the government and said: 'We will pass this bill unamended as quickly as possible. We will secure its passage through the House and Senate using any means necessary to make this bill law before the election.' That's what we've said. And yet we have seen this government turn around and do a dirty deal with the Liberals on electoral reform instead. The effect of one of the other bills that's being gagged and shoved through right now in the Senate will be cutting the access to and amount of DSP, or disability support pension, of young people aged 18 to 21. That's apparently a priority, but actually helping people in this country to get access to child care is not. To give the human impact of the decision to delay this bill, I'll quote from the ABC: Megan Hunt loves being a mum to her two and four-year-old boys but there's been a sting as she's tried to navigate what she feels is best for her children. Ms Hunt, a nurse, didn't want to return to work immediately after maternity leave and decided to stay home with her sons until they were three. "Parenting young kids is really full on, it's really intense, it requires pretty much everything you've got—emotionally, physically, financially—which I know I would not trade for the world but any parent will tell you they need a bit of flexibility and you do need support," … Before her children were born she worked casually as a nurse and picking up work in the in-demand profession wouldn't be a problem. That's what she thought. When her eldest son turned three, she hoped to return to casual part-time work while her son attended pre-school. But the uncertainty around her hours as a casual employee made it impossible to secure the childcare subsidy (CCS) and the doors to childcare were closed This had devastating impacts on her career. There are a lot of women in particular around the country whose lives could be improved right now if we accelerated the passage of the bill. It genuinely beggars belief. In what is potentially the last week of this parliament before an election where we do not know the outcome, we could accelerate this. Instead, the government has prioritised a stitch-up on electoral laws that will see their party get more public money from taxpayers and a bill that cuts the DSP for young people aged 18 to 21. It would be great if we heard someone from the government explain why electoral law reform that won't even be enacted this year—that is a stitch-up for the major parties—is a higher priority than helping people like Megan get access to early childhood education. And you wonder why people are fed up with politics. Their lives are tough right now. They are doing it tough right now, and our childcare system is in crisis. There is a bill before this parliament right now that could help them. Are we seriously going to suggest that we're going to get through this entire week and not do our jobs to get this bill through as quickly as possible? It's genuinely shocking. Of course, the Greens have a much more expansive childcare policy. We think it should be completely universal and free for everyone because we think that access to early childhood education is just as important as access to primary and secondary school. You wouldn't countenance charging, sometimes, thousands of dollars of fees to prohibit people from accessing primary or secondary school, so why would you do it for early childhood education? Notwithstanding the fact that often when you're trying to get the subsidies under these schemes it's deeply complex, and it almost feels like you need a master's degree to get through it—notwithstanding all of that and our much more expansive policy—we have put that aside and said that we will not demand one single amendment in return for the passage of this bill. We will pass it unamended. I hope that there are ministers and people in charge of the Labor Party watching this right now and understanding that this is our message to the Labor Party here. We will pass it. The choice that the Labor Party has is to take that olive branch and use it to get it through the House and Senate as quickly as possible. Drop the overprioritisation of stitch-ups on electoral reforms. Drop the overprioritisation of cutting the disability support pension for 18- to 21-year-olds to effectively close the loophole. Instead, let's prioritise getting women, children and parents access to good-quality early childhood education, and get rid of a draconian Morrison-era law that effectively cruelled people's access to early childhood education. Indeed, one of the things that Megan said in this article is: The activity test is really tied up in what the parents are doing, when the question should really be, 'would this benefit kids?' Because then it really doesn't matter what the parents are doing. I would argue that the question, 'Does this benefit kids?' applies to everyone in this place, in the Senate and in the Labor Party as well. If they genuinely believe that this bill is important—and certainly the Greens do—then they will roll up and they will accelerate the passage of the bill through the House and through the Senate. It's an easy test that the Government can pass because what I'm about to propose is that we vote on this right now. I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put. The House divided. [17:11] (The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) The division was unavailable at the time of publishing. Question negatived. 17:14 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I'm so pleased that I get to make a contribution to this debate on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. The reform before us is really important, and I am disappointed by the delaying tactics of the Greens political party to try and put the vote on this issue. There is a difference of opinion by the political parties in this chamber, which is why this debate is important. I was here, in this parliament, when the previous Liberal-National government introduced the activity test. As the mum of a three-year-old and a five-year-old, I've seen the impact that test has had on families. It has created a complex system in early childhood education with the subsidy and the way in which it interacts. It has disadvantaged children, denying them the opportunity to attend early childhood education for at least three days. It has created complex conversations and challenging situations for families—in particular, for women. And that's what I wish to highlight in my contribution today. The bill before us today says that all families will be guaranteed three days, 72 hours, of childcare subsidy per fortnight. It will encourage every child to access early childhood education, and it is another step on the way to universal early childhood education. There are multiple different examples of what happens with the activity test and how it interacts. It is all about the parents' activity and not about the children. We know from the resource that access to early childhood education gives children the foundation blocks, from the earliest age that they can interact, to be successful, to have the foundational skills to do well in primary school. We know those who from low socioeconomic and disadvantaged communities and backgrounds benefit the most. We know that children from a non-English-speaking background benefit from having access to early childhood education, and we know that children of First Nations communities benefit from having access to early childhood education. What we currently have are various situations where directors in centres are having to have tough conversations with families—particularly if it's their second or third child—about if they satisfy the activity test to keep their first child engaged in education. It has an impact on small business when women, who might be returning to work, take extended periods of leave from their employer so that they satisfy the activity test, because that's one of the ways in which you can stay—if you stay on the books somewhere. We also know that it locks people into hours that may not work for their family, meaning parents are having to make tough choices for their family unit at a time when they want less of our regulation and rules and more opportunity and choices for families. Situations where it may be in the best interest of the family unit for mum or dad to stay at home a little bit longer with their children mean they may not satisfy these arbitrary rules around the activity test. If they don't satisfy them, the older child has to be withdrawn. They have an interruption to their early childhood education, making it harder for them to transition back in, if that's what the family chooses. I do know of some situations where, when the second child comes along, the first child may come out of early childhood education for the period that mum or dad is at home, but that's not the case for everybody. Most families like to keep their eldest child engaged with their peers, with their teachers and on that path of learning. So the activity test put an arbitrary barrier in place. And I know because I am a kinder mum. I have a three-year-old and I have a five-year-old. Mums and dads try and be creative to satisfy the activity test so they don't have to pull their older child out of early childhood education. We shouldn't put families in this situation. That is why this reform is sensible, that is why this reform is measured, and that is why this reform is needed. It is about putting children at the centre of early childhood education and our childhood subsidy and making sure that every child has access to a guaranteed three days, or 72 hours, a fortnight of childcare subsidy. It gives them the building blocks. This reform is part of a bigger package of reforms our government has moved in early childhood education, which includes paying educators their value and worth. We've put those reforms in. It means making sure that we are building centres where there are deserts; that's a term in early childhood education for when we don't have enough childcare places for children seeking access to child care. We are lowering fees through our changes on cheaper child care, and we're working with fee-free TAFE and making sure we have that pipeline of skilled workers coming in. What the Liberals and Nationals are proposing is extraordinary. They want to scrap fee-free TAFE, which is the pathway to getting more people working in early childhood education. They're opposed to our proposal to scrap the activity test, which is about giving younger Australians that access to early childhood education that gives them foundation skills. They had to be dragged to the table on lifting wages for early childhood educators—and I bet they will scrap that fund the first opportunity they get; they did it the last time they got elected, when we as a Labor government put in place the quality fund. The opposition are not committed to early childhood education. They are not committed to rolling out universal access to early childhood education. They still see the sector as largely about babysitting children while mum returns to work. It is not that. That old, archaic thinking should have been put to bed a long time ago. The research is in, and it's been in for a long time: early childhood education matters. It gives our children the foundation skills they need to do well at kinder and go on to primary school. It allows families to identify early-learning difficulties or to have early intervention to help their young person settle into school and education sooner and quicker. It is transformative in terms of behavioural issues and confidence-building, and it ensures all our young people, if they get access to early childhood education, enter primary school with largely the same skills and the same opportunities. Being a mum of a little person who has just transitioned from early childhood education to primary school and watching all her peers go through it, it is extraordinary what our educators do. Daisy and her peers, the foundation kids this year at Prep Kids, are so ready; they are so set up. She has had access to good-quality early childhood education every year of her life since nine months of age. Charlie, my son, is going through that journey. Any parent who has seen their little person flourish in early childhood education and has had that success of a good transition knows how important early childhood education is. That is why I stand here today shocked that, despite all the research, despite all the personal experiences that women and families are raising in our electorates, we still have the Liberal and the National parties voting against stepping towards universal early childhood education. And we have the Greens political party trying to gag debate in a debate we need to have. This is a moment to put the youngest children of Australia first by opening up and guaranteeing access to early childhood education. I encourage people to support this bill. 17:24 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today in support of this legislation, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. Like the member for Bendigo, I was here when the former Liberal government removed universal access and implemented their terrible activity test. And, like the member for Bendigo, I will be incredibly disappointed if and when those opposite do as they say they're going to do and oppose the measures in this bill. I understand the power of education. I understand how important it is for us to get to universal education and I understand how important this three-day guarantee is for families, and, not just for families, I know how important this three-day guarantee is for our youngest Australians across our country. Being an educator, I understand that sometimes children come from chaotic homes and I understand the power of them having a safe place, a calm environment, that allows them to learn to socialise and prepares them for more education. I understand that for children who are coming from spaces where they feel threatened all the time because of noise, because of chaos, because people are under pressure, that three-day access to early education and child care could set that child up on a different path than the one they would have if this measure did not exist. It really is that simple. I remember the families who came to see me when the activity test was brought in who were sad that their child was excluded from early education, from that calm environment, from that learning, from that opportunity to socialise with other children, from the preparation that was going to set them up for life. We know, everyone in this place knows—the research has been in for decades—how important early education is. We know it can be the difference between success and failure for children. We know it can be the difference between success and failure for us as a society, so why on earth would we not create a system where our most vulnerable children have universal access as a right, access to learning as early as we can give it to them? Why on earth would we not do that? That is why I stand absolutely and firmly supportive of this bill, and that is why I reject the arguments of those opposite, who so often in this place argue, 'Well, if I can't have the nice things, no-one can.' Put simply, that what they are arguing. They want to suggest that this is about terrible mothers who are off to Pilates. For goodness sake, what year is it? Where are you from? What year is it? Why does it have to be about, 'Well, we only pay for this. Families need it, but only if women are working.' This is not about women; this is about families and this is about children. This measure is specifically about creating access for vulnerable children from vulnerable homes to ensure that they are getting the early education they need. I have taught in low socioeconomic areas and kids at risk my whole professional life, and, I can tell you, the first thing I as a principal told new teachers in my school was, 'You might find you have some kids in your classroom that are a little bit disruptive. Let me give you a tip: don't raise your voice, because the chances are they hear that all the time and it does not have any impact. Do you know what you do? You lower your voice and you drop to your knees so you can look the child in the eye and be that comforting adult.' That is what happens in early education and child care for kids who need to know that they are safe in the world. I can't tell you the difference this could make to some of the children in my community's lives. I support this measure. I can't believe those opposite will not support this measure. I could not believe that when they ripped it away from families in my electorate when we came in in in 2013. I can't believe they are going to argue against it now. I can't believe the National Party members can come in here and argue against it. Seriously, if I think about families doing it tough in the regions and the pressures they might be under, and the littlest Australians are in that kitchen when the bills that can't be paid come in and are stuck on the fridge, or pushed to the back of the bridge to be forgotten, and the chaos begins because the pressure is on, because the stresses are on. If you add alcoholism and drug abuse into that family, that child needs this measure. They need to be in a calm environment for some part of their day, and their parents do too. 17:29 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The Albanese Labor government believes that every child has the right to access early education, and the member for Lalor, who was just in here, was speaking about how quite often the only place that some children feel safe is at school or in early education. She was spot on about that. We are committed to ensuring that all Australians have access to quality education, from early childhood education and care all the way through to university. We know that early childhood education is crucial to helping children develop the skills that they need to succeed in school and in life. All of us in this building have a responsibility to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, have access to high-quality education, and this bill, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, will make that a reality for thousands of families across the country, including in the Illawarra. Currently in the Illawarra, many parents are struggling to find available early childhood education places due to long waiting lists. This is putting pressure on families, as one parent, often mothers, are having to delay their return to the workforce because they can't find affordable and available childcare places. This reduces household incomes and limits career progression for the parent who has elected to stay home to care for their child. Businesses also feel the strain, as they struggle to retain skilled workers who are unable to return or are having to leave their job due to caregiving responsibilities. Addressing these challenges isn't just about supporting families and children. It's also about strengthening our workforce and our economy as a whole. Our government has already started taking steps to build a universal early education and care system that provides quality education. We have delivered cheaper child care, which cut the cost of care for more than one million families. We passed legislation that will see our early childhood education and care workers get a 15 per cent pay rise. We are investing over $1 billion in a Building Early Education Fund to build and expand early education and care centres in areas of need. We are working with the sector to develop an early education service delivery price to better understand the cost of delivering services around the country and to also shape future reform. The Albanese Labor government believes that every child has the right to early education, to help make sure that they don't start school behind. The three-day guarantee ensures that all children, regardless of their parents' work or study status, have access to that quality early learning. Through this bill we are replacing the Liberals' activity test and introducing this three-day guarantee in early education from 5 January next year. The three-day guarantee will increase entitlements for over 100,000 families, with 66,700 families expected to be better off in the first full financial year of implementation—and no families will be worse off. The bill guarantees that all families will receive 72 hours or three days of childcare subsidy each fortnight. Additionally, families caring for First Nations children will be guaranteed 100 hours of subsidised child care per fortnight. Those opposite introduced the activity test in July 2018. It promised to enable and encourage greater workforce participation and simplify childcare payments. This, however, was not the case. Instead of making child care more accessible, like they promised, it created new barriers to workforce participation, added complexity to the childcare system and made it harder for families to access early childhood education and care. I reached out to the early childhood education and care centres in Cunningham to understand just how this would impact them and the families that they serve. Anita Kumar is the CEO of ECTARC Early Childhood Services and Training, who have 11 early education and childcare centres in the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven. Anita is a passionate advocate for the early childhood education and care industry, recognising the vital role that the sector plays in supporting families, fostering child development and strengthening the workforce. She said: The Albanese Government's 3-Day Guarantee, which replaces the Activity Test and ensures children can access early childhood education and care, is widely welcomed by the sector. This initiative supports the development and wellbeing of all children while supporting the workforce issues across industries. She says: Every child has a right to Education no matters what their parent's circumstances. She also says, In Australia, we keep talking about "having a fair go" and the Three Day Guarantee policy epitomises that, giving every child, no matter where they live, or who their parents are, an opportunity to access early childhood education. Kim Bertino is the CEO of Big Fat Smile, who have 34 centres around New South Wales, with the majority being in the Illawarra region. Kim is another passionate advocate, who said: At Big Fat Smile, we are excited about the news that legislation to enact the Guarantee will be introduced into Parliament and we urge all parties to work together to get the law passed by Parliament as soon as possible. She says: The Three Day Guarantee will remove a significant barrier which has stopped many children experiencing disadvantage accessing early learning and created unnecessary red tape for families. Families in regional areas and First Nations families have been particularly hard hit, and we can see this in the Illawarra and surrounding areas. Cassie, who is a very dedicated and passionate early education educator working in my electorate, said: I think it's super beneficial for children and for families. Children being in care isn't just about playing with play dough, it's about supporting them to learn the key skills they will use for the rest of their lives. She says: Children who don't access care before kindy are more likely to struggle to develop their find motor skills, social skills, emotional regulation and independence. I also think this will help primary school teachers, children who we can flag as needing more support before they go to school will give teachers a better opportunity at managing behaviours and not being thrown in the deep end from day 1. She also says: If we have more days with them to build skills, or support families to seek developmental support, they're already heading down the right track. These comments highlight the critical importance of this bill, from the experts, which will ensure that every child has access to quality early education. Ensuring that every child has access to early learning isn't just about fairness. It's about investing in our future. We are giving every child, no matter what their background, the opportunity to learn, to grow and to thrive from the earliest years of their life. By guaranteeing a minimum level of subsidised early education, we are not only giving our kids the best possible chance in the future; we are also supporting families and our teachers. This reform will also help to strengthen our economy. A more accessible and affordable early childhood education system means that more parents can return to work, boosting productivity and easing workforce shortages across our key industries. The benefits of early learning are clear. Studies show that children who participate in quality early education are more likely to succeed in school, develop strong social skills and achieve better long-term outcomes. That's certainly what we've heard in the comments from our local experts in the Illawarra. For disadvantaged children, access to early learning is even more critical, helping to close developmental gaps before they widen. The Albanese Labor government is determined to give every child the best start in life. We will continue working with early childhood educators, parents and teachers, and industry leaders to strengthen and expand early learning opportunities. This bill is a step towards a stronger and fairer system—one that works for families, supports businesses and sets our children up for success. 17:38 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Today, I speak in support of the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. I support this bill because it's another step towards an Australia where all children and their parents can access the child care they need, when they want to. Child care is good for kids, and it's good for parents. Wide-ranging benefits come when government supports an accessible and affordable childcare system. For children, it supports their cognitive, social and emotional development and prepares them for the challenges that life throws at all of us. One of the greatest indicators of success in the first year of school is the quality of the educators and the education in child care. For parents and caregivers, it helps make it easier to balance parenthood and work. This benefits the whole community, because so many mums and dads work in vital jobs in our regions, whether that be nursing, teaching, psychology, running a small business, or so many other jobs and professions. This bill is going to see more children receive life-changing early education by guaranteeing all families at least three days of subsidised child care each week, regardless of the parents' activity level. Families that undertake work, study or training for more than 48 hours per fortnight will be guaranteed 100 hours of childcare subsidies each fortnight. Over 67,000 families in Australia will have their childcare entitlements increased under this bill. It will benefit low-income families especially, by saving them on average $1,460 per year. The three-day guarantee of child care under the bill replaces the activity test. The activity test required a parent to work, study or volunteer to qualify for their childcare subsidy. It's been around since 2018 but evidence shows it is simply failing to achieve its objective. The Australian Institute of Family Studies found that it is not increasing parent workforce participation as it intended and, instead, has operated to disproportionately exclude vulnerable children from accessing child care. It's a handbrake on intergenerational equity and it hurts our most vulnerable families. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—the ACCC—the Productivity Commission, the government's Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce have all recommended the activity test be rethought. The proposed reforms to the activity test to deliver the three-day guarantee also back in calls from Thrive by Five and the Parenthood—two groups that I want to knowledge for their tireless work in advocating for universal child care. I unequivocally support removing the activity test. As an independent member of parliament and conscientious legislator, when I see evidence that shows a policy doesn't stack up, I back legislation that says, 'Well, let us stop this.' Every child must be able to access all the social, cognitive and emotional benefits that come with child care, regardless of their parents' employment situation. Let's remember that providing a childcare subsidy is first and foremost about ensuring a child has the best start to life. This bill is a positive step towards making child care more affordable to families, but making child care affordable is only one piece of the puzzle and achieves very little if there aren't any childcare places available. Across the country, nearly six million Australians live in a childcare desert, meaning that there are more than three children per available childcare space. This is being felt the most in rural and regional Australia, where we're experiencing childcare deserts at nearly double the rate of major cities. According to the ACCC, in inner-regional areas like Wodonga, Benalla and Wangaratta in my electorate, there are three times the number of waitlist places held by children under two years old than there are places offered. So this is real for us. Since being elected to the parliament in 2019, I've noticed a substantial increase in constituents contacting my office about their experiences with child care, and their dominant experience is childcare shortage. Again and again, I'm hearing of years-long waitlists and hour-long commutes, forcing parents and particularly mothers to scale back their hours at work or not go back to work at all. I'm hearing of GPs who can't work because they can't find childcare places. This is one of the reasons we have GP shortages right now. The waitlists for a childcare place are ridiculously long. Parents are putting their children's names down for childcare places eight weeks into pregnancies, and, when their children are 12 months old or older, there still aren't places for them. Take Megan from Laceby in my electorate. Megan has been waiting more than two years for a childcare place to become available at her nearest centre in Wangaratta. When my office spoke to her yesterday, she said she's actually given up on finding a spot near home and, instead, is driving her daughter to Benalla—an hour round trip—twice a day. Not having a childcare place for parents, especially women and mothers, has detrimental career and income impacts. Hannah in Wodonga had attained high standing in her profession—and a mortgage. When she and her husband had their first child, they'd prepared as best they could and put themselves on waiting lists in the early stages of pregnancy. So you can imagine their shock when the time came to go back to work and they could only get care three days a week. Keep in mind that in Wodonga there are 2.4 children for every available childcare place. Because extra care could not be found, Hannah had to reduce her work to four days a week. Like with many couples, Hannah earns less than her male partner. Therefore, they made the decision that she will work part time instead of him. So Hannah's income has been reduced by 20 per cent each every week. She is missing out on 20 per cent of her superannuation. This is why we need childcare systems that work for all of us, but especially for mothers. I hear from mums driving their children 20, 40 or 60 kilometres to neighbouring towns just so they can find a centre with availability. In Wangaratta, Amy is studying to be a nurse. There are not enough childcare places in Wangaratta to accommodate her son. She says: Twice a week, I drive 50 kilometres—about 40 minutes each way—to Yarrawonga. I study at the library in Yarrawonga while my son is at daycare, as the driving time and cost would add up if I returned to Wangaratta. Day in, day out, Amy is having to make hard decisions about cost and time versus care and connection, and, like with so many families, Amy is pushed to the brink of burnout because her family cannot access the child care they need. I'm also hearing from childcare providers who are trying to solve these problems and make child care more available. This includes local governments, which are increasingly taking on the role of providing child care in regional towns because the private market is failing. Local governments are stepping in to fill the gap but are being hamstrung by the increasing cost of providing high-quality care and the cost of building the infrastructure needed to run a childcare centre. Alpine Shire Council in my electorate is currently seeking funding to redevelop the Myrtleford Mountain View Children's Centre, which is currently unfit for purpose with insufficient capacity. They want to redevelop the centre to increase capacity to 160 childcare places, which would have an enormously positive impact for families on the waiting list as this small town and its surrounds continue to grow. Next door to Alpine is Indigo Shire Council, which