2025-09-03 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 3 September 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 Week 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 4 09:19 Ms WHITE 224102 Lyons I move: That further statements in relation to Women's Health Week be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Australian National Flag 4 Reference to Federation Chamber 8 09:45 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I move: That further statements on national symbols be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. BILLS 8 BILLS Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 8

Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:46 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I move: That this bill be now read a second time. An effective freedom-of-information system is critical in fostering public trust in government decision-making through transparency and access to information. It enables citizens to understand more about why and how government decisions are made and, with that knowledge, participate more effectively in Australia's civic and democratic processes. The freedom-of-information framework also importantly provides for individuals to seek access to their personal information held by government. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 was established over 40 years ago, before the common use of electronic documents, digital communications and records in the workplace. The rate and volume of electronic records generated today by public sector agencies would have been unimaginable when the Freedom of Information Act was first introduced. For example, the Department of Home Affairs's record holdings are approaching one billion records, in its primary record-keeping system alone. $86.2 million was spent processing freedom-of-information requests in 2023-24, a 23 per cent increase on the year prior. The administrative impost of processing large and complex requests, or treating vexatious and frivolous requests with the same procedural rigour, can divert resources and risks inhibiting agencies from providing important and essential government services and delivering on reform priorities that would benefit all Australians. The diversion of resources also means more genuine freedom-of-information requests and requests for access to personal information cannot be as readily prioritised. In 2023-2024 alone, public servants spent more than one million hours processing freedom-of-information requests. This is in part due to technology enabling large volumes of vexatious, abusive and frivolous requests—tying up resources, costing taxpayers money and delaying genuine requests. There is no reason to believe that this problem will not grow worse over time, particularly given the advancing capabilities of artificial intelligence. The ability for freedom-of-information requests to be lodged anonymously also risks undermining the integrity of the framework, and, in combination with new technology, creates risk vectors that could be exploited by offshore actors seeking government-held information for potentially nefarious purposes. There are also a range of complex procedural and technical rules in the Freedom of Information Act that are undermining the efficiency of the system, without any corresponding benefit to freedom-of-information applicants, the Australian people or Australia's democracy. This bill aims to strengthen the freedom of information framework to address identified shortcomings in its operation, while ensuring government continues to provide access to information consistent with the original policy intent of the act. The purpose of this bill is to ensure the system is fit for purpose in 2025 and beyond—by upholding and promoting the core democratic principles that underpin freedom of information laws while, at the same time, addressing the issues that, in practice, undermine a more effective and balanced FOI framework. The b ill This bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to reflect the modern environment. It will improve the freedom of information framework through reducing system inefficiencies, providing clarity of the law, and addressing abuse of processes that impact on people's right to access information. The bill implements a number of recommendations of the 2013 Review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982andthe Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 (also known as the 2013 Hawke review), which concerned, among other things, how to make the system more effective. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 to support the changes to the Freedom of Information Act. Schedule 1— s cope and objects Schedule 1 of the bill makes foundational and definitional changes to ensure the Freedom of Information Act promotes both accountable and effective government, and to clarify the scope of requests for documents of an agency—including through minor amendments to the objects provision and ensuring that information on agency systems that concerns purely personal and non-work related matters of staff are not captured in the definition of a 'document of an agency'. Schedule 2— a ccess requests Schedule 2 of the bill makes amendments to streamline processes relating to access requests and to address abuse of the freedom of information system by vexatious and anonymous applicants. Amendments in this schedule include provisions that: modernise the requirements for freedom of information requests, applications for amendment or annotation of records, Information Commissioner review applications and other requests lodged with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. This will assist in the more efficient receipt of applications, and early assessment of matters, whereby relevant information can be more effectively collected ensure that employee identifying information of officers or employees of an agency or minister is not required to be disclosed in notices or in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, except in certain circumstances address and clarify an existing ambiguity in the Freedom of Information Act relating to the operation of valid reasons and the practical refusal provisions provide agencies with the ability to decline to handle vexatious or frivolous requests, requests that are harassing or intimidating or requests that are an abuse of process—a decision that will be reviewable by the Information Commissioner provide that a freedom of information request cannot be made anonymously or under a pseudonym, and that a person must declare when making a freedom of information request on behalf of a third party, and that third-party must be identified. Schedule 3—practical refusals The act currently enables an agency or minister to refuse a request if a 'practical refusal reason' exists, such as where a request does not sufficiently identify the requested documents, or would cause a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. Schedule 3 of the bill makes amendments relating to the practical refusal mechanisms. The provisions clarify the status of Information Commissioner reviews involving practical refusal decisions and implement a recommendation of the Hawke review by introducing a discretionary 40-hour processing cap for freedom of information requests. This reflects that there needs to be an appropriate balance between an applicant's access rights and taxpayers' resources in providing such access. Schedule 4—requests and review processes Schedule 4 of the bill makes amendments to streamline agency and Information Commissioner review and extension of time processes, and clarify the outcome of a freedom of information request decision made out of time. The amendments will: streamline the review of freedom of information decisions by preventing concurrent internal agency and Information Commissioner review streamline extension of time arrangements provide an ongoing obligation to continue assessing and making decisions on requests once the statutory timeframe has elapsed change the timeframes for processing freedom of information requests or applications so that, instead of calendar days, processing times are measured by 'working days'. Schedule 5—Information Commissioner reviews and complaints Schedule 5 of the bill makes amendments relating to Information Commissioner reviews and complaints to create administrative efficiencies for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The amendments: create a new power for the Information Commissioner to remit review applications with directions to decision-makers for further consideration provide for the resolution of Information Commissioner review applications by agreement, without requiring a formal written Information Commissioner review decision streamline the Information Commissioner review process by providing that only the applicant and respondent, not third parties, are automatically a party to an Information Commissioner review support more efficient handling of freedom-of-information complaints by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Schedule 6— a pplication fees The government has carefully considered options on how to deter frivolous and vexatious requests, while maximising accessibility of the system for genuine applicants. All other Australian jurisdictions, apart from the Australian Capital Territory, have initial application fees for freedom-of-information requests. This measure will aid in deterring frivolous requests, and ensure agency resources are not unduly diverted from processing genuine requests, particularly requests for personal information which account for the vast majority of overall requests. Schedule 6 of the bill will enable a fee to be specified in the regulations for freedom-of-information requests, internal reviews and Information Commissioner reviews. The government recognises the primacy of Australians having access to their personal information held by government. For this reason, an application fee would not apply to requests by an applicant for access to their own personal information, or an individual acting on behalf, and with the authority of, another individual for access to their personal information. FOI requests for personal information comprised 72 per cent of overall FOI requests in 2023-24. On these figures, up to three in four freedom-of-information requests would be exempt from any application fee. There will be an ability to waive fees in certain circumstances, including in cases of financial hardship. Schedule 7— e xemptions On introducing the Freedom of Information Act in 1981 under the Fraser government, Senator Durack told the parliament that 'the general right of access' to information 'must, of course, be limited' for the 'protection of essential public interests'. Schedule 7 of the bill clarifies the operation of important exemptions in the act consistent with the original policy intent to promote efficient handling of requests, including by: amending the cabinet exemption to ensure it operates to appropriately protect information central to the cabinet process and ensure the principle of collective ministerial responsibility is not undermined, and amending the public interest test as it relates to the deliberative-processes exemption—to provide greater clarity around public interest considerations. To address a concern raised in the 2023 Royal commission into the robodebt scheme report, the amendments would also make it absolutely clear: merely labelling something a cabinet document is not enough to make it a cabinet document. Schedule 8— o fficial d ocuments of a m inister There has been a longstanding convention that new ministers should not make decisions on access to information relating to former ministers. Schedule 8 of the bill responds to a recent Federal Court decision by creating a practical, workable process for outgoing ministers to facilitate access to information—while ensuring that, consistent with convention, new, incoming governments should not have access to policy and similar advice of the previous, outgoing government. The amendments make provision for the treatment of freedom-of-information requests and review proceedings in circumstances where a minister ceases to hold office or moves to a new portfolio. Conclusion This bill provides important updates to the Commonwealth's freedom-of-information framework, with a focus on modernisation, reducing system inefficiencies and addressing abuse of processes that impact on people's right to access information. It recognises the importance of a well-functioning system of information access, balanced with an efficient and effective government. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 11

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:00 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART) commenced operation on 14 October 2024, replacing the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Australia's federal merits review body. The ART provides an independent mechanism of review of government decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts—a function that is critical to Australia's system of government and maintaining public confidence in our institutions. This government created the ART to replace its dysfunctional predecessor based on the fundamental belief in the importance of merits review. And, in that spirit, this government is therefore committed to ensuring the ART has the tools it needs to deliver efficient and high-quality review of government decisions. One of the tribunal's objectives under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act) is to ensure that applications to the tribunal are resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permits. This objective recognises that not every review is the same and that the tribunal should provide a meaningful opportunity for review in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of the matter. That is: merits review processes should be proportionate. The time and resources expended to determine a matter should reflect the complexity of the issues, and the importance of what is at stake. To be clear, this does not mean that efficiency should come at the expense of quality decision-making. Rather, it requires that a balance be struck. Proportionate and efficient review procedures ensure that the tribunal can make decisions efficiently and without delay. Efficient and timely decision-making is particularly important in the context of the tribunal's reviews of migration decisions—such as reviews of decisions to refuse visas. Onshore applicants seeking review of a decision to refuse the grant of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. In this context, efficient review procedures are important to reduce delays in decision-making, provide genuine applicants with the benefit of a timely and effective remedy, and strengthen the integrity of the migration system. Backlogs and extended wait times at the tribunal stage create incentives for non-genuine applicants to apply for review in order to extend their stay in Australia. For genuine applicants, this creates an access-to-justice issue as the large volume of applications that must be dealt with, including from non-genuine applicants, means that they can wait months or years for a decision. This point was emphasised in the Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, delivered by Ms Christine Nixon AO, APM in March 2023. Since early 2024, the tribunal has experienced a significant surge in applications for review of decisions to refuse student visas. This has further highlighted the importance of ensuring the tribunal is equipped with the tools it needs to provide quick and efficient merits review. The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill enhances the tribunal's powers and procedures to ensure the tribunal can achieve this objective. In particular, the bill expands the tribunal's ability to make decisions based on written materials, without holding an oral hearing. Currently, the tribunal is required to conduct an oral hearing in all proceedings before it, unless narrow exceptions apply. Oral hearings are time and resource intensive. A one-size-fits-all approach that requires that oral hearings be conducted in all matters is unnecessarily rigid. The bill would give the tribunal additional flexibility and ensure that review procedures are proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Amendments to the Migration Act The bill would amend the Migration Act 1958 to require the tribunal to make decisions without conducting an oral hearing in reviews of certain migration decisions. This will specifically include decisions to refuse to grant a student visa, and could be expanded by regulation to include decisions in relation to other kinds of temporary visas. Critically, permanent and protection visas are excluded from this regime in recognition that the matters in contention can be more complex—and in the case of protection matters—generally involves a more vulnerable cohort of applicant. Informed by the Nixon review, which noted that the merits review process should be proportionate, the government believes it is appropriate that reviews of student visas be determined 'on the papers', having regard to: the nature of the issues under review the short-term nature of these visa times, and the low volume and complexity of relevant written materials. These amendments would establish an efficient and proportionate method of review, while ensuring that applicants are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal in writing. Applications which would be required to be reviewed 'on the papers' would be subject to a new review procedure set out in the Migration Act. The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials, without the tribunal holding an oral hearing. There would be no limit to the information applicants would be able to present to the tribunal in support of their case, and nothing to constrain an applicant from making their full and forthright case in writing. Key features of the review procedure include: a requirement for the tribunal to invite an applicant to give the tribunal written submissions and evidence on certain matters relating to the issues under review; a requirement for the tribunal to give certain information to an applicant and allow the applicant to comment on it; enabling an applicant to request the department to provide access to material given to the tribunal for the purposes of the review; retaining the tribunal's ability to request or obtain additional documents or materials by other means, and; requiring the tribunal to make its decision after considering any submissions, evidence and comments given by the applicant, and any other material given to the tribunal, without holding an oral hearing. To be clear: the bill is not a reaction to the current migration case load facing the tribunal. That case load is a symptom of the inflexibility of the current framework, a policy issue that this bill seeks to cure. The bill would also empower the Governor-General to prescribe other temporary visa types that should be considered on the papers. As an important safeguard, the parliament would of course retain its ability to disallow regulations if it judged it appropriate to do so. Amendments to the ART Act This bill would also amend the ART Act to give the tribunal additional flexibility about how it makes decisions in relation to other kinds of cases. The bill expands the circumstances in which the tribunal can choose to make a decision based on written materials and without holding an oral hearing. The tribunal would be able to do so if it appears to the tribunal that: the issues can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties, and it would be reasonable in the circumstances to make a decision without holding a hearing. This recognises that procedural fairness does not require that an oral hearing is required in every case. What is required to conduct a fair review will hinge on the facts of each matter. In light of this, it is appropriate that members have discretion to adapt tribunal procedure to achieve fair and just review in a manner that is efficient and proportionate to the complexity of the matter before them, across the tribunal's varied jurisdiction. This new discretion will ensure that simple matters with straightforward issues can be determined as efficiently as possible, enabling a proportionate allocation of tribunal resources. An important safeguard is that, before deciding to dispense with an oral hearing, the tribunal must consult the parties about this and take the parties' submissions into account. Conclusion The Administrative Review Tribunal has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions. This bill will support the tailoring of the tribunal's procedures in a way that is proportionate to the matters and issues before the ART. This government is committed to merits review and maintaining public trust in the ART. This bill further strengthens the tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner, while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 13

Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025

First Reading 13 Second Reading 13 10:09 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill delivers on the government's promise to establish an Australian Centre for Disease Control as a statutory agency in my portfolio, to commence on 1 January 2026. Establishing a transparent, trusted and independent CDC will strengthen Australia's public health capability, improve pandemic preparedness, and safeguard the health and wellbeing of all Australians. The independent COVID-19 response inquiry supported the establishment of the Australian CDC to address capability gaps identified in the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the COVID-19 inquiry report highlighted, Australia went into the COVID pandemic with no playbook for the pandemic, limited readiness of the National Medical Stockpile, and badly stretched aged- and healthcare systems. The inquiry report showed gaps in data and data sharing between the Commonwealth government and states and territories, as well as fragmented and outdated planning and preparation for health emergencies. The COVID-19 response inquiry panel—Robyn Kruk AO, Professor Catherine Bennett and Dr Angela Jackson—warned that we must not let pandemic planning and our public health capability degrade through complacency. There will be another pandemic—the only question is when—and there continue to be infectious disease outbreaks. Establishing a permanent Australian CDC through this bill will deliver on our commitment to create an independent agency that will help protect Australia from diseases and public health threats. It will bring us in line with countries like Canada, the UK, Singapore and most European countries which already have well-established national public health institutes. We've committed $251.7 million to establish and operate the Australian CDC, as well as ongoing funding of $73.3 million from 2028-29. The Australian people deserve public health data, insights and advice that is high quality, nationally coordinated and responsive—not just in a crisis, but every day. The COVID-19 pandemic was a once-in-a-century event, but it will not be the last public health threat that we face. Climate change, antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, zoonotic spillovers and changing geopolitical tensions impacting on Australia's health security all demand a permanent national public health authority right now. The bill enshrines the Australian CDC in law as an independent Commonwealth agency, separate from the health department and with transparent functions, obligations and powers. It will draw on the best technical and scientific expertise across the nation through its national convening role. This will include epidemiologists, data scientists, public health researchers and population health experts. It will play a national leadership role and become an authoritative source of expertise and evidence in public health, assisting state and territory governments to fulfil their critical roles in times of normality and crisis. The CDC's advice will help set the national direction on public health priorities, spanning from research through to workforce capability gaps. It will support agencies in the Australian government and the jurisdictions to plan and prepare for future health threats and emergencies. And, over time, its role will expand to include advice on how to prevent other health threats, including non-communicable diseases. Functions of the Australian CDC The Australian CDC will provide advice to federal, state and territory ministers on public health matters. It will also provide evidence based public health information to Commonwealth entities, state and territory government bodies, international agencies and non-government organisations. The CDC will build awareness among Australians on public health threats and what we can do as individuals and community members to minimise risk of sickness and death. It will be an authoritative source of public health advice and information for the Australian public and for health professionals across the country. There will be a phased approach to establishment of the Australian CDC. The standalone CDC will build on all of the achievements of the interim CDC. This bill is the next step in that journey. The Australian CDC's initial priorities will focus on communicable diseases, pandemic preparedness and existing capabilities in environmental health and occupational respiratory diseases. To ensure a comprehensive approach to pandemic preparedness and response, progressive expansion into areas such as chronic conditions will be considered following an independent review of the CDC's funding and operations in 2028. The review will assess the Australian CDC's effectiveness in delivering on its initial priorities and help inform a staged widening of its remit over time. The Australian CDC's advice won't exist in a vacuum. A core responsibility of the CDC will be to consult widely with experts across public health, relevant clinical groups, and academic experts. This will mean the CDC's advice is grounded in the knowledge of the impacts on people and their livelihoods, linking this with expertise in diseases and the recommended measures to control them. The social, cultural and economic factors that support health equity will be well understood, to ensure that no Australian is left behind. The CDC will not duplicate what the Australian Government and states and territories already do. Instead, it will enrich our national capacity through high quality, independent advice using enhanced data and evidence so that we can respond faster and smarter to emerging risks. National collaboration will be a cornerstone for the Australian CDC. The CDC will work together with states and territories, respecting jurisdictional autonomy, fostering relationships based on mutual respect and trust, and tailoring engagement to meet specific needs and priorities and unique local circumstances. Embedding accountability and transparency The Australian CDC has clear lines of accountability. The bill establishes a director-general who will lead the Australian CDC and report directly to the minister for health. He or she will be an expert in public health and ultimately accountable to the parliament through annual reporting requirements, scrutiny by parliamentary committees and budgetary oversight. The director-general will be supported by an advisory council, who will provide crucial advice on public health matters and on the strategic direction and priorities of the agency. The advisory council will ensure that CDC advice is informed by a wide range of perspectives, insights and expertise so that the Australian CDC operates in the public interest. The advisory council will be chaired by the director-general. Advisory council members will be appointed by the minister for their expertise in public health, clinical practice, economics, human rights, data and statistics, emergency management, or communications. To support progress towards closing the gap, at least one member of the advisory council must be an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander and must have expertise in the health needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The CDC will also have partnerships and relationships with many in the public health community. One of the most powerful messages of the COVID-19 pandemic was that Australians deserve transparency in public-health decision-making. Transparency is key to building and maintaining the trust of the community. The Australian CDC will be required to publish the advice it provides to governments and decision-makers, to ensure the visibility of its advice in the decision-making process. This is a strong step towards rebuilding trust with the Australian people on decisions made on public health policies and the evidence behind these decisions. Sometimes evidence is strong; sometimes evidence is ambiguous and only gets clearer with time, but the public deserve the honesty of having this acknowledged and the data explained. It's something the independent COVID-19 Response Inquiry recommended—and something our government believes is critical. Our government recognises that public health recommendations and decisions have real impacts on the lives and the wellbeing of individual Australians. The publication requirement will help improve confidence, counter misinformation and disinformation, and give communities and businesses the information they need to act effectively during future crises. The role of data At the heart of the Australian CDC is a commitment to using and enhancing the value of data and information. In a crisis, decision-makers need the best available evidence—at jurisdictional and national level—to make decisions quickly. The COVID-19 response inquiry laid bare some significant shortcomings in our pandemic response. Some key decisions were made without sufficient evidence about risks, benefits, or the wider social and economic impacts. This lack of data undermined the ability of our leaders to respond proportionally at times. Critically, it was not—and still is not—possible to bring together essential information such as vaccination status, health service utilisation, mortality and key population characteristics with data about who was infected by COVID-19. This bill will close this gap so future decisions are driven by comprehensive, connected data to protect every Australian. The Australian CDC will deliver a modern approach to national public health data to enable more accurate and faster detection of risks, more consistent responses across borders, and a stronger foundation for national public health planning. But the CDC won't act alone—Australians expect all levels of government to work together when public health is on the line. That is why this bill streamlines data sharing and authorises linkage across the Commonwealth, and with state and territory governments who choose to do so, to support public health activities. The bill includes strong safeguards to ensure that any data sharing serves the public interest without compromising privacy. Data functions have been developed using a 'privacy-by-design' approach, which means that privacy and transparency have been considered at every stage of the legislative development process and the operational rollout of the CDC. Policy development and consultation The Australian CDC established by this bill is the culmination of more than three years of policy development and public consultation. It delivers a CDC to respond to global health threats, and those already in our backyard. It is a CDC that strengthens Australia and helps us prepare for the future. In September 2023 the government asked the COVID-19 response inquiry panel to look at Australia's responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The independent panel of experts was asked to consider opportunities for systems to more effectively anticipate, adapt and respond to pandemics. In doing so, they analysed evidence from Australian and international research. They undertook extensive consultation with officials from all levels of government, community groups, industry and business, unions, and experts across a range of fields. They sought public submissions and conducted hearings to learn from the diversity of Australians' experiences during the pandemic. The inquiry panel was clear in its findings: Australia must never again enter into a public health crisis without a national public health authority or robust data. The report laid bare the costs of fragmented governance, a lack of national leadership, and weak surveillance systems. These shortcomings undermined both public trust and the effectiveness of our national response. This bill will close those gaps permanently. The Australian CDC presented in this bill today reflects this extensive consultation process and builds an institution that will have real impact. Review and evaluation The government understands the importance of growing the CDC in a sustainable way and monitoring and evaluating its effectiveness as its functions continue to grow. In addition to the independent review of the Australian CDC's funding and operations in 2028, the government is also committed to ensuring the legislation remains fit for purpose into the future. A legislated review every five years will provide an opportunity to ensure the act is working as intended to support the CDC's operations, particularly in improving the availability and use of data for public health benefit. In summary This bill puts in place an enduring institution to ensure that Australia is better prepared, more united, and more accountable in the face of future public health threats. This is a pivotal reform that is long overdue—a permanent capability, built on evidence, and grounded in the hard-won lessons of recent years. We know there will be another pandemic, and the Australian CDC will make sure we are better prepared. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 16

Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025