is also asking for support for the Beechworth Early Years Hub to build a modern kindergarten and childcare facility in Beechworth to address significant service demand and infrastructure challenges. What all these stories show is that we simply do not have enough supply of childcare places in regional Australia. While I support changes to the childcare subsidy that make care more affordable for families, it simply won't benefit people in my electorate if they can't access care in the first place. Like me, the government recognises there is no silver bullet to fixing our childcare deserts, and that's why we must focus on increasing supply in the regions, growing the workforce and supporting the viability and sustainability of existing services. I acknowledge the government have made a start in all these areas. Late last year, the parliament passed a 15 per cent wage rise for early educators, and the bill before us is a long-awaited measure to ensure more families can access subsidised child care, making it much more affordable. The government have also started to tackle the infrastructure problem by announcing a $1 billion Building Early Education Fund, the BEEF, to build more than 160 new childcare centres and deliver 12,000 additional places in areas of shortage. The BEEF includes $500 million in grants for not-for-profit childcare providers and state and local governments to establish new services and increase the capacity of existing services. The National Farmers Federation backs the government's Building Early Education Fund because regional towns will need it the most. They are calling on the coalition to support the BEEF, but it's a mystery why they won't. If they truly supported regional Australia, as they claim, the National Party—and I have the minister right here—would be calling for it to be beefed up even further. The $500 million for the grants to build or expand services will deliver only a 1.7 per cent increase in childcare places nationwide. This is hardly going to shift the dial for Indi, and it won't meaningfully address existing shortages, let alone the increased demand that will result from the bill before us now. I want to see the BEEF deliver more for regional areas, and I urge the government and the coalition, for that matter, to commit to doubling the BEEF grants to $1 billion. This would be an investment in our children's future commensurate to the scale of the challenge before us. If this government are serious about making childcare universal, they cannot do it without regional Australia. Report after report is clear that to grow access to child care in regional Australia, you must invest in supply, and you must invest in the workforce. So, as the government rolls out funds under the BEEF, I will be watching closely to ensure that it is distributed fairly, because this government have a shaky record with previous programs delivering childcare funding. The Community Child Care Fund supports providers with operational expenses to keep their doors open, particularly areas that are disadvantaged—regional and remote and Indigenous communities. But the fourth round of the Community Child Care Fund saw 75 per cent of funding disappear from my electorate of Indi. This is funding that supports care outside school hours in places like Yackandandah, Whitfield, Greta, Benalla, Moyhu, Mount Beauty and Rutherglen. Some of these services have received this funding for more than a decade, and to lose it so suddenly has come as a shock to principals, families, educators and businesses. I met with the minister as soon as my office discovered the extent of the issue, and I subsequently asked the minister in question time what the government is doing to ensure that these services in my electorate don't close. I made it absolutely clear that we could not lose the services. It would hurt these rural communities. Fortunately, I've now helped to secure emergency funding for five of these services, and I thank the minister's department for the response to the collapse in funding in my electorate. But I want to make sure this doesn't happen again, and I call on the government to move the program from a competitive grant process to a demand-driven non-competitive system. This would mean all providers that can prove that they require government support should receive government support. This bill alone is not enough. It's simply one step among many that we must take if we're to truly fix our childcare system in Australia. I urge the government and the coalition to do more when it comes to fixing the childcare deserts in regional communities like mine. Doubling the Building Early Education Fund grants to $1 billion would be a jolly good start. We must also change the Community Child Care Fund to a demand-driven program that means that regional and remote communities don't have to compete in competitive funding rounds just to keep their vital childcare services and centres open. 17:52 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Every child deserves the best possible start in life, but right now too many kids are missing out on early education because of outdated rules that just don't work. The Liberals' activity test has been making it harder for families, especially those who need it most, to access early childhood education. In 2018 their changes meant that kids from low-income families lost access to crucial learning time. That's why we're introducing the three-day guarantee. This is the critical difference between those opposite and the Albanese Labor government. Those opposite want to test, and we want to guarantee. The coalition want to test families' ability to access and pay for child care, to test whether your child deserves an education and to test whether you deserve to go back to work, and they'll be the judge of whether or not you pass. The Liberals' activity test, introduced in 2018, promised to encourage workforce participation and simplify childcare payments. Instead, it did the opposite. Data shows that thousands of children from low-income families lost access to early education. More than 25,000 families didn't pass the coalition's test of who deserved affordable early childhood education and who did not. The number of children in low-income families in early education dropped from around 32,000 in 2018 to just 6,500 in 2019—an extraordinary drop. These are the children who would benefit most from early learning, yet they were the ones who were left behind. The Liberals won't support kids and families who need good-quality and affordable early childhood education, but they will support free lunches for bosses. We can see the priorities that those opposite have. Early childhood education is not just about learning letters and numbers; it's about building confidence, curiosity and a lifelong love for learning. That's why our government is introducing the three-day guarantee. We believe government should be here to guarantee your child has access to quality early learning, to guarantee that learning will be high quality and affordable, and to guarantee that if you choose to go back to work you can do so. From January 2026, all families will be guaranteed three days—that's 72 hours—of subsidised early education each fortnight. For First Nations children, we are guaranteeing 100 hours. More than 100,000 families will see increased education hours. More than 66,000 families will be better off in the first full financial year of the implementation of this policy. Let me be clear—no family will be worse off. But this is just one step. Our commitment to universal early education goes beyond these changes. We've already made child care more affordable for more than one million families. We've secured a 15 per cent pay increase for early educators because they deserve to be paid fairly for the invaluable work they do in nurturing the minds of our very youngest. We are investing an additional $1 billion to build and expand childcare centres in areas where families need them most: our outer suburbs, regions and remote communities. Critics argue that this policy will put pressure on supply, that there aren't enough childcare places, but let me give you the facts. Since we came into government, we have seen the establishment of more than 1,000 new childcare services, including 325 in regional and remote areas. That's 90,000 additional places in early education and care. Still, we know there is more to do. That's why we're not just investing in more places; we're also tackling affordability and quality, and as part of this reform we are introducing an early education service delivery price to ensure funding is sustainable, that services remain accessible and that families aren't priced out of the system. The experts are backing us. Dr Angela Jackson from Impact Economics found that the current activity test actually discourages parents from entering the workforce. The Australian Institute of Family Studies reviewed the Liberals' childcare reforms from 2021 and found that the so-called simplifications made the system harder to navigate and pushed children from disadvantaged families out of early education. These reforms simply did not work. An independent economic analysis shows that scrapping the activity test will boost Australia's productivity and workforce participation, especially for single mothers, First Nations families, and parents in casual and shift work. This change just makes sense. We've all heard the argument that we can't afford to get rid of the activity test, but the truth is we can't afford not to. We know that children who start school behind their peers often struggle to catch up. We know that investing in early education reduces inequality and lifts entire communities and families, and we know that when we support families we strengthen our economy. That's why Labor is making these changes; when we invest in our children, we invest in our nation's future. This is about fairness, this is about opportunity, this is about ensuring that no child, no matter their background, is left behind, and this is about the fundamental difference between the government and the opposition. They want to test Australian families, and we want to guarantee that they are supported. 17:59 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey In June 2024 the Mitchell Institute, based in Victoria, did a survey of child care around Australia. I'm not happy to report that my electorate of Grey was declared the biggest childcare desert in Australia. That's not a title that I gladly received. It identified that, for every available space of child care in Grey, there were three children under the age of five. It's a three-to-one ratio. We are desperately short. It is holding my communities back in so many ways, not just for locals but for businesses that want to employ skilled workers. We have a skilled worker shortage. They want to employ workers from Australia, even from across the world. You do the job interview: 'Oh, great. Yes, we would be very pleased to move to your town, but my partner is a nurse'—or they might be a teacher, a welder, or a shearer. Who knows—'so where do we drop the kids off?' 'Sorry, there's no child care in this town.' 'What are we meant to do? What do the locals do?' They utilise the grandparents. They utilize their mums, dads and uncles, who are, in many cases, getting run into the ground with this child-minding service. I know grandparents who travel hundreds of kilometres a week to babysit their grandchildren. It's not as if they begrudge their time with their grandchildren, but, as you move on in years, it shouldn't be your job to be the first-line carer because your family needs to get back to work for all kinds of reasons. We talk about housing crises and things in this place. You see why people want a two-income family. So many people want to keep their skills up, whatever they are. For the people who come in from outside, it is an absolute barrier. My own home town has just lost its doctor for exactly this reason—no child care. It really is a multilayered effect. The government is here speaking about improving child care for a section of the community but not for all of the community. Last year I had our shadow minister for child care, Angie Bell, in the electorate. We toured widely through Eyre Peninsula, through the mid north and Yorke Peninsula and ran into a common complaint, that we just don't have enough, or any, local child care. My advice to these groups, where they aren't organised, is to get organised, to get the numbers together and make the case so that, when the opportunity comes up, hopefully in not too long a period, we can actually put the case forward to try to get you over the line. We have a problem here. The national childcare system is built around subsidies. You provide the service, the subsidy is attached to the client and the money is made available to the childcare centre for the number of clients they have. I think it probably works okay where you have a big enough base. But the evidence is on the board that, if you've got a population of, let's say, 4,000, there is simply not an economic model for a private provider. You will not get a private provider to come in and build the infrastructure and then operate it, because they know they won't break even, even with the significant subsidies that sit within the system at the moment. There's a case to be made in some of those centres that are around the 4,000 mark that, if some capital were provided, that may open the space for a private provider to come in. But, of course, the further you go down the population curve the less and less that becomes viable, which leaves only local councils. I don't blame them for not wanting to take up childcare centres. Roads, rates and rubbish, and then you tack on all the other things that local councils are meant to do at the moment, including, in some cases, aged care—it really isn't a core role for them. In South Australia we do have a system which I think is pretty successful. It's called Rural Care. It's where the education department has made child care available—on site, normally—for a small number within the community. Those centres have a maximum staff of three. Consequently, if you've got infants, that limits you to 12. In many cases it operates quite well, but in many cases they're too small, so we need those caps lifted. The education department are anathema to the South Australian government, I must say, and the government are not interested in opening any more centres. There is a pathway forward here, of course. The Commonwealth, as the provider of child care, should be stepping into that space and working with the state government, particularly in South Australia, where this system exists, and saying, 'What do you need to make this work?' It makes sense to me that in any small country town the best placed organisation to run child care would be one that is already in the industry of child care, and that's education. You can have a common site. You can have staff that may well be interchangeable when one calls in sick. You have a gardener and administration. No-one would be able to run it cheaper than the South Australian education department. That's the pathway forward as far as I'm concerned. We had this report by the Mitchell Institute. I have been advised by people to get numbers together. I was very pleased that a number of RDA, Regional Development Australia, committees—I have 3½ in my footprint—have worked very hard to get up some local figures, and that's really helpful. Then there are 23 councils—I have 26 on my patch, if someone's short of one or two!—that have come together in common purpose to form a group to lobby for attention to this problem, and I thank them. I think the more squeaking wheels we've got, the more chance we have of getting some attention. They are all pretty frustrated, and I'm pretty frustrated, because this Labor government is ladling more and more money into the sector where it already operates, and we're getting absolutely no support at all in the country regions where we cannot access child care. I just heard the previous member speaking. He said: 'We guarantee three days a week, 72 hours a fortnight, of subsidised child care.' Well, when I buy a car I get a guarantee for five or seven years, and if the gearbox falls out of it—or the transmission, as it may be—and it's no good, I know where to go and collect on that guarantee: I go back to the bloke who sold it to me, and I go back to the company that manufactured it. I've got a place to go back to. That happens with my hot water jug too. A guarantee is a guarantee. Would the government please explain to us how we in the country are meant to collect on this guarantee of three days a week when there is no place to put our children into care. Are we expected to transport them 500 kilometres to Adelaide and put them into child care for the day? It is not a guarantee unless there's a guarantee in it, and there's no guarantee in this. It is a complete snubbing of people that live in the country and their needs. They're offering 100 hours a fortnight of subsidised care for Indigenous children. I'm not against that, but it's exactly the same thing: in many of these communities, they won't be able to access it either. There is no longer any prioritisation for working families. If, in a working family, the mother goes off to have a baby on accouchement leave and then the baby's born—because we're never too sure when they're going to come—they will be jostling for places against people who don't have to go to work to get the baby into a childcare centre so they can go back to work. I understand the reasons why the government would want to move in this direction, but you have to be aware of the global impact of any decision—the reaction, if you like. What gives way for this? I'm very concerned about that. We've seen a big investment in child care since this government came to power. There was $4 billion for higher subsidies. There was $3.6 billion for the 15 per cent lift in wages for the sector. I'm not saying anything against that in principle. Now they say there's another $426 million to guarantee 72 hours a fortnight. There's a bit of a moot point here. The Productivity Commission says this will cost $2.3 billion, and that's a fair kind of gap, one would have to say. But whichever figure you use, $426 million or $2.3 billion, and you add it to the $7.6 billion spent before, there's a hell of a lot extra going into child care in Australia, and the only way people in my community, in many of my communities, can participate in this largess is they get to pay the bill. They get to pay a bit more tax to make it cheaper for people who already have the service to access the service. It's more for the haves in this particular case and absolutely nothing for the have-nots. It does not recognise in any way the issues we are facing in rural and regional Australia, and, as far as this government is concerned, it virtually doesn't affect anyone who lives in the seats this they represent here in this place, and I think that's absolutely apparent. They do not care for people who don't provide them a seat in the parliament. It's pretty appalling, I'd have to say. So places like my home town of Kimber, Wudinna, Wilmington, Oaroo—I could go on—have all approached me about trying to get a child care centre in their towns, but they have no infrastructure, they have no private provider, and councils aren't willing to step up into that space and provide a large investment that would probably be loss-making in the long term. I don't blame them, but something has to be done. We have a program that still exists. It's called home care and it's a pretty good idea, really, like somebody living and working in their house, perhaps, going about household chores, or even working in the home office from time to time or whatever fits, can manage to have up to three kids in their house, very much like having school holidays and three children in the house while you are running a house. But it's become increasingly difficult and unattractive to run these programs—regulations. Regulations are driven by government directions, and they are being strangled. The problem is now you can't get anyone to stick their hand up to have a go. In fact, the regulators have been trying to corral these people to provide home care in commercial premises. It's a bit of a nonsensical statement, isn't it—provide home care in a commercial premises where you can combine with someone else providing home care in a commercial premises, to make sure it's safe for the children. It's just not recognising the reality. Other place like Crystal Brook need to expand. Kadina need to rebuild as they have outgrown the building. They have, I think, 70 people on their books waiting to get in at the moment. Kadina had a bid in for the Growing Regions Program. The Growing Regions Program was announced the other day. I got three projects in Grey. The member for Barker got two projects in Barker. I think that's the extent of the South Australian largess. We managed to snaffle three per cent of the national total that went into this Growing Regions Program. In my case, there's one program in Whyalla, one in Oaroo ,and the other is to build art rooms in the APY lands for the men. Kadina, which has a shovel-ready project, put in for this program—not a razzoo. People are discouraged and its hurting. We need to get the message through. Alternatively, perhaps we need to change the government, and people will have a chance to do that in the not too distant future. I don't pretend that the solutions are easy, but, until governments recognise that we have a problem, absolutely nothing is going to get fixed, and I bring this problem to the parliament. I'm very hopeful that my successor, because I'm running out of speed, will be bringing this problem back as well. I've been working with Tom Venning around the electorate. He's met with a lot of people. If he comes back in my place, I can guarantee, he will be on this wagon as well. 18:14 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The evidence is incontrovertible: the earlier a child accesses formal education the much better their chances of a good quality of life. In all of the metrics on quality of life, including learning and development, social skills, level of school attainment, tertiary study and eventually careers, children who access education at an earlier age are better placed to be more successful in those metrics. That comes down to the emphasis that we as a society place on early childhood education for our youngest citizens. Really the question here in this bill, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, is whether we believe that education is a right or whether we believe that education is a privilege. Having heard some of the speeches delivered by those opposite, it's not hard to see that many on that side believe that education is a privilege and that it should be paid for and not accessible by all. But, in this bill, Labor is saying our belief is that education is a right and that education is a right that every child should be able to access in this country from the earliest ages. And so this bill ensures that all children, regardless of their background, regardless of where they live and regardless of their parents' means and income, have access to a three-day guarantee of early childhood education. That's because we know that the evidence indicates that that child will have a much better chance at life through that earlier formal education. Simply, that is what this bill is all about—providing every child with that right to early education. Our three-day guarantee, which will begin on 5 January next year, represents a fundamental shift in our belief about early childhood and the philosophy behind it—that every child should have the right to access it. So it represents a shift away from the restrictive activity test that was the hallmark of the previous government's management of early childhood to one of a fundamental right. We are proud of this reform because it will increase the entitlement to early childhood education for over 100,000 families, with more than 66,000 families expected to be better off in the first full financial year. But, importantly, no family and no child will be worse off. That is the crux of this argument. It's not just about numbers. It's about giving parents real choices about work and ensuring their children get the educational foundations that they deserve. The evidence is clear, as I said: quality early education sets children up for success in school and post-school life. It develops social skills, literacy and numeracy and it gives kids the confidence that they need to thrive. That's why it's concerning that the opposition and the Liberal Party have made their position clear on this. We know that they'll go to the next election with promises to undermine the early childhood education system. There certainly won't be the same support there for early childhood educators that our government have delivered. They made cuts to early childhood in the past, and it's looking like that's another area where they will fulfil cuts in the future if they are going to meet their commitment to cut $300-odd billion from the budget. The impact of that will be devastating for many families. The impact when they were last in government was devastating. Department of Education data shows that the number of children from low-income families accessing care under the previous government plummeted from around 32,000 in 2018 to just 6,500 in 2019. That's not just a statistic; that's thousands of children denied the opportunity to learn and grow and develop alongside their peers. Our reforms are momentous, groundbreaking and life changing for a generation of younger Australians. They've been described as momentous by groups representing parents and workers. We've delivered cheaper child care. We've implemented a 15 per cent wage rise for early childhood educators, and established the $1 billion early education fund to construct and expand childcare centres in areas of need. These are picking up on the points that were made by the previous speaker of the need in regional areas. On all of those issues, we're answering the call. We've got a solution that will ensure that there are more childcare centres constructed and that more children get access to early childhood education. I can't see how you could oppose that. I can't see how you can say to those families: 'No, early childhood education is not a right. It is only a privilege.' That is the approach that the opposition are taking. I want to speak a little about early childhood educators. Traditionally, this is an occupation that has been undervalued and not respected in the way that it should be by the Australian community and by governments of the past. We are changing that. We recognise the skills, the training, the experience, and, most importantly, the groundbreaking job that early childhood educators do, and the influence that they can have on the lives and success of young Australians into the future. That is why we were proud to fund and implement the 15 per cent wage rise for early educators to recognise that there needed to be a seismic shift in the value that society placed on the work that they did. Going back to the point that I made earlier, we're recognising that early childhood education is a right, not a privilege. That is why we funded and implemented that 15 per cent wage rise, and I've been very pleased, going around the early childhood education centres in my electorate, hearing the support from early childhood educators for what Labor did, and thanking us for finally recognising and valuing the work that those great Australians do for the next generation. This reform is really important. It's about recognising education as a right and ensuring that more kids get access to that right, and constructing more early education centres, particularly in the regions, to ensure that that right can be delivered. Unfortunately, those opposite still see early childhood education as a privilege. We intend to change that and make sure that it is a right recognised by Australians and accessible by every Australian child. 18:22 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee When it comes to the legislation before us this evening, the question must be asked: does this bill help working families who are doing it tough in a cost-of-living crisis, trying to make ends meet and put food on their table? And, importantly, does it help working families living in rural and regional parts of the country, who are frequently unable to access the child care that they need? Unsurprisingly, the answer is no. If this bill passes, families, particularly rural, regional and remote families who need child care so they can work, will be competing against families who will now be eligible for taxpayer subsidised access but may not be working, studying or volunteering at all. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this will increase demand, and increasing demand without increasing supply is a real issue, especially in the regions where the private market is struggling to meet the needs of communities for childcare services at present. Supply is already an issue in the regions. While the Albanese Labor government crows about increasing wages and subsidies for child care, Mallee families are stranded in a childcare desert, with long waiting lists, and, in some towns, no childcare service at all. There's nothing to crow about in the childcare deserts, just crows squawking with no childcare place in sight. I have been meeting and listening to families all over Mallee about the challenges they face in childcare deserts. Mallee parents regularly contact me desperately seeking help. So much so that, in October 2024, I invited the shadow minister for early childhood education, Angie Bell, to my electorate to meet with families in the desert, visiting Robinvale, Cohuna, Hopetoun and Beulah. Parents came to see Angie and me to share their personal grief and struggles at not being able to find childcare places locally or within 100 kilometres driving distance. At Robinvale, for instance, there is just one service run by Murray Valley Aboriginal Co-operative, which takes all children from the community. Robinvale is one of Mallee's worst childcare deserts, which are defined as having 'less than one place for every three children needing it'. In Robinvale, there are 10 children needing each place. In Hopetoun, mothers told us of the mental health struggles they have endured not being able to obtain child care for their children. The local provider ceased operations recently and the local shires of Yarriambiack and Hindmarsh have been working hard with Wimmera Southern Mallee Development's By Five Early Years Initiative to strengthen child care in the region. I'm working with them at the state and federal levels to cut through the red tape and promote policy that will bring sustainable child care to the region. By Five reports that over 50 per cent of the Wimmera Southern Mallee alone is considered a childcare desert. Cohuna residents and stakeholders said their No. 1 priority is to have a date to work towards after the Victorian government made an in principle commitment to establishing the town's first childcare centre sometime in 2027 or 2028—a long way off when families need care now. Funnily enough, the very day the shadow minister and I were meeting Cohuna residents about their childcare desert, the Allan Labor government mysteriously finally set a date for when the childcare centre would open there. Beulah's Heather Sherwell has two young children and says of the lack of child care: We're essentially killing small towns … we've got to choose between, does one of us stop working, does a farm lose an essential worker … or whether we just have to pack up and forget about everything we've built. In Gannawarra shire late last year, 86 children were waiting for a place in long day care, with some waiting since January 2023. Meanwhile 42 Cohuna and Leitchville families have been waiting for family day care places since May 2022. In Wimmera Southern Mallee, at one point there were 300 children on local waiting lists and 84 additional staff needed to meet the demand. According to data collected by the By Five Early Years Initiative, in many rural towns with populations of less than 5,000 people, there is no childcare service at all. So waitlists alone do not tell the tale of the huge hole that is hurting families. There is no waitlist for a service that doesn't even exist. Wimmera families and councils have been left to fend for themselves. Dedicated Rainbow community member 41-year-old Katherine Durant and her farmer husband, Ben, have two boys under six years old. Ben works seven days a week and up to 16 hours a day, leaving Katherine to sole parent. Katherine says: You just have to look at the faces of the rural women with small children during cropping and harvest. They are doing the best they can and, like me, probably cry every day in frustration. But we do it. We shut up and we do it. The lack of child care in Rainbow and Jeparit leaves nurses and teachers unable to return to work in a desperately needed workforce. This is a common issue across regional, rural and remote Australia—gaps in childcare coverage. Left unaddressed, they threatened the future viability of rural, regional and remote towns. Some families tell me they may leave the district if a solution isn't reached soon. Healthcare workers and their professional organisations frequently tell me that a lack of access to child care is a major barrier to getting the doctors, nurses, physios and other professionals we desperately need in rural and regional towns to provide essential health care. As the shadow assistant minister for regional health, I see childcare access, which relies on childcare supply, as a key strategy in boosting the health workforce in our regions. Let me remind us that the families I described previously across the electorate of Mallee are families who are struggling to buy their own homes or, owing to the high cost of rent, which is now 17 per cent higher than it was before this government came to office, with health costs that have increased by 10 per cent in the same period, electricity prices that have increased 32 per cent and gas prices that have increased by 34 per cent. These are families who need two incomes to survive. They need to work and they need child care to work. They can't get the child care they need, and they need it now. This bill proposes to make taxpayer-subsidised child care available to a larger pool of families. It proposes to expand eligibility to subsidised care by removing the activity test for three days a week, so that families who need child care so they can work will be competing against families who may not be working, studying or volunteering at all. When the former coalition government introduced the activity test in 2018 it was designed to encourage workforce participation. It was also designed to ensure priority of access was given to vulnerable families alongside working families. Members on this side of the House firmly believe in providing support to those most in need, and that is why when the activity test was introduced it included several exemptions for children and families with increased need for care. This bill will provide all families, up to a combined income of $533,000, with access to 72 hours a fortnight of subsidised child care. For Indigenous families this will be increased to a maximum of 100 hours a fortnight of subsidised child care. It sticks in the craw of rural families in child care deserts that Australians on a combined income of more than $500,000 get government subsidised childcare support but they cannot access a cracker because they are in a childcare desert. The coalition will oppose this legislation. This bill is flawed in a number of ways. It increases access—or demand—without addressing supply issues. It removes priority access for working families. It disincentivises aspiration to be working, studying or volunteering if not taking care of one's children. It does nothing to increase access or flexibility for families and does not address current cost-of-living pressures. Of particular note is the fact it does nothing to help solve the unique problems faced by rural and regional families like those in my electorate of Mallee. Over the last three years Labor has failed to meaningfully address supply-side constraints. They argue their $1 billion Building Early Education Fund policy will boost supply, but history tells us they will not be able to deliver, especially outside major cities. This government has a track record of deprioritising the needs of rural and regional Australians by making schemes that were previously targeted at rural and regional issues less targeted, diluting the needs of rural and regional people against all groups with unique or increased need, as if to deny the challenges experienced—or, as I have put multiple times in this place, robbing regions to buy votes in the inner cities. Labor does not have rural and regional Australia's backs when it comes to so many public policy issues, including equitable access to child care. Let me now discuss flexibility. Families have a right to chose what their work and family life looks like, and the coalition respects this choice. Labor's three-day guarantee does nothing for families who chose to remain at home and raise their children until primary school, or families that use flexible arrangements such as grandparents or nannies by choice, all because centre based care arrangements or family day care don't meet their needs adequately. The bill also does nothing for parents who need flexibility, such as families who do shift work or who work non-standard hours—healthcare workers. Again, these hardworking families will not benefit from this change. The families who aren't working, studying or training will. Now, to affordability. Some sections of the community have labelled the three-day guarantee a cost-of-living measure, but in reality it is nothing of the sort. Since Labor came to office the cost of child care has increased by 22.3 per cent. The last time Labor was in government, the cost of child care skyrocketed by 53 per cent in six years. Almost one in three services are charging above the fee cap as providers struggle to keep up with the rising regulation and operational costs. Australia's budget is under immense pressure. The activity test plays an important role in encouraging workforce participation and creates a stronger culture of self-sufficiency among those who can and should support themselves. The activity test is not unfair. Rather, it ensures that the taxpayer funded childcare subsidy is targeted, that government funds are applied in a targeted manner. Yet, this government not only wants to spend taxpayer money to enable additional families to access child care whether or not they are working or have other reasons for benefiting from the care but is not addressing the core issues at hand in rural and regional Australia, of improving access to care in communities where it is just not available. 18:35 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I rise today to support the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 and wholeheartedly endorse the Albanese government's three-day guarantee. I'm proud to be part of a government that truly recognises the value of early education and is taking real steps to support young families across the country. I'm determined to see our little ones better equipped, better educated and better prepared for their schooling journey. As I said, alongside the Prime Minister in Brisbane last year, when we announced the three-day guarantee, my twins, Oshy and Dash, treasure their early educators, Camilla, Lara and Grace—although for very different reasons. Oshy says he appreciates Camilla and Lara for the cold, hard fact that, if any other kid hurts Oshy, Camilla and Lara always make that kid say sorry. But, when I asked Dash what he values in Grace, he replied, 'Because Grace just loves us.' The Labor Party is working hard to ensure the likes of Grace, Camilla and Lara are better supported, and that commitment is exactly what this bill delivers, with all families guaranteed three days, or 72 hours, of childcare subsidy each fortnight and families caring for First Nations children guaranteed 100 hours each fortnight. This guarantee will secure an increase in support for over 100,000 young Australian families, with 66,000 expected to be better off in the first full financial year alone. Crucially, this is all to be achieved with no family being left worse off. The Albanese government will hold no-one back and we will leave no-one behind. And it's not just other suburbs that will benefit; this three-day guarantee is part of a larger package that establishes a $1 billion building early education fund to build and expand childcare centres in areas of need, including in the outer suburbs and in the regions. Opportunity starts with education, and only Labor has a plan to ensure our kids get the start they deserve. The three-day guarantee builds upon Labor's work to untangle a decade of confusion and cuts under the coalition. Their notorious activity test created barriers to workforce participation, made the childcare system more complicated and ultimately made it harder for families to access support. The 2018 childcare package halved the number of subsidised hours of care that low-income families could access, from 48 hours to 24 hours, or just one day a week. This is not just a statistic to be cast aside; these are real outcomes for young families struggling to get by. And data from the Department of Education shows the number of children from low-income families accessing care went from around 32,000 in 2018 to around 6,500 in 2019. Put simply, those opposite let down those most in need. The Albanese government has taken a very different, positive, practical approach. We have boosted the childcare subsidy. We have delivered cheaper child care. This has already reduced the cost of early education and care for more than a million families in Australia, and almost 9,000 families in my own electorate of Lilley. For a typical family, this measure alone has cut the cost of child care by 17 per cent. Labor has also delivered a 15 per cent pay rise for early educators, to back our workers and ensure that these services are available. In a real sense, this means an educator who is paid at the award rate will receive a pay rise of at least $103 a week, with our early childhood teachers receiving an additional $166 a week. But the Albanese Labor government will not rest on its laurels or become complacent. We know there is more to be done. That is why we're also developing an early education service delivery price. This effort will allow for a better understanding of early education service delivery. It will underpin future reform. But as the Albanese government works towards universal early education that is high quality and accessible, the coalition only promise cuts. Whether it's TAFE, university, schooling or early education, the coalition have time and time again shown that they will not prioritise or support education in any form. They're against affordable early education. They're against student debt relief. They're against fee-free TAFE. They believe that education is a privilege that should be paid for. We disagree. By making this investment in early education, Labor is sending a clear message to young families across the country: we see you, we support you, we back you and we will always work to deliver better outcomes for you and your kids, because that is what Labor governments do. We help people under pressure and we build for the future. I thank the House. 18:40 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden I thank the minister for her contribution. I know she's genuinely engaged, as a parent of twins, in the childcare and early education system, as am I, because I have two young daughters who have literally, in the last half an hour, just got home from day care. So, standing in this place I have an appreciation, more than most, for the importance of early childhood care and education. I want to start by saying a heartfelt thankyou to all those hardworking early childhood educators who look after my daughters and look after many families' children while they're at work. I stand in this place today, and my wife was able to work today, because of a service provided by some very caring individuals. I also think it's important to note the role they play in being part of the fabric of a local suburb or community, and I'll get to some of that a bit later in relation to where there's a lack of child care through parts of Australia, which is regrettable. In the suburb of Labrador, directly across the road from my office, we've got the Jacaranda Early Education Centre. Last week I visited them because they asked me for a set of three flags, and I was very proud to deliver those. And throughout the suburbs of my electorate there are some amazing childcare centres—for example, Runaway Bay Kindyland, Goodstart Early Learning at Parkwood, Bonny Babes at Hope Island, Harmony Early Education at Hope Island and the Little Scholars School of Early Learning at Ormeau. All are doing an amazing job to make sure that on a day-to-day basis our children are given the best start in life. But it's not easy to stand in this place and support the approach Labor have taken to child care during this term in government. In the end, people are working—and often have to work—in order to pay the bills, and child care becomes an absolute necessity in order to get yourself to your place of work and apply yourself to that job. The activity test as introduced was to try and incentivise and facilitate parents getting back into the workforce, and that is I think a very worthwhile intention. There are a lot of parents out there, a lot of mums, who are going to say, 'Well, if they're removing the activity test, that is the best news I've had this week, because it means I'm not going to have to spend 45 minutes on the phone to Services Australia.' One of the things that's happened during this term of the Labor government is that they couldn't run a chook raffle let alone a government department giving any kind of level of service. There will be a huge sigh of relief at any reduction in the time that you have to spend dealing with Services Australia, under this government, because, I've got to say, that'll save parents a lot of time. But where this government has failed Australian families in child care is that they get lost in the concept of creating something that will turn up on a corflute at a polling booth at the federal election this year. Mark my words: as we walk into polling booths, there will be corflutes that say 'Cheaper child care'. Mr Bowen DZS Good idea! Mr CALDWELL 306489 The minister at the table says it's a good idea. Can I tell you that that, in all honesty, would be a fabrication, because we know—and the minister should know this—that the cost of child care in real, tangible, out-of-pocket terms has gone up astronomically. Being in the child care and early education space, as I am, with my two young daughters, I know and talk to a lot of parents about these issues. Very helpfully, these parents provide an amazing level of detail to support their concerns about what's happening in child care under this Labor government. I'll give you one example of an early education centre where, at the start of 2024, the daily rate was $153. On 5 February 2024, it went up by $5 to $158. On 8 July 2024, it went up by a further $17 to $175, and then, on 2 January 2025, it went up by $7.60 to $182.60 per day. Never mind the entire term of this Labor government; this is a real-life example of what's happened in a 12-month period, and—I shudder to say these numbers—the actual rise has been $29.60, or 19.3 per cent, in 12 months. We, as a coalition, support early educators; we support what they do. Sometimes, on the other side of this place, Labor speakers will try to rewrite history and suggest that we didn't support the pay rises for our early childhood educators, but we did. That's a reflection of the work that they do. But don't think for a minute that that isn't paid for by someone. In fact, do you know who it's paid for by? It's paid for by the parents whose children go to the centres. Again, the living, breathing example of this is where that same early education centre said, on 6 December, that they were signing up for the increase in wages—fantastic—and then what happens only seven days later? Guess what, families? Your fees are going up. Parents can join the dots. It's another bill to pay that's going up. That's what's happening under this Labor government—the cost of everything is going up. What parents tell me is that the barrier to getting into child care is oftentimes just the calculation of the sheer cost. It's not about the activity test; it's actually about the cost. So we are now seeing a policy which I'm sure probably has some good intentions, if we put the corflute campaign to one side. But this government doesn't, cannot and, historically, has failed to deliver childcare places in this country. They can't control those numbers. We know that when they pump-prime the number of people who require places in child care what's going to happen is there will be more people seeking those places. It will put family against family—working families against those who aren't working families—trying to compete for the same number of places. We've heard our regional representatives in this place talking about the childcare deserts. That's one example of how we know that this particular policy of Labor's will fail, because in our regions there are just not the places to cover this. But, as it is, even in suburban and urbanised areas the childcare places aren't increasing fast enough to cover the needs, so there are waiting lists at many of our local centres. In the end, what this government are doing yet again is legislating a poorly thought-out and poorly designed quick fix that gives them a headline on the eve of a federal election so that they can have the corflute campaign that they want to run. But Australians will see through this, and they should see through it, because it'll be sold that the three-day guarantee is kind of sounding like it's free—but it's not. If Labor is re-elected and that guarantee turns up next year, there are going to be a lot of families who will be thinking that the three-day guarantee meant that they will be getting three days, guaranteed. Of course, it's nothing like that, because you're still subject to those costs that I talked about earlier. As I said, under this Labor government the cost of everything is going up, and the families who have their children in child care and are working so hard to pay the bills have been on the wrong end of 12 consecutive interest rate rises under this government. Inflation has stayed too high for too long because the Treasurer has been playing chicken with the Reserve Bank for almost three years. At every available opportunity, the Treasurer makes a decision to poke the bear of the Reserve Bank instead of just maybe reining in what they need to be reining in—just momentarily; just long enough to see inflation get down into the band and then stay there. The Treasurer, with his obsession with a big government that spends so much, is not giving the Reserve Bank the tools that they need. They need to see the data in the right comfort zone, and we haven't seen that. We're now halfway through February 2025. Last year just about every other advanced economy saw a reduction in interest rates. Where's Australia? We're falling behind. Instead of being the great, prosperous nation that we should be, we have people who are struggling, and they're struggling under the weight of this Albanese Labor government. Child care, as I said, is one of the most significant expenses that a family has. So if you think about the upward pressure on interest rates that has seen them go to extraordinarily high numbers, consecutively, and you think about just that one example of the daycare centre going from $153 to in excess of $180, Australians legitimately should be asking themselves whether or not, in February 2025, they are better off than what they were in May 2022. The truthful answer is that they're not. They know they're not. But, instead of helping working families and prioritising those that are struggling the most under the pressure of interest rates, with rents going up and mortgages going up, the government are obsessed with a corflute campaign that they'll stick out there whenever the federal election is called. I hope that Australians can see through that. I hope they can see that the pathway to a better nation is with a coalition government. We'll get our country back on track. 18:55 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Looking at how a nation treats its children, some of the most vulnerable in our society, can be a really proud reflection on us, and that's what I see in this bill, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. It recognises the inherent value and rights of children to have high-quality early childhood education and care to make sure that they can have not just the best start in life but the best life possible in this great country we call Australia. In this bill, the government wants to ensure that we replace the unfair activity test that left children at a disadvantage and instead guarantee three days of subsidised early childhood education and care for the children who need it. It will mean all families will be eligible for at least 72 hours of subsidised early childhood education and care per fortnight regardless of activity levels. Families can still get 100 hours of subsidised early childhood education and care if they meet the various activity requirements or have a valid exemption. This will provide certainty. For those who know, when households are managing their budgets and planning to get their child into early childhood education and care for the first time, having certainty about what is available to you and also the certainty that you'll get the support that you need makes such a difference. I've seen in my children's lives, as they've now gone on to kindy and primary school, the huge benefits of having access to early childhood education and care. I don't want to make it harder for anyone to get those benefits. It shouldn't come down to whether or not you or the child's parents are working. It should come down to what the needs of the child are. That's exactly what this does. It supports the idea of universal access to early childhood education and care. When I first came to this place in 2018, I spoke about my belief in universal early childhood education and care. I was standing up the back, and I had a few of my colleagues saying, 'Oh, I don't know if that's going to be the right path,' but now here we are legislating down that path. We know from the Productivity Commission's report that this will enable us to give more benefits to those who need them the most. In the Productivity Commission's report entitled A path to universal early childhood education and care, released in 2024, they said, very clearly, that the children and families most likely to benefit from early childhood education and care were the least likely to attend. Those who are likely to benefit the most were the least likely to walk through the door of their local childcare centre. This bill makes it much more likely that those children will walk through the door, and we're doing it in a way that makes sure that families really benefit in terms of that certainty but also in terms of the finances of a household as, when you have a new child join your household, you have a few pressures. Let's take the example of a Perth family who might live in Yokine with an average income of, let's say, $90,000, with one person working full time and the other working a casual job. Under the current system that we've had under the Liberals, they would've been eligible for 18 hours per week or 36 hours per fortnight of subsidised early childhood education and care. Under this change, which I hope every member of this parliament will vote for, they will instead be eligible for 36 hours a week, 72 hours a fortnight, and that means something for their bank balance. That means an extra $230 in their household budget per week, or $11,400 per annum. That's the good news for parents living in Yokine, where you've got one working and the other doing a casual job. It's so much better for the kids. There is what we know from the experts. Jay Weatherill, once a South Australian but these days a proud Western Australian, says: 'Early childhood education is a fundamental building block for children's cognitive, social and emotional development. Together with the care and guidance they get at home, attending child care and kinder supports children's development and gets them school ready. Early childhood education is the great equaliser.' I couldn't agree more. This bill also delivers on the obligations that many nations, including Australia, have under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I draw members' attention to the explanatory memorandum, which clearly outlines that this delivers on our obligations: … to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child care services and facilities. Further, it notes: The Bill promotes the rights of parents and children, and the best interest of children, by providing greater subsidisation of the costs of ECEC. That is something Australia can stand proud of on the world stage. We then come to the practical things this government has done to make sure we have the workforce that we need to deliver on early childhood education and care objectives and go towards that universal system. I've been fortunate to go to Goodstart Early Learning in East Perth with the President of the Senate to talk to educators about how they've benefited. They said that it has made a serious difference both in retention and recruitment. I heard the same story when I went and read a story to the students at the Marjorie Mann centre in Mount Lawley, a great early childhood education centre that's been a proud part of the Perth electorate for some 40-plus years. I heard the same story when I went with the Minister for Early Childhood Education to Buttercups in Northbridge, where we got to congratulate some of the workers who had recently received awards for their outstanding work in educational leadership through early childhood and to hear about how investing in them had helped with the professionalisation of their profession and enabled people who otherwise might have gone on to do other things because they couldn't afford to stay in the profession to stay in the job that they love. We hear it time and time again. I'm also proud of being a very strong advocate for the rebuilding of the JHUB in Yokine, in my electorate. JHUB is the centre for the Jewish community in Western Australia. They've had the foresight to include in that JHUB some 120 places in that early childhood education and care centre to make sure we continue to cater for the needs of families in my local community. I want to go to something that hit my inbox at 6.48 pm, as I was sitting here about to give my speech. It was a media release from Dr Anne Aly, the Minister for Early Childhood Education, the Minister for Youth and the Minister assisting the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I think it's worth putting some of this into Hansard. We saw the shadow spokesperson from the opposition benches say today that replacing the activity test was 'fundamentally unfair and divisive'—that removing the activity test was fundamentally unfair and somehow divisive. I don't think there's anything divisive about making sure that children have access to the care and education they need to have the best start in life. We saw, in that same speech, the member say that this government has 'not delivered any new places'. But that's fundamentally untrue. We know that, since this government came to power, there have been 1,083 additional early childhood education and care services put into the sector, with some 30 per cent of those services located outside a major city. Since the election of the Albanese Labor government, there's been an additional 97,000 children accessing the benefits of early learning. That's great news. But we should go further. That's what this bill is about. It's about going further. It's also about knowing that when something didn't work you've got an obligation to fix it. When the former government introduced the activity test in July of 2018, they promised the reforms would 'enable and encourage greater workforce participation and simplify childhood payments'. What we actually saw was an increase in the barriers to workforce participation. It made the system more complicated for families. It made it harder for families to access early childhood education and care. One of the things that makes you proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party is that our commitment to early childhood education and care isn't just one we have in this place; we also see it in state Labor governments. I want to commend the announcement that was made by Premier Roger Cook of Western Australia just last week. It was a huge commitment to transform early childhood education and care in the great state of Western Australia, which is a nation-leading rollout of free full-time kindergarten for four-year-olds. That is a game changer for parents. It's a game changer for children. It's a game changer introducing more capacity into the early childhood education and care system. It is a trial that will commence, should that government be re-elected, on 8 March this year. It will make an incredible difference. It will also show the way for others. Again, I commend my good friend Roger Cook for making that commitment. Finally, in concluding my remarks, I want to say that the Commonwealth is stepping up to the plate when it comes to investing in the next generation of Australians. State and territory governments are stepping up to the plate when it comes to delivering, particularly when it comes to kindergarten. There is also an obligation on local councils. I was deeply disappointed when the City of Perth made the choice—an active decision—to close a childcare centre in the heart of my electorate. They did that purely because they wanted a bit more rent. That was disgraceful. It's something that I think really shows that local governments can sometimes trick themselves into thinking that they are just landlords renting out space. They have an obligation to community service. I'd say to any local government that's thinking of selling off land that's currently used by a childcare centre or closing a childcare centre that they will have strong community opposition to doing that. They can't pass all the responsibility on to the states, the territories and the Commonwealth. Local government has a role to play as well. I want to commend the work that the City of Vincent does under Mayor Alison Xamon when it comes to leadable early childhood education and care. But, again, I just recognise that the fact that we are putting money in is not an excuse, especially for local governments, to pull money out. We all need to find ways to invest more in this sector, to make sure that every child across the country has opportunity. That's what we're doing as well when it comes to the Commonwealth's investments in building new centres across the country, particularly in regional areas in what are referred to as 'childcare deserts'. I would urge every local government to meet their obligations when it comes to investing in early childhood education and care. I commend the bill to the House. 19:08 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman The topic tonight is early childhood education. It's an area in which I've had quite a bit of experience recently. I've spent the last eight years with kids within early childhood education. This is the first year, with my young son moving off to prep, that I'm not having to go to an early childhood education centre on particular mornings of the week or doing the pick-up. During that time, that eight years or near decade in which I was engaging with the system quite regularly, I really gained an appreciation for the sector that I hadn't had before—the amount of care and dedication of the early childhood educators, the passion that those who work in the sector have for it and the enjoyment that kids get out of it. What they learn is far more than what can I teach them at home. They come home with many different perspectives and new skills, and that demonstrates the strength of the Australian early childhood industry. Since I was elected to this place in 2022 I've also had great opportunities to visit and be a guest of so many centres across the Redlands, not just the centres that my kids attended. The opportunity to read a book to children or engage with some of the educators across my city is a wonderful treat, and it's a great privilege that I get to have as the member for Bowman. So any time there is any legislation in this area of early childhood education I'm always interested to see what the implications are going to be for my local parents and my local sector. Unfortunately, when I look at this bill, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, while I see a lot of good intentions, when I dive into the detail I don't think it is really what is required to fix the issues the sector is facing or get the parents the support they need in order to get what they need out of early education. The coalition will be opposing this legislation, and we are doing so for a number of reasons. There are several issues with this bill, including the removal of priority access for working families—and I'll talk a bit more about that later. It also de-incentivises aspiration, it increases access without addressing supply issues, it does nothing to increase the access or flexibility for families and it does not address the current cost-of-living pressures. Of course supply is a major issue, and I find that that's the major issue relating to early education that comes up when I talk to parents and prospective parents across my electorate. We've had some new investment in some new centres, but it's very difficult at times to actually find a spot for kids. It's alright for those who are already in the system or who have the ability to get younger siblings in through some sort of preference system for those centres that have that sort of process, but it's often very difficult to lock in a spot for your kid, even in my electorate, which is outer-suburban. We're by no means a childcare or early education desert, as some communities are, and I've heard a lot of my colleagues talk about the issues they've been facing with a lack of supply within their electorates, not just in relation to this bill but throughout this term. It's concerning that this bill will do nothing to assist those communities. It's hard enough to find a spot within outer-suburban communities. I remember the time when my wife and I were trying to find a spot for our children. Many centres don't even bother responding to your requests, emails, or investigations because they've got that big a waiting list. They've got that much demand and so little capacity to actually supply that demand that it's not even worth their while responding to you. I know that's been the experience, when I'm going door to door in my electorate, that has been felt by many parents. Some are lucky enough to snag a position, but often it's a long way away from the homes of these families. Deputy Speaker Vasta knows well the difficulties for those who work in the inner city of Brisbane and have to commute from Brisbane's bayside—that it can be a great challenge, particularly for those early drop-offs. But thankfully a lot of these early childhood centres are open quite early to allow bayside parents to drop off and head into work. Of course, two-thirds of my electorate head out of my electorate for work each day, and it is a challenge, but it is wonderful to know that you are leaving your children in the care of such dedicated and wonderful professionals. So supply is a major issue, and we're concerned that this bill does not do enough in that area. Now, it would appear that it's only going to increase access for a small number of families, but it will have wide-ranging effects on all families. Families who need early childhood education so they can work will be competing against families who have extra subsidised access but who may not be working, studying or volunteering at all. That's a challenge for us economically. If we've got a parent or a pair of parents who are working hard and are desperate to get their kids into a centre, they're now going to have to compete, on an equal playing field, against parents who are not working or who may not be working or who may be working less. I think it just comes down to a question of basic fairness. I think it makes sense for there to be an activity test. I think it makes sense economically, because we want to encourage people to work and we desperately need more people working in our economy. Also, I think it makes sense from a basic government fairness perspective. Why are we offering such generous subsidies to those who may have greater capacity to look after their children at home against those who don't? We know—we've all had this experience within our electorates—of so many Australian families who are having to take on extra shifts and extra jobs. Young mums who may have wanted to take longer maternity leave are going back earlier because they simply can't afford the impact of the current cost-of-living crisis. We've seen 12 rate increases over the course of this government, and it's become increasingly difficult for Australian families— Mr Buchholz 230531 Crisis after crisis! Mr PIKE 300120 It is crisis after crisis, as the member for Wright interjects. It is crisis after crisis, and we heard a bit of that in question time today. Unfortunately, Labor has failed to address the supply-side constraints, and in fact I think they've made it worse through this bill. Over the last three years, Labor has failed to meaningfully address supply-side constraints. Modelling from the Productivity Commission shows that most of the children affected by the activity test changes live in major cities. Families in thin markets and childcare deserts, who have little or no access at all to child care, will be the most disadvantaged by this move. That's a concern. When we've got a bill that's going to adversely impact regional and remote communities, of course the coalition are going to be deeply concerned about that. We think it's not thought through properly, and we're hoping that the Senate committee that's looking into these issues will have the opportunity to analyse that properly—to do a proper assessment about what the impacts are really going to be. What does this mean for supply? Particularly, what does it mean for supply in regional and remote communities or areas where there are, for other reasons, childcare deserts? One of those areas is the islands in my electorate. I'm blessed to have the Southern Moreton Bay Islands and North Stradbroke Island in my electorate. We've got one child care looking after all the Southern Moreton Bay Islands. Petrae McLean and her team do a wonderful job, but, unfortunately, they get very little support from any level of government in the work that they do. They're often dealing with kids with very complex needs from one of the lowest socioeconomic brackets that we have within Queensland. Yes, we are a stone's throw from the centre of Brisbane, but there is some real disadvantage there. I would like to see the federal government provide a lot more support to centres like that, who are operating on the fringes of our major cities, taking on serious challenges, and doing it with such commitment and with such care for our kids. We also have concern about the lack of flexibility in these changes. Families have a right to choose what their work life and family life look like, and the coalition respects this choice. Labor's three-day guarantee does nothing for families who choose to remain at home and raise their children until primary school or families who use flexible arrangements such as grandparents or nannies, but, of course, all Australians are going to have to pay for the changes. The bill also does nothing for parents who need flexibility, such as families who do shiftwork or work non-standard hours. We're also very concerned about the discrepancy in the costings on this bill. We believe the figure of $426.7 million over five years is very undercooked and the true impact of removing the activity test may not be fully known. The department has been unable to advise how many families are eligible for the CCS but are not enrolling their children or how many families are completely disengaged from the CCS. So it's total guesswork. It seems that they haven't actually got the understanding of what the impact of this policy is going to be, so it becomes very difficult to actually put a dollar figure on it. It seems that, in the final week of parliament, we're just trying to push these things through without having a proper sense of the cost. And, of course, the costings don't account for the groups that I mentioned earlier. What we do know is that the Productivity Commission's 2024 A path to universal early childhood education and care report costed the complete removal of the activity test at $2.3 billion per year. That is a long way from $426.7 million over five years, which is the estimated impact—$2.3 billion per year is obviously a lot more than that. The PC's modelling suggested the complete removal of the activity test would increase hours of early childhood education by four per cent. It also estimated it would lead to a 0.9 per cent decrease in hours worked by sole parents and primary-care parents in coupled families. So we've got very serious concerns about what this is going to cost the taxpayers. We're also concerned about what this is going to mean for parents in terms of affordability. Some sections of the community have labelled the three-day guarantee a cost-of-living measure, but, in reality, it is nothing of the sort. Since Labor came to power, the cost of child care has increased by 22.3 per cent, and this is the lived experience of myself and many other parents of early childhood education students. You get a lovely subsidy increase, and what happens immediately? You get an email from the childcare provider that says, 'We've upped our fees to match that,' and more. The real impact is that it has gone up by 22.3 per cent in this term. The last time Labor was in government, the cost of child care skyrocketed by 53 per cent in six years—my goodness! I'm glad I didn't have kids in child care over that period. Maybe the deputy speaker did. Since Labor's Cheaper Child Care policy came into effect, out-of-pocket costs have increased by 12.7 per cent. That's certainly the message from constituents that I'm hearing loud and clear, particularly from the mums at the various childcare centres that I visit. The majority of families accessing CCS will not see a reduction in their childcare costs because of this legislation. I think in the final few minutes of my contribution, what I might like to do is just quickly reflect on the LNP's record in this regard, because, really, I think the Australian people are going to have to make an assessment. Potentially, this could be the second-last sitting day of the term—we'll see. Very shortly, the Australian people will have to make an assessment as to who is going to look after their best interests in this area of policy. When we were last in government, we almost doubled childcare investment to $11 billion in 2022-23, and locked in ongoing funding for preschools and kindergarteners. We made the biggest reforms to the early childhood education system in over 40 years. More than 1.3 million children had access to the Child Care Subsidy, from about one million families. Under the coalition, 280,000 more children were in early education since the start of the coalition's time in government, and our targeted extra support introduced in March 2022 made a real difference. Childcare costs actually came down 4.6 per cent in the year to June 2022. Because of that—some would say largely because of this—we saw women's workforce participation reach record highs at 62.3 per cent in May 2022, compared to 58.7 per cent when the coalition came to government. When you consider that record and you consider all the changes that were made over the course of those nine years and the impact that was able to have in that sector, and you look at the cost increases that we've seen since this government has come in, despite its strong rhetoric, I think we can make a clear distinction between these records. We're concerned that this bill won't do anything to get the government where it needs to go in reforming this system. 19:23 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Prior to me speaking on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, there are a few Ts and Cs as far as I'm concerned that come from a very personal perspective. I would first of all like to recognise that I come from the bush, in the electorate of Braddon, in the north-west west coast of King Island in Tasmania, where not only are childcare centres rare but they're sparse. But they've got waiting lists that are in the pages in length. We just don't have the positions available in the bush, unfortunately. We don't have the resources. What I would like to say in this place, very sincerely, very honestly and very openly, is that the experience that I've had with the early childhood education sector has been very positive. I look at the care, at the sincerity and at the real genuine leadership that some of these individuals, some of our early childhood educators, provide our young children, and it's second to none. I am astounded by the level of care that is generally available to our youngest and most needy in their formative years. They love our kids, and those kids love them. When you see a young child wanting to go to day care, that is indicative of a wholesome environment, a good environment. As we argue to-and-fro across the chamber here today, I don't want those good folks in our early childhood education sector to feel that it's an indictment on them, because the work, for the most part, that they do is second to none. I take my hat off, and I mean that most sincerely. I myself have a three-year-old daughter. Her name is Elsie, and she's a little handful from time to time, but she absolutely loves going to day care. Her little face lights up as she meets her little friends and puts her lunchbox—which is always chock-a-block full—into the fridge. She comes home tired and sometimes a little grumpy, but she always has a story to tell about her day and what she learnt at day care. It's beautiful. That's the future that I want to see for our early childhood education centres right across the board, and I'm seeing it every day. But, today, we're discussing a different issue. We're discussing what is fundamental to families across Australia—in the bush, in the cities and in between. At first glance, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 might sound like a positive step, but when you look at the detail, the granularity, it becomes clear that this is not about helping working families. It's about Labor playing politics with early education and care. Anybody would think there was an election looming! This bill does not guarantee working families priority access, and that's important. This disincentivises aspiration and it fails to address the supply crisis. I mentioned that earlier, in my opening. These positions just don't exist in the bush. They're not available. How can you incentivise something that isn't there in the first place? It can't materialise out of nothing. There's nothing in this bill that allows for new startups. There's nothing there that helps our early childhood educators develop their skills, their knowledge, their training and their application. There's no streamlining of red tape or green tape in order to build or to start up a new centre. That's what I find troubling. What Labor is proposing is a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't work for all Australian families. The Albanese government has left the coalition with no choice but to oppose this bill, because it does nothing to address the real challenges facing parents and carers alike. Instead of making child care more affordable and accessible for those who need it most, Labor is introducing a politically motivated scheme that will increase competition for places without increasing supply. We all know Economics 101: supply and demand is indicative of price and service. This legislation amends A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and removes the childcare-subsidy activity test, replacing it with a three-day guarantee. What does that mean? Let's look at this in more detail. Starting in January 2026, all families earning up to $533,000 per annum will have access to 72 hours of subsidised childcare per fortnight, regardless and irrespective of whether they are working, studying, volunteering or not engaged in any workforce activity whatsoever. For Indigenous families, this access increases to 100 hours per fortnight. There is no prioritisation for working families, those that want to go about their business or build their own business, for instance. I come from a place where small business is prolific right across the electorate. Often, this is a sole trader business or maybe a partnership. We've got a lot of farmers that work in partnerships, so it's important for them not only for the education of their child but for that child's safety. If that child isn't at day care, that means that child is on the farm, with dangerous equipment. So we also have a safety issue. There is no prioritisation for working families like the ones I'm talking about. This means that those who need early education and care in order to work or to study will be competing for places with families who are not required to work at all. That's what I have issue with. The government estimates that this policy will cost $426.7 million over five years, but this figure doesn't add up. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 98 ADJOURNMENT Health Care 98 19:30 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I rise tonight to speak in relation to health care. In particular, I welcome the government's announcements in recent days about their women's health initiatives. These are really important initiatives, delivering $573 million for women's health: cheaper and better access to oral health contraceptive pills, IUDs and birth-control implants; new Medicare support for women experiencing menopause and perimenopause; new menopause hormone therapies added to the PBS; and more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. As we heard statements this morning from both the assistant minister and the shadow minister in this space, these are bipartisan commitments. They are long overdue commitments to women's health in this country, and something I have felt very passionately about for some time and have advocated for in the last term of this parliament. Through my role of co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Women's Health, along with my friend the late Peta Murphy, we have championed many of these issues in this term of parliament. I've heard from advocates and patients who have experienced longstanding challenges in relation to the many issues that women face over the course of their lifetimes in terms of reproductive health, sexual health and menopause health. I really welcome these announcements and they have been welcomed by local practitioners in my community as well. This also gives me an opportunity to talk about the innovative holistic GP service that exists in my community, called the Bubble. The Bubble is a specialist GP clinic that provides women's health services, including sexual and reproductive health care, prenatal, postnatal and infant care for women and their babies, mental health care, women's physio, and menopause care and support. Founded by Dr Natasha Vavrek in 2021, the clinic has won many awards, and Dr Vavrek is highly respected in Tasmania as a leader in women's health. They have recently opened a new clinic in Hobart, bringing a statewide presence to women's health and a holistic approach to women's health in Tasmania. They're doing something that has, historically, been quite difficult to achieve in Tasmania, but they don't have any trouble attracting GPs. They don't have any difficulty in retaining those GPs. It's a women-centred women-led practice leading the way in an innovative way in Tasmania. These health announcements have the opportunity to build on that innovation that's occurring within local communities like mine. I welcome it, but I would really like to put on record and encourage the government—or whomever may be in government going forward—to keep an eye on these things and to consider the implementation and how they are working, and be open to that, as they roll out, particularly on the ground in communities like mine. In rural and regional communities there can be some additional complexities when it comes to the implementation of some of these programs, so I urge that the government continue to focus on that and to pay attention to that implementation as it rolls through. The Bubble have said publicly that they welcome these announcements. They'd like to see things go further, but they do say that some of these things will be gamechanging for women who have had to put up with symptoms—particularly in the menopause space, because they can't afford access to some of those medications. Again, let's keep an eye on it and make sure that access to those medications is available and that we don't have supply shortages as it rolls out. While we're acknowledging the great work that has been done, I acknowledge the work that the government has done in relation to urgent care clinics. The urgent care clinic in Launceston has welcomed many people. Again, while I'm paying credit where it is due, I do want to make the case that we cannot take our eye off the ball and suggest that urgent care is a substitute for good primary care practice. What we are seeing in Tasmania is people accessing care through an urgent care clinic because there's nothing else available. So I think we really need to continue to keep our focus on primary health care and make sure that people have access to that service as well. Health Care 99 19:35 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce Today, I would like to address a need in my community of Yanchep in the federal seat of Pearce, and that is the establishment of a Medicare urgent care clinic. As our population is expected to double by 2030, the demand for accessible health care services is becoming increasingly urgent. Currently, Yanchep residents face long travel times to access essential medical services. The nearest facilities often require a lengthy journey, which can be particularly challenging for families with young children or elderly members. An urgent care clinic would provide immediate care for non-life-threatening conditions without the need for an appointment. This means that, when a child has a fever or an adult has anything from a minor injury to something a bit more serious, they can receive timely treatment close to home. Accessing health care quickly is a fundamental right that we should ensure for all community members, and the Albanese Labor government is fully aware of this and committed to addressing it. As a breast cancer survivor, I understand firsthand the importance of accessible health care. My journey through cancer treatment has made me acutely aware of the challenges patients face when seeking timely medical attention. This experience has driven my commitment to improve healthcare accessibility in our local communities. Living in the northern suburbs of Perth and having to travel the long distance daily to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Perth for my cancer treatment, I identified the need for local treatment options and played an intrinsic part in establishing Shenton House in Joondalup with Sue Dash, a local resident, business owner and fellow cancer survivor, as well as our oncologist, Dr Nigel Spry. This centre now provides vital imaging and oncology services in support of patients in the northern suburbs and has become a local beacon of hope for many. Establishing an urgent care clinic will work in parallel with the need for a hospital in Yanchep. It is an essential first step. This clinic would serve as a critical bridge in our healthcare system, addressing immediate medical needs while planning for a future hospital. By providing urgent care services now, we can alleviate the pressure on existing healthcare facilities—bearing in mind the time it would take to construct a hospital. I also worked diligently with Professor Cobie Rudd from the Edith Cowan University as we identified the important need for additional local medical facilities. The ECU Health Centre in Yanchep East was established and opened in August last year. I look forward to turning the sod for the next stage next week on 20 February 2025. We must also consider the financial implications of healthcare access. Many families face unexpected medical expenses that strain their budget. The Medicare urgent care clinics bulk-bill, making them a more affordable option for many residents. In addition to convenience and cost-effectiveness, Medicare urgent care clinics provide a broad range of services. They can manage everything from sprains and fractures to infections and asthma attacks. Many clinics are equipped with onsite laboratories and pharmacies, allowing patients to receive comprehensive care in one location. This is the kind of service and efficiency we need in Yanchep. I was very pleased to successfully advocate for the Medicare urgent care clinic in Clarkson, which has clearly demonstrated that urgent care clinics alleviate pressure on our hospital emergency departments. That was done shortly after I was elected to this position in 2022. By offering an alternative for non-emergency situations, we can ensure that our emergency rooms remain available for those who truly require critical care. In conclusion, establishing a Medicare urgent clinic in Yanchep is not merely a convenience; it is a necessity for our growing community. It promises accessible, cost-effective health care whilst alleviating pressure on existing facilities and enhancing public health outcomes. By investing in this initiative now, we are taking the crucial first step towards building a future where every resident has access to quality health care when they need it the most, whilst also paving the way for the provision of a hospital in Yanchep that will clearly serve our community's long-term needs in what is one of the largest and fastest growing areas in Australia. Valedictory 100 19:40 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff It's quite hard to believe that we're nearing the end of the 47th parliament. It seems like yesterday that I came to this place in 2019 and again in 2022, and I'm very proud to be the member for Moncrieff and advocate for you, my community, and, of course, for the Liberal National Party values of equality of opportunity, reward for effort and freedom of association and conscience. We're the party of free markets and trade, lower taxes and smaller government and the party for families and small business and for fairness and personal responsibility of the individual. The Gold Coast is many things to many people. It's the home of sand, surf, sunshine, boating and theme parks. It's a tourism mecca—the nightlife of surfers paradise and our city's villages, shining lights and fast cars, construction and cranes on the skylines, sports and entertainment events, education and international students, the health and knowledge precinct, manufacturing and the arts, and great coffee and hospitality offerings. It really is a great place for a family holiday. My experience as a Gold Coaster for 24 years now is community, and that means belonging to something special, looking after our own and giving back a sum greater than any one person. And how does my community achieve that? Well, we are the home of the entrepreneur, and entrepreneurs have a generosity of spirit. And, of course, we're the small-business capital of Australia, so we give back to those who need help. I want to thank the many entrepreneurs who give to those in our city. I want to thank the many charities and foundations—and the chambers of commerce also for the work that they do—who help with food security and with families who now have mortgages and their childcare fees have gone up and everything else that they're paying for has gone up under this government. There are many charities who are helping out on the ground. I also want to thank our volunteer Surf Life Saving clubs. I've got nine of those, and you are the glue that holds our community together at the beach. Thank you for the lives that you save every year. I want to thank my community cabinet, which is a plethora, if you like, of faith leaders, community organisations and not-for-profits in my electorate that come together regularly in my office and also off site in their churches and their community halls to meet and to share what's going on in the community. I've had that community cabinet now for nearly six years, and we've managed to do a lot of work together, which is great. I want to thank the Sea World Foundation and Karen Phillips for their support for the IMPACT Gold Coast Youth Summit. I have an announcement tonight to all of those young people on the Gold Coast. If you live on the Gold Coast and you're 15 to 24 years old, you can come to the IMPACT Gold Coast Youth Summit this year, which is on 6 and 7 June. It's the third one that I've delivered as the shadow minister for youth but also for my local community, of course. I want to thank the sporting clubs, like the Titans NRL club, the SUNS AFL club and the Surfers Paradise Baseball Club. Baseball, AFL, NRL, netball, pickle ball, croquet, tennis, bowls, golf, swimming, skateboarding, BMX—we've got gold medals in every single one of those sports probably on the Gold Coast. We raise champions on the Gold Coast. There's no doubt about that. I've got three RSL sub-branches. I've got about 3½ thousand veterans in Moncrieff. I want to thank you for your service and your dedication to our community as well. To our Men's Sheds, Rotary clubs, Lions, Apex and Probus, thank you for what you do. I've got 33 schools that I try and get to every year and visit. I particularly enjoyed over the last term visiting Benowa State High School and St Hilda's School and doing saxophone workshops with their bands. I really very much enjoyed that. Thanks for having me. To the multicultural communities in Moncrieff—MFO, GCMCC and TMC—who work so hard with new migrants and our community as well, like the GOPIO community, the Chinese community, the Filipino community and the Indigenous community. Uncle John Graham, thank you for what you do for our community. I want to thank my shadow portfolio staff and my EO staff, my neighbours and my friends and, especially, my family for putting up with me not being there. As the grandchildren grow up, you miss some of that. To finish, I just want to outline what I promised to you when I was first elected—that is, a leader who listens, who cares and who will speak with vigour and courage on your behalf when national debates arise; a leader who will affect your goals and aspirations and your trials and challenges; and a person who understands your struggles, your disappointments, your blessings and your triumphs. But, most importantly, I promise to put your needs before all else. That is my pledge to you. I hope to continue to do that after the next federal election, which is marching forward very quickly, so I can keep fighting for my community and keep fighting to get our country back on track. Hunter Electorate 101 19:45 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter On the day that I was lucky enough to be elected as the member for Hunter, I made a commitment to the people to work hard every single day and deliver for my electorate. As I have made my way around the electorate, talking to people and talking to local small-business owners, I have heard what people need and what people want. You often hear a lot of promises from politicians, but actually delivering is really the only thing that counts. That is what I have been focused on doing: delivering. In the past few years I have been able to deliver things that I hope have truly changed people's lives for the better, things like pay rises, free TAFE, cheaper medicines and cheaper child care. But the one that stands out the most to me is the introduction of same job, same pay. Just a couple of years ago, thousands in the mining industry in the Hunter were being ripped off. They were being paid less while doing the same job as the person next to them. Now, because of same job, same pay, thousands of miners are receiving tens of thousands of dollars extra, and there are still applications underway. This means thousands in the Hunter can go home feeling more secure about their jobs. They can get a loan to pay off a home. The opportunity to live their life the way that they want is right there in front of them because not only are they being paid what they deserve but many have secured full-time work as well. This is the fundamental purpose of the Labor Party—looking out for workers and delivering them a better life. This is what our party was born to do and this is what we have achieved for many in my electorate. It's not only people in mining who have benefited in the last three years. More than 7,000 new full-time jobs have been created in the Hunter electorate. This is only the start because we are bringing back Australian manufacturing with programs like the $1 billion Solar Sunshot program. This means more well-paid, secure jobs for the Hunter. We have also been able to deliver almost $1 billion for key infrastructure projects like the Singleton and Muswellbrook bypasses and the Mandalong Road upgrade, changing the way that people move around the Hunter, getting them out of the traffic and home from work quicker and safer so they can be with their families. We also helped to get an Optus tower built in Laguna, giving people in that area access to phone reception for the first time, giving them telecommunications like they've never had before. Something that has been a big focus is making sure that people can have access to health care when they need it. Your access to health care should not depend on how much money is in your bank account. We have delivered the Cessnock Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, restored the hours to the Toronto GP after-hours clinic, delivered two Medicare mental health clinics across the electorate and tripled bulk-billing incentives for