First Reading 16 Second Reading 17 10:25 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 supports the establishment of the new Australian Centre for Disease Control. It amends three existing acts in order to transfer certain public health responsibilities to the Australian CDC. These responsibilities will be discharged by the new CDC with the benefit of its independence, scientific and technical expertise, and access to advanced data analysis to better detect public health risks. These are important reforms to position the Australian CDC as the key advisor on public health actions taken by our government to protect the health of Australians. There will be another pandemic—the only question is when—and there continue today to be infectious disease outbreaks. Biosecurity Act 2015 This bill will establish a role for the Director-General of the CDC under the Biosecurity Act 2015. The director-general will have the ability to determine listed human diseases—a key decision which determines which human diseases are monitored at Australia's borders and where efforts are focussed to prevent their spread domestically and abroad. This will ensure the Australian CDC protects Australians from the human diseases it determines as having the greatest threat to our nation. The Australian CDC will be required under the Biosecurity Act to provide advice on human health risks if needed to support the analysis of the biosecurity risk of imported goods for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The role of the Chief Medical Officer will change with the establishment of the Australian CDC and its status as a new national public health agency in my portfolio. This bill confers the role of the Director of Human Biosecurity under the Biosecurity Act 2015 to the health secretary instead of the Chief Medical Officer to reflect this. National Health Security Act 2007 This bill amends the National Health Security Act 2007. The Australian CDC will take on responsibility for coordinating surveillance data from states and territories for diseases on the National Notifiable Disease List. It will be responsible for ensuring that—together with the Minister for Health—the list is contemporary and includes relevant diseases that present risks to public health. The National Focal Point (NFP) will also be transferred from the health secretary to the Director-General of the CDC. This ensures that the director-general is the central point of contact for significant public health events affecting Australia, in and beyond our borders. meeting Australia's requirements as a party to the International Health Regulations. Administration of the Security Sensitive Biological Agents (SSBA) Scheme will also transfer to the CDC. National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Act 2023 A core capability and focus of the Australian CDC will be the enhanced use of public health data—including data on non-communicable diseases and issues at the interface between human health and environmental health. This bill transfers responsibility for the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry to the CDC. This will ensure the Australian CDC directly manages the registry to help reduce and improve our understanding of preventable occupational respiratory diseases. Australian National Preventative Health Agency Act 2010 The bill repeals the old Australian National Preventative Health Agency Act 2010. The Australian National Preventative Health Agency (ANPHA) was established by a former Labor Government to support the prevention of chronic disease. Following a decision by the next administration, ANPHA ceased operations on 30 June 2014, and its functions transferred to the Department of Health. While not its initial focus, the Australian CDC is expected to take on expanded functions related to non-communicable diseases, including in areas like chronic disease, over time. The Australian CDC will be enabled to do so through the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025. The Australian CDC's expanded functions will be considered following an independent review of the CDC's operations and funding in 2028. Repeal of the ANPHA Act 2010 is consistent with, and reflected in, the new remit of the Australian CDC as a contemporary public health authority. This repeal provision provides a clear path for the Australian CDC's future focus on non-communicable diseases. Freedom of Information Act 1982 This bill also amends schedule 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The Australian CDC will be bound by strong safeguards designed to protect certain information, including personal information, from inappropriate disclosure. The amendment to the FOI Act reinforces this protection by making clear that certain information held by the Australian CDC will not be subject to release under freedom of information requests or under the director-general's duty to publish public health advice. This strikes a careful balance between the public right to information and the need to safeguard sensitive information that should not be published. Transitional provisions The consequential and transition bill facilitates a smooth transition from existing acts to the new Australian CDC. It provides clarity to ensure old arrangements under those relevant acts it amends continue seamlessly under the new Australian CDC's administration and its director-general. In summary The consequential and transitional bill makes necessary amendments to ensure the Australian CDC strengthens our national public health system—by assuming some existing powers, and by adding more expertise and advanced capabilities to exercise these powers. This will lay the foundation for a more resilient, accountable and responsive system—protecting the health and wellbeing of all Australians. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 18 COMMITTEES Treaties Joint Committee 18 Report 18 10:32 Ms 249710 Bendigo CHESTERS () (): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 227: Nauru-Australia Treaty; radio regulations WRC-23. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms CHESTERS 249710 by leave—I rise today to make a short statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties's report into the Nauru-Australia Treaty; the partial revision of the 2019 radio regulations, as incorporated into the final acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference 2023; and the minor treaty action in renewal of and modification to the New Arrangements to Borrow. The Nauru-Australia Treaty establishes, for the first time, a partnership between Australia and Nauru that focuses on economic, security and governance cooperation between our two nations. Nauru is one of our closest neighbours, and, historically, we have entered into several agreements to address bilateral, domestic and transnational security challenges. We have also shared strong people-to-people ties, supported through a significant Nauru diaspora here in Australia and the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. This treaty was negotiated following a proposal from the government of Nauru to reinforce bilateral partnership with Australia. The treaty will see Australia maintain its role as a key security and development partner to Nauru. In return, Australia commits to $140 million in support over five years to bolster Nauru's fiscal stability, policing and economic resilience. During the inquiry, the committee heard that there are a number of mechanisms in place to provide ongoing assurance for transparency and accountability in Nauru's fiscal and financial management systems. This will ensure that Australia's funds are being utilised effectively and efficiently in Nauru. The treaty underscores Australia's commitment to being a security and development partner of choice in the Pacific and sets a precedent for similar arrangements with other Pacific nations. Nauru has ratified the treaty, but Australia's ratification is pending. Until we complete our ratification, our relationship relies upon informal arrangements, limiting how effectively we can work together. By finalising Australia's ratification, we'll provide both countries with a clear and structured framework, which will strengthen cooperation and our relationship. The committee supports the Nauru-Australia Treaty and recommends binding treaty action be taken. The radio regulations are a binding international treaty framework which manages the use of the radiofrequency spectrum, which is essential to global communications infrastructure such as mobile phone networks, GPS and emergency distress systems. Created by the International Telecommunications Union, of which Australia has been a longstanding member, the regulations are often revised at the World Radiocommunications Conference to reflect evolving technology and needs. Australia signed the final acts of the 2023 conference and intends to ratify the changes of the 2019 radio regulations to align with international standards. The radio regulations oblige Australia to assign and change frequencies to avoid interference with other member states' existing and future assignments. There is flexibility for Australia to make spectrum allocations and rules, so long as they do not cause harmful interference. Australia has undertaken a four-year consultation process led by the department of infrastructure, with technical support from the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which involved hearing from a wide range of stakeholders, including government, industry and other specialists. This treaty imposes no obligations or costs on Australia. The committee recommends the partial revision of the 2019 radio regulations and recommends binding treaty action be taken. The report also contains one minor treaty action—the Renewal of the modification of new arrangements to borrow, a multilateral borrowing agreement between the International Monetary Fund and 40 members to support stability in the global economy. The committee has resolved that the minor treaty action be endorsed without inquiry and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. On behalf of the committee, I recommend the report to the House. 10:38 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders by leave—I rise to speak as deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on Report 227: Nauru-Australia Treaty; Radio Regulations WRC-23. Firstly, I'm very pleased to have been appointed deputy chair of this important committee, which inquiries into any treaty to which Australia has become a signatory. In this unstable global trade environment and challenging geopolitical context, our role as scrutineers on behalf of the Australian people has never been more important. I thank the committee chair, the member for Bendigo, and the secretariat for their able and quick work in assisting the committee, as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs officials, for their extensive appearance before the public hearing last week. I also thank all my fellow committee members for their consideration and collaboration on this report. This is the first inquiry of the treaties committee in the 48th Parliament, and our report makes two recommendations: to support both major treaty actions reviewed and to recommend that binding treaty actions be taken. However, as members can read in the report, the committee members raised concerns in the context of the prospective Nauru-Australia Treaty, which go to this government's attentiveness to mapping our relations with our South Pacific neighbours. Australia and Nauru entered this treaty in late 2024, establishing a comprehensive partnership encompassing economic support, banking services and security cooperation. This agreement elevated the longstanding, close relationship between the two countries to a formal treaty level, with Australia committing significant financial assistance and Nauru offering strategic concessions in return. The treaty recognises Australia's strong interest in Nauru's future security and critical infrastructure arrangements with third parties under article 5 of the agreement, a provision aimed at ensuring balance and ongoing stability in the South Pacific region. However, the effectiveness of the treaty is already being brought under question following Nauru's apparent decision to enter into a socioeconomic development agreement valued at $1 billion with the hitherto unknown China Rural Revitalisation and Development Corporation. The investment proposal, as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade chose to describe it in its testimony to our committee, was signed just weeks ago on, Monday 11 August 2025, and purports to span renewable energy, infrastructure, agriculture, transport, tourism, marine fisheries and sea infrastructure, and cultural exchange programs. In hearings before our committee last week, we explored whether a pre-emptive triggering and potential breach of article 5 of the treaty may have already occurred. The committee was reassured by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that they have made inquiries as to the nature of the investment proposal. Nonetheless, it was made very clear to us that the department only became aware of the announcement of the so-called investment proposal when it was published on the Nauruan government's website. The level of involvement, if any, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Trade and Tourism, Minister for Pacific Island Affairs or Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs have had in relation to this matter remains entirely unclear. Unfortunately, 'unclear' seems to be the key word for circumstances surrounding this important treaty action. We are no wiser as to the status of the investment proposal, nor indeed of the character described as the China Rural Revitalisation and Development Corporation. Nor do we know how this investment proposal will impact this treaty between Nauru and Australia, particularly article 5. What are the relevant ministers doing in response? At this point, that is equally unclear. More concerningly, how has the government allowed a potential breach of this treaty to occur when the ink has not yet dried on it? It would appear the government has been caught unawares, and they have not explained what significant actions, if any, they're taking to rectify it. Last week, the Minister for Home Affairs made a quick flight to Nauru to announce a $408 million immigration detention deal, seemingly without any coordination with this treaty's processes. This government's engagement with Nauru appears to lack crucial strategic clarity, and this uncertainty has opened the door to other Asia-Pacific players keen to test Australia's credibility as a reliable partner with Nauru. If Nauru was willing to enter a generous deal with the China Rural Revitalisation and Development Corporation so soon after signing their own agreement with Australia—and, indeed, while concurrently negotiating a generous deal with the Minister for Home Affairs and his department—it raises some questions. Has Australia's support fallen short of expectations? Was communication lacking? And what does this mean for other deals between Australia and our South Pacific neighbours? Does it mean that they are wise to hedge their bets? In closing, Australia has few friends as close as our neighbours in the South Pacific region, in terms of both cultural and strategic interests, than our friends in Nauru. With this treaty, the government has promised Nauru, 'We've got your back, both economically and security-wise, in exchange for loyalty.' Australia has been working to confirm its commitment to the region by signing numerous security and defence cooperation treaties, many with exclusivity clauses. The efficacy of that strategy is now being tested in Nauru. BILLS 20 BILLS Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 20

Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025

Second Reading 20 10:44 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I welcome the opportunity to speak in relation to the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. Firstly, I move the amendment as circulated in my name: Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 (Mr Chester) (1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 16), omit "subsections (2) to (9)", substitute "subsections (6) and (9)". (2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 19) to page 5 (line 27), omit subsections 110V(2) to (5). (3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 5) to page 6 (line 24), omit subsections 110V(7) and (8). (4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 32), after item 8, insert: 8A After section 110V Insert: 110VAAA Notification of review rights If a reviewable decision is made, the decision maker must, in writing, notify any person who is affected by the decision of the effect of sections 110VA and 110VAA. (5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 33) to page 9 (line 24), omit the item, substitute: 9 After section 110VA Insert: 110VAA Time limit for making an application for review (1) An application for review of a reviewable decision can only be made within: (a) 6 months after the day the applicant is given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision; or (b) if the Tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that exceptional circumstances exist—such longer period as the Tribunal allows. (2) However, an application for review of a reviewable decision can be made at any time (subject to this Part) if the applicant is not given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision. Now, wherever possible, the coalition will seek to find some common ground and a bipartisan position on veterans issues but, sadly, not on this occasion. The opposition is moving amendments today in relation to the key reforms as outlined in the minister's second reading speech because, quite frankly, he has made no case for change to the operation of a tribunal which has operated effectively for the past 14 years and was actually created by the former Labor government. Quite simply, the legislation before the House is stripping rights from Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families. From my direct experience as the former minister, this tribunal has acted diligently, professionally and with the utmost integrity. I say at the outset, I have literally no idea why the Labor Party has blundered down this pathway without any consultation or any input from this side of the House, the veteran community, their families, historians or any other interested parties. Even worse, the minister's second reading speech was deceptive and selective, even pretending the tribunal had called for these proposed changes. The only organisation that would support this unwelcome intrusion into the independence of this statutory agency would be the defence department, because it has never accepted the principle that a tribunal should be allowed to review decisions of senior officers, particularly in relation to honours for gallantry. This legislation appears to me an example of a government which has run out of puff in just four months. It is a solution looking for a problem. As a former minister, I'm not aware of any stakeholders—again, apart from senior Defence officers—who are critical of the current operations of the tribunal. In fact, it's quite the opposite. In my experience, the members of the tribunal have always acted with incredible diligence, professionalism and integrity. They have taken their job over the past 14 years very seriously. They have weighed up often very complex issues, carefully considered the consequences of their recommendations and then made recommendations which were both balanced and responsible. It's not like this tribunal have been handing out medals without giving due consideration to the many complex issues that they have encountered over the years. In his second reading speech, the minister claims: … it is necessary to ensure that the tribunal remains fit for purpose and to address a number of concerns that have been raised by the tribunal itself— and then proceeds to give absolutely no examples of any concerns raised by the tribunal itself. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The tribunal actually gave evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system that it was strongly opposed to the key change proposed in this legislation before the chamber today. In relation to Defence's proposal to introduce a 20-year time limit for tribunal reviews, the tribunal actually expressed its strong opposition to and significant concerns for that proposal. The tribunal went on to explain that it would render invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023 and said in its submission: … if implemented, would be to abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award. This is the crux of the coalition's opposition to the bill before the House today. It actually seeks to curtail the rights of Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families simply because Defence doesn't like this tribunal. Defence gave evidence at the same Senate inquiry and recommended changes to the tribunal, and the minister has blindly followed that advice. Again, it is contrary to the evidence given at the inquiry, which stated the establishment of the tribunal to consider unsuccessful awards and honours nominations was a unique feature of the Australian system and provided an additional level of accountability. Evidence to the Senate inquiry showed support for and confidence in the work of the tribunal, and, again, I quote the report, which said: Overwhelmingly, inquiry participants valued the independent nature of the tribunal, its impartiality and its considered approach when handling review applications. Despite the lack of evidence that the tribunal's current standing rules have been abused by the public, the Albanese government is acting to totally abolish the current rights of ADF members, veterans and their families through this bill. They are taking away the right of Australians to register legitimate appeals against the refusal of a defence honour. What concerns me the most is, if the minister had a single ounce of decency, he would have undertaken a proper consultation process. He would have realised in about a minute that he had been sold a pup by the Department of Defence. Defence initiated this legislation. Defence wrote the legislation. Defence has finally found a minister compliant enough to bring it to the chamber, and here we are today, debating a bill that should never have seen the light of day, particularly in the aftermath of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It is staggering that this government is taking action which actually disenfranchises serving men and women at this most sensitive of times. They're actually disenfranchising serving men and women and our veterans' community. This is worse than a solution looking for a problem; this legislation will actually create problems. It will add to the existing distrust between some veterans and Defence, and it actually undermines the integrity of a statutory agency which, I repeat, the Labor Party established in 2011. On that point: for those who are not familiar with this particular tribunal, it was formed by the Gillard Labor government in 2011, with a capacity to review decisions regarding honours and awards. It can also be directed by the minister of the day to undertake inquiries on his or her behalf. As a statutory agency, it was intended to act independently of government. That is the critical point. It is meant to be independent of government, and it has the capacity to review decisions dating back to 1939, which obviously coincides with the start of World War II. Throughout the past 14 years, the tribunal undertook 483 reviews, and, on 283 occasions, it upheld the decision made by Defence. But, on 136 occasions, it put forward recommendations to change the decision of Defence. It seems to me like the tribunal is working. Importantly, the tribunal's recommendations are a matter for the minister of the day to then consider. Deputy Speaker Young, I know you are someone who takes a great deal of interest in the recognition of our service men and women. There have been several particularly high-profile cases which have warranted careful consideration by the tribunal as reviewable decisions. Let's take the example of Teddy Sheean, the first naval servicemen to receive a VC, and, to quote from the citation regarding his actions in December 1942, it said: Ordinary Seaman Sheean's actions disrupted and distracted the enemy from strafing and killing his defenceless shipmates in the water. He sacrificed his life trying to save his shipmates and, despite his wounds, he continued firing the gun until the ship sank and took him to his death. His pre-eminent act of valour and most conspicuous gallantry saved Australian lives. His heroism became the standard to which the men and women of the Australian Defence Force aspire. An amazing, amazing Australian. Then we have Private Richard Norden, whose gallant actions occurred in May 1968. Within his citation, it was said: Private Norden killed one North Vietnamese Army soldier whilst moving forward and, having expended his ammunition, recovered that enemy's automatic weapon which he used against further North Vietnamese Army soldiers. He then half-carried, half-dragged the severely wounded Section Commander back to the section. Private Norden, seriously wounded, again advanced to the forward scout. He pressed forward under enemy fire and reached the scout, killing the North Vietnamese Army soldier who had been using the scout as a shield. Having determined that the scout was dead, Private Norden returned to the section to collect grenades and moved forward for a third time. He cleared the area to enable the body of the scout to be recovered. Private Norden showed a complete disregard for his own personal safety, and his courage and selfless acts resulted in the enemy position being secured and likely saved the lives of other members of the platoon. Again, another extraordinary Australian has been recognised for his actions. Then there's the celebrated outcome for Delta Company after a long—when we're talking 'long', we're talking decades—battle for recognition by company commander Harry Smith, recognition that would not have been possible without the tribunal's involvement. On 18 August 1966, members of D Company, who were outnumbered 20 to one, fought against the odds to defeat the enemy at Long Tan. Eighteen Australians were killed, and more were wounded, but for half a century many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for that recognition. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the action that 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. The reason I raise those three cases as examples is that, under this legislation before the House today, those men never would have received the bravery medals they were rightfully due, because this government wants to place an unrealistic and unfair time limit on the review of honours and awards. The cases would not have been able to be assessed by the tribunal, because they occurred outside the 20-year time limit that this government is seeking to impose on Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families. In all of these cases, Defence opposed any changes to the medallic recognition of the individuals involved. Under the Albanese government's proposed changes that I've just described, none of these celebrated Australian servicepeople would have achieved the justice they deserved, as, again, their actions fall outside the 20-year time limit that would be imposed by this bill. There's a fair bit of hypocrisy in this place, and this bill is right up there in it. In opposition, Labor were very happy to play politics with the Sheean case and they publicly demanded a VC for his heroic actions after the tribunal made its recommendations. The then opposition leader and now prime minister, Anthony Albanese, led the charge. So it's quite hypocritical of them when you consider the impact of the changes that his cabinet has put before the House today. Again, under these changes, the Labor Party would never have been able to deliver medallic recognition for Teddy Sheean and his family, because the tribunal would have been prevented from reviewing the decision made by Defence in the first place. We need to be very clear about this. The changes proposed today have been drafted by Defence. They are being driven by Defence, and the interests of veterans and the tribunal itself are secondary to those of this government, this minister and this prime minister. If the House needs any proof that Defence never wants this tribunal correcting its homework, the approach of the former chief of the defence force Angus Campbell in relation to the Sheean VC case is compelling. It's been publicly reported that Campbell wrote to the Prime Minister advising against a VC for Sheean, despite the tribunal recommending the recognition. For the record, the former chief of the defence force also advised me that he didn't support Sheean receiving a VC. I had an outstanding working relationship with the former CDF and I respect him greatly, but we had to agree to disagree on this point. In relation to the tribunal, he briefed against Sheean receiving a VC, and I campaigned for it and I supported the tribunal's findings. Defence just hates the fact that a tribunal exists to review its decisions. It hates the fact that actions from previous conflicts can be reassessed, and it hates the fact that any person may apply for a review. But now it's found a minister willing to just roll over and do its bidding at the expense of transparency and accountability. This deeply flawed legislation raises more questions than it answers—without proper consultation, there are just so many unanswered questions in relation to this bill. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal told a Senate inquiry that introducing a 20-year time limit for a tribunal review would: … abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award. Specifically, I'd like to ask the Prime Minister: why is the government ignoring the advice of an independent statutory agency and taking the rights of appeal away from veterans and their families? I'd also like to ask: can the Prime Minister confirm that Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean would never have received a Victoria Cross under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that Private Richard Norden would never have received a Victoria Cross under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Maybe the Prime Minister could also confirm that soldiers who fought in the Battle of Long Tan would never have received additional medallic recognition for their bravery under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Maybe the minister or the Prime Minister could walk in here and answer this question: on whose advice did the government decide to ban the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago, and why wasn't the position tested with a full consultation process involving the affected parties? In the interests of transparency, prior to the election, why didn't the Prime Minister tell veterans and their families from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and numerous other conflicts that he intended to remove their right to appeal Defence decisions regarding honours and awards? On 18 June 2020 the Prime Minister told the House that the point of having an independent defence honours and appeals tribunal was to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. Prime Minister, can you explain why this government is seeking to reduce the scope of this tribunal, this independent statutory body, and block veterans and their families from seeking review of Defence honours? Finally, I have a question for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In relation to the plan to abolish the rights of veterans and families to seek an independent review of Defence decisions, can the minister confirm that he misled the chamber when he said, 'If the family themselves wish to have the matter reviewed, that should and will remain open to them'? That statement's not true. If the minister has misled the chamber, he needs to come in here and correct the record. It's not true, Deputy Speaker Young. The families can't seek a review under this legislation. Minister, if you've misled the chamber, come back and correct the record. It could be an honest mistake. It could have been a drafting error in the speech. He could have misspoken. I don't know. From my reading of the legislation, it is abundantly clear that families have no right whatsoever to seek a review of an honour decision that is being denied by Defence. I must confess, in many ways, I was pretty surprised—if not actually stunned—when the minister rose to make his second reading speech on this issue last week. We had no warning. We had no idea that he was heading down this pathway. There'd been no consultation with key agencies. So I say, again, in summing-up, this legislation is an example of a government that has run out of puff in just four months and is a solution looking for a problem. There has been no consultation with veterans groups, and the bill proposes to amend the Defence Act to such a degree that the tribunal's operations would be, effectively, muzzled. The most egregious amendment is to strip the tribunal of the capacity to review decisions dating back to World War II, which obviously includes the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Korean War and the Malayan emergency—and every other operation in that time period. Labor wants to limit the reviewable decision period to just 20 years and has provided no explanation whatsoever as to why that is a fair outcome. It also wants to strip ADF members, veterans and their families and everyday Australians of their right to seek a review of a Defence decision. Under these changes, make no mistake, veterans' advocates, historians and people with a specific interest in medallic recognition would have no right to seek a review of Defence decisions. I fear the minister has been somewhat hoodwinked by the defence department. The minister has swallowed the story that Defence is infallible and there's no need for the tribunal to have the capacity to review decisions dating back further than 20 years, because it's all a bit too hard. Well, I say it's too important. It's too important to have the capacity to consider past actions beyond 20 years. But we're simply rolling over for Defence because they don't like the tribunal and have never liked the tribunal, because it's sometimes hard to do the research and get the paperwork together. I'm going to give one final practical example, which was the review undertaken by the tribunal into Warrant Officer Kevin Wheatley's actions in the Vietnam War in 1965, 60 years ago. It wouldn't be allowable to have that review under this legislation, but let's look at this case. In the Wheatley case, it was claimed there had been a lack of recognition for two separate actions by Wheatley in May and August of 1965. Keep in mind that Wheatley had been awarded a VC for actions later in the same year—actions which occurred in November. Defence tried to claim the VC was for cumulative actions in what was described as a uniquely imaginative approach to the issue. But, after exhaustive analysis, the tribunal found that Wheatley should also be posthumously awarded a medal for gallantry for his two other actions in the same year. This was a simple case of maladministration. There was no new evidence required. No additional witnesses were required. Under this legislation, this case would never have been reviewed by the tribunal. The tribunal found that the VC for Wheatley was a completely separate action and the other events in May and August 1965 warranted further recognition. Justice was done decades after the action occurred. I'm not surprised that the speaking list for this bill is a little bit light on from the other side. I'd be embarrassed to come in here as well if I were a member of the Labor Party trying to justify this ridiculous legislation. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of the Australian Defence Force. We understand the need to ensure we can recruit some of the best and brightest young Australians to serve in our Navy, in our Army and in our Air Force. We want them to train well, to serve well, to transition well and also, where appropriate, to be suitably acknowledged for their service to our nation. The coalition supports the rights of men and women who serve in uniform and the generations of personnel who have gone before them. Medallic recognition of service, in particular for acts of gallantry and bravery, is an integral part of the Australian Defence Force. Military officers are not infallible. Errors of judgement can be made in relation to recommendations for medallic recognition. The very establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in 2011 provided a statutory agency for an independent review of past actions and decisions. It has to remain independent. The Labor Party is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system and limit the rights of our veterans, our Australian Defence Force personnel, their families and other interested parties to question, through their own temerity, the merit of a past decision. This legislation should never have made it into the chamber. I'm assuming the Leader of Government Business ran out of legislation last week, contacted his colleagues and said, 'Has anyone got anything we could put in the House?' This should never have made it into the chamber. It's an example of a government which has run out of puff in just four months, and it is a solution looking for a problem. No wonder there were only eight weeks scheduled between the election and the end of the year. We have a part-time parliament, which is debating a bill like this, which no-one in the veterans community has even asked for. On that final point about consultation and the lack of consultation, not even the RSL was asked for a review before the minister made his second reading speech last week. The largest ex-service organisation in the nation was completely blindsided when this bill was introduced last week. The hypocrisy of both the current prime minister and the defence minister—the Deputy Prime Minister, who strongly expressed views during the debate over Teddy Sheean that a posthumous VC should be awarded—has to be called out, because under these changes there would be no pathway to review past actions beyond 20 years, even if compelling new evidence was produced. Sadly, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has not presented any evidence that the tribunal has been overcome or deluged with referrals following the awarding of medals after the inquiry. It simply hasn't happened. That is despite the critics within the defence establishment often claiming it would open the floodgates whenever a successful review of a gallantry medal is awarded. They constantly claim there's going to be a flood of applicants for medals. It hasn't happened. Defence has always been hostile to this tribunal and the retrospective nature of examining past actions and openly opposed Sheean receiving a VC, a VC which was cheered across the nation, cheered on that side of the House and cheered on this side of the House. It would have been impossible under the legislation before the House today because it would not have been a reviewable decision. While Defence claim its opposition stems from the view that military acts are best assessed at the time by the relevant officers, in this whole debate there's also likely to be an element of some senior officers simply resenting the prospect of having their judgement reviewed by a tribunal at a later date. They don't want an independent tribunal checking their homework. At their heart, these changes are an effort by the government to remove independence from a statutory body which was, as I said, established in 2011 to consider all defence honours and awards matters. The government claims it is seeking to remedy issues but then gives no detailed explanation in relation to the extent of the alleged issues and which organisation has actually raised any concerns with the government. The minister has not made a coherent case for change, and he possibly misled parliament when he claimed that families could still seek a review. I'd like him to come to the chamber, if that's the case, and correct the record. The coalition supports openness and transparency and believes these proposed changes should be tested in a Senate inquiry, not just inside the vested interests of the defence department. Veterans and historians should have the opportunity to make submissions and flesh out all of the relevant issues regarding the reviewable time limit of 20 years, a limitation which would prevent significant actions in the future being assessed by the tribunal. If the minister won't withdraw this legislation, he should at least have the decency to consult with impacted stakeholders and understand the consequences of this flawed approach. I commend the amendments, and I thank the House. 11:13 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. The Australian honours and awards system recognises the outstanding service and contributions of Australians who have served in the Australian Defence Force. Recipients of awards are granted insignia as a visual expression of the honour conferred on them, and there are guidelines for the order in which awards are worn, noting that many defence personnel have been the recipients of multiple awards. Defence honours and awards recognise the exceptional service, sacrifice and achievements of members of the Australian Defence Force and of veterans and reflect the bravery, merit and dedication so many current and former service personnel have demonstrated. Gallantry, distinguished service, campaign participation and long service are all celebrated and acknowledged pursuant to Australia's honours and awards system. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is an independent statutory body established under the Defence Act 1903 to consider matters relating to defence honours and awards. Following a decision of the Department of Defence regarding a person's eligibility for a defence honour, defence award or foreign award, a person is able to apply to the tribunal for an independent review of that decision. General award and honour eligibility issues can also be referred to the tribunal by the government for inquiry and recommendation. In short, the tribunal has two important functions. Firstly, there is the review function, whereby individuals are able to apply to the tribunal for review of a decision regarding eligibility for an honour, defence award or foreign award. Secondly, there is the inquiry function, whereby the government can refer issues to the tribunal for inquiry and recommendation. With respect to the first function, the review function, the past 14 years saw the tribunal review over 350 individual decisions relating to defence honours, defence awards and foreign awards. With respect to the second function, the inquiry function, the tribunal has assisted the government to explore 30 unresolved, complex issues through this process. There is no suggestion that, in exercising these functions, the tribunal has acted with anything other than integrity, honesty and fairness. The review function involves the tribunal considering what is called a reviewable decision, as defined in the Defence Act. Decisions are reviewable if certain relevant conditions are satisfied, those being that the decision is or was a refusal to recommend a person or a group of persons for different award categories in relation to eligible service. Eligible service is service in the Defence Force or service under the control of or at the direction of the Defence Force or a member of the Defence Force. The different award categories are defence honour, defence award or foreign award. The tribunal has now been operating for well over a decade; that means it is important to review its operations to ensure that it does remain fit for purpose and to ensure that any issues or concerns about its operations are considered and addressed. This Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 would operate to amend the arrangements that affect the first function of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, that being the review function, to address these concerns and to make the tribunal more fit for purpose. It is important to note that the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 makes no changes to the process that is used for the inquiry function. This process is detailed and considered, remains unchanged and is underpinned by a broad approach to consultation. With respect to this function, if the government refers general eligibility issues relating to defence honours and awards to the tribunal for inquiry, terms of reference are established and they are published on the tribunal's website. Then the inquiry commences with a national call for submissions to address the terms of reference that have been established. Submissions might contain facts, opinions, arguments or recommendations. Public hearings are then convened, and some submitters—be they individuals or representatives from a group or an organisation—may be invited to give oral evidence to the tribunal to assist it in its deliberations. There are no time limits for inquiries. The time that is required is dependent on a range of specific factors relevant to the inquiry, including the breadth of the terms of reference, the number of submissions received in response to those terms and the number of people called upon to give oral evidence to the tribunal to assist it with its independent deliberations. Typically, a minimum of 12 months is required for an inquiry to be finalised. With respect to the review function, the scope of the current legislation is broad. It enables reviews of decisions for actions since 1939—85 years ago—and does not limit who can apply for a review. Understandably, given the passage of time since 1939, both the Department of Defence and the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal have identified issues with sourcing appropriate evidence that is relevant to a decision to confer an award when witnesses and many of the commanders and other participants of the day are no longer available to establish a definitive record of what took place. On 3 July 2024, the Senate referred an inquiry into the defence honours and awards system to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which tabled its report in June 2025. It produced six recommendations in relation to a range of issues, including a review of part VIIIC of the Defence Act 1903 to improve the tribunal's review functions but complement its continued operational independence. To assist the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in their review function, this bill amends the jurisdiction of the tribunal as set out in the Defence Act in a number of productive ways. Firstly, the bill updates the time period for which the tribunal can review awards and honours recognition by limiting to those with a clear interest in such recognition those who are able to seek a review of Defence decisions regarding the conferral of awards and honours. This update is achieved by focusing the functions of such a review on eligibility. The amendments also modernise the operations of the tribunal, including in relation to the time allowed to seek a review of a Defence decision, so that the operations are better aligned with other contemporary review bodies. At present, no time limits apply on when a review by the tribunal can be sought after a refusal decision has been made by Defence. This creates the uncertain situation where a review by the tribunal could be sought now for a decision to refuse a defence honour or award that was made sometime last century. This bill creates a reasonable and practical six-month time limit to seek such a review. The six-month timeframe is significantly longer than the usual period for seeking a review of a government decision by a tribunal, but that is appropriate in this case, as the timeframe reflects the fact that there could be a range of reasons why a person might need more time to prepare for and seek such a review. The tribunal will also be able to accept applications for a review beyond this timeframe in exceptional circumstances—for example, if an applicant has a serious health condition. So that progress, certainty and closure are achieved and to assure a more efficient and effective use of tribunal resources, the bill removes the ability for the tribunal to refer a decision regarding a defence award or foreign award back to the Department of Defence, although the tribunal retains the power to either affirm the original decision or set it aside and replace it with a new decision. The bill also clarifies that a decision regarding a previously cancelled defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not reviewable by the tribunal. A cancellation decision is already not reviewable under the Defence Act; however, under the current framework, a subsequent application relating to a previous cancellation decision is considered a reviewable decision. The intent of this amendment is to correct this situation by ensuring that a decision regarding a previously cancelled defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not a reviewable decision. A cancellation decision in the first instance is given high levels of scrutiny, often relates to serious misconduct and is made by the Crown or the Crown representative. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for such decisions to be reviewable. To formalise transparency, which underpins several of the six recommendations made by virtue of the referral by the Senate to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, this bill will also require the tribunal to prepare an annual report for tabling in parliament. The tribunal already voluntarily prepares an annual report, so this measure formalises the current practice. A further significant amendment prescribed by this bill that is designed to focus the tribunal's efforts on reviewing and validating contemporary evidence, where living witnesses can contribute to the review process, is the provision that a refusal decision relating to a length-of-service award will be reviewable up until the member has or would have turned 100 years old. The effect of this is that refusal decisions relating to some conflicts, including World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and other more historic conflicts, will no longer be reviewable by the tribunal. Recommendations made to government about a defence honour will be refocused on eligibility for the honour, rather than the current system of making broader recommendations regarding honours and awards, which is properly the scope of the tribunal if an inquiry is being conducted—a process that is unchanged by this bill. This bill will uphold the respect and integrity of the defence honours and awards system by removing the risks associated with making decisions in circumstances where it is impossible or at least incredibly difficult to refer to proper documentation or speak with decision-makers of the day. Evidence supporting eligibility is critical in promoting the integrity of the honours and awards system. Not only is contemporaneous evidence important in establishing a proper factual basis for making a decision, but reliance on and recourse to contemporaneous evidence builds trust and helps avoid bias, guesswork and conjecture. Verifiable and validated evidence backs up and supports the theory of the case being examined. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is unique to Australia. No other Commonwealth country has an independent review tribunal for their defence honours and awards decisions. Australia will continue to lead the way in ensuring this recognition is conducted in a transparent and fair manner which ensures public confidence in the system. Designed to promote the efficient and effective use of tribunal resources, with a focus on reviewing decisions about contemporary actions, the amendments proposed by this bill are reasonable and appropriate. 11:28 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert This is a speech to parliament from 18 June 2020 by Anthony Albanese, who is now the Prime Minister: The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean getting a VC. But the Prime Minister tells us that we need a review of a review … On the merits, Teddy Sheean is worthy of a Victoria Cross. The Prime Minister supports, when in opposition, the appeals tribunal and supports Teddy Sheean getting a VC. But, under the proposal of the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, it wouldn't have occurred. I also think it's quite noticeable that none of the veterans from the Labor Party who sit in parliament are in the chamber or speaking on this today. They know that this is wrong. There's been no consultation and no reach-out to veterans. The ESORT said that they don't recall or have any recollection of a conversation with the minister. No-one with medals of gallantry that I've spoken to has heard from the minister. This is not supported, this is a bad bill, and the coalition will oppose it. I listened with great interest to the contributions of both the member for Sturt and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. One of the things that I want to highlight is that senior officers in the ADF don't always get it right. Well, quite often they get it wrong. Former chief of defence force Angus Campbell rejected and campaigned against Teddy Sheean's getting the Victoria Cross. He was wrong. He was out of step. He was incorrect. The awards appeals tribunal also agreed that he was wrong. I've served in East Timor and in Afghanistan. I've never seen a senior officer on the two-way range. I've never seen them running and gunning before, yet, if this bill were to go through, we would look to them as the people of truth and the only arbiters of what happens with awards. Senior officers do not like to be told they're wrong. They get all upset. But, more often than not, they have been wrong in the past when it comes to recommendations for honours that have been reviewed and deemed fit for award by the appeals tribunal. As to the 20-year mark at which an honour could no longer be recommended, we've heard a bit about the world wars and the Vietnam War, but, in four years time, the Iraq War, a modern-day conflict, will also be outside of the timeframe for a review into someone's service; a recommendation for an honour will be outside that timeframe. Now, there'll be some time, if this bill were to get up, for the Afghanistan War to reach that 20-year timeframe. On 19 October 2009, I was blown up by an improvised explosive device. A bomb threw me back. I was lying on my back, dust and flames in the air. Most people know that, if there's one IED, there'll probably be a second one. Without thinking of his own safety, without thinking of what could happen to him, Tom Howell, the medic on my patrol, ran through and jumped through the blast site, through the dust plume and flames, to come and treat me, to look after me. There were no senior officers on patrol; there was a bunch of enlisted soldiers out there fighting side by side with the Afghan national army. He had no regard for his safety and no regard for injuries that could have been inflicted upon him. I think Tom Howell should have been recommended for and awarded an honour—I really do. I'd hate it if, when these things get reviewed, when it's past the 20-year timeframe, he couldn't be considered like Teddy Sheean and others that have done fantastic, heroic, brave things in service of this nation. I do think that military officers are not the beacon of truth for everything. And this Labor government is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system. A solution looking for a problem—that's what this bill is. You've not been asked to do it. It's not been requested by veterans or their families. You haven't been lobbied, apart from the Department of Defence, who just think this is too much work. You've not consulted the veteran community, yet you want to find a problem through creating some sort of solution. There is no evidence—no evidence at all—that the veteran community will accept or would like these proposed changes. And who knows better than the people that we're talking about—the veterans? Defence has always been hostile to the tribunal and the retrospective nature of examining past actions, and it openly opposed Teddy Sheean receiving the Victoria Cross. So, on this bill, why on earth would we be taking their advice and not listening to veterans and their families? Defence claims its opposition stems from the view that military acts are best assessed at the time by relevant officers, and—this is ridiculous, this bill—there's also likely to be an element of senior officers resenting the prospect of having their judgement reviewed by the tribunal at a later date. Everything's always about the officer class when it comes to Defence, and that has been evident from the former CDF's tenure all the way through to now. These changes are an effort by the government to remove independence from a statutory body which was established in 2011 to consider all defence honours and awards matters, and it was set up by a Labor government. The coalition supports openness and transparency and believes these proposed changes should be tested with a wider audience, not just inside the Department of Defence. This has not gone out to the veteran community. No-one I have spoken to has heard about, been told about or been briefed on this bill by any member of the government, let alone the minister in charge. If you look at the actions of D Company in the Vietnam War, they would not have been reviewable under this bill's proposed changes. On 18 August 1966, members of Delta Company were outnumbered 20 to one and fought against the odds to defeat the Vietcong. Two hundred and forty-five Vietcong were killed in the rubber plantation, and 18 Australians were killed, with more wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition. Company commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red tape stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases on behalf of Mr Smith that 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. Under this legislation, they never would have received the medals they were rightly due. I can't understand why this government is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It screams of there having been no thought for those that have served on operations and what this would mean to them. I spoke to a friend of mine who's got a Medal for Gallantry—there aren't that many people that have a Medal for Gallantry; I'm sure the minister or any member of the government could have picked up the phone and called him—and I told him about this. He laughed down the phone and said 'nice joke'. I said: 'I'm not joking. It's a serious bill before the parliament.' He couldn't understand why this would be occurring—why the Department of Defence would be out to lead the charge in making such changes without going to the community that it represents, without going out to the people that have been awarded these medals, without going to the families and without speaking to those that live this every day. The RSL doesn't know about it. No ex-service organisations know about it. ESORT has no idea about it. I don't think this is a good bill, and that is evidenced by Labor having only one speaker on this and having none of their veterans in the parliament for this debate. I do think of the hypocrisy from this Prime Minister. When in opposition, he stood at this despatch box saying why there is a need for this—why we need to have the tribunal and why Teddy Sheean should be awarded the VC. Now he turns around and implements a bill that would have seen him not be awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery. It just shows that, when in opposition, the Prime Minister will say anything. When in government he'll change his mind. He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth, and we've seen that through his time as Prime Minister as well. I honestly believe this has been a complete misstep and a rushed bill. Having no consultation demonstrates that. The minister should be in here listening and answering questions that I'm sure he'll read with great joy, with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs asking away about us not having had any briefing on this. I haven't had any briefing on this. I do think that this should be widely consulted, not rushed through. I just would like to finish up by saying that, as a veteran—as someone who has been on operations, been wounded in combat, seen bravery, seen people who have done the most remarkable things that a human can do—those who have come before us through the world wars and Vietnam and Somalia would still be lobbying today for honours and awards. They would be reading this bill going, 'Well, this is all just going to be put in the bin.' Lobby groups who have been out lobbying to get Delta Company the recognition they deserve wouldn't have happened with this bill. You're putting a lid on the bravery that is still before the tribunal or still to be raised, and I think it's not appropriate. In four years time Iraq will have a lid on it as well, and no-one will be able to put forward any brave actions that have occurred. I think about what will happen when people start wanting to talk about the bravery they saw in Afghanistan, because it takes time. People think that once you've seen heroic things, been wounded, been in a gunfight or anything like that, you close your eyes, click your heels together, and everyone just rocks up with medals. We go through a process. It took me several years to even talk about defence again. It took me several years to pull myself out of a dark hole, and we're saying now that we've got a timeframe to rush people to quickly get everyone around a table and go, 'These are the brave actions that happened; please award these people.' It takes time. I don't want to see people left behind by a bad bill that hasn't been widely consulted on. I will be opposing this. 11:43 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the member for Herbert's service to this country, as well as the service of the member for Canning and the member for Solomon. I'm probably forgetting others, but, if you served in uniform for this country, then on Australia's national flag day I salute you. The country thanks you for your service. It was more than 103,000 Australians. Picture the size of the crowd in the MCG on an AFL grand final day. That and a little bit more is the number of Australians who pulled on the uniform and were killed in the ultimate sacrifice for the generations that followed. That is a sacrifice that Australians can never repay, and it's a sacrifice that I often talk about to school children. I note the school kids that have just sat down in the gallery upstairs. We talk about how this parliament was designed in such a way that, if you opened up all the doors between the cabinet room and each door that proceeds to the front of Parliament House, you can look down the colonnade to see the Australian War Memorial. It's the decisions that are made in this House that send our men and women into conflict. As we just heard from the member for Herbert, who served his country in Afghanistan and was wounded very severely, the pains and the scars of that conflict remain with him and many of his colleagues. We in this place and we Australians who have never served should always remember and thank them for their service. So, when it comes to bills like these, I shake my head in disbelief that this government would bring such a bill as this that will strip the rights of our service men and women to be able to effectively review decisions of Defence around honours and awards. It doesn't strip them entirely. I accept that. But what it does is neuter the ability of the tribunal in the timeframes that applications for reviews have to be made and of those who can bring them. It is absolutely a solution in search of a problem. I had a retired lieutenant colonel contact me on Sunday about this bill. Graeme Mickelberg, who is a constituent of mine, often rings me about veterans' affairs matters. He had a very long and distinguished service career in the Australian Army, and he was very exercised by this bill. He, along with a number of other veterans that I have spoken to, cannot understand the rationale of this government in bringing forward this bill. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal was established in 2011, and it was supposed to be and has been an independent body. But some genius or geniuses in the Department of Defence have decided that they no longer like—they have probably never liked—their decisions being reviewed by the tribunal, so, effectively, want to gut the jurisdiction, the ability and the powers of this tribunal to be able to make decisions. I get that many Australians might be thinking: 'This doesn't impact on me. Why should I bother about this?' Just remember those 103,000 Australians. One of those 103,000 Australians might have been your granddad, your uncle, your mum or your sister who have served in uniform. They may have either paid the ultimate sacrifice or been in the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have served in the ADF that have been willing to make that ultimate sacrifice for us—for you. As the member for Herbert pointed out, it is unbelievably telling that there is a dearth of members of the government who are willing to speak to this bill. Quite frankly, I am surprised at this government's willingness to continue to proceed with this bill, given that they know—they must have known—the guttural response that this bill would receive from our veteran community. They must have known that veterans often get adverse decisions about these honours and awards from Defence, and they must have known that the ability to seek an independent review—a review independent of government—from an independent tribunal would be held sacrosanct by these veterans and their families. That the government would be introducing this bill today leaves me flabbergasted. Military officers are not infallible. None of us are infallible. Errors of judgement are made, particularly on the battlefield, and errors of judgement are absolutely made by departmental officers. The Labor Party is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system and limit the rights of veterans and other interested parties to question the merit of past decisions. It absolutely shows a complete lack of respect for our veterans and their rights to recognition. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, as I said, is independent. It was established in 2011 under the Defence Act. It's designed to consider Defence honours and award matters. The tribunal has both a review and an inquiry function. In its review function, the tribunal can conduct a merits review of a decision of Defence that is a refusal to recommend a person for a Defence honour, such as a gallantry or distinguished service decoration; a defence award, such as a medal granted for service in a campaign or to recognise long service; or a foreign award. Through this review function, the tribunal allows Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families to obtain timely, independent and thorough reviews of those decisions. In its inquiry function, at the direction of the minister, the tribunal can inquire into matters relating to Defence honours and awards and provide a report and recommendations to government. The legislation currently under debate shuts the door on any further review of actions in the Vietnam War. By 2029, it will shut the door on ADF members that served in Iraq. As an idea of the impact that this bill would have on review possibilities, as the member for Herbert pointed out, D Company actions during the Vietnam War at Long Tan would not have been reviewable. On 18 August 1966, members of D company were outnumbered 20 to one and fought against the odds to defeat the Viet Cong. About 245 Viet Cong were killed in the rubber plantation; 18 Australians were killed, and more were wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition. Company Commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red tape stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases, on behalf of Harry Smith, that these 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. Under this legislation, they would never have received the medals that they were rightly due. Under this legislation, Teddy Sheean, that young sailor, would never have received his Victoria Cross. I seem to recall the Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, standing up here and thumping the dispatch box, particularly, around Teddy Sheean and how he had been consistently knocked back for a Victoria Cross. Yet the legislation that his government wants to introduce would disempower the very awarding of a Victoria Cross to people like Teddy Sheean. Defence and senior members of the ADF have consistently pushed back against retrospective awarding of these sorts of gallantry awards, like the Victoria Cross. I remember being part of a voice or voices which, when we were in government, led to the appointment of Brendan Nelson, the former director of the War Memorial, in conducting an inquiry, in relation to another inquiry, in relation to Teddy Sheean. In short, this is just another step by the Albanese government to stifle dissenting opinions, to stop review and to stop transparency of their decisions. We saw this yesterday, in relation to the introduction of the new FOI laws. Families of veterans will not have a right to seek a review for an honour under this legislation. Let me say that again: families of veterans will not have a right to seek a review for an honour under this legislation. Veterans, family members, advocates and historians should have the ability to seek review under the tribunal—as, we all know, in this place, sometimes a veteran or their family are not able to take carriage of their matter through such a process. That's why we have an advocacy system through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. But that shouldn't stop them from seeking the medallic recognition they could be entitled to. This legislation was written by the department whose decisions the tribunal was set up to review. The opposition was briefed by Defence, with no tribunal staff or members present to defend their position in opposing these changes. Would anyone in this parliament think it appropriate for Defence to decide how the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force operates? I urge the government to reconsider their position on the bill. At the very least, this bill must be reviewed and those impacted must be consulted. 11:58 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein This Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 raises a number of questions around the priorities of this government. When I think about the priorities of a government that's just been returned to office, at a time when Australians are feeling the most incredible degree of financial stress—when households are struggling to pay their mortgages and electricity bills or even goods at the supermarket, a simple basket of food—I would hope that the priority of the Australian government was on how to ease the cost of burden, the pressure, and alleviate whatever pressure there may be on households at this difficult time. I would hope that in an environment of global instability we had a government that was focused on reassuring and strengthening our nation so that it can lean into the challenges of the 21st century. When I think about what artificial intelligence could do to our employment market and to jobs creation and growth, I would hope that the focus of the government was on skills and economic developments, to reassure Australians that we have a way forward to meet the future with confidence. I would hope that, at a time like this, we had leadership that was focused on building the strength of our nation—more importantly, that, when we have a government that has been given a gift of a majority, 94 seats, by the Australian people, it would be focused on steering the good ship Australia towards a brighter future. But, at the moment, we have a very different type of government embodied by this legislation. Gifted by the Australian people with this enormous privilege, its priorities at the moment are how it can strip accountability and scrutiny from its decision-making. It's not just about how they're stripping accountability from their decision-making but how they are also shutting a curtain of censorship over the departments and the decision-making of government, to impose a culture of secrecy on Canberra. I can say one thing for certain. Nobody walked into the ballot box at the general election this year and voted for that. Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I'm going to go and vote for a re-elected Albanese government because they are going to be the most secretive government in Australian political history.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to impose a veil of secrecy.' Nobody, no Australian, walked into the ballot box and said, 'I'm going to vote for the Albanese government because they're going to increase the cost of and diminish access to information.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'We are going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to redact more information available to the Australian people.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to limit my capacity to scrutinise government decision-making.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they're going to reduce the number of staff for members of the opposition so they are less able to hold the government to account in this parliament.' And I am sure, as day follows night, that nobody walked into the ballot box and voted for the Albanese government, saying, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government so they can strip away a pathway for review of decision-making around honouring our deceased war veterans.' For the government to make this one of their first, premier pieces of legislation says something brutal and, frankly, quite terrifying about their priorities as a government. While we have former state Labor premiers marching down the red carpets in Beijing right now and celebrating past military conflicts, we seem completely unwilling to fully honour and have pathways for review to honour the legacy of our own. There is something deeply worrying about the priorities of the Albanese government. The coalition proudly supports all men and women who have served in uniform and, in some cases, have had to, tragically, make the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our nation. We ultimately believe that anybody who has been prepared to make a sacrifice, to stand up and fight for our country, should have their courage and their bravery acknowledged and respected not just through the history and the stories of our nation but through medals, as is appropriate for their valiant service. The tribunal exists to make sure that there is proper and fair review of the decisions of the defence department to make sure there is proper recognition, because in the tragedy of the fog of war, of course, decisions are sometimes made based on information that is incorrect. We simply believe that information should be able to come to light so decision-making is fair and fully respects what actually happened on the ground. We know, sometimes, through court cases and other information provided, that what first appears to have happened can, in fact, be wrong. That's why we have reviews. That's why we have a pathway to make sure that new information can be provided. This government wants to shut that process down, and I simply cannot fathom how this is its priority right now in comparison to the enormity of other problems—not just the problems that the Australian people face but, frankly, the bigger problems that the Australian Defence Force is facing around its capacity and its position to meet the challenges of the 21st century, which is our most strategic operating environment since the Second World War according to the Australian government's own white paper. The establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in 2011 provided a statutory agency for independent review of past actions and decisions. We know that military officers are not infallible and that errors of judgement can be made in relation to recommendations for medallic recognition. By simply interfering in this process, we are removing a pathway for revision of the merits of past decisions. It's a simple expectation that there be transparency and that those decisions be reviewed if new information comes to light. We know that in the past they have been, and correctly so. The government is seeking a remedy but has given no justification or evidence of why this is the case beyond the department not wanting to go through the laborious task of wanting to honour our former defence personnel and give them full recognition. Frankly, I understand that it's bureaucratically problematic for the department, but, when we're talking about the legacy of honouring those who are prepared to sacrifice for our nation, I think you can put up with it at your desks. There is a simple expectation from all Australians, I would hope, to properly honour our ex-service men and women, and that is what we, on the opposition benches, expect. But, clearly, the department have found a compliant government that is prepared to trade off that full recognition, because it is going to introduce a 20-year limit for the tribunal to review past decisions. It should, justifiably, be opposed. In discussing the impact of several of Defence's proposals, the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal said the original proposal would have 'rendered invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023.' The tribunal also said: … the Defence proposals, if implemented, would … abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award. I simply cannot understand how this can be a priority of this government at this time. They have made their decision, and they are introducing this bill to this parliament. It is, of course, going through the House of Representatives right now, but it will go through a proper review in the Senate. The question, in the end, is how can members of this government come into this parliament and stand by this legislation. I see the minister at the desk. We, of course, don't see many members of the government standing up and supporting this legislation by speaking in favour of it. To be fair, I can understand why. I wouldn't want to be attached to it either, if I were on the other side of this chamber. I think they would be mocked and ridiculed by the RSLs and many of the Defence personnel in their electorates for standing up and saying: 'This is my priority in the federal parliament right now. While I was sent to Canberra because people in the community had genuine concerns about their future, wanting security and confidence about their capacity to live their best lives, my priority is to seek to diminish the rightful recognition of Defence personnel.' I suspect most people, in their electorates, would turn around and say, 'You have very strange priorities indeed.' I've no doubt this will pass through the House of Representatives with the support of those on the other side of this chamber, with their gargantuan majority and distorted priorities. My path forward is to write to the presidents of all the local RSLs in the Goldstein electorate—Thomas Concaig from Hampton RSL, James Steedman from Caulfield RSL, Jordie Burgess from Highett RSL, Simon Richards from Cheltenham Moorabbin RSL and Bentleigh RSL—and to Mark Schroffel, who is now the state president of RSL Victoria. I'll, of course, seek their input and opinion and encourage them to write submissions to the review, or to any inquiry that comes out of the Senate process, to make sure that their views are heard. Of course, I encourage any member of our veterans community, and of the entire Australian community, to write to the Senate inquiry to have their views heard and ask if it is appropriate that the government is engaging in a pathway to limit the review of decision-making and the full recognition of the past service of former defence personnel. I doubt there are going to be many Australians who turn around and say the best thing for those wearing our uniform is to diminish or delete the pathways for recognition of their service. Maybe there are, but I doubt it. That just seems to be the priority of the Albanese government. I suspect most Australians would believe that it was better there was full recognition and, if necessary, a pathway of review and, in addition to that, would say to the government, 'Don't you have slightly better priorities than this?' The answer is clearly no. In addition to that, I would encourage every member of the Australian community to not just look at this legislation and reflect on it in isolation in what it says about the Albanese government in the context of the ADF, but to look at it in terms of the priorities of the Albanese government in the context of their broader legislative government agenda. Look at the fact that they're shutting down the pathways for Australians to review the decisions of full recognition of our ADF personnel, then look at what they're doing around shutting down transparency of decision-making in Australian government decisions, around redacting documents and trying to keep secret information about government decision-making, around imposing a new truth tax to limit access to information to the Australian people and around denying staff to members of parliament to diminish the capacity for scrutiny of government. The extent to which you have ministers and the Prime Minister come into this chamber who increasingly won't answer questions or say, 'I refer to my previous answer,' which included not answering questions—we increasingly see decision-making by members of this government which is only to the benefit of 'cartel-ish' behaviour towards the benefit of those who donate to the Labor Party or to boost the benefits and the graft of the Labor Party. You realise that the priority of this government is not the Australian people. It is not to respect the Australian people and it is not to recognise how we use this parliament to advance the Australian people, but it is simply to achieve its own ends. I say that with absolute sadness because, if anything, we come into this parliament, hopefully, with an esprit de corps that the objective of being elected to the federal parliament is to advance Australia and to ultimately 'Advance Australia Fair' for all. When you see a piece of legislation like this and like the one that is being flagged by the Attorney-General to shut down scrutiny of government and the behaviour of the government in the context of question time and the decisions of the Prime Minister—we're now seeing a pattern of behaviour which says that the 94 seats that this government has got in the House of Representatives suggests that a hubris and an arrogance is now distorting not just their behaviour but their priorities. It's unfortunately focused on themselves rather than the Australian people, and we need to call it out because the consequences and the on flow to the Australian people will be significant. Now is the time for good people to stand up and call it out. 12:13 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina If there is one piece of legislation which says everything about this Labor government, it is this one. Mr McCORMACK 219646 You can laugh all you like, Minister. You can mock this, but I am, frankly, galled by what we are debating today. I've got respect for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—I do. The minister, the shadow minister at the table and myself have all been ministers for veterans' affairs. It's a tough role. You have to have respect. You have to have a listening ear. You have to pay homage—you must—to the service and sacrifice of those who have proudly worn the uniform of Australia, the uniform of freedom. No-one knows this more than those who have bled for this country—those people who have chosen to protect and serve; those brave men and women who have shown such pluck and courage; those who have gone through the gates of the home of the soldier, Blamey Barracks, 1st Recruit Training Battalion, in Kapooka, near Wagga Wagga; those who have served our Navy and potentially gone and served it at Forest Hill, Wagga Wagga; or those who have served where air power starts, at RAAF Base Wagga. I'm very proud of each and every one of them. The minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, on 11 November—Remembrance Day and Armistice Day—last year said this: Private Norden personified the ANZAC spirit—disregarding his own safety to put his mates first. I want to acknowledge and thank the veteran community for your advocacy for the appropriate recognition of Private Norden. I'm so glad that especially today we can acknowledge Private Norden's gallant actions with the Victoria Cross for Australia. What has changed, Minister? What is different now that wasn't the case back then? The minister, when he said those words, when he uttered those phrases, was absolutely correct. Private Norden from Gundagai absolutely deserved a Victoria Cross for Australia, just as Teddy Sheean deserved a similar honour. And then we have Frank Alcorta OAM, the late Barry Eugene Magnussen, Colonel Francis Adrian Roberts OAM, Neil Raymond Bextrum, the late Ronald Howard Brett, Ian Martin Campbell, Noel John Grimes, Geoffrey Michael Peters, William Alfred Roche and the late Second Lieutenant Gordon Cameron Sharp—10 Australian soldiers, heroes all, who were recognised for their bravery more than 50 years after they fought in the Vietnam War's Battle of Long Tan. Those 10 men and Teddy Sheean VC and Richard Norden VC would not have received the recognition, that medallic tribute, had it not been for an appeals process—a process put in place to look at decisions made or the fact that they were overlooked at the time of their gallantry—which in more recent times has given them their due honours. No-one was prouder of the fact that those brave dozen received their awards than their own families. Why are we debating the process for future Victoria Cross for Australia recipients—they'll be nonrecipients now. Why are we debating this? Why are we meddling in medalling? It just does not make sense. I would appeal to the minister's good heart—and I know he has a good heart; I know he does. I think he should withdraw what the government is proposing. There would be no shame, Minister, in doing just that. There would be no criticism from the RSLs, from veterans, from families or from those who are still alive who feel as though they have been let down by the system. They would say that the minister went to the parliament, had a piece of legislation and changed his mind. You can be wrong, you know. It's okay to change your mind for the good, in the national interest. It's alright to say, 'I got it wrong.' It's not alright to push on regardless. I'm pleased the minister is in the chamber. I note that we have the absence of Labor speakers on this particular bill. We had the member for Sturt, a new member. And I grant that she had the talking points from the government to push the point. I note we don't have any of the crossbench. We all know what they're like when it comes to whistleblowing and when it comes to veterans matters per se, the teals dripping in pious pontification and sanctimony. And that's what they are. Where are they when it comes to sticking up for what's right? No doubt they're listening to what I'm saying. If you are and you're on your monitors, get down into the chamber and stick up for your RSLs. Get down to the chamber and stick up for your veterans, just for once! This is important. It might not seem that vital or that critical, because we have a cost-of-living crisis and we've got lots of debates in this place which, granted, are probably considered far more important, but you've got Teddy Sheean and Richard Norden getting posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross because we had a process in place that went beyond 20 years. You've got those other 10 who put their lives on the line at Long Tan in the jungles against overwhelming odds, outnumbered. They didn't think that they were doing what they were about to do because they might get a piece of tin on their chest to march down the street on Anzac Day on April 25. They didn't give that a moment's thought, but they did what they did for their mates. They did what they did for the loyalty and the service and the dedication and the application that they were taught when they put on that khaki. That's what our soldiers do. That's what those who proudly wear the white or the blue of the Navy and the RAAF do. And we owe them the respect and the honour to make sure that, if they go above and beyond—and every one of them does—and they had that particular piece of valour, that gallantry, that moment where they go above and beyond and it's overlooked, it's forgotten, it's neglected by the process or we have some military tribunal that doesn't see fit to award them at the time, then there should at least be a pathway down the track for recognition. We owe them that much. They place their lives on the line so that we could have a fair and free democratic society. And it's no coincidence that, if you go from the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier and walk a direct line, you will go past the Menin Gate lions, through the front door of the Australian War Memorial, that shrine of remembrance brought to us by Bean, that great Australian, and you walk a direct line straight through the front doors of this place, the house of the federal parliament, through the cabinet room and straight to the front door of the Prime Minister's office. It was done deliberately that way so that we would never ever forget that we owe the free and fair democratic society and the parliament to that place, that shrine put in place by Charles Bean, who thought it up on the battlefields of World War I, so that we could remember. And what are we doing today in the House of Representatives? We're spurning them. We're shunning them. We're telling them that if it wasn't within 20 years then we don't care. It's not right. And, yes, I am upset. I am really upset. But the emotion I'm showing is nothing compared to the emotion our RSL clubs will be showing. I'm not a veteran. Those veterans who gave so much for our country deserve better. They truly do. I cannot understand, I cannot fathom or contemplate, why the minister thought this was a good thing. Minister, it is not too late. I cannot understand, if this went through a cabinet process, why those important people around that important table thought that this was a good idea. Why are we doing this? Why are we tarnishing the memories of those veterans who could, potentially and deservedly, receive recognition for their efforts? They didn't go out into the battlefields, the jungles, the deserts, the air or the sea to achieve greatness for themselves. They did it for their mates. They did it for their comrades. They did it for their country. They did it for freedom. They did it for the flag. And today is National Flag Day. They fought under the flag. Mr Taylor 231027 One flag. Mr McCORMACK 219646 One flag, true. But they're being told that unless it's within the last two decades it's not worthy of consideration or reconsideration. Yes, there will be bureaucracy involved. Yes, Defence doesn't always like to be told that it might have got it wrong, that their decisions might have to be reviewed, that perhaps there was somebody who didn't get a medallic honour and some new evidence comes to light. That's an important part of the process. But when you sit at one of those investitures, when you see the emotion in the eyes of the families who have lost loved ones, as in Richard Norden, as in Robynn Freeman, the widow of the brave Victoria Cross recipient—and you know what it means to her. You know what it means to her sons. You know what it means to the community of Gundagai, to Abb McAlister, the mayor, to Helen Castles, the journalist at the Gundagai Independent, to Paul Vercoe, who has worked so hard to get a statue—and I do acknowledge the minister and the Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants Program for the $150,000. If this legislation passes, if the minister doesn't have the good heart to say, 'We won't worry about it,' I do wonder about whether we should have the people who voted in favour of this making the winding track to Gundagai, on the road to Gundagai, next May, when we unveil that statue. They will have voted for a piece of legislation that will stop the future Richard Nordens from getting recognised, and that's not right. This is a folly. This piece of legislation is not right. It's not right for those who have received medallic honours in the past through a process. It's not right for those who should have in the future. It's just wrong. Lest we forget. 12:28 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. It goes to something very fundamental to our nation, to our Defence Force defending our country, which is how we recognise the men and women who wear our uniform and how we correct the mistakes when recognition has been denied. The coalition's starting point on this important issue is very simple. People are the foundation of national security. If we can't properly attract, retain, motivate and honour the men and women who serve our great country, we cannot defend our great country. Medallic recognition is not symbolism. It is a demonstration of how a grateful nation says clearly and publicly: 'We saw what you did. It mattered, and we will never forget.' We are seeing the most dangerous strategic environment that our part of the world, and perhaps the world more generally, has seen since the Second World War. It is a volatile world where authoritarian regimes around the globe are flexing their muscles. Indeed, we see that displayed on our TV sets right now, as we speak. We see on our TVs cruise missiles that can reach Australia. We're seeing a celebration of the greatest military build-up in history by the Chinese Communist Party. It is unprecedented. And, can I say, it is beyond comprehension that two senior Labor figures Bob Carr and Daniel Andrews should participate in the celebration of that military build-up. That's exactly what they are doing as we speak here today. It is also beyond belief that the Prime Minister fails to discourage that kind of behaviour. These authoritarian regimes, whether they are in Russia, North Korea or Iran or whether it is the Chinese Communist Party, do not share our values. Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are not our friends. In the case of Putin, he is the autocratic leader who is currently fighting an illegal war against the free people of the Ukraine. We ask that the Prime Minister state clearly that it is unacceptable for our senior Labor figures to be part of that celebration. Returning to the matter at hand, we do meet in the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That's why the great people of our Defence Force need the recognition that they deserve. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal was created as an independent statutory safeguard. It's a practical mechanism to correct errors and recognise gallantry and service when the original process has fallen short. It exists precisely because military officers, like all of us, are not infallible, and because the passage of time can always bring forward important new evidence. It's a backstop that protects integrity. Of course this bill would substantially curtail that independence and close the door to many who seek review. It imposes a 20-year time limit on applications. That would, importantly, abolish rights of review for service in the Second World War, Vietnam, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor, Iraq and the earlier years of Afghanistan. Those are exactly the cohorts for whom new materials often emerge. The tribunal itself has warned that such a limit would invalidate the overwhelming majority of the reviews it has conducted in recent years. In practice, this is not a tidy up; it's a shutdown. The bill also restricts who may apply, limiting certain honour applications to senior commanders or eye witnesses. The bill has been driven by the department whose decisions are reviewed by the tribunal. Well, it is true that departments often don't like being questioned. But it is the right thing, when new evidence emerges, to question a department or a decision that has been made, and that should continue. Finally, there's been a striking lack of genuine consultation with the ex-service community. We've just heard from my good friend the member for Riverina, who has made the point that our RSLs and subbranches across this country are outraged at what they are seeing here. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is no evidence of a flood of frivolous claims overwhelming the system. In fact, the balance between those that have been accepted and those that have been rejected is a very reasonable one. When the tribunal has recommended upgrades, it's usually done so on the basis of rigorous evidence, not sentiment, and only after Defence's review has been fully tested. That's what an independent merits review means. History shows why independence matters on these things. It took persistence, new evidence and, ultimately, an independent tribunal process for some of our most deserving cases to be recognised. Medals don't win wars, but they help to build the culture that does. This is incredibly important. The pride I see in our ex-servicemen and servicewomen, and in our serving men and women, whether it's on Anzac Day or at other times—we've seen it in recent weeks with the ADF's commemoration of the end of the Pacific War or, indeed, Vietnam Veterans Day. I see our veterans wearing their medals with enormous pride. I see their kids doing exactly the same—obviously wearing them in a different way. This is recognition that really matters. It goes directly to morale, to retention and attraction, and to motivation, which are all the things we need if we're going to have an effective Defence Force. From my point of view, this is one of four key imperatives for our Defence Force, alongside preparedness, agility and sovereignty. We need to have the very best people serving our nation in our Defence Force. The opposition supports veterans' rights and the integrity of Australian honours and rewards. We will not support measures that curtail an independent merits review, impose retrospective time bars, extinguish rights or confine applications to those least likely or least able to bring them forward. To be constructive, we'll move amendments that remove the proposed 20-year limit; that maintain broad standing so that veterans, families, advocates and historians can apply—guarding against conflicts of interest and ensuring that meritorious cases are not blocked at the gate—and that require Defence to provide clear written notice of tribunal review rights whenever a decision is made to refuse, downgrade or not recommend an honour or award. These are commonsense safeguards. As the member for Riverina said—and I pay tribute to the fact that the minister is here today in the chamber—this is an issue on which I know this side of the parliament feels very strongly. We are happy to work with the minister to set it right. We also need to be clear about what all this means in practice. If unamended, the legislation shuts the door on any further reviews, as I said earlier, of actions in the Vietnam War. We heard, from the member for Riverina a moment ago, just what that would mean. D Company actions would not have been reviewable under this bill. On 18 August 1966, members of D Company, outnumbered 20 to one, fought against extraordinary odds to defeat the Viet Cong. Any who have had a chance to see that extraordinary movie, Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan, will have seen just what those extraordinary people went through. A total of 245 VC were killed in the rubber plantation, and 18 Australians were killed and many more wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition. Company Commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red-tape process stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases on behalf of Mr Smith that these 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery, as they should have been. Under this legislation, they would never have received the medals they were rightfully due. That would not have happened. Exactly the same happened with Teddy Sheean, of course. At the time Teddy Sheean received a VC, the Prime Minister authored an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph urging that Sheean's immense bravery ought to have been recognised without hesitation. I quote from that: If ever there is an image that captures the definition of courage as grace under pressure, surely … there was a deed worthy of the highest military honour … …   …   … Teddy Sheean deserves the Victoria Cross. On 18 June 2020, he also said in a speech in the parliament: The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean's getting a VC. That fact based process, which can be trusted, is absolutely essential to the trust that our serving men and women and veterans need to have in being part of our Defence Force. There is a better path here, one that balances care for veterans with stewardship of the system. Of course, all of this is about making sure we have a Defence Force that can secure peace through strength, and that strength requires motivated, great people continuing to want to sign up and serve our great nation. Our message is clear. Respect our veterans, keep the tribunal independent and fix processes that need fixing, but do not extinguish rights that correct injustice. In the toughest strategic era in generations, let us send a signal to every serving member and every veteran: the parliament has your back not just in what we say but in the systems we build and defend. That is how we will move from rhetoric to readiness, put people first and earn the trust that national security demands. 