GPs to deliver more bulk-billing in the Hunter. All of this would not have been possible without the support from our amazing ministers. I know you all work hard and I know that I probably increase your workload, but thank you for always listening to what we need to make sure the people in the Hunter are getting their fair share. To the people of Hunter that put their trust in me as their representative in Canberra, I have worked hard every day to repay you for that trust. I know there is always more that can be done and the work never stops. I look back with pride on all that we have achieved. I hope that the people of Hunter can look back on the past few years and feel like their lives have been impacted in a positive way. My job is to make a difference in people's lives, whether it is through improving access to health, infrastructure and road upgrades, better pay and conditions at work or being able to save a bit of money when you are sending the kids to child care, I hope I have been able to achieve this in some way or another. I feel privileged to call our amazing part of the world home. It is an honour of a lifetime to be able to represent the amazing people that live in the Hunter. You can mark my words that every single day that I am the member for Hunter I will keep working my backside off to deliver for you and our area to make sure we are never left behind. Very shortly, we will go to an election. I just want to say thank you to everyone who has put their faith and trust in me to be in this building and be your big loud voice and representative here in Canberra. As I said in my speech, it has been the honour of my lifetime. Thank you. We will go to the polls again soon. I really hope that you can find it in your hearts and see that we've done a pretty good job for the area and that we've always been out there fighting for you to make sure the Hunter never gets forgotten about. I will always do that. I will continue to do that. Thank you very much for putting your support in me. I look forward to going to an election and hopefully being here again once the election is finished. Live Animal Exports 102 19:50 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor On Monday I met with a delegation of Moroccan government officials and importers who travelled to Western Australia following the recent signing of a new trade protocol. The signing between Australia and Morocco allows for the live export of Australian sheep, goats and cattle to the North African nation. This signing is a great step forward for sheep farmers, particularly in my electorate of O'Connor, who have been doing it tough following the appalling ban of live sheep exports by the Albanese government. Given the significance of the signing, you would be hard pressed to find any mention of the deal by the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, or by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Julie Collins. Instead, the announcement was made by the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, while the Albanese Government chose not to mention it. This Moroccan delegation was about strengthening the relationship between our two nations and, in particular, supporting Morocco's food security. Morocco is a country of 38 million people whose national sheep flock has been decimated by years of drought. The delegation sees the live export of sheep from Australia as being integral to the reliable supply of high-quality protein for their 38 million people. As I met with the delegation I had a moment of clarity both as an MP and as a farmer that this is what it is all about. As an MP, it's my job to create relationships and opportunities for my constituents. In my electorate of O'Connor, the WA live sheep trade is vital to my regional communities—the farmers, the shearers, the stock agents and the livestock transporters. As a farmer, it's about growing food and feeding not only Australians but the world. If I and many other farmers can help feed some of the 38 million Moroccan people, then we should, and we should take great pride in it. Those sitting opposite have claimed to be global leaders on issues critical to the world. When it comes to climate, they have not missed an opportunity to add a heavy burden to the Australian taxpayer in pursuit of being a global leader. When it comes to the fundamental job of putting food on the table for families not just here in Australia but around the world, this government has been found wanting. This government is choosing to deny the Moroccan people a source of safe, fresh, disease-free and stress-free sheepmeat from some of the best farmers in the world. No sooner will we establish a new and trusted supply chain than those opposite will strip it away and cause irreparable damage to our international reputation. Those opposite will continue to argue that the live export ban doesn't come into effect until 2028 and farmers will have time to transition. That is both ill-informed and disrespectful to the sheep farmers and industry participants across the country. The President of WoolProducers Australia, Steve Harrison, said the wool industry was facing a crisis and the effects of the ban were already being felt across the country. Well-regarded agricultural market analyst Episode 3 has also warned of the drastic impact that this would have on the sector, yet the government chose to ignore it. The government has also ignored Sheep Producers Australia's advice on the role of the transition advocate. Instead of providing genuine support to the sector it is destroying, the transition advocate is merely a mouthpiece for bad government policy. Why does this government continue to ignore the very industry it says it's trying to help transition? Even last week, the government failed to let industry groups and farmers know about its supposed co-design consultations throughout my electorate of O'Connor. It is yet another example of the contempt this government has for Australia's farmers. When I met with the Moroccan delegation, I was proud to inform them that a Dutton led government would overturn this nonsensical ban and assist their pursuit for food security. A Dutton led government will continue to export sheep to nations that cannot produce enough food to feed their own people. We look forward to growing trade with Morocco. We will export our quality Australian genetics and nutritious protein to provide food security for their country. We can do this at the same time as supporting Australian farmers and regional communities, as we were elected to do. I urge all Australians at the upcoming election to #keepthesheep. Robertson Electorate: Australia Day Honours and Awards 103 19:54 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge eight outstanding Australians from my electorate of Robertson who have this year received 2025 Australia Day honours. The Australian honours and awards system recognises the outstanding service and contributions of Australians. Recipients come from right across the country and from all walks of life. While some are well known, the majority are unsung heroes. While typically they haven't sought thanks or recognition, they deserve both. The honours and awards system gives Australians a chance to celebrate and acknowledge those who work tirelessly to improve local communities and to make Australia a better place, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognise each of these eight recipients who have dedicated themselves consistently and tirelessly in their respective fields. The Robertson 2025 Australia Day honours recipients include Mr Matthew Formston AM of Wamberal, who has been appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to people with a disability and to para sports. Matt Formston is no ordinary athlete. With less than three per cent vision, he is a world champion surfer, an Australian Paralympian, cyclist, author, executive coach and international keynote speaker. Matt's extraordinary journey includes surfing giant waves as a blind athlete, documented in the feature documentary The Blind Sea, and running clinics for visually impaired children to embrace the ocean's freedom. His impact extends to launching the award-winning children's book Surfing in the Dark and winning prestigious surfing awards, including a Guinness World Record for the largest wave. Matt is a relentless force, breaking barriers and inspiring worldwide. The next recipient is Professor Julie Redfern AM of Terrigal, who has been appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to cardiology, allied health, research and education, and the community. Julie Redfern AM is a professor of public health and the 2022 New South Wales Woman of Excellence. Julie is also a physiotherapist, director of the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University, a member of the board of the World Heart Federation and a member of the Cardiac Society of Australia the New Zealand Scientific Committee. The next recipient is Emeritus Professor Joe Wolfe AM of Point Frederick, who was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to tertiary education and to music. Professor Joe Wolfe is a physicist, composer and professor at the University of New South Wales. He has worked as a postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University, at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO, and the Australian National University. As well as his research, Joe composes music for symphony orchestras and chamber ensembles. Mr Michael Buettner OAM of Terrigal has received the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the community and to sport. Michael is an Australian Rugby League official and was a professional footballer in the 1990s and 2000s. An Australian international and New South Wales State of Origin representative back, he has played club football for the North Sydney Bears, the Northern Eagles, the Parramatta Eels and Wests Tigers. The late Mr Frank Davis OAM of Kincumber South has posthumously received a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to veterans and their families. There is also Dr Karen Douglas OAM of Avoca Beach, who has received a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to medicine as a general practitioner and to the community. Karen has worked as a GP and a practice owner of the Terrigal and Avoca Beach medical centres since 1990 and is a strong advocate for patients and their families, GPs, and other health professionals. There is also Mrs Amanda Noffs OAM of MacMasters Beach, who has received a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to youth through health services. Amanda Noffs is involved with Life Education Australia and the Ted Noffs Foundation. She helped to establish Australia's first drug treatment program for adolescents, in partnership with the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. Finally, there is Ms Ellen Davies ASM of Green Point, who has received an Ambulance Service Medal, which recognises distinguished service as a member of an Australian ambulance service. I say again: huge congratulations to each of our Robertson 2025 Australia Day honours recipients. Thank you for all of the work that you do in our communities and for making the Central Coast and, indeed, the nation a better place for all. House adjourned at 19 : 59 NOTICES 103 NOTICES Presentation 103 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 104 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Medical Workforce 104

Wednesday, 12 February 2025

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Archer) took the chair at 09:29.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 105 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Albury Wodonga Health 105 09:29 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Regional Australians experience worse health outcomes and lower life expectancy than those in metropolitan Australia. This inequity has persisted for generations, and it is entirely unacceptable. This is why I will never ever stop fighting for a greenfield single-site hospital at Albury-Wodonga. Albury Wodonga Health is the largest health service between Sydney and Melbourne and the only cross-border health service in the country, and it's stretched across two separate hospital campuses. As the population on the border grows, Albury Wodonga Health is only going to get busier. By 2040, we will need a hospital capable of handling 150,000 emergency presentations, 40,000 surgeries and 1,900 births every single year. In 2021, future challenges were recognised when Albury Wodonga Health's Clinical services plan found splitting service delivery across two campuses created significant risks to patient safety. It recommended in black and white that Albury Wodonga Health should and must consolidate services to a single site. In October 2022, just prior to two state elections, the New South Wales and Victorian premiers flew into Albury and announced $558 million to redevelop the current Albury hospital. I cautiously welcomed this announcement. I didn't want to let the perfect get in the way of the good. But we know now this announcement is nowhere near good and nowhere near enough. In 2018, the New South Wales government spent $723 million to build Tweed Valley Hospital for a catchment size similar to ours. In 2022, the Victorian government committed up to $675 million to build a new greenfield hospital in West Gippsland to service 60,000 people. Why then would the state governments only allocate $225 million each to our region of 300,000 people? Our worries were confirmed. A letter sent from Albury Wodonga Health's chief executive and chair to the state health ministers was revealed. It stated that the $558 million 'will not deliver the government's policy intent of a single-site hospital'. It's not just about the money. There isn't enough land on the intended site to build a bigger hospital with more theatres, more beds and enough car parking in an area with virtually no public transport. I acknowledge the Albury and Wodonga mayors met with the Victorian Minister for Health only yesterday but were disappointed in the outcome of the meeting. The case was clear in 2021, and it's still clear in 2025. We need a greenfield single-site hospital on the border. The states can't deliver this alone, and the Commonwealth government must come to the table. Grant McBride Baths, Wyong District Tennis Association, Central Coast Food Manufacturing Innovation Hub 105 09:32 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Like so many locals growing up on the coast, I spent many long, hot summers swimming at the Entrance Ocean Baths with my brothers and sister. In 2018, our family was honoured when the Central Coast Council unanimously voted to rename the baths after my late father, Grant, in recognition of his campaign to save, restore and heritage list the baths in the early 2000s for our community. Before the last election, I committed to $250,000 towards the ocean baths as part of a broader $1 million package to revitalise the Entrance. Work has included new shade sails and upgrades to the clubhouse. New pumps and pipes have now significantly improved water quality, and I've heard from many locals when I'm at the baths myself who've told me what a difference this has made for regular swimmers; for visitors; for the Tuggerah Tuffs, which my father was a proud patron of; and for the Entrance Amateur Swimming Club. Towards the end of last year, the community came together to celebrate these upgrades. My brother Nick joined the swimming race, cheered on by his No. 1 fan, my mum, Barbie. A special thank you to my brother Iggi, who cooked the excellent barbecue, which was enjoyed by everybody. I'm proud to have delivered on my election commitment of $100,000 for Wyong Tennis to resurface their main courts. I recently joined the Wednesday ladies tennis for a match, and they told me how much upgrades have improved play and safety and encouraged new members to join the club. Wyong Tennis has, for over a century, been a place for people to meet, play and stay active. It was the first place where I learnt to play tennis, and I'm so proud to have been able to make this commitment to Wyong District Tennis Association. I want to thank Leoni Baldwin from the tennis club for the work that she's done on behalf of that club and our community. In case you didn't know, when it comes to food manufacturing, it's all happening on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Australian and globally recognised brands, like Sanitarium and Mars, produce some of our country's most beloved pantry staples and snacks right in the heart of my community. I'm so proud that, working alongside Central Coast Industry Connect and the University of Newcastle, I've been able to secure more than $17 million for the Ourimbah food manufacturing hub. This is government working together with industry and research to be able to provide significant investment in a quality project that will create hundreds of jobs in one of the biggest sectors in our community. Recently—just before Christmas, in fact—I had the opportunity to visit stage 1 of the hub, which has opened at the university's Ourimbah Campus, and work is well under way on the permanent home nearby. I congratulate Frank Zammit, Central Coast Industry Connect and all who have been part of this project. Lindsay Electorate 106 09:35 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Since being re-elected in May 2022, it has been a really amazing three years working alongside the community of Lindsay for our fair share. There have certainly been a lot of fights along the way—that is, fighting against what the Albanese Labor government is trying to do to my community when it comes to ripping away infrastructure funding and having a complete disregard for the people who live there. Together the people of Lindsay and I have continued to fight against the Albanese Labor government's go-slow on Dunheved Road. The Labor Party promised to fast-track the upgrade of Dunheved Road, and they did this during the 2022 election campaign to try to win the seat. However, it is now two years behind schedule—a broken promise to the people of Lindsay. We've also fought against cuts to Mulgoa Road and semirural roads leading to the Western Sydney airport. The government just doesn't understand the coalition's vision for our new airport and the opportunities it will bring to the people of Western Sydney. We need investment in the roads that will connect Western Sydney to our new airport. We want Mulgoa Road finished, as committed to by the Albanese Labor government. It is not right that they have taken away funding to finish the job properly. Thank you to everyone who has been vocal about restoring funding for this vital project to decongest our roads around Glenmore Park, Regentville and Jamisontown. Our community has been frustrated—and that's probably a mild way to put it—on the issue of flight paths to and from the Western Sydney airport. Since the Labor government came into office, people have had nothing but contempt from this government, or disregard for what is right. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government put out a midnight media release rather than coming to Penrith and speaking to people about the impacts of the flight paths on our community. We are the most impacted electorate. There were, of course, beneficial changes for the Blue Mountains, represented by Labor. These decisions should not be political but based on strong community consultation. On a positive note, there have been many great community events, including celebrating the Luddenham Show, the Penrith Christmas tree lighting and so much more. We have had rallies on the Voice in St Marys and roundtables on women's health, small business, manufacturing and housing. A highlight was restoring the Emu Plains Anzac Day ceremony alongside the Emu Plains Lions, the Nepean Historical Society, Penrith RSL members, the Girl Guides, Emu Plains churches and our piper, Tim Badger. I will always fight for our amazing community, from Londonderry to Luddenham and Regentville to Colyton. Schools 106 09:38 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to talk about the importance of properly funding public education. Public education plays such an important role in ensuring that all Australians have the best opportunities and the best start in life to pursue whatever it is that they want, and that journey begins at school with their amazing teachers. I was proud to attend public schools here in the ACT, and what I got from that was the message that anyone can achieve anything. I had amazing teachers, and now my son, who has just started year 2, and my daughter, who has just started preschool, have amazing teachers in our public school system here in the ACT. The Gonski review set out a clear objective to ensure that every Australian school was funded to meet the needs of the students based on a range of school characteristics. It is a simple principle that schools should have the resources to give every child the best possible start in life. That is why Labor have always championed full and fair funding for our public schools, and I am so proud that our Albanese Labor government, through the leadership of the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, are delivering the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, which wants to see every public school around this country fully funded. This will mean an extra $16 billion of additional investment put on the table for states and territories to agree to. I'm proud to say that the ACT has already signed this agreement. This means an extra $110½ million of funding for ACT public schools over the next five years. I'm also proud to say that, thanks to the ACT Labor government and ACT minister Yvette Berry, the ACT was already fully funded to 100 per cent of needs based funding. The ACT was the only jurisdiction in Australia to do that, and that's because we understand the importance. This is one of the most important things governments can do to ensure the best for our constituents and all Australians. This additional funding will put extra funding into schools in my electorate and the ACT to ensure that every child has the best start and that teachers are supported to do what they do best. It will ensure that every student has the tools that they need to catch up, keep up, and finish school, and engaging students early where they might need a little extra support. It's about making sure that every child, no matter their circumstances or where they live, have the support they need to get the best out of their education. I thank the minister and our government. This is a fantastic investment for Australia. Flinders Electorate: Health Care 107 09:41 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders Last week, I had the honour of officially opening the new comprehensive cancer centre at the Bays Hospital on Main Street, Mornington. It was built with funds provided by the coalition government back in 2019. This new facility will provide radiation oncology, a day infusion centre, a 20-30 bed inpatient facility, a consultation and education space for both breast and prostate cancer support nurses, and education and meeting spaces for community and general practitioners. It will change the lives of local cancer patients. It's a one-stop-shop for all cancer related services that's much closer to home, avoiding the daily, weekly or, in some cases, fortnightly commute to Frankston or, in the cases of many families, including my own, to Melbourne to obtain specialist oncology care. The wellness centre was completed with a generous $600,000 donation from Community Bank Mount Martha, a branch of the Bendigo Bank. It provides a space for support groups and things like yoga and other bits and pieces. I thank Bruce Ranken, board chair and now a local councillor, for everything this extraordinary bank/branch does for our community. From health care to sporting facilities to local events and festivals, the peninsula would not be paradise without this little bank. The Bays has partnered with Icon Cancer Care to bring the very latest in radiation oncology services to the peninsula, giving us access to this top-tier treatment. David Blakey gave me a tour of the facility. He showed me the extraordinary equipment, including the HyperArc, which will make diagnosis and treatment safe, comfortable, precise and quick. The HyperArc delivers radiation therapy and, through its devices, it can accurately target multiple tumours while ensuring limited doses of radiation go to surrounding healthy brain tissue, reducing the impact of side effects compared to traditional radiation on the brain, including headaches and hair loss, therefore contributing to general wellbeing and confidence in one's treatment. The CEO of Icon, Mark Middleton, joined us as the opening, together with the patron saint of this project and my dear good friend Professor the Hon. Greg Hunt, the former Minister for Health and former member for Flinders. Cancer care is vital to my community. Twenty-five per cent of all Australian cancer diagnoses occur in Victoria, and the risk of developing cancer doubles between the ages of 50 and 60 and 60 and 70. Almost 90,000 people in my electorate have private health care. We also hold the record of having the highest private health insurance benefits per member. This important facility will be used and valued by our community in this much loved, community based, not-for-profit hospital, where generations of peninsula families have gone through births, breaks, bouts of disease, cancer and end-of-life care. I congratulate the Bays CEO, Jade Phelan, and chair of the board, Brett Gallagher, for continuing exceptional care and leadership of this enduring local institution. This investment, together with the $2.6 million investment into Alexandra Park Pavilion, which I opened last August, and the Rosebud Cancer and Clinical Trials Hub, the opening of which I attended with Greg Hunt in December 2021, is hard-won by the community of Flinders— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 09:44 to 09:54 Perth Electorate 107 09:54 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Perth sent me to this place in 2022 to turn our local values into national results, and every day of this term that is exactly what I have done. My community believes in the opportunity that comes from a great education. The investments that we are making in education in Perth are making a difference now and well into the future. You can't walk through the Perth electorate without seeing the iconic ECU City Campus springing to life out of the ground. In 2023 I was honoured to be there for the sod-turning ceremony, and next year students will arrive to start or complete their education in everything from business and IT through to the performing arts. If those students are at that campus and they have a student loan, they will get 20 per cent off their student debt under a re-elected Albanese Labor government. It's the same story for student loans for anyone who's studying at Northbridge TAFE, East Perth TAFE, Mount Lawley TAFE or Leederville TAFE. We're not just delivering for those in their tertiary studies. We're delivering for our littlest learners—investing in early childhood education centres such as Casa Mia Montessori School, Yokine Community Playgroup and others—through the delivery of our cheaper childcare policy and what we are doing in parliament this fortnight: delivering the legislation that will see the abolition of the unfair and unnecessary childcare subsidy activity test and making sure that three days of subsidised early childhood education is available for every child in Perth who needs it. Similarly, we have funded our local primary schools, delivering bespoke funding for schools like Osborne Primary School, Maylands Peninsula Primary School, St Paul's Catholic Primary School, Ashfield Primary School and Australian Islamic College Dianella. It was an honour to be there with the Minister for Education, the Prime Minister and Premier Roger Cook last year as we signed the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement for Western Australia to fully find our public schools across the great state. Then it comes to the importance of the value of fairness, and there's nothing fairer than making sure people have access to health based on need rather than how much money they have in the bank. It's that value of fairness that we have delivered by opening the Morley urgent care clinic on Rudloc Road. More than 10,000 of my constituents have walked through the doors of that urgent care clinic to get the care that they need. At the same time, it's taking pressure off Royal Perth Hospital and St John of God Midland Public Hospital, amongst others. This term, we opened headspace Osborne Park to support young people in Perth who are managing their mental health and to give them the support they need and deserve. We have opened the Morley-Ellenbrook line, making sure that we delivered on a train line that had been promised by so many sides of politics for so long. It was opened by federal and state Labor governments, delivering on our commitment to deliver for public transport across Perth. Fairfax Electorate: Small Business 108 09:57 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I am deeply concerned about small businesses across the Sunshine Coast. Many of them are struggling enormously. Unless you yourself are directly involved in a small business, you often don't know how hard they're doing it. We see 'for lease' signs right across the region, but these empty shops are only really the tip of the iceberg. We know that right across Australia, under this Labor government, 27,000 businesses have gone under. That's 27,000 businesses that have gone insolvent. The Sunshine Coast is not immune to that. In fact, we've been directly in the firing line. According to ASIC data, the sector of the economy that has been most impacted is the construction sector, constituting about 27 per cent of all insolvencies. If you look at the Sunshine Coast, the sector which has the highest number of registered businesses is the construction sector. In other words, our biggest sector with the most businesses is the very sector most impacted by Labor government policy and the rate of insolvencies. ASIC say that the second most impacted sector is accommodation, food and hospitality. Again, that's a major sector on the Sunshine Coast, which is why so many of our residents, amidst a cost-of-living crisis, are doing it especially tough, because they either own a small business or they work for a small business. Those who aren't closing their doors are struggling enormously. They're on their knees trying to make ends meet. For the coalition's part, this is why we have been unashamedly pro small business, ensuring we have plans to help small business. As part of that, we have announced that we will be extending the asset value eligible for the instant asset write-off up to $30,000 and making it permanent. We'll be introducing a capped deduction of up to $20,000 for business related meal expenses, giving our hospitality sector the real boost it needs. On industrial relations, we'll be reversing the damaging aspects of Labor's complex industrial relations reforms, including returning to a simple definition of a 'casual worker'. In other areas, we'll be cutting red tape, we'll be making energy cheaper, cleaner and more consistent. We need to return to the days where small businesses are treated with the respect they deserve. That's what a coalition government will do. McEwen Electorate 108 10:00 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Talking about small business, I'll remind the member opposite that it was them, their government, that actually removed the small business asset write-off until we stood up and fought and got it back. Today, I rise as the proud member for McEwen, the community and the place where I've lived most of my adult life. As a local to our area, I was affected by the endless cuts and empty promises by successive Liberal-National governments. I spend every day driving around the roads in our electorate, spending time in our communities and watching my grandkids grow up there. I know the devastating impact the years of neglect by the Liberals have had on our community. The coalition was too busy funding things like North Sydney swimming pools under regional grants or carpark rort schemes to look after our community. Being a local, I've had many conversations about the need for infrastructure and ongoing investment in our community, unlike the coalition, who treat our electorate as a place to put their seat-shopping candidates from outside McEwen. They drop in, make promises, fly in, fly out, go away, and then nothing happens. Whether it was the deterioration of our roads or the collapse of government services—Victoria was cut down to seven per cent of infrastructure funding—this shows the record of the previous coalition government's inability to look after and work for our people. No-one will be better off under a coalition government. That's just a fact. With the Liberals being antiworker, with a history of not being proactive or taking responsibility, their ideology did irreversible harm to our communities, simply because they did not do their job. Since the Albanese Labor government has been elected, our area is finally getting the federal investment we need. In this term alone, we have seen record investment into the electorate. We've seen a massive commitment by the federal Albanese Labor government to create safer roads within our community, whether it be $90 million for Watson Street ramps, $280 million for the Yan Yean Road stage 2 or another $900 million for Camerons Lane interchange Beveridge Intermodal Precinct, which means jobs in our community. I'm continuing to work with local councils to push the Victorian state government to promptly use this funding to deliver these projects. As someone who does a lot of driving in the electorate, I get the frustration about the quality of our road, and I look forward to seeing the federal funding make roads safer, after nine years of neglect. We've seen mobile phone towers go up in Donnybrook, Wollert, Bulleen, Yuroke, Goldie, Woodend and two in Gisborne South, filling crucial gaps in connectivity within our community, particularly in times of disaster. I remember the coalition government making multiple appeals for ministers to look past the politics and see the real need for this funding. We even secured coalition agreements that got killed in their multiple leadership fights, leaving our community at risk. We are delivering on our electorate commitments, with $15 million to Macedon Ranges Sports Precinct, $5.5 million for Mitchell Shire roads, $5.5 million for Macedon Ranges roads, $1.5 million for the Doreen Splash Park, $1.5 million for Diamond Creek Outdoor Pool and half a million dollars for the Lower Greenhills reserve upgrade. This scratches the surface of what our government is doing, including restoring doctors' payments to make it cheaper and easier to see a doctor. Australia Day Awards 109 10:04 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Australia Day is more than just a public holiday; it's a time to reflect on our history, appreciate our freedoms and celebrate the values that unite us. Each year the Australia Day Awards shine a light on the quiet achievers, those who dedicate their time, energy and passion to helping others without seeking recognition. Through volunteer work, community service, environmental efforts, sporting achievements or cultural contributions, these individuals and groups strengthen the fabric of our society. I attended a number of Australia Day award events across the electorate of Dawson, and I'm honoured to congratulate a long list of winners. Award recipients for Mackay were Citizen of the Year Rebecca Cooper; Young Citizen of the Year Murray Macgroarty; Lori Burgess Community Volunteer of the Year Bonnie Spratt; Brenden Borellini Access and Inclusion Achievement Award winner Peter Sumpter; senior sports award winner Lutie van den Berg; young sports award winner Monique Bobongie; arts and culture award winner Steven Pritchard; environmental achievement award winner Maya Harrison; and community group award winner the North Mackay Sinkers. Awards recipients for Whitsundays were Citizen of the Year Matt Stokes; Young Citizen of the Year Cooper Groocock; mayoral award winners Dr Arthur Trezise, Brittaney O'Brien and Susan Gravelle; Volunteer of the Year Natasha O'Neil; community group award winner the Whitsunday Brahmans; senior sportsperson award winner Michael Kimpton; young sportsperson award winner Jure Portelli; environmental achievement award winner Eco Barge Clean Seas—well done, Libby; arts and cultural award winner Seagrass Theatre and Music Company; and Suzanne Connors and Kevin Maude, who received Australia Day achievement awards for outstanding members of Queensland SES. Award recipients for Burdekin were Citizen of the Year Scott McLean; Young Citizen of the Year Nicole Cervoni; Young Citizen of the Year Achievement Award winner Jacob Machin; the Community Event of the Year, Giru State School 100 year fete; the Community Event of the Year Achievement Award winner, the 2024 Burdekin Water Festival, 'Bring it back'; Volunteer of the Year award winners Ben Lawry, Kellie Lawry and Bella Lawry; Volunteer of the Year Achievement Award winner Mark Vass; Junior Cultural Award winner Jacob Machin; Junior Sportsperson of the Year Ashlee Colls; Senior Sportsperson of the Year award winners Jennifer Fotinos and Kristy Wassmuth; Lifetime of Service Gold Award winners Betty Durrant and Gwen Marshall; and Lifetime of Service Silver Award winners Joan Andersen, Shirley Gilmore and Linda Scott. Unfortunately, nominees in Townsville from my electorate missed out this time around. I'd like to take this opportunity to say a big thank you. We are so proud of you. Pawley, Mr Bruce 109 10:07 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Bankstown RSL is almost 100 years old, and for more than half a century a bloke named Bruce Pawley has been at the heart of it, looking after veterans, their families and the local community. A few years ago, I was told a story about ashes under the flagpole at the old Bankstown RSL. It is a story that's stuck with me to this day. At the old club, under the flagpole near the bowling green, there were ashes of four veterans, blokes who loved the club so much that, when they passed away, they didn't want to be buried in a cemetery; they wanted to be buried at their club. They wanted to be where their mates had a drink. They wanted to be near their friends. When the new club was built a couple of years ago, Bruce made sure that they weren't left behind. As chairman, he made sure that those ashes were put into the foundations of the new club so that these four blokes could still be with their mates. That's the sort of bloke that Bruce Pawley is. For 56 years, he's been serving our returning service men and women, their families and the wider Bankstown community, making sure that the club's not just a building but that it really is a home. But in March of this year an era comes to an end. Bruce is stepping down as chairman. Bruce was born in a little town called Boggabri in 1947. When he was 20 years old, he was called up to serve in Vietnam, and he spent just over a year there, in the 1st Australian Reinforcement Unit and the 4th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. As was the case for so many other Vietnam veterans, coming home wasn't easy. Finding his place again was hard. But Bankstown RSL gave him that. They encouraged him to get involved, and he took on the role of sports officer. That really gave him something that he needed, a sense of belonging, and he gave back big time. Over the years he has been a director, vice-chairman and, for the last 15 years, chairman of Bankstown RSL. If you know Bruce, you will know that he's not one for the spotlight, and if he had his way he'd be telling me to shut up right now. He certainly wouldn't want me talking about him in the Australian parliament. But, when someone gives as much as Bruce has, you have to stop and say thank you. Bruce stepping down is a big loss for the club, but it is a big win for his family: for his wife, Lyn; his daughter, Ashleigh, and son-in-law, Dave, and his four grandkids, Roy, Mabel, Paddie, and Lennox. They'll get to see a bit more of their grandad. They're the kids who have suffered enough over the years. So, Bruce, on behalf of our whole local community, thank you so much for everything that you've done for us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 110 BILLS Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 110

Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024

Second Reading 110 10:10 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I want to start by acknowledging the previous speaker in the other chamber—before this came to the Federation Chamber—the member for Bendigo and her fine contribution. The reason why I want to start there is that it'd be no surprise to members in this place and in the other that the member for Bendigo and the member for Monash are the co-chairs for the Parliamentary Friends of Asbestos Related Disease. I think it's a really important starting place to recognise the work that they have done in raising awareness of dust related diseases in this place to ensure that legislation like the bill that we're talking about today has been brought forward and that the safety of people in our communities is put at the forefront. Whilst they chair the parliamentary friendship group, there are a lot of members of this place and senators in the other place who are part of that group—I am one of them—and the work that gets done in that friendship group is very much required to raise awareness in our communities and to give passage to the type of work that we're speaking about today. The Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 is the last of a suite of measures that deal with engineered stone and, in particular, silicosis. When I was elected to parliament in 2022, having come from a working-class background and represented workers for a short period of time before I came to this place, worker safety was something that was at the forefront of my mind. I really did look forward to the opportunity to be part of debate that puts forward laws that better protect workers in this country. It is an absolute honour to be part of a government that is getting on with the job of protecting workers, because that's what good Labor governments do: we take the needs of workers across this country and put them at the forefront of the policy work that we do in this place to ensure that they are safer and that the community is safer. It's something that I'm extremely proud to be part of in conjunction with the Albanese Labor government. In particular, this bill is part of our government's process that will lift and advance measures that protect workers—a continuation of the legacy that we will see in this bill. We know that, when workers aren't protected, sometimes they don't come home, and the negative outcomes on the job include the risk of diseases, which is what we are talking about here today. Preventing this is a big reason why I'm part of the Labor Party, and it's why I'm proud to be part of our government, which is taking meaningful action to prevent the risk of silica related diseases occurring in workplaces and beyond in this country. Why is engineered stone so bad? Well, it contains crystalline silica, and the risk it carries—related to silicosis and silica related diseases—is something that workers must be protected from. The impact of diseases that come from harmful dust produced on the job, which then can devastate a person's respiratory system, is significant. Asbestos is one of those dusts which people in my community and across the country have grappled with for decades, and it continues to cause significant harm in this country. I want to give a shout-out to the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia. They are a fantastic volunteer led organisation in my community who have raised awareness around asbestos but also have expanded that scope to dust related diseases. They come together yearly in Salisbury, at Pitman Park, for a remembrance day for those people who have lost their lives to asbestos. The reason I raise this is that it's very relevant to where we stand right now. We're on the precipice of a second wave of dust related diseases in this country, and without the measures that we're talking about today—the measures that we have introduced since coming to government in 2022—more people will be remembered at events like the one at Pitman Park every November. The association does some fantastic work, with a lot of outreach to families and people that are dealing with mesothelioma and other asbestos related diseases. I'm not sure if people in the House realise this, but an estimated 4,000 people die every single year in Australia from asbestos related diseases. In 2019, an estimated 3,307 deaths were due to lung cancer, and asbestos contributes to 30 per cent of all lung cancer deaths in Australia. Of the 3,307 deaths due to lung cancer in 2019, 802 were due to mesothelioma—99 per cent of which were due to past asbestos exposure—148 were due to asbestosis, 144 were due to ovarian cancer and 48 from cancer of the larynx. Each and every one of these diseases is absolutely debilitating, with profound effects on the family and friends of the affected individual. That 4,000 is part of an estimated 219,000 worldwide; that's as of 2016. The risk that harmful dust carries is exceptionally long lasting and, while asbestos has long been phased out—and subsequently banned in its totality in Australia in 2003—dust based illnesses still exist in workplaces in the world today. To talk about silica and silica based illnesses, it's estimated that 600,000 people, according to the 2021 final report of the National Dust Disease Taskforce, are potentially being exposed to silica dust each year. That includes miners, construction workers, engineers, plumbers, handypersons, heavy-vehicle drivers, farmers, machine operators, animal and horticultural workers, scientists, metalworkers and electrical workers. The risk is so widespread. In 2012, a survey of the Australian working population found that 6.6 per cent of the Australian workforce—329,000 people—were exposed to silica dust when on the job, with just over half that number exposed to particularly high levels. That is hundreds of thousands of people—everyday people exposed to dust that can cause permanent damage or death. As the numerous diagnoses of silicosis among workers in the stone benchtop fabrication and installation industry have revealed, there is a pressing need to ensure the materials and practices that Aussies are exposed to are managed. That's why, on our watch—on Labor's watch—the manufacture, supply, processing and installation of engineered-stone benchtop panels and slabs were banned on 1 July 2024. This is something I'm extremely proud to have been part of. Following on from that, all crystalline silica substances have been subject to stronger regulations since 1 September last year. Both of these changes apply to all materials containing at least one per cent of crystalline silica, including engineered stone. The importation of engineered stone was prohibited on 1 January this year, further tightening these regulations. This is progress that we want to see. But the job isn't done; more steps need to be taken to protect our communities. That's why this bill is so important. It's giving powers to the Australian Border Force to destroy seized engineered stone immediately. Similar provisions exist for dangerous and perishable goods, tobacco products, vapes and illicit drugs seized at the border. We all know that engineered stone, like those products, can cause significant harm, and it's only right that it's treated similarly. Without this amendment, that seized stone needs to be stored, and a significant volume too, which is significantly difficult and will take capacity away from Border Force to do the rest of its job and duties. This process needs to be efficient. We want our Border Force operators in this country to be doing the things that they need to do to keep our borders safe. Giving them the ability to dispose of this in a timely manner will free up their resources so that they can better protect our borders—something that we are extremely proud of. Silicosis is incredibly damaging to the lives and livelihoods of Australians and their families, and it's up to governments like ours to protect Australians from that threat. That's what our Labor government has done and will continue to do. I just wanted to finish on the fact that I've had the misfortune of watching close friends and people in my family circle pass away from asbestos related diseases, and it is one of the cruellest things you can see. When you speak to representatives from the AMWU and other unions that represent workers from the types of exposure areas that we see with manufactured stone and other silica related products—these are young men and women who have gone to work expecting to come home the same way they went there: healthy, strong and sound of mind and body. Unfortunately, that's not the case for some of these workers. They are often 19, 20 or 21 years old. They are indiscriminately exposed, and unaware of the potential risk and the problems that they are going to face, moving forward in their lives. Tragically, some of those people's lives have been cut short. It's an absolute travesty. It's why good governments need to legislate to protect young workers who don't ask the questions and don't say no. I see the member for Hunter in the chamber right now. He knows all too well, like I do, that, working on the job, sometimes it's hard to say no and stop the job and stand up for the safety principles that matter to keep you safe on the job. That's why you need governments to legislate to protect workers to ensure that they have rights in the workplace so that, regardless of their personal understanding, they remain safe on the job. Stopping the import of silica based products into this country and ensuring that we have the right frameworks to stop unsafe practices in this country with these products is a very big step in making sure that we protect the young men and women that are doing their trade apprenticeships and working in these manufacturing areas. I'm extremely proud that this bill before the House today completes a raft of fantastic bills that we have brought forward to deal with silica related diseases, and I commend this bill to the House. 10:23 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Madam Deputy Speaker— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:23 to 10:29 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Customs Amendment On the Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024. There was a time when asbestos was widely used and considered safe. It was an affordable and common material in construction found in homes, schools and countless other structures. We believed it to be a great innovation, resistant to heat and corrosion. But we now know the devastating health risks that we discovered later. Inhaling asbestos fibres led to severe respiratory diseases, including lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma. Workers paid the price with their health and too often their lives. Now, in 2025, we are facing a similar challenge. Another widely used material, engineered stone, is proving to be extremely dangerous. It is commonly found in benchtops, panels and slabs across Australian homes and workplaces. However, we know that exposure to respirable crystalline silica from engineered stone can cause deadly diseases, including silicosis. When a material is found to be unsafe, it is a government's responsibility to act. Those most at risk, workers who handle this material daily, deserve protection. That's why on 1 July last year Australia took a decisive action. In a world-first move, we joined with states and territories to ban the use, manufacture, supply, processing and installation of engineered-stone benchtops, panels and slabs. Just as we lead the way on asbestos regulation, Australia is now setting the global standard in eliminating engineered stone. Other nations are watching and will follow suit soon. When I spoke on this legislation in 2023, I made it clear: every worker has the right to return home from work safe. And nothing has changed. No-one should suffer long-term life-threatening illnesses because of their job, especially illnesses that only manifest years later. We must ensure that workers who have contributed so much to our country do not spend their retirement battling preventable diseases. Last year, I met with Mark, a former stonemason diagnosed with silicosis at the age of just 35. He shared how his once promising career was cut short, leaving him battling a life-threatening disease. His story is not unique. Countless workers face the same fate. This legislation is here for them. The prohibition of engineered stone is a critical step in safeguarding Australian workers. But a ban alone is not enough. There is no point in outlawing a material if it can still enter the country and be used. That's why on 1 January 2025 we reinforced our commitment by prohibiting the importation of engineered stone. This bill strengthens that prohibition by enhancing the powers under the Customs Act to seize and dispose of prohibited engineered stone effectively. It provides us with the tools needed to fully eliminate engineered stone from Australia. Implementing this ban presents us with unique challenges. Engineered-stone products are bulky, and managing seized materials at the border requires transport, disposal and administration, each posing logistical difficulties. This bill addresses these challenges by allowing for the immediate destruction of prohibited engineered stone upon seizure. This approach is not unprecedented. The same process is already in place for other prohibited imports, such as tobacco products, vapes, dangerous goods, perishable items and illicit drugs, items that pose serious risks to all Australians. The Australian Border Force, the ABF, plays a critical role in preventing these harmful goods from entering the country. However, if we do not enable them to efficiently enforce the engineered-stone ban, it will hinder their ability to regulate other critical border operations, as I spoke about earlier. This amendment ensures the ABF can effectively enforce the ban while maintaining focus on other prohibited imports. Without this amendment, seized engineered stone will accumulate and place additional strain on Border Force resources. The efficient disposal of this material is essential for streamlining the compliance process and enabling the ABF to allocate resources where they are most needed. It is important to note that this change will only impact importers who attempt to bring engineered stone containing crystalline silica into the country and subsequently have their goods seized. The import prohibition is designed to complement the domestic ban under workplace health and safety laws. Given that almost all engineered stone in Australia is imported, this measure provides an additional layer of deterrence at the border. To support enforcement, the government has allocated $32.1 million over two years in the 2024-25 budget for the ABF to carry out its role effectively. This amendment also ensures the transparency. Within seven days of disposing of seized goods, the ABF must issue a notice identifying the goods, detailing how they were handled, and explaining the reason for disposal. Additionally, importers retain the right to challenge the disposal and seek recovery of market value if they can prove that the required conditions of destruction were not met. Engineered stone is widespread, and, understandably, businesses have questions about what this ban means for them— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:36 to 10:53 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 The reality is simple; from 1 July 2024, working with engineered-stone benchtops, panels and slabs is prohibited. No business or individual is allowed to manufacture, supply, process or install these products. This aligns with our national commitment to eliminating this hazardous material. Importantly, this prohibition does not apply to porcelain, sintered stone products or finished engineered-stone items that do not require further modifications, such as jewellery, sculptures, garden ornaments and kitchen sinks. Businesses that need to remove, repair, modify or dispose of engineered stone must notify their WHS regulator—except in Victoria, where different arrangements apply. Some states and territories have adopted transitional measures for contracts signed before 31 December 2023, allowing limited work with engineered stone until the end of 2024. It is also important to clarify that the Commonwealth government is not providing compensation for the engineered-stone industry. Since the prohibition is being implemented across all Australian jurisdictions, compensation decisions rest with the individual states and territories. Work and safety are at the core of this policy. This prohibition is about protecting Australians from preventable harm. By ensuring that the ABF have the authority to promptly dispose of seized engineered stone, we'll reinforce the ban and prevent unnecessary risks to workers' health. Moreover, this measure strengthens the enforcement of all prohibited imports, ensuring that its efforts to eliminate engineered stone do not compromise the regulation of other dangerous goods. The implementation of this ban is a testament to our government's commitment to prioritising worker safety and public health over industry convenience. We have seen the tragic consequences of inaction in the past, particularly in cases like asbestos. By acting decisively now, we are preventing another generation of workers from suffering the debilitating and fatal illnesses linked with respirable crystalline silica. This legislation ensures that our policies are not just words on a paper but backed by concrete enforcement mechanisms that make a real difference. Australia is leading the way globally in this fight against silicosis and silica related diseases. Other nations are closely watching how we implement and enforce this ban as they too grapple with the growing evidence of harm posed by engineered stone. By setting this precedent, we are demonstrating that workers' health and safety must come as a priority and must come before profit and convenience. Our approach of combining a comprehensive ban with strong enforcement mechanisms sends a clear message that we will not tolerate the continued endangerment of Australian workers. Furthermore, this bill is a step forward in modernising our border protection policies. The Australian Border Force plays a critical role in ensuring that only safe and compliant goods enter our country. By allowing for the immediate destruction of seized engineered stone, we are reducing the bureaucratic red tape and ensuring that enforcement is swift and effective. Without this amendment, the Border Force would be overwhelmed by the storage and management of seized materials, ultimately diverting resources away from other critical areas of border security. This ban is also an opportunity. Australian manufacturers are already investing in safer alternatives such as sintered stone and porcelain, creating new jobs in sustainable industries. This legislation strengthens our ability to enforce the prohibition on engineered stone, ensuring that it cannot continue to be the silent killer in Australian workplaces. By enhancing the Australian Border Force's authority to seize and immediately dispose of prohibited engineered stone, we are closing the loopholes that could undermine this vital ban. This is about fairness, safety and ensuring that no more lives are needlessly cut short by preventable exposure to dangerous materials. I stand in full support of this bill, and I commend it to the House. 10:58 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Australian workers in every occupation, everywhere, are entitled to safe working conditions. They have a right to go to work and to return home safely to their families. The workplace should not be a hazardous place where our bodies or minds are attacked overtly or insidiously. Those attacks are rarely deliberate, though they have sometimes happened. Usually, they occur because somebody, somewhere, is unaware or careless of the fact that workers are human beings entitled to respect. Although they help produce profits of all kinds, they are not things to be used to make profits or assist somebody else's personal ambitions. Their contributions should be respected and their health and safety actively maintained for their own sake, for families' sake and for all our sakes if we are to be decent human beings in a decent society. The Albanese Labor government is committed to protecting Australian workers from the harm associated with silicosis and silica related diseases. Silica is a complex material, and we can't live without it, but some silica dust is dangerous—even deadly. It's an insidious attack on human bodies. We now know that silica laden dust produced when cutting engineered and natural stone for use in homes has been maiming and killing workers young and old. Almost one in four engineered-stone workers have contracted silicosis. I'll say it again: almost one in four engineered-stone workers have contracted silicosis. It's a terrible figure, and it can't be allowed to continue. When the Albanese Labor government came into office in 2022, we encountered the growing concerns of anxious workers and frustrated scientists that something was seriously wrong. In July 2022, Dr Renee Carey from the Curtin University School of Population Health in my home state of Western Australia reported on the results of a study commissioned by the ACTU. More than half a million Australian workers were being exposed to silica dust across various industries. Her colleague John Curtin Distinguished Professor Lin Fritschi told us that banning engineered stone would save lives. Through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023, we added silicosis to the remit of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, and on 1 July 2024, in one of those moments that make me proud to be an Australian and especially proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party, the Albanese Labor government joined with the states and territories to implement a world-first prohibition on the use, manufacture, supply, processing and installation of engineered-stone benchtops, panels and slabs in Australia—a world first. Why was Australia the first nation to act so decisively? It is in large part because of the collective wisdom and efforts of organised unions. The union movement, so relentlessly attacked by those opposite, has saved countless lives in the fight for safe working conditions. We don't always know straightaway that something is wrong. It took decades to understand the dangers of asbestos and to heed the warnings of voices that so often sounded like fringe agitators. In fact, when I was in high school, I saw the first inkling that something was wrong and beginning to take effect, but slowly—too slowly. It was proposed back in 1988 that there should be a class trip to the Pilbara which would include visiting the asbestos mining town of Wittenoom. Some parents at the meeting were concerned, but they were reassured. So a busload of us camped in the deserted town of Wittenoom, where so many lives have been destroyed. It's now closed to all—unsafe for humans. Unions and labour lawyers are still fighting for justice and fair compensation for the victims of asbestos related diseases. They have done this quite literally with tears in their eyes. I know them, and I commend and thank them. I also thank the Australian Workers Union, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union, the United Workers Union, state union bodies and the ACTU. I have previously told members opposite in this place that they need to engage with unions in a proactive and positive way. The coalition spends a lot of its energy trying to demonise unions. They need to remember that, in every workplace, there can be bad actors. Their own party has not been short of them, yet we maintain the view that each of our political parties, just as each of our unions, can rise above the malfeasance of a few. It would be better for the coalition to put aside its anti-union reflex and instead learn directly—as we do—from those who represent working Australians at the coalface of each industry. Unions have been at the forefront of efforts to come to grips with this dangerous practice and to stop the needless deaths. It was the labour unions in Chile that helped identify silicosis in miners as early as 1930. That's almost a hundred years ago. South Africa's National Union of Mineworkers supported legal cases in that country and in the UK against companies mining asbestos more than 10 years ago. It was Unite—the UK's and Ireland's largest union—that created an online register for silicosis sufferers in 2019. In Western Australia, I witnessed firsthand the campaign led and run by Mick Buchan and the west WA branch of the CFMEU for the banning of engineered stone. They worked on this with enormous effort and diligence for more than a decade. Unions are solid repositories of practical experience that we should respect. They listen, they learn, they study and they address real-world problems. It is foolish in the extreme for a political party to eschew that assistance and wisdom. Ignoring the evidence they uncover cannot lead to useful policy. I thank all the determined researchers, especially those from the University of Adelaide, where there has been almost a century of research into silicosis. The research continues. Lung disease is likely to be only the most obvious effect. At Monash University in September last year, researchers reported a finding that those workers exposed to silica dust show a higher incidence of blood markers that are the hallmark of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. The problems of engineered stone and silicosis date back to ancient Egypt, but the popularity of engineered stone everywhere has now created an international crisis for many thousands of workers. We have learnt from our terrible experience with asbestosis, but the plaintiffs now taking action against companies in relation to engineered-stone products are facing the same difficulties in seeking compensation. It can often be a race against time. Rather than seeing compensation cases and grieving families, we want to keep the people they love alive. On New Year's Day this year, we strengthened our prohibition with a further prohibition on the importation of engineered stone. That sends a message not just to companies here but to the world. The amendments in this bill, the Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024, will amend the Customs Act 1901 so we can support the effective operation of the import prohibition by enhancing existing seizure and disposal powers under the Customs Act. Engineered-stone products are bulky. They pose significant challenges in all sorts of ways. We can't afford to have them occupying large amounts of space. Under the Customs Act, items seized are generally required to be kept for 30 days prior to disposal. We need a mechanism for the Australian Border Force to deal with seized engineered stone efficiently by allowing for its immediate destruction. This is what we do with other prohibited imports like dangerous and perishable goods and illicit drugs. This bill will allow the Comptroller-General of Customs to decide on the best way to deal with seized stone products, including choosing immediate destruction. Australian Border Force will also be supported by funding of $32.1 million over the next two years, provided in the 2024-25 budget. We understand that an importer might want to challenge this expedited destruction, so we are allowing for the right to recover the market value of the goods if they can establish that the circumstances required to trigger the destruction did not exist. The bill not only provides a way for customs to do their important work efficiently but also adds another layer of deterrence. It is worth considering that, while we have legislated here at home, the scourge of silicosis caused by engineered stone continues in many countries. Immediate destruction at point of entry will help send a message to importers and manufacturers overseas that Australia is serious about protecting workers. It will be another way in which we help to drive down demand and, in so doing, reduce harm. When I spoke on the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill in 2023, I mentioned the incidence of silicosis in workplaces—in goldmines in Brazil; in Budhpura in India, which is known as the city of widows; and among Latino sandstone workers in Los Angeles. It is estimated that about 230 million workers globally are exposed to silica dust in their workplaces. Study after study tolls the bells of the dangers, but the websites of engineered-stone companies portray their products as safe and sustainable. The other positive effect of our laws, of course, is that other jurisdictions will follow our lead. In August last year, European researchers urged the UK and the EU to follow Australia's lead and ban engineered stone. UK doctors working in the field added their voices to the call. In December, the New Zealand Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety opened consultations on the question of a ban. The manufacture and export and use of asbestos went through a similar process, with most jurisdictions coming to the same conclusion eventually. In the holdout countries, such as Russia, the use of asbestos carries with it ongoing health consequences. The Albanese Labor government does not believe in ignoring problems, hiding from them, or running away from them. This is not what the Australian people pay the government to do. They pay them to listen to them—all of them—identify the problems, do the necessary consultation and research, and get to work to fix them. This is what we do, whatever the problems are—an economy with more than six per cent inflation, inactivity on housing construction, a neglected and ailing healthcare system, inadequate child care, or workers' safety care. Dealing with this challenge in relation to engineered-stone products is congruent with the government's attitude to both the health of Australians and the rights of Australian workers. I commend the bill to the House. 