12:41 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Whenever we have new piece of legislation come to us that we need to review and scrutinise, the first question I always ask myself—the first question any minister or any parliamentarian should ask themselves—is a very basic one, but it's a very important question. That question is: what is the problem we are trying to solve? Every piece of legislation that we bring to this House should be solving a problem for the Australian people. It is disappointing that I have to stand and give this speech today on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, because, despite looking at this in great detail and listening to the minister's speech, I cannot see a problem that we need to solve. I'm very lucky in Casey to have many strong RSLs and strong veterans that advocate on a lot of issues. They are very determined to make sure I know where they stand. I've not had one veteran come and raise this concern with me. I know none of our veterans were consulted. Many haven't raised it because they're not aware this legislation is happening, which I'll get to. But there is no problem here that needs to be solved. We are creating a challenge. We are sending a terrible message to our veterans with the introduction of this legislation to make it harder for those veterans to be recognised and for family members of veterans to have their service recognised. Just recently I had the opportunity to speak at Vietnam Veterans' Day in my community. This is how important recognition is to our veterans. In the previous term of parliament, I was able to help a veteran receive recognition that they deserved. That veteran came up to me at that service—he's a Vietnam veteran—gave me a hug and said thank you. He had tears in his eyes; he was overcome with emotion that our nation had recognised his service. Our nation had said to him, 'The sacrifice that you made, both physically and mentally, for our country, to keep us safe, matters.' He was so overwhelmed with emotion. Some might think it's a small thing, but it's a huge thing. So why this government would deem it necessary or advantageous to make it harder for our veterans and their families to get the recognition that they deserve is something that I cannot comprehend. We should always remember as parliamentarians that we ask our veterans, we ask our serving personnel, to pay a significant cost to ensure that we have the freedoms today and into the future. We ask them to pay a physical cost. We ask them to pay a mental health cost. We ask them to sacrifice time with their families, time with their loved ones and time with their communities. They willingly do that. They willingly make the sacrifice to keep us safe. One of the things they would like in return is recognition from this nation for their service. Let's be very clear. This legislation, if passed, makes it harder for our veterans and the families of veterans that gave so much to receive recognition for their service. Why any government would want to put forward legislation that makes that harder is incomprehensible. It is disappointing that, today of all days, as we celebrate National Flag Day, this government want to debate and pass this legislation. National Flag Day is a day in which we are meant to celebrate the things that make us proud to be Australian, a day to celebrate the foundations of modern Australia, of our freedom, our opportunity, our tolerance and our egalitarian sense of fairness, foundations upon which Australian men and women have served in our defence to protect and strengthen this nation. Instead of supporting the rights of men and women who served in uniform and generations of personnel who have gone before them, the Albanese Labor government have decided to debate this legislation, which removes the right of review for veterans who served in World War II, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor and the earlier years of the Afghanistan campaign. Today, instead of recognising those who have gone above and beyond for the peace we are privileged to enjoy today, this Labor government is showing a lack of respect to our veterans and their right to recognition. Medallic recognition of service and, in particular, for acts of gallantry, is an integral part of the Australian Defence Force. It is our way of recognising those who have gone above and beyond for the peace we are privileged to enjoy today. In my community, I have the honour and privilege to recognise our local veterans who have served our country. These veterans have gone on to do so much and give so much back to our community through our local RSLs. In Casey, my community, and also across the nation, we recognise these veterans in many different ways and areas. Anzac Day, in particular, is an important day in our nation's calendar to recognise those veterans. I start Anzac Day every year at the Lilydale RSL. As I deliver some words to the veterans, their families and those there, I look out on thousands and thousands of locals in my community paying tribute to those who have served and given the ultimate sacrifice. They understand how important it is to recognise our veterans. I have no doubt every person in my community who attends the ceremonies on Anzac Day would be outraged to learn that we are making it harder to recognise our veterans. I want to pay credit to the RSLs of Casey: the Mt Evelyn RSL, the Lilydale RSL, the Upwey Belgrave RSL, the Healesville RSL, the Dandenong Ranges RSL, Yarra Glen RSL, Warburton RSL, the Upper Yarra RSL and the Monbulk RSL, who do so much to make sure that our veterans are supported today and that we recognise those who served. They have not had the opportunity to be consulted about this change in legislation. I've spoken to some of the presidents, who had no idea this was coming. You would think they would. I know many other RSLs have not been consulted, but they deserve the respect to be given the opportunity to engage in this process and not be blindsided. Our RSL presidents come to me time and time again to make sure that our veterans get the recognition they deserve. That veteran I mentioned at the start of my speech—when I first engaged with his case, it was through the Lilydale RSL president, Bill Dobson. Not only do RSLs make sure that our veterans are supported and recognised; they open the doors to local students to teach them about the history of the brave Australians who served our country. They teach them not to glorify war but to provide an opportunity to learn about the sacrifice that so many Australians made and to pay our respects to all those who served, those who lost their lives serving and those who are currently serving. I can't help but think about the message that this legislation sends to those RSLs and also to the young people all across Casey and across the community. It's so important that we make sure the next generation are educated and that we help our young people understand these sacrifices. I want to thank and recognise Bill Dobson and the Lilydale RSL, who have initiated the Don Parsons Memorial ANZAC Creative Writing Prize. Don Parsons was a former Lilydale RSL president, who passed away in 2021 while president. Bill wanted to make sure that his legacy continued. The reason Bill wanted to continue this was multifaceted, but, importantly, Don Parsons campaigned, raised awareness and raised money to make sure that the cenotaph in the main street of Lilydale was rebuilt so that our veterans could be recognised. I was lucky enough to know Don Parsons well before he passed. What I can say with confidence is that, if Don Parsons were aware of this legislation, his feedback to the government could not be repeated in this House, because it would be considered unparliamentary. But Don Parsons was legend of our local community, and he'd be heartbroken to know that it is harder for veterans today that it has been in the past. Those medals on Anzac Day that we see the veterans and their families wear, particularly the young schoolchildren who wear the medals of their grandparents—this will make it harder for them to wear those medals, because there will be less to be recognised. This legislation will also goes to the heart of the hypocrisy of the Albanese Labor government and the complete hypocrisy of this prime minister. Previous speakers spoken about this, and it's important we continue to highlight this. This is a prime minister that stands for nothing. Under this legislation, Teddy Sheean would never have received his Victoria Cross. If this legislation were implemented a decade ago, Teddy Sheean would not have received the Victoria Cross. In 2020, our prime minister was very happy to ride on the coattails of the courage of Teddy Sheean, and he coauthored an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph on 24 May 2020, talking about Sheean's immense bravery and how it ought to have been recognised without hesitation. The Prime Minister said: If ever there is an image that captures the definition of courage as grace under pressure… surely there was a deed worthy of the highest military honour… Teddy Sheean deserves the Victoria Cross. In 2020, we had the then opposition leader—who was just short of becoming prime minister—happy to write an op-ed talking about how great Teddy Sheean was and how important it was that his honour was recognised. He's now the Prime Minister of this country and has made a decision to bring in legislation that wouldn't recognise this honour. What absolute hypocrisy, what a disgrace to all veterans to that would happen. On 18 June 2020, he also said in a speech to parliament: The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean getting a VC. It is beyond belief that this prime minister would say that and is now actively bringing legislation to ensure a similar circumstance could not happen again. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to mark Vietnam Veterans' Day in my community. It's important that we talk about Vietnam Veterans' Day because we know the challenges that our Vietnam veterans suffered when they returned to Australia. It links to this in terms of not paying respect to our veterans. It was a day that we paid tribute to more than 60,000 Australians who served in the Vietnam War. Their courage, resilience and unwavering dedication forged a legacy that is an integral part of our national story. It was wonderful to join the community to pay tribute to those Vietnam veterans. I want to thank the Yarra Valley Vietnam Veterans Day Committee, the Vietnam Veterans Outer Eastern Melbourne and all of our local RSLs that put so much in to make sure that day was a special day. As I said at the start, there is no problem here to solve. There is no need for this legislation. In fact, it completely contradicts the statements of the Prime Minister in 2020. It is disappointing and it is heartbreaking that the veterans of our country now have to go through this change when it is not needed, it is not required, it is going to cause damage to our veterans and it serves no purpose for the Australian people. 12:56 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth The defence community is a hugely important part of my community of Wentworth. I'm honoured to host three major defence communities in Wentworth, including HMAS Watson, Victoria Barracks and HMAS Kuttabul on Garden Island, as well as hosting a huge number of RSLs in my community, including the Paddington-Woollahra RSL Sub-Branch, the Bondi Junction-Waverley RSL Sub Branch, Rose Bay RSL Sub-Branch, North Bondi RSL Club, the New South Wales Police RSL Sub Branch, Bronte RSL Sub Branch, Coogee Randwick Clovelly RSL sub-Branch, the Waverley RSL Sub-Branch and the Eastern Suburbs Leagues Club. That really represents the depth of importance that the defence community has in my electorate. We host the east coast's main navy. I run past HMAS Kuttabul almost every weekend, and I see many members of the community out at Anzac Day services and other places. I have, myself, and I think the broader Wentworth community have enormous respect for everything that our defence community and also our veterans have given to this country. It's part of the reason why I decided to ask to join the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in this term. I think now and from now on defence is going to become only more important to us in this country, and that means that we are going to have rely more on the good people who are in our defence forces, as well as our veterans, to look after us and to keep us safe in very uncertain times. Talking to the community that I just described, both the existing bases and also the RSL community—it's with their interests that I have approached this bill. I'll be honest. My community and I have enormous concerns about this bill. I don't doubt the government intention here and I don't want to attribute bad motives to this bill, but I need to recognise that, in its current form, I will not support this bill, because it does not have the support of the veterans community, and that is for good reason. The defence honours and awards system is of enormous importance to the defence community. This is not just about recognition of acts of service and sacrifice. It is also a social contract with those who have been trusted to serve and a recognition of what they have achieved. It underpins morale in the defence community, it conveys institutional respect—respect from the government and respect from all Australians—for what has been given and presents a transparent and dignified process for acknowledging extraordinary service. Every Anzac Day I attend numerous services across the community, including, I think, one of the biggest in the country at North Bondi—a dawn service. I see the respect from the kids who get up at five o'clock in the morning to be there with thousands of other people and watch people with those medals either for themselves or for loved ones who are no longer with us. That respect—I think it's almost all, frankly, of the young kids in our community—is really important. It is about showing respect for those who make a contribution to this country which is not necessarily well paid. It is dangerous, but it is incredibly important work. Those medals really showcase people who have not just done the day-to-day work but gone above and beyond in the service of their country. When I started to examine the bill more closely, one of the biggest concerns that were raised with me is the proposed time limit on tribunal reviews. Under this bill, once an honour or award application has been rejected, no appeal to the independent tribunal would be possible if the relevant operation occurred 20 or more years ago. This threshold effectively excludes recognition for veterans of conflict in Vietnam, Korea and Timor; some of the early Afghanistan conflict; and parts of the Iraq deployment, removing appeal avenues for the majority of tribunal applicants who have been heard between 2020 and 2023 and the majority of applicants who are current veterans in our community. I believe that is not appropriate. I believe that is unjust and may halt the recognition of veterans who have made valuable contributions to our country's, and other countries', safety. I believe that they should be allowed that right of appeal. I believe that that restriction is unfair to those who seek that validation, fairness or correction decades after their service, and I have met some of those individuals in Wentworth and heard some of those stories of seeking that appeal and that support. I want to recognise, also, that the rejection of that sort of honour is very powerful in terms of its negative impact on individuals in this situation. I also support the repeal of overly restrictive provisions about who can submit review applications on behalf of our veterans. This flexibility is really important, ensuring that advocates, whether they are lawyers, veterans' representatives or appointed proxies, can act in support of those who, through age, illness or inability, may struggle to manage their own appeals. At a minimum, individuals affected by this cut-off should have the right to nominate advocates to pursue genuinely independent tribunal review on their behalf. On this basis, I support the coalition's amendments, which would remove the 20-year eligibility limit for tribunal review, ensuring fairness irrespective of the passage of time; require that the decision-makers proactively inform applicants of their tribunal review rights, guaranteeing transparency so that those eligible fully understand their rights and the appeal process; and repeal restrictions on who can be an applicant for review on behalf of affected persons. I believe that these are constructive and useful amendments to the bill and would make a material difference in improving the bill, which I believe is otherwise deeply flawed right now. I understand that the tribunal, which is an independent statutory body, is also expressing opposition to some of the changes that I've described here in my speech today. Finally—I'll just put it simply—our veterans deserve a system grounded in fairness, clarity and lasting recognition. This bill, if passed in its current form, would undermine that trust. Let us ensure that our defence honours and awards system truly upholds the values and sacrifices that members of the defence forces have made and which it purports to honour. 13:03 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today to speak on Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. I acknowledge that the minister is in the House today, and I want to say to him that I appreciated the briefing we had the other night, but I must admit that, when I went away and had a closer look at this bill and had a ring around my electorate, I came to the conclusion that I needed to jump up and speak on this today. This bill amends key features of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal was established to provide an independent and fair review of defence honours and awards decisions. It exists as an independent statutory body and has finalised 465 reviews since its commencement in 2008. I have several concerns with this bill, which have come to light to me over the past 48 hours or less, and I'll briefly outline them. This bill has been rushed through the House with consultation, with veterans, that seems very light. In fact, veterans in my electorate of Indi tell me that they're blindsided by this. There's apparently been little or no consultation with them or their representative bodies and no scrutiny by a committee of parliament. I've been speaking to veteran leaders in my electorate and, really, they didn't know what I was talking about when I rang them. They didn't know this bill was coming. They're concerned about the impact. They're concerned, particularly, about the impact on their membership. It begs the question, if they didn't know it was coming, if they had no sense of this, what consultations really occurred? I've spoken with RSL Victoria who, likewise, feel blindsided that this bill's being rushed through without the voices of veterans truly being heard. They tell me that they can't see why this bill is really a priority when there are still so many outstanding recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. They're completely bewildered. This bill limits who can apply for review of decisions in relation to defence awards and honours. Firstly, it imposes a 20-year time limit on reviews, which would exclude entire generations of veterans. We've heard, from contributions this morning, that we're not talking about veterans from the Boer War, we're talking about veterans who are still active members of our community from recent wars. We've heard too, from many contributions this morning, that this bill would mean that the recent Victoria Cross recipient Teddy Sheean would have been ineligible. I was in this House when there were contributions from many members of parliament lauding the Victoria Cross award going to the extraordinary Teddy Sheean. In fact, the Prime Minister himself said: 'It's never too late to honour the meaning of "Lest we forget" or to commemorate the courage of one of our own.' That's what he said about Teddy Sheean. Now this government's bill means that it will be too late to recognise heroes like Teddy Sheean. If it goes through, it will be too late. Secondly, it narrows who can apply for a review, shutting out advocates and supporters who, so often, stand in for veterans who are too physically or mentally unwell to fight these battles themselves. They've fought battles, but this one—arguing for an honour or award—is a battle too far to go. Thirdly, it introduces a six-month deadline to seek review, knowing full well that many veterans are never even told that they have that right. Indeed, they may be dealing with mental or physical health issues that limit their ability to respond in a timely fashion. These aren't minor or technical changes, they are significant. They significantly reduce the ability of veterans, their families and advocates to seek review for decisions made by Defence. I listened carefully to the speeches of both the minister and the shadow minister this morning and they made a big impact on me, particularly listening to the shadow minister, the member for Gippsland, and his experiences when it came to seeking the award for Teddy Sheean and, finally, having it approved. It was compelling. But at least he could do it—he could not do it under this legislation. Mr Gosling 245392 We had the fortune to do it. Dr HAINES 282335 I think it's good to have an interjection from the government benches, because I don't see too many members of the government lining up. There's been one speaker. That's a big indicator to me as a crossbencher, to be truthful. When there's a government bill introduced and there is nobody on the government side willing to stand up and speak to it—it's a dead giveaway, actually. The government says that this bill will protect the integrity of the defence honours and awards system, but it actually hasn't laid out why this is even necessary. Where is the compelling case? The tribunal itself has not asked for change. Its case load has not meaningfully changed in recent years. The tribunal receives approximately 30 requests for review each year. This is hardly overwhelming. They haven't sought to have a problem remedied because there has been no problem identified. When I assess legislation in this place, that's the very first question I ask: what's the problem that we're trying to solve here? Why are we creating a new law—or amending another one—and coming into the parliament to seek to solve a problem when there is no problem that has been clearly identified here? In relation to this bill, the government, I'm sorry to say—and I mean this genuinely, actually—just hasn't laid out a compelling case for reform. The tribunal, as I said, has not asked for these reforms. And, certainly, the veterans and their advocacy groups have not asked for reform. When I'm looking at legislation, I also ask the next question, which is: if there is a problem—and here we can't see that there truly is one, but if there were one—are the proposed changes ethical and do they represent good governance? On this measure, again, I'm completely unconvinced because this bill will result in less agency for veterans and their families to seek review of decisions made by the Department of Defence. In what world do we, as parliamentarians, seek to reduce the amount of agency that our veterans have, when we've seen so many examples of the implications of reduced agency on veterans' mental and physical health? I'm really perplexed by this. As I said, RSL groups in my electorate have really deep concerns about what this would mean and were absolutely blindsided that this was even being debated in the House today. These are the kinds of bills I take to my constituents to ask them their views of. Well, it's pretty hard to ask them at this late stage. Many members over on this side—in the middle and on the crossbench—have talked about how important it is that we respect and that we honour our veterans. They've talked about what it means every time we stand beside them at significant national events like Anzac Day, like Remembrance Day and, in fact, only recently Vietnam Veterans' Day. They've talked about the pride with which our veterans carry their medals and awards; the pride with which their families stand beside them; and, in fact, the humility that those of us who have not served have when we see our veterans on these significant national days—let alone when they are actually representing our country, abroad, at wartime. I want to say that I support the member for Gippsland's amendments to this legislation again. He's come into the parliament with some solutions, with amendments that I think are significant and would make a big difference, and I support those. But, as I stand before you right now, with an unclear case for change—and, I think, very likely negative impacts for veterans in my electorate of Indi and right across Australia—I simply cannot support this bill in its current form. 13:13 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I'd like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. I'd especially like to commend the member for Sturt, the member for Wentworth and the member for Indi for the very considered remarks that they provided. I have been concerned, however, by what has frankly been a bit of a hyperbolic reaction by the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, given his prior role as the then minister for defence personnel. I know, as a minister for defence personnel—admittedly, for a period some 20 days shorter than the shadow minister's, so far—that I take that role incredibly seriously, especially when it comes to approving recommendations to be made for defence honours, whether they are in their initial form or it's when they are coming to me from Defence—when Defence has conducted a review upon an application—or when they come to me from the honours and awards tribunal, having reviewed a decision from Defence. These are serious and important matters. So it does concern me that the shadow minister says that he has not received a briefing when, this week, his office did receive a briefing. It is interesting that the shadow minister for veterans' affairs is the one leading this debate, not the shadow minister with actual portfolio responsibility in this House: the shadow minister for defence. It is important to remember that Australia is the only Commonwealth country that even has a tribunal of this nature. The question here before the House, in dealing with this legislation, is not about what has occurred previously with recommendations that might have been dealt with differently if these amendments had been in place earlier; there was never any intention that these amendments would be in place earlier. These amendments are about how the tribunal operates into the future—and only into the future. That is important to remember. The opposition seems to be deliberately misconstruing what this bill does. The bill still leaves open all the avenues for a minister to refer to the tribunal an inquiry into any matter, regardless of the timing, that may relate to defence honours or awards. It doesn't in any way affect the independence of the tribunal. In fact, if anything, it provides enhancements to the independence of the tribunal. Ex-service organisations were consulted when it came to these amendments, and the RSL was involved in those discussions. In addition to that, the nature of the amendments brought forward in this bill was actually outlined in a Senate inquiry at the end of last year. And, of course, there will be more opportunity for input from all interested parties, including the opposition, the RSL, any other ex-service organisations, veterans and any others, through other parliamentary processes that will occur in the passage of this bill through the parliament. I also want to make one particularly important reference to the fact that the opposition has made a lot out of quoting statements made by the now prime minister with respect to the VC awarded to Teddy Sheean. What's important to recognise is the context in which those comments were made. The comments were made by the now prime minister after the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal had recommended the awarding of a VC for Australia to Teddy Sheean when the then prime minister had refused to act on that recommendation and had instead instituted a wholly separate and different inquiry into the recommendation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. That is what undermines the independence and operation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. That is why the Prime Minister was calling for that, and it's this independence that we are in no way undermining. It stands in quite big distinction to the case of another recent VC recipient that the opposition have been referring to, Private Norden. When the government received the recommendation from the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal that he be awarded a VC for Australia, the government acted on that recommendation from the tribunal and proceeded with that VC. A key issue here is that nothing that this bill does stops anyone from applying to Defence for a defence honour or award; it goes to what the tribunal does. The tribunal asked government. The tribunal has said, in its own decisions, that the time period that it currently covers—from 1939—and the evidential issues that arise in looking back at conduct that occurred that long ago cause it significant concern and difficulty. This bill proposes that that be constricted by a 20-year limit from the end of the relevant operations. This is something that's also being misconstrued by the opposition. It's not 20 years from now; it's 20 years from the end of the relevant exercise, which means, for people who were participating in the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan, it doesn't exclude the beginning of those operations, because it's 20 years from the end of those operations. That does provide quite a lot of time, and I understand that people may take different views on how long that period should be. That'll no doubt be something considered by a Senate committee. But that is not a reason—and no reasons have been given—to not seek to constrain the time period that the tribunal looks at from its current jurisdiction all the way back to 1939. As I said before, the tribunal itself identified the problems with looking at conflicts all the way back to 1939. Veterans and those in Defence are also concerned that the tribunal looking back that far means it could apply a 21st-century standard and approaches to conflicts that occurred more than half a century ago. It also gives rise to a degree of unfairness, where somebody can seek review through the tribunal and the outcome that is received by two different defence personnel will be based not on what actually occurred and the conduct but on the vagaries of what records may or may not exist now, where there are no living witnesses to provide evidence. Some have also sought, I might add, to close the rolls on these conflicts—to rule a line under them, just as occurs in the United Kingdom—so that no other honours and awards could ever be awarded in respect of those conflicts. This legislation and this government do not propose to do that. That is still left open. The other key issue that arises is this anathema that exists in the current legislation, which is the concept that an honour could be applied for by a person who is seeking the honour for themselves. That is the devil that the restriction on who can seek review is seeking to address. It restricts it to somebody who was in some way involved in the action—in commanding it or witnessing it. But it also recognises that a person may not wish to have such an honour bestowed on them, and that is why, even if a witness or someone in command seeks a review, they also need to have the permission or consent of the person or, where they are no longer alive, their family. The other restraint is to put a stop to the increasing number of people, like historians and academics, that we are seeing seeking reviews when they have no connection to the relevant events in question. I was clear on that in the second reading speech. These are the nature of the restrictions. I did not any way mislead in my second reading speech. Mr Chester IPZ You said families can seek a review. Mr KEOGH 249147 Families can seek a review for a defence award; that was clear. They can seek that review. Mr KEOGH 249147 No, they can't, and I was clear about that. I think it's very unfortunate that the shadow minister seeks to take issue with something that I was very clear about. All these issues are ones I've identified as causing a problem with the tribunal, and that's what we have sought to respond to. Some of these issues have been raised by the tribunal. It's why I've looked at what the tribunal had asked Defence to consider and where it had previously sought agreement with Defence for amendments to be made. This is not being led by Defence. These are the issues that the bill is seeking to address. I should say, just to clarify an issue raised by the crossbench, that nothing in the restrictions on who can seek review would restrain someone who can validly seek review from using an advocate or others to assist them in the conduct of that review. Now, reasonable people may differ—though nothing I've heard from the opposition today has been expressed reasonably. Nothing the opposition has canvassed is actually an argument against the provisions of the bill. At best they may amount to a basis for adjustment. I would hope that the opposition, especially the former ministers that have had responsibility for this area, would want to be constructive in dealing with this issue. I live in hope. The tribunal has existed for 1½ decades. It is entirely appropriate and reasonable that at this point its operations should be refined and we should ensure that it is fit for purpose in the 21st century. Hyperbolic, rhetorical approaches—based on what are clearly not the facts that apply to what the legislation seeks to do—are not helpful for constructive legislation in this place. It's for this reason that we oppose the amendments that have been put forward by the shadow minister. The amendments put forward by the shadow minister effectively denude the bill of any import in any event. However, I look forward to dealing with the shadow minister, the opposition and all interested parties as the bill moves through the processes of the parliament, where reasonable people may take reasonable approaches to differences of opinion. I commend the bill to the House. 13:29 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the bill be now read a second time.  