11:10 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Every Australian worker has the right to go to work and return home safe, yet, for years Australian workers were unknowingly exposed to enormous risks—cutting and grinding engineered stone that contains deadly crystalline silica. Silicosis has devastated families across the nation and in communities like Melton, Sunbury, and Bacchus Marsh in my electorate of Hawke. It's an incurable disease that has caused immense suffering for Australians and their families. Workers can no longer play with the children because of breathlessness, families have lost loved ones far too soon, and young tradespeople's careers have been stolen by an invisible killer—this is the human cost of silicosis, and it is truly devastating. That's why the Albanese Labor government is taking decisive action. On 1 July 2024 we introduced a world-first prohibition on the use, manufacture, supply, processing and installation of engineered-stone bench tops, panels and slabs in Australia. On 1 January 2025 we strengthened this prohibition by extending it to the importation of engineered stone too.. The Albanese Labor government is committed to improving the conditions of Australian workers, and the most fundamental workplace right is safety. That's why we have taken a comprehensive approach to protecting workers from this deadly disease. We established the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry to track cases and ensure affected workers receive the necessary support. Additionally, Safe Work Australia has been tasked with updating workplace exposure standards and providing guidance on silica risk management. This bill is about building on the important work the Albanese Labor government has already done, and ensures that our ban on engineered stone is enforceable, particularly at our borders. The Australian Border Force has been given clear directives to intercept and prevent the importation of engineered stone, reinforcing our commitment to workers' safety. This bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to streamline the seizure and disposal of imported engineered stone. Without this legislation the ABF would face significant logistical challenges in handling seized goods. Engineered stone is a bulk material—its storage, transportation and disposal require extensive resources. The amendments in this bill provide a clear mechanism for the immediate destruction of prohibited engineered stone following seizure. This ensures that our customs enforcement remains effective and that resources are not diverted from other critical border security operations. Without this amendment the ABF would be left to manage vast quantities of seized engineered stone, straining its capacity and diverting resources from other priorities. Under existing arrangements, seized goods must be stored while legal proceedings determine their final disposal. This process is cumbersome and impractical when dealing with bulk materials. This bill resolves that issue by allowing for immediate destruction, similar to existing provisions for other prohibited imports such as illicit drugs, tobacco and dangerous goods. Expedited disposal will free up enforcement resources, allowing the ABF to focus on deterring illegal imports rather than managing stockpiles of seized material. This legislation would not have been possible without the unwavering commitment of Australia's trade unions. For years, unions have led the charge in demanding stronger protections, raising awareness of the deadly risks of silica exposure and providing crucial support to affected workers and their families. Their relentless advocacy ensured that silicosis was recognised as an urgent public-health crisis requiring decisive government intervention. Silicosis is unique among occupational diseases. Unlike many other workplace hazards, its cause is clear and singular: exposure to silica dust. This means every single case of silicosis is entirely preventable. In fact, 100 per cent of silicosis cases are caused by occupational exposure—100 per cent—with research from Curtin University in 2022 estimating that up to 100,000 cases of silicosis could emerge from existing workplace exposure. Without strong intervention, hundreds of thousands more workers would continue be put at risk. The ACTU, along with individual unions representing stonemasons, construction workers and manufacturing employees, played an instrumental role in achieving this ban. Their tireless campaigning and dedication to workers' safety have directly shaped the policy decisions that bring us to this very moment. This bill is proof of what can be accomplished when unions, workers and government come together for a common cause. When Labor's in government, workers' voices are heard and their safety is prioritised. The passage of this legislation reaffirms our commitment to protecting workers and ensuring that no-one is forced to sacrifice their health for their job. This is a vital piece of legislation. It ensures that our world-leading ban on engineered stone is enforceable and effective, and it seeks to prevent any more Australian workers and their families suffering the consequences of this devastating disease. I commend this bill to the House. 11:16 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I'll make a short contribution on the Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 because I believe it's very important legislation. For the past two decades, every year in November the Asbestos Victims Association of SA holds a remembrance service at Pitman Park in Salisbury in recognition of the people who have died from asbestos related illnesses over the years. Each year, white crosses are placed on the lawn area where the service is held, with the names of those people who have died, and each year the number of crosses continues to increase. For all the deaths to date that we know of, there are, sadly, many more to come because asbestos diseases often take years to take effect. I've personally watched people who were affected by an asbestos disease, in their last months, in their struggle to survive, and the strain and the heartache it places not only on them but on their family members who are caring for them. It is truly devastating. Disturbingly and incomprehensibly, asbestos is still legally used in some countries, even though the statistics and the evidence are now as clear as they can ever be. Just as sinister is the reality that the deadly nature of asbestos was known over a century ago, and yet its use was allowed to continue for the best part of the last century and, in particular, in the post World War II years, where it was used in just about every home throughout Australia and in so many other different applications. Human lives and the devastated families left were sacrificed for money and for profit. There have, however, been some lessons learnt from society's use of asbestos—in particular, a much better understanding of dust related diseases, including the risk products, the health effects and the treatment options that are now available. Of course prevention is always better than cure. So, when the evidence was clear that engineered stone presented a serious health risk to workers within the industry, we needed to act. I'm proud to be member of a parliament that was not going to wait another hundred years, as we did with asbestos. It's a parliament that introduced a ban on the use, manufacture and supply of engineered stone on 1 July 2024. We were, I believe, the first country to do so. That ban took effect when new national work health and safety laws came into effect across the country, because it had to be done in conjunction with each of the states. That ban was strengthened with a ban on all imported finished engineered-stone products, coming into effect only on 1 January this year. Engineered stone is quartz or a conglomerate stone that is crushed and then bound with a resin. The dust from engineered stone, when it is drilled, polished or cut, is deadly. Other colleagues have quoted estimates of the numbers of workers that have already being affected by silicon dust—or silicosis as it is often referred to with respect to some of the illnesses—but, in my view, we won't really know what the true effect of silicosis, or of engineered stone, on people's health has been until more years have passed, as was the case with asbestos. Whatever the statistics are—and I commend my colleagues who have quoted some of those statistics, which are based on sound research—the reality is that hundreds, if not thousands, of people will die because of their use of this product. We banned it in Australia, and I believe that's an important first step. I would like to think that other countries might do the same. Quite frankly, my care is not only for the people of this country, when it comes to a known product that is deadly, but for all people that are forced to work with it. That brings me to this legislation. Put simply, anyone importing engineered-stone products must have a valid permit or an exemption. Without a valid permit or an exemption, any engineered stone that is detected will be seized and disposed of by our customs departments. The seizure, holding and disposal of those products will come at a significant cost to government. This is why an expedited disposal process is in the public interest—and hence the need for this legislation. I note that the Department of Home Affairs will receive $32 million over the next two years of additional funding to cover the costs associated with the seizure, storage and disposal of any imported product. I don't know just how much it will cost. What I also don't know is whether any of those costs will be recovered. I hope that we might be able to do so. But, as we know from past experiences, the reality is that recovering costs isn't always possible, so we need to act. Nor should we delay the disposal of the product whilst we look at whether we can recover the costs. To me, the fact is that the product needs to be disposed of. Dealing with it quickly saves costs in any event, so let's get on with it, and that's exactly what this legislation does. And it makes it clear that this government and we, in Australia, will not accept the continued use of this product. I will make this observation. I recently spoke with someone who works with engineered stone, and the person said, 'Provided you work with it safely and abide by all the preconditions, it is really a product that you can continue to use.' I accept that, if you work with it safely, that might be the case. But the reality is, once it's in use in the community, there will be times when people will have to deal with it who don't know that they have to work with it safely and who don't know how to work with it safely, whether they're doing repairs or the like. It still presents an ongoing risk to people in the future. Therefore, I support the ban. I also note that there are good alternatives to engineered stone, whether it is marble, natural stone, porcelain, terrazzo or even steel and timber products. They can now be used as an alternative. So there is no need to use a product that is deadly. We need to get our message out there loud and clear, and that's exactly what this legislation does. 11:24 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I want to thank all the members who've contributed to this debate on the Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill. It is an important reform. Silicosis is an insidious disease, and people who contract it, unfortunately, can have their lung capacity reduced over time and die a very long, slow death. We know that engineered-stone products, when handled in the wrong way, can result in the people working with them contracting silicosis and other diseases. That's why the government has taken this action to strengthen the legislative framework for engineered stone—in order to protect workers from the health risks associated with it. We're determined to put in place mechanisms to prevent workers from being exposed to respirable crystalline silica, which, when inhaled, can cause fatal lung disease and other chronic illnesses, like silicosis. A key element of achieving this is inclusion of engineered stone as a prohibited import under customs' regulations, and the prohibited imports regulations came into effect on 1 January 2025. The measures in this bill will support the import prohibition, providing for the expedited seizure and disposal of engineered-stone products seized at the border and enhancing the operational effectiveness of the import prohibition. The management of seized engineered-stone products at the border presents significant logistical challenges for Border Force, particularly in terms of storage and transport of this bulk good, so the measures in this bill are essential to provide a mechanism to allow Australian Border Force officials to effectively administer seized engineered-stone products at the border. With the passage of this bill, I'm pleased to say that Australian workers and their families will be a step closer to being protected from significant harms caused by working with engineered stone. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 118 CONDOLENCES Andrews, Hon. Kevin James, AM 118 11:26 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Kevin Andrews was the member for Menzies between 1991 and 2022. In addition to that long service to that community, he was well known and respected in my electorate, which neighbours Menzies, for both his service to the nation and his role as a devoted parishioner of St. John's in Heidelberg. I do believe that word, 'service', sums up Kevin's approach to public life. It was clear that he approached his many roles as a respected local MP, a minister and as a parishioner with humbleness and devotion. After I was elected to the neighbouring seat of Jagajaga in 2019, I always appreciated the courtesy and thoughtfulness Kevin brought to our interactions, both in the parliament and in the community. We would meet each other in the corridors in this place, where he also held the role of Father of the House, and we would meet each other back home in places like pre-poll, where even within the heightened emotional environment of a campaign, Kevin continued to steadfastly and politely interact with the community and with me. In that, I think that he did set an important example in this place, that even when your political views do not align—and there are many of my values that did not align with Kevin's—dignity and respect for others should always win out. I am very aware that, as with so many who choose to serve in public life, the contributions that Kevin made over decades could not have happened without the support of his family—in particular, his wife, Margie, who was so often by his side. It was clear that theirs was a very special relationship, and I once again extend my condolences to Margie, to their children and to all who are missing Kevin. Vale Kevin Andrews. 11:28 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the condolence motion of the Honourable Kevin James Andrews, AM. It is important that we stop, recognise, both as a former member of this House for the division of Menzies over a long period of time and as a former minister, and place on the record our appreciation as federal representatives for his long a meritorious public service to our nation. We also tender our sympathies and condolences to Kevin's family in their bereavement. As the Prime Minister said yesterday: It is a measure of the man that we honour today that, throughout the wealth of tributes paid to his life by his colleagues, his opponents, his loved ones and his friends, the same three pillars stand tall in all of them: his deep faith, his belief in public service and his devotion to his family. To that, I would add his devotion to family, as in the concept of family and the importance of family, and I will touch on that a little bit. The Prime Minister 's words touched on his deep faith—which I share, as a practising Catholic—but also his belief in public service as being a very important good, and certainly I see my own service in the military and continuing into this place as a continuance of public service to the nation. I was always impressed by that with Kevin. As the PM also said, we all see issues from different perspectives and we don't always agree, but it's the way in which we conduct ourselves, and the way in which Kevin conducted himself was noteworthy. I certainly didn't agree with some of the principles that Kevin held, but I did agree with a lot of others. For instance, he and I shared a common belief in the primacy of palliative care and the importance of making sure palliative care is available to people that need it during end of life. There were principles of his that I disagreed with, and it is true that he made a mark on the Northern Territory through his principles being applied in the overturning of NT legislation. I don't offer this part of the condolence in any way as a criticism, but he was following his beliefs with the 1996 euthanasia laws bill, known later as the Andrews bill. The Leader of the Opposition commented yesterday on how infrequent it is to have a private member's bill succeed, and Kevin Andrews managed to do that. From my perspective, although I held different thoughts on that issue and successfully brought a private member's bill to extinguish the Andrews bill, I appreciated that he always respected the fact that I was doing that out of a different principle, that being to protect the democratic rights of Territorians. I did appreciate that he was always open to having those discussions. But it does reflect the conviction that he brought to public life, and I hope that conviction is always here and present in this place. There were all those issues over a long period of time, including when he was working as the defence minister and in other truly honourable and important roles that he was able to navigate—and they are difficult roles. But I was also really impressed when I turned up to a Pollie Pedal, as someone who was quite a bit younger than him, because I thought it was important that our side of politics was present. The member for Hume was also there. I distinctly remember being impressed by Kevin's fitness for an older fella—indeed, the Father of the House, as many people have commented on—but also his resilience. Some people might remember that he had a fall during the Pollie Pedal in the year 2017. We were absolutely flogging it down this hill, very tied up behind each other. We were going fast, and Kevin had hit some gravel and fallen from his bike. He actually broke his collarbone in that fall. I was two bikes back, and I distinctly remember thinking, 'Am I going to run over this bloke?' I couldn't see who it was on the ground, but there was some divine intervention, and, instead, I decided to take a fall to the left-hand side into the bush—which I would have done for anyone. I was pleased when I got up, and he was already getting to his feet. He would have been in a little bit of shock and a lot of pain, and he said to me later, 'I'm going to have to pull out.' I said: 'Yeah, mate, no worries. You've broken your collarbone in a big fall.' The fact that, in his advanced years, he was out there raising money for Soldier On, was mixing with the member for Hume, Tony Abbott and others and was a lot fitter than some of the rest of us was impressive. His depth of faith—and I look forward to reading his memoirs—was something that was also impressive to me, as a person of faith. I've mentioned some of the things that I think he can be proud of in relation to being the Minister for Defence and trying to do his best according to his beliefs and his principles. I, too, see this job and politics as a vocation, and I'm lucky to be a member of this place with people of the calibre of Kevin Andrews and to have had experiences like being in the Pollie Pedal with him. Finally, his focus on the family—I haven't read his 2012 book,Maybe 'I Do'. In defending marriage and the family as being such important parts of society's building blocks—that is part of my commitment, too, in this place and as a leader in public discourse. The family is so important. We need to support Australian families in every way we can. I'm sure Kevin is up there, very happy, that there are people in this place that will continue to support Australian families and the institution of marriage, as important as it is. In saying that, I pass from my family, from my wife and children, our condolences to Kevin's wife, Margie, and to their children, Emily, James, Stuart, Catherine and Benjamin. Kevin Andrews, rest in peace, and God bless you. 11:37 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Today's condolence is not one that I—up until Kevin's untimely death—thought I would ever be giving in this place for my very close friend, confidant and ally Kevin Andrews. Kevin, as others have indicated, lived an extraordinarily consequential life. In Parliament House, we often judge people's impact using the titles they've held and the duration that they've been here as quick markers of how consequential they have been. He left parliament as the Father of the House. He was the member for Menzies for over 30 years. He was a minister in the Howard and Abbott governments. He played a huge role—even from the backbench, initially—in the Howard government. At the end of his parliamentary career, he ticked the boxes of being a huge political figure not just for the Liberal Party but in this country, by any of those metrics. But they are not the reasons why he was a huge figure. Kevin was a giant of Australian politics. For many of us, his approach and his values were a reflection of Australia at its best and a reflection of a time when politics wasn't a blood sport. It wasn't about playing the man; it was about playing the ball. It was a vocation, not a career pathway. For many of us in the parliament, Kevin embodied the best instincts of what many imagine a parliamentarian to be. Kevin took on difficult fights. Kevin stood up for important causes. From my perspective, he stood up for causes I wholeheartedly agreed with. Kevin's fundamental view that strong nations, strong states and strong communities are built on the foundation of strong and healthy families is the most significant touchstone of his political ethos and one with which I entirely agree. His defence of life, at times when it was unpopular and at times when it was difficult, and his abiding view on the sanctity of life was a thread throughout his career. I remember being a humble branch member in his electorate in my early 20s handing out how-to-vote cards in the thick of the debate around euthanasia. Whilst those of us who were supporting Kevin couldn't have been prouder of him, I witnessed firsthand the ferocious, targeted and coordinated attacks he faced at that time when he was standing up for the primacy and importance of palliative care and the sanctity of human life. That was a fight that not many backbenchers would take on, but that was a fight that Kevin took on with relish and succeeded. He may not have succeeded for all time, but he succeeded at that time and in that moment. Kevin obviously took that vein of thinking throughout his political career. As I said, being a minister in two governments is quite extraordinary and a testament to his capacity, not just his values. A lot of us instinctively reflect on Kevin's values and the fact that he was tethered to firm values. One of the dirtiest words in politics today is 'pragmatism', which often is the shortcut for selling out your values for what is politically expedient at the time. Kevin took on those difficult fights, even at a personal cost to himself, even when the zeitgeist was against him. Even though we focus on his values, it's also important to focus on his ability and his capacity. In every portfolio he was given, there were difficult challenges. I suspect, without knowing firsthand, they were given to him because there were difficult challenges in those portfolios. With a steady hand and a safe pair of hands, Kevin was given those difficult portfolios at difficult times because of his capacity. Whether it was his time in defence, industrial relations, social services or aged care, no-one would suggest that Kevin was given an armchair ride in the portfolios offered by Prime Ministers Howard and Abbott. For him to take those on and, in most cases, not only succeed substantively—which is the most important thing—but also succeed politically is a testament to his capacity for good policy, for hard work and for his capacity in the political sphere, which, in the end, he was a part of. As I alluded to at the beginning, I was very close to Kevin as a confidant and as a very close ally. He supported me when I was a candidate in the preselection for Deakin back in 2012. Our very close mutual friend, the late Sandra Mercer Moore, who was one of the trio that many would refer to—it is a very sobering moment when I think that two of my closest allies and confidants have both now passed. I do know that Kevin and Sandra will be catching up on all things politics in a better place now. The one thing that I think is of some comfort to Margie and Kevin's wonderful family is the legacy that Kevin leaves behind. Importantly, Kevin lived what he preached. Everyone in this chamber—and I'm as guilty of this as many—says one thing publicly and sometimes acts a little bit differently privately or when there aren't cameras on. Kevin was a remarkable man, in that he practised what he preached. Kevin was a staunch advocate for marriage and the importance of marriage as an institution—the foundational institution to support strong families, which in turn support strong communities, a strong state and strong nations. He lived that with Margie, his wonderful wife, who was by his side throughout his political career and before and after. During his time in parliament, in what I think is the greatest mark of success, Kevin raised a wonderful family and had a marriage that was as strong at the end of his political career as it was at the beginning. I think that is the greatest mark of success that any of us can hope for. Kevin practised what he preached. It's also been remarked just how courteous Kevin always was. Kevin was under attack a lot. Being a conservative Liberal is not particularly popular with large swathes of the media or our political opponents, but Kevin had something I wish I had a bit more of; Kevin had this unflappable ability to remain courteous with everybody, no matter what the attacks were. That speaks to a character trait, again, that we could all aspire to have a bit more of. I think that has come through in the condolence motions over the last few days. An extraordinarily consequential life—Kevin was a giant of Australian politics, a giant of the Liberal Party and a giant of the Victorian Liberal Party. The Victorian Liberal Party didn't necessarily treat him with the respect he should have been treated with at all times, but Kevin never spat the dummy. He was a Liberal through and through, and he remained true to our values and our cause even at times of disappointment, which again speaks to his character. To Margie and their wonderful family, I say at this extraordinarily difficult time that I hope you are drawing comfort from the fact that Kevin was an extraordinary man with an extraordinary legacy, who, most importantly, helped countless people throughout Australia and in his local community, which is probably the greatest legacy that anyone can leave behind. May he rest in peace. 11:49 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume It's a great honour to speak about my friend and mentor, Kevin Andrews. I think this condolence motion to him is incredibly important, because he served this country in a way and for so long that so few have been able to—as Father of the House. He's someone for whom I had enormous respect, both in his time here and beyond. Much has been said already about his background. One of the really important parts of that background is that he grew up as a country boy, born in Sale. His family ran a small trucking business, and many of his values that you can see he lived by came from that background. It was a background that I think breeds some of the greatest Australians—I would say that. It tells you something of his old-world values, in many ways, and where they came from. He won his seat of Menzies in 1991. It seems like a long time ago, 1991, but he was here a very long time. He won it in a by-election, and he served the people of Menzies with enormous distinction over almost three decades. For that, we should all be enormously grateful. Of course, as he would have said, the most important part of his life was his family, and many have made that point. He was married to Margie—an extraordinary marriage. She was the head of his Praetorian Guard, and anyone who knows Margie will know exactly what I mean by that. She is a formidable and wonderful, wonderful woman. Their partnership was an extraordinary one because—as I think the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday—the complementarity between the two of them was great. Perhaps, sometimes, similar people attract, and sometimes it's those who are more complementary. Certainly, that was the case between Kevin and Margie. It was an incredible partnership—their life together. I saw it time and time again when I saw both of them. I saw them most when it came to cycling—and I'll talk about that in a moment—but their partnership is a model to so many of us, because it showed you how two very different people could complement each other and support each other. The support they gave to each other and what they sought to do in their lives were amazing. Even though some might say that their marriage was one steeped in old-world values, I think they're values that are the hallmark of a great partnership, because that's what their marriage clearly was, with their children, Emily, James, Stuart, Catherine and Benjamin. He was a man of great faith, devoted to God, and I'll come back to that in a moment. But another of his great passions in life was cycling. I learnt over time how passionate he was about cycling, because I spent a lot of time sitting on a bike right next to him. One of the wonderful things about sitting on a bike for each year for eight days over a thousand kilometres, is that you get to talk to people and get to know them in a way that you might otherwise never get to know those people. You've got a lot of time, and, if you talk, some of the pain goes away! I had a lot of time to talk to Kevin and a lot of time for Kevin when I talked to him as we sat on the bikes together. We were both on Pollie Pedal each year for many, many years, starting in 2013. In Canberra on Wednesday mornings a group of us go out, and Kevin would come along to that as well. The conversations would often meander to all sorts of weird and wonderful places, but Kevin would always come back to the basics of why we were doing what we're doing and the basics of what was important in our lives—the relationships we have and the people and values we stand for. With Kevin, it was so consistent and coherent every single time. Over time he became a truly great role model and mentor for me, not by instructing me on what to do but by demonstrating how to live. That kind of role modelling is the most powerful of all. It's role modelling he would never have fully realised he was giving. Some of the best mentors in life don't even realise they're your mentors. Kevin was one of those for me. He was absolutely one of those. His passion for cycling combined with his passion for writing. He wrote a number of books, but one of his truly remarkable ones that, I think, has not been given enough attention is his book about cycling and the history of Italy. Now, you might all think, 'Well, that's kind of a weird thing to write a book about,' and initially I thought, 'That's right.' Then I looked at what he had written about. He had written what I think is a really masterful contribution about the history of Italy, how Italy—as a state , as a government, as a country—was formed, the rivalries in that formation and how cycling had a parallel to that. The great rivalries in cycling in Italy were parallel to the great rivalries in politics in the formation of Italy. Of course, anyone who knows something of the history of Italy will know it was a cathartic formation that took centuries. Just as there were great rivalries throughout that formation of Italy, there were great rivalries in the story of the great cyclists of Italy—which we continue to see today, by the way; it continues to be one of the great cycling countries of the world. This was vintage Kevin Andrews: combining his passion for history, his passion for writing and his passion for cycling in a book that I think was a really novel contribution, emblematic of the way Kevin Andrews looked at the world and the way he contributed to the world. Our time on Pollie Pedal together, over all those years, was really wonderful. The member for Solomon made a nice contribution; I didn't realise he was there when Kevin broke his collarbone in 2017. In 2017, he'd just been defence minister, and we visited many of the defence barracks along the route that year from Albury through to Manly, including Holsworthy barracks—I think that was the last one we visited before we went up to Manly. We were leaving Holsworthy Barracks down Heathcote Road, and Kevin took a tumble But you wouldn't have known; this guy had a capacity to manage pain like few I have ever seen. It was vintage Kevin. His demeanour never changed. It was always calm, it was always gathered and it was always coherent even when he was in extraordinary pain. He did occasionally inflict pain on Pollie Pedal, I have to say. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday in the House made reference to 'what happens on Pollie Pedal stays on Pollie Pedal'. That is largely true, but Kevin's contributions on karaoke nights at Pollie Pedal, one night each year when the karaoke machine came out, were not always his best contributions, I have to say. He and Tony Abbott would combine each year to give a rendition of 'Suspicious Minds' that is best forgotten, because they couldn't hit the note on any of the notes. But they would do it each year and each time they would hold themselves out as the greatest singers of 'Suspicious Minds' since Elvis himself. That wasn't Kevin's best, but it was something we will always remember. Those of us who have heard it will always cherish it as a wonderful example of the authenticity of Kevin Andrews. His role modelling for me, personally, extended into many different areas. One was his civility. We've just heard the member for Deakin and the member for Solomon talk about the wonderful civility of Kevin Andrews. Much of that, I think, came from his upbringing, but it also came from his faith. His deep faith was something that I have great respect for. Each of us who are people of faith in this place live that in different ways. The most important way that Kevin lived it was by living those values in the parliament every single day, in every moment. He just wouldn't depart from them. That is difficult because, as the member for Deakin just told us, this place can be faddish. We can be slaves to fashion, to whatever is the latest piece of thinking. That was never Kevin. Kevin would always go back to those bedrock principles and values that he grew up with and that he believed in. That expression of faith is something that I have enormous respect for. I can only hope to be even close to that level of coherence of Kevin each day. But we saw it—all of us—in the party room, we saw it in our informal interactions, and we saw it in the parliament as well. I've talked about family and his belief in family. He wrote about this, and he spoke about it often. Of course, that relationship with Margie and with his kids was right at the heart of that. But I think the important point here is that he did something which is difficult in this place. Often, here in the parliament of our great nation, it is easy to believe that the answer to all problems is just a better government policy. Government policy is important—don't get me wrong—but Kevin always understood that ultimately human fulfilment and happiness come from the relationships we have with those people close to us. That is the bedrock. That is the most important thing of all. To the extent that policy can have a role in making sure that we enable people to have a great family life, that's important. That is fundamentally important, and I think Kevin's commitment to those values is something we should all revere. He also had great commitment to our flag. Alongside faith and family, he believed in this nation like few others. He was an incredible servant in his many roles, including his ministerial roles. I saw him being particularly proud of his time as defence minister. I think he thoroughly enjoyed the role he played as defence minister because he saw it as one of those bedrock services and roles that the government can play that are so important to our security and our future as a country. It has been a true honour for me to be a colleague and a friend of, and certainly to be mentored by, a man as wonderful as Kevin Andrews. Can I wish my very best to Margie, to the family and to the kids—Emily, James, Stuart, Catherine and Benjamin. May Kevin Andrews rest in peace. 12:02 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt In paying tribute to Kevin Andrews, I first acknowledge and associate myself with the remarks made in the contributions so far by other members. It's particularly difficult, when we have these condolence motions, to speak on them when they involve someone that you actually served with in this parliament. It was my honour to serve with Kevin in the 46th Parliament—his last term in this building and my first term in this building—and to be able to observe him and his great understanding of this building and of being a parliamentarian. All members, I think—even the Prime Minister—have referenced him being in a position of mentorship to everyone that served with him, and that was the case for me as it was for all members that have commented in this debate so far. I describe Kevin as a parliamentarian, knowing full well that he made a very distinguished contribution to the executive of this nation as well—of course, serving as a minister in both the Howard and the Abbott governments, to great distinction. But in our Westminster system, which is quite different to many others around the world, obviously our executive comes out of our legislature. You can't serve in the executive government if you're not a member of parliament. But it does sometimes diminish the importance of reflecting on the role of a legislator and parliamentarian, and in the case of Kevin, even though it's quite warranted to talk about his service as a minister, I would like to focus on the great legacy he leaves as a parliamentarian and as having served in this place, in the House of Representatives, for more than 30 years. Of course, he was the Father of the House in the last few years of his career here, and that is extremely significant. The 30-year club is a very small and exclusive one. We have one member of the current parliament, the member for Kennedy, who is in that club, and there are times when not a single member of the House of Representatives has met the 30-year milestone, which says all we need to know about how significant it is that Kevin served for more than 30 years. But time served is not in and of itself the metric; it's contribution made. I refer to Kevin as a parliamentarian. I think it's regrettable that we, in some ways, use the term 'politician' a little too often. Yes, I concede that we are politicians and that we engage in politics, but, when you're elected to this building, you become a parliamentarian. It is a worthy career, and one to be proud of. For too long, the things that are focused on and reflected on and dwelt on about parliamentarians are usually the negative sides of the process of what happens here. But, fundamentally, what we do here is a very good, important thing. We're a democracy. We represent our communities. We draft, debate, amend and pass legislation that the entire population of this nation becomes subject to. It's a very serious responsibility. And Kevin, when I think about his service, was first and foremost a person that embodied a career that should be looked upon with pride. He serviced in this place as a parliamentarian. He experienced a lot, and there has been a lot of commentary about some of the brave causes that he took up as a legislator, bringing private member's bills that succeeded through the parliament. There are things that will always be associated with Kevin's service here. Other members have reflected on the great challenges that you can face when you stick your head above the parapet, when you take on a cause or an issue that has different views in your own community let alone across the entirety of the Australian community. The bravery of Kevin and the principles of Kevin and the values that he held were his guiding fundamentals for the long period of time that he served in this parliament. I'm probably breaking important party room conventions by talking about the last meeting that Kevin attended in the party room, when he made the point that he was going to try and write a book on our party room. Particularly, he wanted to try and encapsulate the great mysteries of how the Liberal party room operates and maybe make it a little easier for some of us into the future to understand just exactly how we do what we do. I'm not sure how far along Kevin got on that project. When the time is appropriate, I'd be very interested to understand how far along he was. I think that would have been a very interesting and helpful project for those of us that are in the current party room—to understand more about the history of some of the decisions that were made and some of the ways in which we operate. From Kevin's point of view, the body of work would have been very much about how to make sure that the lessons of the past inform a great equality for our party room into the future, which was exactly the same approach he had to service in our chamber, to the service of the people of his electorate of Menzies and to his service of the people of Australia. I thank Kevin, as the defence minister, for the decision he made to commit to the surface fleet vessel construction in Adelaide. With a very different hat on, I was at a press conference that was held out at the Osborne naval shipbuilding yard. In 2015, Kevin was the defence minister. The parliament was sitting. There was a degree of ambiguity around whether or not those vessels would be made in Australia, and Kevin flew to Adelaide that morning from Canberra—he made sure he was back in time for the parliament sitting—to make a very clear announcement of commitment to the people of South Australia around that project and those future jobs. That is one of many significant legacies he leaves behind as a minister. He also leaves behind a remarkable legacy is a legislator. Most importantly, we've heard, from so many people who knew Kevin well, about the legacy he leaves behind as a husband and a father. I think, if Kevin were able to choose which he would most prefer to have as his legacy, husband and father would, beyond question, be at the top of his list. So to his wife Margie and to his family—it is an incredible loss to them. Having Margie in the chamber was very poignant and touching for the condolence motion's movement yesterday. Our hearts are with them. We're very grateful to the service of Kevin to our nation, to this parliament, to his community and to his family. Vale, Kevin Andrews. 12:10 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright ():  I was first elected to this parliament in 2010. On average, as members of this parliament, we would stand twice a week and offer a minute's silence in question time for members of this place that had passed. For over a decade, this ritual has continued—an honourable ritual. It just speaks of the fragility. When something moves or shifts with people from 'you didn't really know who they were' to 'now you know who they are'—the men and women that you have served with—and you're standing to offer a minute's silence, it speaks of the fragility of life and the inevitability. When the news of Kevin Andrews's passing found me, I was shocked. At the age of 69, that is below the average life expectancy for an Australian male. Kevin, in his last contributions in the party room as the member for Sturt—aptly appointed to—showed no signs of illness and no signs of frailty. He was fit and well with a plan and a destiny to invest time with his family. He had plans to write yet another book, which has been spoken about in a number of speeches. And so it is a life lost too early. In my contributions today, it is not my intention to speak of the biography of what Kevin Andrews was and his assorted ministries as such, because my colleagues have done that so appropriately and I don't want to cover that ground. I want to speak more to the man and the contributions and the effects that he had on me. I just think that Kevin Andrews walked the walk and talked the talk. He was a decent human being, and I cannot recall a particular point in the 15 years that I've served here where I sat with him where he said an unkind word about anyone. He used to get frustrated with some colleagues, but I think that's just a by-product of working in a place where robust debates happen and points are different, because he was such a conservative. Our political ideologies were very much aligned, and so we found comfort in each other's similarities of our beliefs. We were not always 100 per cent aligned, but for the most we were very much aligned. His Christian values and his commitment to family go hand-in-hand. You can be a great father without being a Christian, but, when you're both, it is another set of values that you live by. He was someone that I found very easy to look up to. When I had a particular issue that was vexing me, I pondered for some time as to who I would take advice from, because the issue was sensitive, and I went to Kevin. And we spoke, and he gave me advice that reaffirmed what my problem was. I left that meeting, without divulging what it was, with a sense of calmness and a sense of healing and most of all, through the Christian learnings, a sense of forgiveness. The bitterness that I had gone there with was gone. And it is a powerful skill that one has to be able to impart that generosity. But the point of the contribution that I wanted to make today is that Kevin's contribution to this country was cut short too early. I just want to challenge members of the House that, if Kevin Andrews were here listening to these contributions about him, what would his reaction be? What would he be saying? He'd be embarrassed by the generous comments that were made. He'd be humbled. But most of all I think he would feel a sorrow for his family of not being able to wake up the next day with Margaret or take a phone call from one of the children. And those months and years ahead—having lost a father myself at a very young age, I know the pain never leaves you, but it does subside. Those that leave us are always in our presence, and I think Kevin will always be in our presence here as a political mentor. So what gift has he left us as politicians? I think, passing away at the age of 69, you could argue that the gift he has given us is to live every life as if there is no tomorrow. Leave nothing in the tank. Stay true to your values. Stay true to your family values. Stay true to your beliefs. Live them, share them, embrace them, and encourage others to do the same thing. Be forgiving. Be charitable. And, when it comes to your children, the greatest gift you can give them is your time. I know this task takes away an enormous amount of time, as politicians, that we would spend with our children. I offer my condolences to Margaret and the children, who now go through life having the memories of a wonderful father but without being able to touch or hold their hand or pick that phone up again. Kevin Andrews's gift to us is to be good to your family. Live your life by the principles that he taught us. In passing, my final comment is that someone will write the book that Kevin Andrews was going to write. With my conversations with him, he kept with granular detail party room meetings. I thought: 'Are you leaking to the press? Are you doing this for vexatious reasons or clandestine reasons?' And he said: 'You should keep a diary. You'll be surprised when you go back a couple of years after being here by how much slips your mind.' He said: 'My intention is to write a book. We won't divulge names or anything. It's more about helping the next politician, the next style of politician that will be coming to this House, because there are no rules in our party room. There are procedures and there are traditions, but there's no one tradition that binds one party room to the next. Unless we know the procedures and how situations have been managed, choreographed, and the outcomes of those, that history becomes lost.' His gift to our party was that granular detail that he has, and let's hope those diaries that he has don't get discarded, but they end up in the hands of a wonderful journalist that may fulfil Kevin's legacy in writing that final book in his memory. To Kevin Andrews, thank you for your friendship and your contributions to this place. To Margaret and the children, I cannot imagine the sorrow and hurt that you will be enduring in the months and years ahead, but know that there is a parliament that respects your husband with unlimited capacity, and that he has left behind a legacy in this place of amazing generosity and a gentleness that we should all live by. Vale, my friend. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 I thank the Federation Chamber. 12:21 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 124 BILLS Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 124

Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024

Second Reading 124 CONDOLENCES 124 CONDOLENCES Moore, Hon. John Colinton, AO 124 16:02 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It gives me an enormous sense of pride to be able to get to my feet and make a heartfelt contribution on the Hon. John Moore. I rise to acknowledge not only his contribution in the House but also his contribution as a businessman and his contribution to our party, because his contributions, at his passing, are worthy of accolade and they're worthy of being noted. John, much like myself, was actually born in Rockhampton. He served as the federal member for Ryan in the House of Representatives for no less than 25 years. Now, just consider that—serving between the years 1975 and 2001. That is a colossal innings: 25 years of public service, giving to your community. My other half is a schoolteacher, and she said, 'I wonder how many schoolteachers there would be in Queensland if, every three years, schoolteachers' jobs were reliant on votes from students and principals or other teachers.' So, when you're in public office, having that affirmation over and over and over again from the people you represent is evidence of your character and evidence of the way that your public perceive you and the contributions you've made for them and how you represented their interests. It shows how John made his community feel special and welcome in the seat of Ryan. In addition to his incredibly long service, he also served as a minister in the Fraser and Howard governments. There are people that will serve in this place for many years and will not reach the dizzy heights of cabinet ministers. This guy, an amazing Australian, was fortunate enough to serve in a number of governments. John Moore was a Queenslander through and through. As I said, he was born in Rockhampton—by coincidence, my very birth town. He was raised on a cattle station just west of Bowen, and he understood the values of hard work and perseverance from a very early age. He went to the University of Queensland in Brisbane, where he honed his skills in commerce and accounting. These early experiences would lay out the foundation of a successful career in business and later in public service. Before entering politics, John excelled in the world of finance, growing his stockbroking firm to one of Queensland's largest single-trader businesses. How can a boy from Rockhampton who grew up on a cattle station in Brisbane grow a stockbroking firm to one of Queensland's largest? The Hon. John Moore's business acumen was equally as honed as his character and his sense of likeability. You've got to remember that in Central Queensland, where he spent most of his time, the largest contributor to GDP is agriculture, with large landholdings of cattle and cane. Whilst not every year may have been profitable, John's tentacles reached right through the entire state for when those good years were on to help other businesses invest their money wisely so that their future generations would prosper and in the dry times be able to draw down dividends to keep their family farm and business operations going. His connections on the international stage are something I'll add as well. He had a keen financial acumen. It saw him serve on the board of major Australian and international companies, earning him a reputation as a sharp and principled man. You can be a great businessman, but, if you are not principled and your customers feel like they're not getting the very best possible deal, they will not return. To the family and the friends of John Moore, I can assure you that one of the reasons he was successful in business is that his customers returned to him. They returned to him because they trusted him, and so did the electorate of Ryan. But, despite his successes in the private sector, John felt a deeper calling: a commitment to serve his country and to contribute to the nation's future. In 1975, he embarked on a new journey, winning the federal seat of Ryan for the Liberal Party. Over the next 25 years, he dedicated himself to the people of Australia, serving with distinction in both the Fraser and Howard governments, as I mentioned earlier in my opening comments. His leadership was evident across a range of portfolios, from Business and Consumer Affairs to Industry, Science and Tourism and ultimately the most senior portfolio in the protection of our nation, the Defence portfolio. John's tenure as the Minister for Defence was particularly significant because it was under his stewardship that Australia played a crucial role in the East Timor peacekeeping mission. He championed the defence white paper of 2000, a landmark policy that reshaped Australia's military strategy for the next century—such a worthy contributor to our defence package. His commitment to strengthening our nation's defence and ensuring the operational effectiveness of the Australian Defence Force will be remembered as one of the most enduring legacies. Beyond politics, John was a man of great personal warmth and character. He was a devoted family man, a mentor to many and a leader who inspired those around him with his vision and pragmatism. With the warmth and the vision that he had and the mentoring that he gave to those around him, I wonder what John Moore would say if he were here to hear the contributions made in the House today by the Prime Minister and the opposition leader about his contribution, how humbled he would have been to hear it and what his response to that would have been. John was truly a humble man. In 2004, his contributions were recognised when he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia, an honour well deserved for a lifetime of service. It is such an honourable title to be given. It's one that's very rarely handed out to politicians whilst in office, but because of his lifetime commitment to business, which dovetailed into his professional career, the honours list committee would make the easiest decision they would have had to make in those assessments when looking at his character and contribution to our nation. John Moore was more than a politician; he was a statesman. He was a trailblazer and a very, very proud Australian. While we mourn for his loss, we also thank him for his incredible contribution to our nation. His legacy will live on in the policies he shaped, the lives he influenced and the examples he set for all who seek to serve their country, whether through this House, the business sector or our honourable Australian Defence Force personnel. To his family, friends and colleagues, we extend our deepest sympathies. May you find comfort in knowing that John's impact will never be forgotten. As some of the contributions that we make are etched into sandstone and, over time, the winds of change will erode them, I share with you that John's contribution has been etched into granite. It will stand the testament of time. May he rest in eternal peace, knowing he gave his all for the country that he loved so deeply. Rest in peace, the Hon. John Moore. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 I thank the Federation Chamber. 16:12 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Hughes, Hon. Thomas Eyre Forrest, AO, KC 126 16:13 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Today, in the House, we heard two incredible contributions that honour the remarkable achievements of the Hon. Thomas Hughes, AO, KC. The contributions were made by the Prime Minister and the honourable Peter Dutton, followed up by the member for Berowra. The funniest part of the contribution today—and it would be remiss of me not to enter it into this contribution—was when all three speeches referenced rioters picketing outside the front of the honourable Tom Hughes's place, where he met them with a cricket bat to settle any argument. I draw the attention of the House to those comments made today. I also acknowledge the members who have joined us in the public gallery. I want to acknowledge former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his wife, Lucy, who join family members as special guests to hear the contributions. It's a great pleasure for me to offer a few remarks on the passing of such a remarkable Australian. Tom was a man of principle, intellect and unwavering dedication. Tom's impact on our nation and its legal profession and public life is both profound and enduring. Born in Rose Bay in 1923, in New South Wales, Tom's journey was one of service, excellence and commitment. From his early days as a student of Saint Ignatius' College Riverview—which is a good school, by the way; they reckon they can tell you the man when they see the boy at eight years old—and the University of Sydney to his courageous service as a Royal Australian Air Force pilot during World War II, he demonstrated an unrelenting sense of duty. His recognition with the French Legion d'honneur for his role in Operation Overlord stands as a testament to his bravery and contribution to global history. Tom also had a distinguished career in law which saw him rise to become one of Sydney's most esteemed barristers. One of the comments today from the member for Berowra was that he was defending Menzies in one state jurisdiction and prosecuting him here on something unrelated in the ACT, such was his skillset in demand by all and sundry for high-profile cases. He fought for justice fiercely, appearing in high-profile cases that shaped legal precedent and upheld the rule of law. As president of the New South Wales Bar Association, he was a leader amongst his peers, admired for both his sharp mind and his unwavering integrity. His service to the nation further extended beyond the courtroom. As a member of the House of Representative, as the member for Parkes and later for Berowra, and as the Attorney-General in the Gorton government, Tom was a stalwart of the Liberal Party, committed to fairness, reform and progress. His contributions to Australian law and politics have left a lasting imprint on our nation's story. Beyond his professional achievements, Tom was a devoted family man, mentor and friend. We heard both sides of this House today refer to the love and devotion that he had for his family, for the commitment that he had for his community. He cherished his family, and his legacy lives on through them—his children, his grandchildren and all those who had the privilege of knowing him. Tom was, in every sense, a great Australian. His passing at the remarkable age of 101 marks the end of an extraordinary era. Fellow members, we can only hope and pray that God delivers us the health and the capacity and the wisdom to live to 101. It is an extraordinary contribution. But, while we mourn his loss, we also celebrate a life well lived, a life dedicated to service, excellence and the pursuit of justice. On half of all those whose lives he touched, we extend our deepest sympathies to his family and loved ones. May they, through these speeches, find comfort in knowing that Tom's legacy will continue to inspire all of us in this parliament. His contributions will continue to inspire all those that remember his legacy in the legal profession. Rest in peace, Tom Hughes OA KC. Thank you for your service, your wisdom and your unwavering commitment to our wonderful nation, Australia. Rest in peace, my friend. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER :  I thank the Chamber. 16:19 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 16:19