The House divided. [13:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

90 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. 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. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. 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. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 49 NOES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. (Teller) Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 13:35 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, further consideration of the bill will be made an order of the day for a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mundi Mundi Bash 43 13:36 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes Great things happen in the country, and, from 21 to 23 August, more than 15,000 people were witnesses of great things happening in Broken Hill with the Mundi Mundi Bash. On the goat farm of grazier John Blore, 35 kilometres west of Broken Hill, organisers of the fifth annual Mundi Mundi Bash brought together an enviable line-up of musical acts and broke two world records. The event has raised more than a million dollars for charity over the five years that it's been held. The event featured Birds of Tokyo, Missy Higgins and Hoodoo Gurus, among many others—and even the great Leo Sayer himself. At the bash, set against the red dirt of the Mundi Mundi Plains near the Barrier Ranges, 9,161 people dressed in blue and broke the world record for the largest human image of a country. They raised more than $145,000 for Beyond Blue, all while singing 'I Am Australian'. Also at the bash, 6,779 people broke the world record for the most people dancing the nutbush. As well as paying tribute to the late, great Tina Turner, the world record raised more than $100,000 for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. This amazing event was supported by many sponsors, and, in true country style, 618 volunteers put in more than 13,700 hours. I commend the organisers of the Mundi Mundi Bash. It gives more than 15,000 people a few days to remember, and Broken Hill City Council have estimated in the past that the event has generated more than $12 million of spending. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I call the member for Parkes—I mean the member for Solomon. Solomon Electorate: Health Care 44 13:37 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon How dare you! The Albanese Labor government is strengthening Medicare with more doctors, more urgent care clinics and even cheaper medicines—all assisting families with the cost of living and giving them better health care. I was proud to deliver on a number of health commitments for Darwin and Palmerston in my electorate in the Northern Territory during the election. The Albanese government committed to an urgent care clinic for Darwin, and EOIs will open this month. We'll invest up to $60 million through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program to support the construction of a new residential-care home in Palmerston, delivering no less than 120 new residential-care beds. Darwin has the lowest number of aged-care beds in the country, so this funding is really important to directly address critical supply shortages in residential aged care. This of course builds on the $560 million, which is a 30 per cent increase, to be delivered in hospital funding for the Northern Territory in the next year. It is the largest increase of any jurisdiction, and we absolutely need it. Add to this the fact that we've upgraded our Darwin headspace, which is really important to look after our young people with complex needs. We've also given CareFlight $10 million for a new medical evacuation helicopter, which is very important too. Veterans 44 13:39 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The House of Representatives has just voted 90 to 49 to deny our wonderful veteran heroes medallic recognition for their bravery. But there is another opportunity—members will get another chance to right this wrong. It's too important not to do just that, when you've got teenagers such as Teddy Sheean and Richard Norden, who each, by their very actions, deserved a Victoria Cross for Australia and were recognised as such decades after their gallant actions. In the future, such efforts will not be recognised, and that is such a shame. Then, of course, we've got the 10 members of D Company who put their lives on the line, at Long Tan, to serve. To recognise them was the right and just thing to do. Labor members, you don't always have to go along with the caucus. You can do what's right. You've got the chance, in these few hours, to think long and hard about the veterans, about our heroes and about your RSL clubs and to do the right thing not just for yourselves and your communities but for the heroes who made this country what it is today. National Security 44 13:40 Mr NG 316052 Menzies Menzies is home to the largest Iranian community in Australia. I am proud to represent such a vibrant community, who contribute so much to the life of our electorate. I stand today to make clear that the actions of the Iranian regime in orchestrating vile attacks on the Australian Jewish community do not reflect the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of the Iranian diaspora in Australia. I have reached out to community leaders since the government's announcement. Like me, they are appalled that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would use proxies in the form of criminal gangs to stoke hatred towards and fear amongst the Australian Jewish community. They welcome the government's moves to expel the Iranian ambassador and list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. Indeed, I recognise that they have been calling for this last measure for some time. During the recent conflict in the Middle East, both between Iran and Israel and in Gaza, our first priorities as a government have been to take concrete actions to achieve peace and safeguard social cohesion in Australia. That a foreign government would seek to sow division locally is an egregious attack on the social fabric of our country, deserving of the strong and decisive response taken by this government. But let me be clear: our local diverse communities should never suffer because of the actions of foreign governments in the countries in which they were born. In the case of the Iranian community, many have fled the totalitarian, authoritarian Iranian regime and are its fiercest critics. (Time expired) Housing 44 13:42 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan If it seems like the Labor government's housing policies are written by property developers and finance corporations, that's because they are. I want to give just one example here, but it's a very telling one. Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz was appointed as Chair of the Housing Supply and Affordability Council in 2022. This is the government's major adviser on housing policy. What was Lloyd-Hurwitz doing in the decade before that? She was the CEO of Mirvac, of course, one of Australia's largest property developers, a company with over $20 billion invested in property, where her salary was $4 million. Prior to that, she worked for Lendlease, another major property developer. Lloyd-Hurwitz currently sits on the board of directors of Macquarie Group, a major investment bank with massive investments in property. No wonder we haven't seen the government invest in public housing and no wonder we're seeing the government push for cutting red tape for big developers. It's a basic matter of conflict of interest. It's a basic matter of integrity in government. This isn't about any individual; it's a question of whose interests government decisions actually serve. Do they serve everyday renters and first home buyers, or do they serve the profits of developers and big finance corporations? Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 45 13:43 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner Every Australian should have access to affordable medicine. With cheaper medicines, Australians can get the health care they need when they need it. It also eases the financial pressure so many families experience when faced with incredibly hard decisions between things like groceries and medications due to cost-of-living pressures, including in my electorate of Bonner. That's why the Albanese Labor government is making medicines even cheaper. This week we passed the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025 to ensure that, from next year, PBS medicines will cost just $25. For the pensioner in Wynnum, the single parent in Mansfield and the working family in Carindale—who are also getting an urgent care clinic—every person in Bonner will save money when they fill a script. Already, residents in Bonner are benefitting; $10.5 million has been saved across 1.6 million scripts. This is direct, immediate cost-of-living relief where it's needed most. We said we would make medicines cheaper, and that is exactly what we're doing. But we're going even further by adding even more life-changing and lifesaving medicines to the PBS this week. Labor believes that your credit card balance shouldn't determine the quality of your health care. I'm proud to be part of a Labor government delivering real change and tangible outcomes for Australians. Middle East 45 13:45 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Last week, I attended the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine roundtable with Usman Khawaja and Medecins Sans Frontieres to hear directly about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We heard from Scarlett Wong, a Warringah constituent and former MSF field psychologist, who spent nearly a year in the West Bank providing psychological care to traumatised Palestinians. Her deep distress at the scale of human suffering just could not be ignored. Gaza's healthcare system is in complete collapse. At least 94 per cent of hospitals have been damaged or destroyed, targeted by the IDF. Nearly 1,400 health workers, doctors, nurses and medics have been killed in this conflict. Over the past 22 months, this conflict has become the deadliest in history for journalists, with at least 247 journalists killed according to the UN Human Rights Office. This also frequently appears to be on-purpose targeting by the IDF. Over half a million people are facing starvation. UNICEF estimates that at least 132,000 children under the age of five are facing starvation and malnutrition. As Usman Khawaja reminded us last week, this is not about politics or religion; it's about human rights. Australia has a proud legacy to stand up for. Israel is no longer a values aligned nation or ally, and I call on the government to take all actions possible. Chronic Kidney Disease 45 13:46 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise to speak about a condition that affects millions of Australians, often without them knowing—chronic kidney disease. For some, the first symptom is renal failure. They don't find out until they're rushed to hospital and placed on emergency dialysis. I was lucky. My kidney disease was picked up early, with about 35 per cent kidney function, thanks to a simple medical during my electrical apprenticeship. That early detection gave me time—time to make changes, manage my health and stay ahead of what is ultimately a lifelong condition. Early detection is simple. A urine test, a blood pressure check—that's it. If you're in this building today, right here in Parliament House, you can join the 'take a wee for CKD' campaign. Yes, that's the real name, and, yes, it might just save your life. I also want to recognise the extraordinary work of our nephrologists, including those gathering in Perth this week for the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nephrology Congress. Your research, advocacy and care change lives every day. To Australians everywhere, speak to your GP. These tests are covered by Medicare. The Albanese Labor government is working to ensure that, when you go to your doctor, the only card you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card. So take a wee, save your kidneys, and take care of yourself before it's too late. National Flag Day 45 13:48 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Telling our personal stories today on National Flag Day, it is important to remind us of what our flag represents. Patriotism is not a fixed idea. This is where my story interweaves with the flag: Amongst the dust and rubble of the Marriott Hotel World Trade Centre, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, lay an Australian flag, damaged and torn. The Marriot Hotel nestled beneath the towers was where I was destined to be the morning of 11 September 2001, until my destiny changed when my trip to New York was cancelled the week prior. On September 3 we celebrate National Flag Day. But on September 11, we mourn the 2,977 lives lost in the terrorist attacks, including 10 Australians and 40 people in the Marriott Hotel. That Australian flag from Ground Zero … serves as an enduring reminder of the tragedy we shared with our ally, partner, and friend, and of our resoluteness to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in even the most difficult of circumstances. Today, the story of this flag is little known, yet its existence is deeply symbolic. As a patriotic Australian, I know we are strongest when we stand with our friends … It should not take a major world event to remind us of how important our relationship is with like-minded democracies—why we have it, and the generations of custodians who have protected it— so that it may endure. Health Care 46 13:49 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley I rise today to talk about the Albanese Labor government and what it has delivered in terms of another cost-of-living measure. I am proud to sit on this side of the House and reduce the cost of medicines, cutting the PBS general patient co-payment from $31.60 to just $25 from 1 January next year. The last time PBS medicines cost no more than $25 was in 2004, more than 20 years ago, when I was just 21—not really! Since our re-election, we have wasted no time on this decision, delivering on this commitment and another cost-of-living measure. In Victoria, residents have saved more than $425 million on 69 million scripts. When I'm out and about in the community, speaking to locals, I hear how important these reforms are to the community of Dunkley, particularly for its women, who can now access more medications for endometriosis and menopause. In addition to the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS, the Albanese Labor government has established new mental health hubs, endometriosis clinics and the very popular Medicare urgent care clinics, with one in Dunkley. The Albanese Labor government is delivering for Dunkley and for the country to keep us well. (Time expired) Flinders Electorate: Australia Post 46 13:51 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders On Friday, the Rosebud Plaza Post Office closed its doors for good—another piece of important community infrastructure in Flinders lost under the Albanese Labor government. Despite a petition signed by nearly 2,000 residents and strong local opposition, our community's concerns were ignored. My repeated inquiries of the minister and to Australia Post directly were met with bureaucratic platitudes rather than real answers. Minister Wells acknowledged the closure's impact but brushed it off, advising that there had been a significant drop in foot traffic and that: 'Australia Post has assured me that there is sufficient capacity in the network to absorb the current 263 PO boxes leased and that the area is still well serviced with two alternative outlets within five kilometres.' That simply does not reflect the real-life experience of the Rosebud residents, who have emphasised to me how, especially over the holiday periods, the line will stretch well out the door. Australia Post's response was no better, hiding behind compliance and accessibility jargon while ignoring the practical reality. Locals will now face longer waits with fewer options. A representative for the CEO of Australia Post told me: 'We recognise that this closure will have an impact on the community. We ensure a thorough assessment takes place to ensure our services remain accessible and available for customers, and, in the case of the Rosebud Plaza post shop, the closest post offices are DDA compliant and accessible…'—blah, blah, blah. Although the government, at the end of the day, did not listen to my community's concerns, I am confident and hopeful this will make the government seriously think twice about closing essential services in my electorate. (Time expired) Women's Health 46 13:52 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt In May 2025, I joined the federal health minister at Repromed on Fullarton Road in my electorate of Sturt to make critical announcements in relation to women's health: for the first time in 30 years, new categories of contraceptives would be listed on the PBS. That's 30 years. Slinda, a contraceptive that, for some women, is their only option, was listed on the PBS, reducing the prohibitive cost of over $300. We know that, thanks to this government's cheaper medicines legislation, that cost will reduce even further to $25. On that same day, it was also announced that Pergoveris, a fertility drug, would be listed on the PBS too, making it more affordable for women and their partners wanting to start or expand a family. Contraceptives and fertility drugs being listed on the same day underscores the unique and complex nature of women's health. Women's health matters. This government knows that women's health is an economic imperative as well as a health imperative, and Australians know this too. The announcement of investment in women's health was embraced by women and it was embraced by men, because, like women, men know that, when women are healthy, families are better off, the economy is more productive and there is more contribution to communities. Women are being heard by this government, and this government says to the girls and women of Australia, 'Say yes to you.' McGill, Mr Gordon Hugh 47 13:54 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Kilkivan farewelled their oldest resident when my old mate Gordon Hugh McGill passed away, aged 97. Gordon grew up on a cattle property at Cinnabar, where he developed a love of the land. His mum passed away when he was 15, and his father had glaucoma, so Gordon carried a lot of responsibility in the family. Gordon and his wife, Shirley, raised their five kids at Cinnabar and were happily married for more than 50 years before Shirely passed away in 2006. In 2012, Gordon moved to Kilkivan where he made many friends who remember him as a true gentleman with a beautiful heart. Gordon was a leading member of local branch of the United Graziers' Association. He experimented with different types of grasses and crops, went to war against invasive weeds and was an early pioneer of artificial insemination in a quest to develop a short-haired cattle breed for our climate. Gordon was also a generous supporter of the Liberal National Party. He was always ready to help and to put on a smile at the polling booths while he was handing out how-to-vote cards. Gordon will be deeply missed. He was a great man. Whenever you saw Gordon walking around Kilkivan, he always had a kind word for you and some form of positive reassurance. He was a beautiful human being. Rest in peace, Gordon. Health Care 47 13:56 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter This government is making the biggest investment in Medicare since it was created more than 40 years ago. Here in the Hunter that means more doctors, more urgent care, cheaper medicines and stronger mental health services for local families. We're investing $8.5 billion to deliver 18 million more bulk-billed GP visits every single year. By 2030, nine out of ten GP visits will be bulk billed, which is triple what we inherited from those opposite, who froze the rebate and sent bulk-billing off a cliff. Locals are already seeing the difference. Families in Cessnock, Singleton, Lake Macquarie and right through the valley are paying less and getting more. Right here in our backyard, urgent care clinics are up and running in Cessnock, Charlestown and Lake Haven, with Maitland to come very shortly. They are taking the pressure off Singleton, Cessnock, Maitland and the John Hunter hospitals, because people can walk in seven days a week, get free care and avoid hours in the ED. We are building Medicare mental health centres in Cessnock and Muswellbrook plus a bigger and improved headspace centre for Cessnock. From January, the maximum price of a PBS script will fall to $25. That's the lowest it's been in over 20 years. New South Wales families have already saved more than half a billion dollars on cheaper medicines. Labor is strengthening Medicare, backing mental health, delivering cheaper medicines and giving the Hunter families real cost-of-living relief. Health Care 47 13:57 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise today to highlight the reality of a health-care crisis unfolding in my electorate of Barker—specifically, in the community of Mount Gambier. The urgent care clinic that the minister promised would ease pressure on our local hospitals has been closed since June, yet, in question time on Monday, the minister stood in the chamber and proudly asserted that all of our nation's 90 urgent care clinics were currently operating. This is simply not true. Either the minister doesn't know or he is not across his brief. Either way, it's unacceptable. The consequences for my community are dire. All four GP clinics have confirmed they're not taking on new patients. Families can't find a doctor for their children, elderly residents are struggling to manage chronic illnesses and people are left with no primary health-care options. The people of Mount Gambier deserve honesty from this government, and they deserve to access health care. Instead they've been left behind. This is not just a policy failure; it's a betrayal of trust. Minister, front up to the people of Mount Gambier and tell them that you've failed. Come to Mount Gambier and tell these residents why they've been abandoned. Maybe you could tell them that it's a direct result of your decision, in 2022, to alter the distribution priority areas. Minister, your Prime Minister is fond of saying, 'All you need to access health care is your Medicare card.' In reality, in Mount Gambier, you need to travel hundreds of kilometres to do it. It's not acceptable and the minister knows it. Health Care 47 13:59 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Today I want to take the opportunity to share the real world, tangible impacts of Labor funded Medicare urgent care clinics in my community of the northern suburbs of Adelaide. Felicity Robertson writes: 'Despite the staff being under significant pressure with many waiting patients, they were kind, compassionate, patient and thorough—all the more important, as my daughter has a disability and can easily feel overwhelmed in a medical environment. This clinic is an invaluable community resource, and I'm very grateful for the care we've received.' Quite frankly, I couldn't have put it better myself. Jessica Goodwin also writes: Nurse Paul was absolutely incredible! Making a worried parent feel much better. He was confident, calm & reassuring. Continued to check up on our 2 yr old who came in with a swollen hand as a result of a bite. Got us in first as sons hand was getting worse. Cannot recommend this clinic enough! Fast, reliable and easy! Thank you Paul! This is what good Labor policy is all about—delivering accessible care via Medicare. We make your health our priority. We are proud of our Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia, and we will continue to support these to make sure that, when you need it the most, you can access the care and support you and your family need. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 48 14:00 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. In the Senate, the coalition just dragged Labor kicking and screaming into delivering all 83,000 home-care package places that were promised, including 40,000 this year. Labor didn't want this, but the coalition made it happen. Is the minister aware that the Prime Minister took a deliberate decision to exclude him from all negotiations today between Labor and the coalition on these matters. If the Prime Minister doesn't want the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors in the room when the big calls are being made, why should any elderly Australian? 14:01 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Our government is proud to be delivering our once-in-a-generation reforms to the aged care sector, which will see more Australians get better care faster than ever before. The House has heard remarkably considerable debate on this topic this week, and Minister Butler and I announced a short time ago that the government has reached an agreement to pass the aged care bill currently before the Senate. This is a fantastic outcome for older Australians and their families, who have the certainty that more care is on the way. It's a fantastic outcome for the aged-care providers, who will deliver more care than ever before. And it's a fantastic outcome for the workers, who work day in and day out looking after the people we love. The bill before the Senate is the final piece of the puzzle that paves the way for the commencement of the new Aged Care Act and our new Support at Home program. Throughout this reform process we've taken a principled approach to the bipartisan nature of these reforms to ensure that they are enduring and meaningful for generations to come. We're grateful to the opposition, particularly Senator Ruston, for their genuine engagement and commitment to working with us and to getting these reforms right. The new Support at Home program will help even more older Australians to stay at home for longer and with a higher level of care, so people can stay close to family and close to community. To keep up with increased demand, we'll now fast track the release of more home care packages in the lead-up to 1 November. We'll bring forward an extra 20,000 packages in the next eight weeks before the new act comes into effect. Once the new Support at Home program comes into place, we will allocate the remaining 63,000 packages to older Australians in the first eight months by 30 June 2026. This is a responsible decision that will deliver more care faster to the older Australians who need it most, while maintaining the prudent fiscal save that was a key pillar of our reforms last year. Every single older Australian deserves the very best care, and that's what our reforms have always sought to do. This is an important outcome for so many older Australians, their families and the sector, and I thank the parliament for working with the government to ensure that we get it right. Cancer, Scolyer, Professor Richard, AO 48 14:04 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Prime Minister. What contribution has former Australian of the Year Richard Colyer made to cancer research and advocacy, and what steps has the government announced today to build on Professor Scolyer's work? 14:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Robertson for his question. He is just one of the people who have brought their professional skills in the area of health care into this parliament, and the parliament is better for it. Today I was very honoured to once again meet with the 2024 Australian of the Year, Professor Richard Scolyer. We announced $5.9 million to establish the Richard Scolyer Chair in Brain Cancer Research at the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse in Sydney, together with Gail O'Brien, Chris O'Brien's widow. This investment will support a number of research positions, including a professorial chair as well as postdoctoral fellows, research assistants and PhD scholarships, along with research costs. That will be rolled out in conjunction with the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the University of Sydney. Professor Richard Scolyer is an extraordinary Australian, a humble man who has achieved so much, and, for so many Australians, his story has resonated so deeply. He is a renowned pathologist, a melanoma researcher who's made remarkable contributions to Australian medical research. He is the first in the world to receive an experimental treatment approach adapted from his own melanoma immunotherapy research, becoming both a patient and a research subject. Together with the other Australian of the Year recipient, his research partner Professor Georgina Long, he represents the very best of this country—someone who has brought skill, tenacity and courage, someone who always thinks of others. Indeed, even today he was suggesting that the chair in brain cancer research shouldn't be named after him. It says so much about his character and the fact he is just always thinking of others. Even after being diagnosed with brain cancer in 2023, he continues to think about how he can make a difference while going through what is a very difficult period. He continues to be an advocate and continues to show leadership, and the courage that he has shown is an inspiration for all Australians, including every member of this House. This announcement means that we can continue to stay at the forefront of the fight against cancer, we can continue to train the world's best researchers, and we can continue Professor Scolyer's vital work. Minister for Aged Care and Seniors 49 14:07 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. The minister has repeatedly claimed that there were 'around 87,000 people waiting for a home-care package as at 31 March'. But, moments ago in the Senate, the government admitted that the waitlist crisis has worsened significantly. Senator McAllister confirmed that as at 31 July there are almost 109,000 elderly Australians waiting, another 20,000 in the queue. When did the minister or his office become aware of this number, and why didn't he provide it to the House? 14:08 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke There is an established process for verifying and releasing data as it pertains to the national priority system waitlist. At the end of March, around 87,000 people were on the national priority system waitlist, and we're releasing more than 2,000 home-care packages every week up to this point to deal with that question. There is, as I said, a process of verification because the government does not want to release incorrect information when it comes to the national priority system. It's a longstanding process that is the same as was managed under the previous government, and I again refer the Leader of the Opposition to the numbers that I have given repeatedly throughout this. Mr Hawke HWO Point of order—Practice makes clear that, if a minister is aware of an incorrect answer, they come forward. The Minister for Housing did that yesterday on an answer. The minister has not corrected his answer and has been given an earliest opportunity to do so. Why hasn't he corrected his answer? The SPEAKER 53517 That's not a point of order. If you wish to raise that, there are other forums of the House to do that. Women's Health 49 14:09 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to improve the health of Australian women? Why is this such an important priority for the government? 14:10 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Thank you to the member for Gorton for that question and for joining us and so many other female colleagues in the Labor Party this morning to celebrate Women's Health Week. Others who joined were Assistant Minister White, who has responsibility for delivering the government's women's health agenda; Assistant Minister Kearney, who crafted that agenda; and the wonderful Robyn Smith, a terrific and powerful advocate for better women's health, who told her powerful story of going through menopause early in life after removing her ovaries and fallopian tubes to protect against a very high risk that she has of inherited cancer. This was a group of women channelling the voices of literally millions of Australian women, who remind us that you cannot be serious about strengthening Medicare without being serious about strengthening women's health. Women consume about 60 per cent of health services in this country—often not because they're sick but just because they are women managing their own and, by extension, their family's reproductive health and planning or because they're going through menopause and perimenopause. The truth is that, for decades, Australia's women had not been getting the support that they deserved and that they needed. There had not been a new oral contraceptive pill put onto the PBS for more than 30 years, not a new medicine for endometriosis for more than 30 years and not a new menopausal hormone treatment for more than 20 years, forcing Australia's women to pay top dollar for the best medicines available on the market. We've changed that. In this past year, we've listed three cutting-edge oral contraceptive pills, three cutting-edge menopausal hormone treatments and two cutting-edge medicines to treat endometriosis, saving women millions and millions of dollars they shouldn't have been paying in the first place. Already, I'm pleased to report that, since those listings, 365,000 Australian women have accessed more than 700,000 cheaper scripts as a direct result of the decisions that we took. On 1 July, as part of our package, we also introduced a new, longer, much better funded GP consult service to support women going through menopause and perimenopause to ensure that women, at that point in their life, get the best possible information, advice and support, which, frankly, had not been happening enough in years gone by. Already, I'm really pleased to report that in just nine weeks more than 20,000 Australian women have taken up that new opportunity. There are many more measures to take effect from our women's health package later this year, but already our determination to strengthen women's health is making a real difference. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 50 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Afghanistan Women's Cricket Team, Suicide Prevention Australia, Fitzhardinge, Councillor Hannah, Niikkula, Mr Matthew, Moir, Ms Natalie 50 14:13 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are members of the Afghanistan women's cricket team, who are here today for World Vision Australia's 1000 Voices for 1000 Girls campaign; representatives of Suicide Prevention Australia, who are here for the World Suicide Prevention Day on 10 September; the mayor of Fremantle, Councillor Hannah Fitzhardinge; Mr Matt Niikkula, the shire president of Exmouth; and Natalie Moir from Kalbarri, in the mighty electorate of Durack. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Freedom of Information 50 14:13 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. The Attorney-General has asked us to be open-minded to the government's proposed freedom-of-information reforms as a step towards greater transparency. I might be more trusting if the government showed greater commitment to other transparency measures. Publishing ministerial diaries and disclosing sponsored parliamentary orange passholders, as the crossbench has repeatedly urged, would demonstrate real commitment to transparency. When will the government commit to these reforms? 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Wentworth for her question and for her engagement on this issue, including yesterday, I think it was, when we had a meeting with other members about these issues. With regard to other reforms coming on top of our creation of a national anti-corruption commission and other reforms that we have already introduced, today the Attorney-General has announced consultation on stage 2 of public sector whistleblower reforms. That will be important going forward. As I indicated, that would come forward. Freedom of information is a vital part of our democracy, but, right now, the FOI system is broken. The current framework is stuck in the 1980s, and this was before new technology was there—before email, before smartphones—and we need to keep up with that. Last year, public servants spent more than one million hours processing FOIs—not doing policy, not helping people out there with their issues; but going through FOIs. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left are going to cease— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Latrobe! That is not an appropriate way to use when I am addressing the House. You'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Latrobe then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 Trust me, if people are going to interject, when I'm addressing the House is not the time to do it. The member was given the courtesy of silence for her question; the same courtesy is going to be given to the Prime Minister, who's updating the House, and I think everyone wants to hear the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 There are real issues with the current system. One is the anonymous nature of FOI applications. Anyone can set up a Gmail address. It could be someone backed by a foreign government seeking interference. We do not know. Just last week, we expelled the Iranian ambassador. Certainly, the Jewish community, including the Jewish Board of Deputies, have made representations about the some of the FOI applications that go to security, for example, around Jewish synagogues, Jewish schools and other areas as well. The anonymous nature of applications coming forward is an issue, as are application fees. Every state and territory, other than the ACT, has an initial FOI application fee— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Goldstein and the member for Hume—order! When this information is being provided to members, it is not an opportunity to just to continue to keep conversations going across the chamber. I'm going to give everyone one more chance, and, if it continues, people are just going to leave. Mr ALBANESE R36 The opposition knows that charges are already part of the FOI system, but, under the proposals which we're putting forward, there won't be any application fee for people's own personal information, and waivers will be provided for financial hardship. In addition to that, we'll make sure that issues such as the eSafety Commissioner, who, for example, in 2023-24, saw a more than a 2,000 per cent increase in FOI requests compared to the previous year—artificial intelligence means it is possible for someone who wants to disrupt an agency completely and bring it to a halt is able to do so. Governments have to respond to changes in technology. That is what we are doing. (Time expired) Women's Health 51 14:18 Ms FRANCE 270198 Dickson My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting women's health? 14:18 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the fabulous member for Dickson for her question and her advocacy for women. She is such an important member of this place, and I'm very proud to have her here. This week is Women's Health Week. It's an important reminder to all of us of the issues that affect over half of our population, and it is time to reflect on the work that's been done. Of course, there is always more to do. This government is a government that backs women whether it is in our workplaces, in our communities or, of course, in our healthcare system, and I want to recognise the work of Assistant Minister White and Assistant Minister Kearney who, before her, worked on this package. It's why we've delivered the most significant investment in women's health in decades. We know that women deserve access to the health care that they need. Through strengthening Medicare and delivering cheaper medicines, this investment means more choice, lower costs and better health care for women across the country at all stages of their lives. We committed over $790 million for a women's health package—prescriptions for oral contraceptives being part of that package—and they are, of course, making a real difference across our community. Since 1 May, as the minister said, we've seen over 365,000 patients access more than 715 prescriptions for oral contraceptives, menopause hormone therapies and endometriosis treatments. That is a huge number of patients accessing those treatments. We've listed new contraceptives on the PBS for the first time in 30 years, making it cheaper and much easier for women to actually access long-lasting contraceptives. Before the listings of Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda on the PBS, women were paying around $380 a year for their contraception. They are now paying half that and, of course, much less—around $30.80—if they're concession card holders. Before the listings of Estrogel, Prometrium and Estrogel Pro on the PBS, again, women might have paid up to $670 a year. Now they're paying only $31.60 a script—again, a really enormous cost-of-living relief for women to access health care. We know that, already, more than 20,000 women have taken up the new perimenopausal and menopause health assessments since they were subsidised just on 1 July. The opening of the 22 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, with 11 more to come, and expanding of all 33 clinics has been, again, an enormous benefit to women across the country. And, of course, from 1 January, we will see every prescription listed on the PBS costing no more than $25. This is all targeted at helping and supporting women's health. We've listened to women's health needs, and now we're getting on with the job of actually delivering. National Security 51 14:21 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports in the Australian that government officials are helping to bring ISIS-terrorist brides to Australia. Prime Minister, these are not ordinary citizens. They chose to align with a barbaric death cult that glorified mass murder, sold women and girls into slavery and cheered the slaughter of innocents. What actions has your government taken to guarantee the safety of Australians if these people return? 14:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Those reports are not accurate. Medical Workforce 51 14:22 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to train more nurses and doctors to strengthen Medicare for decades to come? 14:22 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Can I thank my friend the member for Macnamara for his question. An honourable member interjecting— Mr CLARE HWL He is magnificent; that's a good point. I thank the magnificent member for Macnamara for his question. We need more nurses, and we need more midwives too. These are people who've signed up to do some of the most important jobs in this country—people who will look after us when we're sick and help women during childbirth. A big part of their university degrees is prac—practical training—and it can sometimes be very difficult. I'll just give you one example. For a lot of nursing students, while they're studying part time, they often work at a local hospital as an assistant in nursing. When they do their prac, it's often at the same hospital, and they have to give up their paid part-time job to do it. So that can cause financial difficulties. It can mean that, sometimes, they don't have the money they need to pay for parking, to pay for public transport or to pay for petrol. The good news is that paid prac has now started. We promised it and we're delivering it. It's real cost-of-living help—real practical help—for the practical part of the university degree for nursing students, midwifery students, teaching students and social work students as well. It started on 1 July, and I can advise the House that already more than 30,000 people have applied to get it. We need more nurses, but, as the member for Macnamara asked, we need more doctors too. In the election, we promised to set up a new medical school at the Queensland University of Technology. We promised it and we're delivering it. I can advise the House that it will start training doctors from 2027. We also promised to deliver end-to-end medical training in Launceston at the University of Tasmania so medical students can complete their whole degree in Launceston. We promised it and we're delivering it. It will start from next year, 2026. We also promised to set up a new medical school at Charles Darwin University in the Northern Territory. We promised it and we're delivering it. It, too, will start from next year. We also promised, during the election, to roll out 100 extra medical Commonwealth supported places next year. Universities will be able to bid for these extra places, and applications for them opened last week. The focus here is on training more GPs. It's all part of strengthening Medicare. It's part of the biggest-ever investment in Medicare to make it easier to see a doctor for free. We promised to train more doctors to do it and we are delivering it. National Security 52 14:25 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the aforementioned reports in the Australian and your previous answer. Is the Prime Minister aware of any info that suggests that ISIS brides are seeking to return to Australia, and is your government making preparations to receive them? 14:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I refer to my previous answer. Freedom of Information 52 14:26 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Attorney-General. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of integrity and transparency frameworks? 14:26 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for his question. Today the Albanese government introduced new legislation to reform the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Freedom of information is a vital feature of our democracy. It provides transparency and accountability of government and enables Australians to access their personal information. However, it is absolutely the case, as the Prime Minister has said, that the Freedom of Information Act remains stuck in the 1980s—well before the widespread use of email or more recent advances in artificial intelligence. You will not find a stakeholder who says the system works well, so reform is clearly needed. That is why the legislation introduced today seeks to ban anonymous requests, stop abuses of the framework by vexatious and frivolous requests, make the law clearer when it comes to cabinet and deliberative material exemptions, and establish procedures for the handling of the records of former ministers. Let me give you an example of why the current system is broken. In one instance, a small agency received nearly 600 FOI requests, in a short period of time, from an automated generator. This resulted in the diversion of an entire Public Service team from their work for more than three months. Mr Speaker, you may ask which agency that was. That agency was eSafety, whose core mission is to keep Australian children safe online. Hardworking taxpayers, who already fund over a million hours of FOI processing a year, would expect eSafety to be focused on their task of protecting children rather than processing a mountain of frivolous FOI requests from online trolls. The Albanese government will also not continue to tolerate a framework which allows offshore actors whose capabilities are enhanced with artificial intelligence to anonymously lodge FOI requests seeking information held by the Australian government. The idea that our laws could permit a foreign state to anonymously seek access to information about recent government decisions without us even knowing it is simply untenable. The government will refer its FOI legislation to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for scrutiny and continue to engage with stakeholders and across the parliament on these reforms. FOI also forms part of a broader transparency and integrity framework which this government is continuing to strengthen. The government is delivering on its commitment to continue to enhance Australia's public sector whistleblowing framework. These reforms will establish a new whistleblower ombudsman, which will be the most significant addition to the federal integrity landscape since this government established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Following consultation, we intend to introduce legislation into the parliament as soon as possible. The Albanese government is committed to progressing reforms that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our integrity frameworks. International Relations: Australia and China 53 14:29 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Prime Minister, today, to Australia's shame, Daniel Andrews attended a Chinese Communist Party military parade, alongside dictators Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and the Iranian president. Former premier Annastacia Palaszczuk described Mr Andrews's attendance as 'a bridge too far'. Will the Prime Minister echo her condemnation? Did the Prime Minister or his office provide any personal or consular assistance for the visit? Mr Husic 91219 I love how Dan Andrews lives rent-free in your heads! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Chifley is warned. 14:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler At the 70th anniversary, 10 years ago, the former government sent a Liberal minister, Michael Ronaldson, to represent the Australian government. I understand that Australian embassy officials will formally represent Australia this time. Last month, on 15 August, I attended a commemoration for Victory in the Pacific Day in Martin Place, along with the Leader of the Opposition. It is on that day that we commemorate the end of the war in the Pacific in Australia. In that case, we celebrate it on the day of the surrender of the Japanese forces. We also, on that day, celebrate the courage and sacrifice of all those Australians who served. I can confirm it was a very moving occasion, as these occasions always are when we honour the men and women who wear our uniform. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 53 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Kiribati: Parliamentary Delegation, France-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, Fairley Leadership Program 53 14:30 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation from the parliament of Kiribati's Public Account Committee, led by the Hon. Tarakabu Martin Tofinga. I also have a 'bienvenue' to the Senate delegation from the France-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, and welcome members of the Fairley Leadership Program from the Goulburn and Murray valleys in the electorate of Nicholls. Welcome to you all. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 53 14:31 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering generational reforms to aged care after a decade of cuts and neglect? 14:31 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Blair. He knows aged care well, having held the portfolio for Labor for a number of years. He knows that we, on this side of the House, over the last few years, have had no higher priority than strengthening Medicare and strengthening aged care, because aged care when we came to government was in the worst state it had been in in the more than 30 years that I had been working with that sector—tragically summed up by the royal commission in one word, the title to their interim report, which was 'neglect'. We were utterly determined to turn that around. I don't think there was a single policy area where we made decisions to invest more money in the last term than in aged care, to deliver RNs 24/7—registered nurses on shift all the time. They said it couldn't be done, and we've delivered it. We've delivered more care minutes to every aged-care resident, delivered better wages to aged-care workers to allow providers to recruit and retain the workers we need to provide better food in aged-care facilities— Ms Penfold 248895 It takes 10 months to get a visa. Mr BUTLER HWK and provided more home-care packages. In the 2023 budget we did it. In the 2024 budget we did it. In 2024 MYEFO we did it, with thousands more home-care packages as well as the 83,000 new Support at Home care packages, which I think I said yesterday were in the 2025 budget. Actually, they were even earlier, in the 2024 MYEFO, to be rolled out over the course of 2025-26. The pace of reform has been unprecedented, and the need for it has been acute. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Lyne! We're going to pause. I can't hear the minister because the member for Lyne is continually interjecting. No more interjections from the member for Lyne, because I want to hear what the minister is saying. Mr BUTLER HWK Those opposite did worse than nothing. In 2012, we set up a rolling process of reforms that I agreed with Mr Dutton, which would get this sector ready for the ageing of the baby boomer generation—a rolling series of reforms that was derailed in the middle of the last decade. I wonder who the minister was when that was all derailed. I wonder who the minister was who failed to deliver the mid-decade reform that was set out in that 2012 piece of legislation that I agreed with Mr Dutton. I wonder who the minister was who, in her entire tenure, did not deliver a single additional home-care package—a big fat doughnut. I wonder who the minister was who cut aged-care funding to the residential sector not once but twice in her relatively short tenure as aged-care minister—$1.2 billion in the 2016 budget and half a billion dollars in the 2015 MYEFO. I wonder who that was! I have appreciated the dialogue we had with Senator Ruston last year and to deliver the deal that will get this legislation through this week. (Time expired) Economy: Climate Change 54 14:35 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Treasurer. Climate change is projected to cost the economy up to $76 billion per year by 2060, making it one of the biggest threats to national productivity. The government has not released the national risk assessment nor the ONI report and is continuing to approve projects that will make this economic risk worse. You did not have adaptation or resilience at the table when it came to the Economic Reform Roundtable. What can you tell the Australian people about the financial exposure to climate risk of the economy? 14:35 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Warringah for her important question. The exposure is substantial, and that's why it was part of the discussions at the Economic Reform Roundtable. It's why we had the Conservation Foundation there, it's why we had Ken Henry there—for that and other reasons. It's front of mind for the government. I've been working very closely with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on the risk and adaptation part of our climate change agenda. You're right to point out that it has very close alignment with all of our broader economic considerations as well. I've spent a lot of time with the minister on this question. He has said publicly, I believe, that we'll be releasing the risk and adaptation work this month, September of 2025, and when that happens I'll be part of that because we've worked very closely together on it. And, when we release that important work, I'll welcome the contribution from the member for Warringah. These are important issues, and they do have a lot of economic consequences attached to them. Economy 54 14:37 Ms TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel My question is also to the Treasurer. What do today's national accounts tell us about our economy? 14:37 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the new member for Bullwinkel for her important question and for all of her work in this place already as a new member of parliament focused on the most important issues. The numbers we got today in the national accounts were very encouraging, and they were very welcome. The numbers came in better than what almost all economists were expecting today. We saw growth in the quarter of 0.6. We saw through-the-year growth of 1.8. That beat expectations on both fronts, and that's a very good thing. Our economy is gathering pace and it's gathering momentum. We have seen in the data released today for the June quarter a very welcome and a substantial pick-up in growth in our economy, and that's important. The big story in the national accounts today was the pick-up and the recovery in the private sector in particular, and this is the recovery in the private sector that we've been planning for and preparing for and, frankly, hoping for. To see the private sector make the contribution to growth in the numbers today again was very welcome. The reason why the private sector is recovering, the reason why that's feeding through to the biggest contributor to growth in the quarter, which was consumption, is that this government has worked diligently every single day to lift wages and lift incomes in our economy. That's what's driving the improvement in growth in the numbers that were released today. Consumption is recovering in our economy because incomes are recovering in our economy. Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 And I can hear them chirping away. They should chirp up and say that, when we came to office, real wages were falling, living standards were falling, per person incomes were falling, inflation was rising and interest rates were already going up, and we have been turning all of that around. The reason incomes are growing in our economy—and living standards, too—is our tax cuts and our wage rises, combined with the Reserve Bank's three interest rate cuts in six months. Because of our efforts, the wages share of national income is now 54 per cent. When we came to office the wages share of national income was less than half. Now it's 54 per cent. That's not accidental. That is deliberate. We have got in our economy now the equal-fastest through-the-year economic growth compared with any major advanced economy, and we've got much faster employment growth than any major advanced economy. These are very welcome, encouraging numbers. They show the progress that we've made together. They show that we've been delivering on all of the things we identified as the government's priorities, but we know there is still more work to do. International Relations 55 14:40 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister condemn his close personal friend Daniel Andrews attending the Chinese Communist Party military parade alongside the presidents of Russia, North Korea and Iran? The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has got to be asked questions he's directly responsible for. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There are some difficulties with the question falling within the standing orders. If you think about it to its logical conclusion, it could be asked about any Australian. But I'm going to hear from the Leader of the House to assist. Mr Burke DYW I have a point of order. The fundamental role for questions is that they have to be something that the Prime Minister is officially connected with. By definition and the way that was framed, he said it's not. The SPEAKER 53517 If we could have the question—alright, I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Hawke HWO The point of order is that the Prime Minister is officially connected with Australia, and he is the Prime Minister. Honourable members interjecting— Mr Hawke HWO Yes. That's an official connection. So we've invited him to condemn a former premier attending a foreign affairs rally, and that's the point of order. The SPEAKER 53517 Okay. The Prime Minister looks like he's indicating that he's okay to answer the question. I was going to ask the member to rephrase, but this is a bit of a learned lesson for everyone. If we make the question directly relevant to someone's responsibilities, that would help the House. 14:42 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I think that point of order said it all about the question. I'm responsible for the Australian government, the Australian government did have a representative there, and the Australian government did have a representative 10 years ago. That was a minister in the government. Our government chose that that would not be the case. Wages and Salaries 55 14:42 Mr GREGG 315154 Deakin My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese government delivering on its commitment to help Aussie workers earn more and keep more of what they earn, and how is this different from other approaches? 14:42 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the fabulous member for Deakin for his question. It was wonderful recently to visit with him essential workers in Eastland, where we got to hear about how important the government's policies are to them. Of course, the Albanese Labor government was elected on a commitment to get wages moving after a decade of deliberate wage suppression under those opposite. We have delivered significant changes to our workplace laws to deliver on our commitment to get wages moving. Our Secure Jobs, Better Pay changes have reinvigorated enterprise bargaining and put gender equality at the heart of our workplace laws. Of course, these changes are seeing more workers than ever before be covered by enterprise agreements, delivering real wage increases. The gender pay gap is now at a record low of 11.5 per cent, and working women are earning on average an additional $250 a week. Our Closing Loopholes changes have stopped the underpayment of labour-hire workers, and many are earning thousands of dollars more. We've delivered on our commitment to make a submission to the Fair Work Commission for a real wage increase for almost three million workers who rely on minimum award wages. And we've made a submission every single year since we've been in government. When this commitment was first made by our Prime Minister while in opposition, those opposite labelled it reckless. Well, this side of parliament does not view backing Aussie workers as reckless. Now, the lowest-paid workers on minimum wages are earning more than $175 per week on average more than when we came to government. Our government has also acted to protect award-reliant workers when they were faced with a real chance of losing their penalty rates. This, of course, is in clear contrast to the coalition, who, when in government, stood by and did nothing to protect penalty rates when they were taken away in 2017. Our government is committed to getting wages moving. We have recorded the strongest annual real wages growth in five years, and real wages have been growing for seven consecutive quarters. Since coming to government, Aussie workers are benefiting from an average of an additional $9,000 per year in their pay packets. This Labor government is delivering for working people. We're delivering to get wages moving and making sure Aussies are earning more. Middle East 56 14:45 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Prime Minister. The International Association of Genocide Scholars this week voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion stating that Israel's actions in Gaza fit the definition of genocide under international law, and it called on states like Australia to uphold our obligations under the Genocide Convention. Will your government finally acknowledge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza? 14:46 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I note that there are processes before the ICJ and that, while people have different views, those processes are legal processes, and what we do as a responsible government is allow legal processes to take their course. What I would say about the situation in the Middle East is that my government has been consistent. We've been consistent since the terrorist atrocity that Hamas committed on October 7 in calling that out for what it was, we've been consistent in calling for the release of hostages and we've been consistent in calling for a ceasefire and for innocent civilians to be protected. I must say that the resolution that was carried with the support of the major parties in this House has stood the test of time quite well. It called for international law to be upheld. It called for innocent people, whether they be Israelis or Palestinians, to be protected. We have called out issues in Gaza with regard to a failure to adequately provide food and essential aid. We've called out, for example, the 'double tap' that occurred at the hospital in Khan Younis for what it was—something that saw the loss of life of journalists, doctors, nurses and people providing assistance. We have continued to take a principled position. That has resulted in criticism from all sides of this debate, but it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for the role that we play internationally. It's the right thing to do to work towards a long-term solution where both Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace and security; where Israel can continue to exist as a majority Jewish state, providing a homeland for the Jewish people; and where the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state can be realised. That is something that I have held onto throughout my political life and, indeed, before I came to this parliament, and that is something that our government will continue to do—continue to be a strong advocate, regardless of the criticism thrown at us and regardless of the misinformation that is put out there. For example, we do not fund or provide arms to the State of Israel. We are not a participant in this conflict. What Australians want to see are two things: they want to see the killing stop, and they want to see—whether they are Israelis or Palestinians—that the conflict is not brought here. Renewable Energy 56 14:49 Ms URQUHART 231199 Braddon My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What progress is the Albanese government making on clean energy, and what are the risks? 14:49 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank everyone's favourite member for Braddon for this question, and I thank her for her leadership in Tasmania. Yesterday the Prime Minister and I told the House that 44,000 Australians had installed a home battery under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. Today I can tell the House that 46,052— An honourable member: A big lift! Mr BOWEN DZS A big jump! Today 46,052 families have introduced cheaper home batteries to their households. And, just as the nation is getting on with the job of batteries, we are getting on with the job of the battery of the nation. The battery of the nation is the state of Tasmania. I'm pleased to announce and tell the House that today the Albanese government, the Allen government and the Rockliff government have reached financial close on the Marinus Link. The Marinus Link has been talked about for decades, and this government is delivering the Marinus Link. I want to thank Ministers D'Ambrosio and Duigan, the two state ministers who worked with me to make this a reality. This link will unlock billions of dollars of investment in Tasmania and will create enough renewable energy to power 750,000 homes right across Australia, creating jobs for Tasmanians in particular. That's a good thing. The honourable member asked me about risks, and one of the risks is people who used to support transmission and support things like the Marinus Link who now say they oppose it. For example, I imagine the member for Hume welcomes the Marinus Link announcement because he once spruiked it. He once talked about the Marinus Link. In fact, in September 2021, he not only said his budget supported Marinus Link; he boasted it supported Tasmania's Marinus Link, VNI West and Project EnergyConnect—all projects they now oppose and promote rallies against. That's what they do now. That's a significant risk to the transition. If you can't actually believe in something, you can't actually follow it through. The member for Hume's defence is, 'Yes, I supported transmission lines; I just never built one,' which is a fair defence. They never actually got around to building one; they just talked about how good they were; they just kept announcing it. It's this government that is, today, announcing the next big step on the Marinus Link, and we'll continue to make progress. The honourable member asked me about risks, and, again, we see more of the perfectly normal policy development on the other side. We've heard about the member for Hume. We've also heard from Senator Hume today, who took to social media to declare that she's not for turning when it comes to net zero. She's fully in favour of it and had to go to Instagram to point out that she's a member of the Liberal Party, not the Advance Australia party. At least she can make that claim; I'm not sure that all those opposite could make that claim. Senator Hume has been supported by the member for Flinders and Senator Bragg and others—and good on them for standing up for net zero; they're in a small minority. But, on this side of the House, we're going to keep going with the job of delivering for Australians with batteries, big and small. Mallee Electorate: Bush Summit 57 14:52 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told the bush summit, 'I won't BS people'. The Prime Minister promised Australians a $275 reduction in their energy bills prior to the 2022 election. Hasn't that now proven to be 'BS'? Is this broken promise the reason why the Prime Minister was chased out of town by a convoy of tractors? 14:53 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I did attend a meeting in Ballarat last week, and I attended a meeting in Wagga Wagga as well. I attend, regularly, regional events. And, when I do, I inform the members, as the member for Page would know, as the member for Maranoa would know and as the member for Riverina would know. Indeed, I took the member for Riverina to the event in his electorate last week. I have attended an event with the member for Mallee, where I opened local community infrastructure at the invitation of the local council. There were schools there because it was the first time a prime minister had visited Horsham, a small community, in some 40 years. There were school children there; there were lots of people there. I rang up the member for Mallee to invite her to come along. The member for Mallee chose to organise people to come along and yell with loudhailers and to disrupt the event. I was fine with that, as I was last week when I engaged in one-on-one discussions. But I do make this point. Yesterday a neo-Nazi crashed the events with the Victorian premier. Mr Littleproud 265585 Don't conflate that with farmers. Be very careful. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll tell you what is dangerous. What is dangerous is encouraging—indeed, I was there, as was the member for Maranoa. He knows the Australian Federal Police had organised a cut-off area— Mr Littleproud 265585 Don't conflate it with neo-Nazis. Don't you dare! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals cannot continue to keep yelling like that. Mr ALBANESE R36 so that no-one was chased, as the member put it in her question. Indeed, because of the presence of the AFP, I attended a dinner the night before and I went around all the tables and discussed that with farmers. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister is directly answering a question about the event that he was asked about in the question. It's impossible to raise a point of order on relevance. Member for Mallee, the Prime Minister is answering exactly the question he has been asked, about the rally he attended, what he said and what he did. I'm going to ask you to reconsider if it's a point of order on relevance, because it can't be for the reasons I've just outlined. I think everyone can see that. The member for Mallee. Dr Webster 281688 It is on relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 No. Resume your seat. We're going to deal with this. Speakers in the past—I'm happy to go through it with any member who requests it—have denied points of order. I'm willing to give people a fair go, but if you've asked a question and he or any minister is answering it directly—when people go off topic, I understand it, but not when he is giving specific answers. That's just ridiculous. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll tell you what is dangerous. It's encouragement of an event where someone stands on a chair in the second row with a noose around their neck at a time when people taking their own lives is a really serious issue. All I would say is this: I'm always prepared to front up. I front up in seats right across this parliament. I front up outside my electorate office, which sees demonstrations a lot more willing than what was there in Ballarat the other day, let me tell you. I front up when coffins are brought to the front of my office with my name on them. I front up and address those people, and I address them respectfully. But I say this to the parliament: you need to be responsible. (Time expired) Defence Industry 58 14:58 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. How is the Albanese Labor government growing Australia's defence industrial base, supporting jobs and building a future made in Australia? Why is this important after a wasted decade? 14:58 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for his question. Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment since 1945, and that's why the Albanese government is investing record amounts in the Australian defence industry to keep Australians safe and deliver a future made in Australia. I'm delighted to inform the House that, according to the latest statistics, the industry grew by 12½ per cent, and jobs grew in that sector by almost 10 per cent. This investment is guided by the lessons from recent conflicts, including that we don't just need the right equipment; we need the ability to make this equipment in Australia. There's no better example of this than the Albanese government's $10 billion plan for drone and counterdrone technologies. Last month I announced our plan to acquire $1.3 billion worth of drone defences for the Australian Defence Force. Importantly, this will involve many innovative Australian companies, like Acacia Systems in Adelaide, which I recently visited. Their home-grown technology will be the brains of the ADF drone defence. We're also designing and making drones in Australia. Take a look at Ghost Shark, delivered on budget and ahead of schedule, or Ghost Bat, the first aircraft to be designed and made in Australia in over 50 years. So we're growing capabilities for the ADF, we're growing jobs and we're growing sovereignty and self-reliance for Australia. Our record stands in stark contrast to the coalition's wasted decade, where they failed to support our local industry. They cancelled the only armed drone project and delivered zero drone defences for this country. We're delivering both armed drones and drone defences for the ADF. They closed two shipyards, costing thousands of Aussie jobs. We're delivering continuous naval shipbuilding in Western Australia and SA, supporting over 10,000 jobs. All they did for missile manufacturing was two media releases. We're building two missile factories, and this year Aussie workers will start making missiles in this country. Under their plan, there would have been no major warships for the Navy until 2034. Under us, there will be four new warships in that time, with the first delivered this decade. Unlike those opposite, we support Aussie workers and manufacturing, and that's why the Albanese government is backing a defence future made in Australia. In contrast, as question time again demonstrated, those on the opposite side can't be trusted on defence, can't be trusted on national security and always go the low road. Gas Industry 58 15:01 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The government is currently undertaking a Gas Market Review, with the premise that we need new gas production for our domestic needs. However, only 16 per cent of Australian LNG was sold to the domestic market last year; the rest was exported. More than enough gas for our domestic needs is sold daily on the spot market and exported. Why is the government supporting more gas projects when we have more than enough already, and when will you intervene to protect our access to our own gas resources? 15:02 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for the question. The Minister for Resources and I are conducting a review into our gas policy settings, as is very necessary, because we believe that Australian industry—including Australian heavy industry—those Australian homes that use gas for heating, and the gas-fired power peaking stations that we have in the grid do require access to Australian gas at reasonable prices. That's why we're undertaking that review in a careful, methodical way. We aren't doing as those opposite did and making a policy which the industry, in hours, clearly said wouldn't work. We're undertaking a very heavy consultation process. We've already received many submissions, which we're working through. I don't accept that there's a premise to our review, other than the fundamental principle that we do have a plentiful supply of gas in Australia and we need to ensure that supply is available for Australian uses. We will continue to make the point that gas is necessary to underpin our transition to renewables. It's a very flexible type of fuel. Gas-fired power stations can be turned on and off at very short notice, unlike coal and nuclear. Heavy industry relies on gas, and five million Australian homes rely on gas. For that purpose, we are undertaking the review. We have three policy mechanisms that are reaching the end of their scheduled lives. It's appropriate that there be a full, comprehensive and methodical review, and that's exactly what the Minister for Resources and I are doing. Housing 59 15:03 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering new social and affordable homes for Australians in need? Is the minister aware of any obstacles? 15:04 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I want to thank the member for her question. She represents an absolutely beautiful part of our great country, and it is a part of our nation which has some really specific housing challenges. It's in part because of her really powerful advocacy that we have in Canberra today an Australian government which has the boldest and most ambitious housing agenda that a Commonwealth government has had since the postwar period. This is bringing really meaningful change to the member for Richmond's constituents. About 500 of the people she represents have got the keys to their first home because of the Albanese government's backing. There are 14,000 recipients of Commonwealth rent assistance in her community who are getting almost a 50 per cent increase on that payment because of our government. We absolutely recognise that housing is a life-defining challenge for many people around our country. We hear it from an entire younger generation, who tell us, in absolutely clear terms, of the anger that they feel that they experience completely different housing opportunities than their parents and grandparents had. We hear it from parents, too. They talk to us about the deep worry they have that the younger people in their lives are not going to have the same financial future and security that they had. And, of course, we see it in all of our communities with that rising homeless population that is so distressing. Our government has a $43 billion agenda which is targeted at addressing some of these issues. Under this Prime Minister and this government, we're building more homes, getting renters a better deal and getting more Australians into homeownership. A really important part of the work we're doing is our efforts to build 55,000 desperately needed social and affordable homes right around our country. In our government, we are all about delivery, delivery, delivery. I want to let the parliament know that, of those 50,000 new social and affordable homes, we've ticked off over 5,000 of those homes as already complete, many with tenants already in them, and we've got 25,000 of these homes in planning or construction today. I really want the parliament to understand the scale of what we are undertaking here. Remember, our government is delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes in five years. The coalition, in nine long years, delivered 373 homes for the country. What an absolute disgrace. We are getting it done. In the member for Hasluck's electorate, there are 537 new social and affordable homes; in the member for Fraser's electorate, 795 new homes; in Jagajaga, 711 new homes; and, in Adelaide, 680 new homes. Do you know how many new homes the coalition delivered in all these electorates together? Absolutely zero. It is no wonder we have so many housing challenges, and we are getting on with the job of addressing the housing concerns that Australians so clearly have. Mr Albanese R36 I say to the member for Flynn: see if you can get in one of the first 24 questions tomorrow, and we'll give you a crack. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 59 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 59 15:07 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr 281688 Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 53517 Please proceed. Dr WEBSTER 281688 The Prime Minister, in answering my question today, stated that I had organised a protest in Horsham. That is untrue. I merely stood with my community. He also— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence. Members on my right will cease interjecting so the member for Mallee can proceed. Dr WEBSTER 281688 He also implied that I had organised the protest that took place in Ballarat on Friday last week and stood with a woman, or encouraged the woman, to stand on a chair with a noose around her neck. That is absolutely untrue. That imputation is grievously offensive. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 60 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 2 of 2025-26 60 15:08 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 2 of 2025-26 entitled Effectiveness of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's regulatory functions: NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Presentation 60 15:08 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 Taxation 60 15:09 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Curtin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for broad tax reform to address growing intergenerational unfairness. 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— 15:09 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin After the economic roundtable two weeks ago, the Treasurer committed to developing a process for longer term tax reform focused on a fair go for working people, including, in intergenerational equity terms, an affordable, responsible way to incentivise business investment and making the system simpler and more sustainable. I welcome this commitment and regard it as a real win for the crossbench. Throughout the last term, I and other Independents consistently called for both long-term tax reform and a focus on intergenerational fairness. In fact, we were the only ones calling for tax reform. These issues were too often ignored by the major parties. The challenge now is to maintain pressure on the government to follow through—and on the coalition to bring its own solutions—on intergenerational equity and tax reform. That's why I bring forward this matter of public importance—to maintain momentum for real, structural tax reform in the coming years. Keeping a lid on spending must, of course, be part of budget repair, as must productivity, but these are not the only levers. We also need to shift the burden to different taxes that demonstrate the principles of intergenerational equity, business investment and simplification. As we build public appetite for reform, we need to avoid being sucked into the rule in, rule out game that characterises so much of our politics. Every option should be on the table. While an individual measure may have a negative impact on a particular cohort, other measures within a broader package may make that same cohort better off, so we must consider tax reform packages as a whole. Today, I'm putting forward some options that should be on the table when we look at how to shift the tax burden. They're informed by evidence, by international best practice and by the voices of the people of Curtin. Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions are increasingly supported by a majority of Australians. In a survey of Curtin residents, 76 per cent supported reform in this area. People recognise how seriously our housing system is broken and how current tax settings encourage Australians to treat housing primarily as an investment, not as a home. Reviewing these concessions must be part of any serious tax conversation. In Australia, successive governments have relied on bracket creep as their only plan for budget repair. This stealth tax disproportionately burdens younger working Australians while discouraging productivity. Most OECD countries index their tax brackets to inflation, and Australia should do this too. It would ensure governments can no longer rely on hidden tax hikes and must instead make a case for every new spending decision. The GST is often dismissed as regressive, but a package can be designed that is progressive. I worked with Professor Richard Holden and the Parliamentary Budget Office to develop an example of a progressive GST combining an increased rate with a basic supplement paid to every adult. This can be structured so that the majority of people—those with zero, low or middle incomes—would be better off. The key message here is that tax reform needs to include reviewing GST rates and exemptions. Stamp duty is one of the most inefficient taxes we have. It discourages mobility, locks people into housing that no longer suits them and makes it harder to use our houses well. Transitioning to a broad based land tax in partnership with the states would enable better housing outcomes. Again, Curtin residents are ahead of the politicians. In my community survey, 65 per cent supported this idea. Australians are not being fairly compensated for the use of our natural resources. Last year, no tax was paid on two-thirds of the gas exported from Western Australia. PRRT revenue this year will amount to just 0.08 per cent of GDP, which is a staggeringly low return for resources that belong to all of us. It's time for a serious review of resource rent taxes, particularly for fossil fuels that not only deplete our finite resources but also impose global climate costs. Too many multinational corporations shift profits offshore and escape paying their fair share. The structure of global markets is changing. This undermines fairness, erodes our tax base and disadvantages local businesses that do play by the rules. Australia must work with other countries and strengthen its laws to ensure that we're appropriately taxing the digital economy and multinationals that benefit from access to the Australian market. Finally, carbon and pollution taxes remain the most economically efficient way to drive a cleaner and more sustainable economy. If we're serious about finding the cheapest and fastest path to net zero, then we cannot rule out these tools. Shifting the balance from income tax to some of these taxes will ensure younger Australians are given a fair go, drive productivity and innovation, and secure Australia as a prosperous and thriving country for decades to come. 15:14 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The obligation that we have as members of parliament is to ensure that we deliver better living standards for our kids and generations to come. That is our goal, and that is what we work towards every day as a government. But, over the last decade, that commitment and promise to the next generation has been under threat. Young Australians are facing increasing pressure from the cost of housing, they've inherited a massive debt from the previous coalition government in the wake of COVID, and the threat of climate change is eroding their quality of life. We have an ageing population, which means there are more people in our economy and our society who require aged care, the NDIS and hospital and health services. That is putting an impost on the budget and, at same time, reducing the same number of taxpayers that are actually paying tax to fund those services. This is putting pressure on the welfare of younger generations of Australians. But this is something that our government is committed to addressing. We are acting to ensure that we make our taxation and welfare systems much fairer to produce more equitable outcomes for future generations. We're putting in place those policies to ensure greater intergenerational equity through our taxation system to ensure our children inherit a better quality of life through a fairer tax system, a more affordable housing market, a clean and safe environment through stronger action on climate change, a sustainable budget position and an affordable and fairer education system. Making the taxation system fairer, particularly the income tax system, is one of the priorities of our government. It was the principal policy that we took to last election. During our last term in office, we reduced the rate of income tax on all Australians to ensure that the tax system was fairer. We're following that up with two further income tax cuts—one this year and one next year, which will see the rate of taxation on the minimum level income threshold in Australia fall to 15 per cent. The greatest beneficiaries of that reform will be lower- to middle-income workers, the majority of whom would be younger Australians who are starting out in the labour market. This will be a great benefit for younger workers. It will return some of the bracket creep that has crept into the system over recent years. For the average wage earner, it will reduce their taxation by about $30,000 over the next decade. It's a great relief for younger workers into the future. I might point out that this is a policy that has been opposed by the opposition. At the moment, they are supporting higher taxes for younger workers and low- to middle-income workers in this country. We're not stopping there. We're also increasing the Medicare low-income threshold to ensure there is additional relief for younger Australians who are paying the Medicare levy. We're also making sure that our broader taxation system is much fairer and more responsive to the needs of the economy into the future and to the welfare of younger Australians. We're reforming the multinational taxation system. We're reforming the petroleum resource rent tax system so that it raises more revenue for younger generations for a fairer return on the exploitation Australia's natural resources. This issue has been identified for some time. When the opposition were in government, they refused to act on it. Labor acted in a first our term so that the PRRT is now a much fairer system. Thanks to the assistant minister for the Treasury, we've now got a much fairer multinational tax system in Australia as well. When we talk about intergenerational tax reform and making the taxation system fairer, one of the greatest demonstrations of our commitment to that is to make the superannuation system fairer in Australia, and particularly the taxation of superannuation. At the moment, we have a system where ultra-high-income earners can shift their income out of the normal income tax system and into superannuation to get a concessional treatment of their income and avoid paying their fair share of tax. It is an unfair system, but it is encouraging people to do that. We are cracking down on that. We are acting on that to ensure that ultra-high-income earners pay their fair share of tax and cannot avoid a fair rate of tax by transferring their income into their superannuation, which most Australian wage earners cannot do. It affects a very small proportion of the population—less than one per cent of the Australian population—and the major beneficiaries of this intergenerational fairness will be younger Australians in a better retirement income system. But—what do you know?—it's opposed by the coalition. It's also opposed by the crossbench, and the irony is that they've proposed this matter of public importance here today. This is a reform that will ensure a greater and better level of intergenerational fairness in our taxation system—opposed by those opposite. If you give a child an education, you give them a better life. This is something that our government knows all too well. It is deeply committed to ensuring that we have greater equity in our education system, be it through a massive investment in our public schools or finally funding public schools to the level of need in Australia, as recommended by David Gonski over a decade ago. It's also in our tertiary education system. We all know that students have faced a large increase in their HECS debts due to indexation over recent years. We've acted. The first piece of legislation that we put into this parliament was to reduce the HELP debts of Australian students by 20 per cent. Speaking to students in Kingsford Smith, I've heard that it's welcome relief for them in their challenge of getting an education and having an affordable lifestyle as well. We've also increased the repayment threshold, which has been a great relief for students. It means that, for the average student with an average debt of $27½ thousand, their debt is cut by $5½ thousand. We've also ensured that APRA changed the lending rules and the lending requirements for young people seeking to gain a home loan, ensuring that financial institutions can't use a HECS debt against a person who is applying for a home loan. We're acting to ensure that access to housing through lending is much more affordable. We're introducing practical payments for students who are required to undertake prac placements as part of their degree or their training. Fee-free TAFE will ensure not just that we're investing in the skills that Australia will need into the future but, more importantly, that those Australians that want to train for a trade or do a traineeship can have access to it at an affordable rate into the future. In terms of housing, for the first time in a generation, we have a government at a Commonwealth level that is committed to substantially increasing the supply of housing in this country by directly building more homes. That's something that the opposition completely shy away from when they're in government by saying, 'Housing is the responsibility of the states; we're not going to get involved in that.' We take a different view. We know that there is an undersupply of housing in Australia that has pushed up the cost of housing, particularly for young Australians. That is why we introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is now making its first and second distributions that will directly fund social and affordable housing throughout the country. A total of 55,000 social and affordable homes will be built by this government to increase the supply of housing and make it more affordable; 10,000 homes, in a first for Australia, will be specifically reserved for first home buyers and built by this government. If that's not a commitment to increasing the housing supply and making it more affordable for young Australians, I don't know what is. We're also making it easier for Australians to own their first home. The Help to Buy scheme will encourage a co-investment of up to 40 per cent, and the five per cent deposit scheme has gone through the parliament and will start in the coming months. We're also working to ensure that the rules around housing are liberalised and that the states, in their zoning and planning requirements, ensure that they're focused on delivering more homes, particularly where those homes are going to be built around mass transport, public transport, in Australia. We're also making sure that young women get a better deal by increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, paying paid parental leave for up to 24 weeks and, importantly, paying superannuation on paid parental leave for the first time to ensure that young women get a fairer outcome in the labour market, particularly when they have to have breaks to raise children. So our government is committed to ensuring that we deliver on that promise that every government should make to younger generations of Australians, and that is to deliver better living standards. We are delivering that for younger Australians. 15:25 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I commend the member for Curtin for putting forward this really important MPI; for her advocacy in the previous parliament, and this parliament, on the need to make sure our system works for every generation; and for her bravery in speaking up on tax. I'm also very proud to have spoken up on tax and to have then delivered a tax green paper last term, because tax has been the missing element of so many of the issues facing younger generations, and we need the major parties to step up and get real and courageous about the changes that need to be made. It was great to see the Treasurer, out of the Economic Reform Roundtable, acknowledge that the tax system is at the heart of intergenerational inequity as well as absolutely critical to productivity. Now that he has made that admission, it is time for the parliament to get behind this in terms of driving real change, and I urge the opposition to engage constructively in this discussion. That's certainly what I expect will happen from the crossbench, because the crossbench has been driving this debate from the start. This is because tax matters, and, frankly, the future of every generation, including those young people in our country right now, really matters, and they're struggling. Right now, only eight per cent of Australians think that the next generation will have a better standard of living than their parents. This is something you hear every single day on the street. This is really rooted, I think, in three key problems. Firstly, we have flatlining productivity. Wages won't grow and generations won't be more prosperous unless we can get that productivity moving, and tax matters to productivity. Secondly, we have a tax system that is unfairly weighted towards being dependent on younger working Australians while their wealth is going backwards compared to different generations. The income tax system is not working for driving incentives and driving businesses, nor is it working for making sure that young generations can get ahead. Finally, we have a tax system, and an overall system, which is not driving climate action. This gets to the heart of intergenerational inequity. Who's going to be paying the bills for climate adaptation and change? It is the current younger generations and future generations. If we don't take action now, it is a problem, and we know that the tax system can help drive this. Finally, a piece which is outside tax but is absolutely relevant is fiscal discipline because, if we lade our current generations with debt, we know that they have to pay it off in the future. So this goes to spending as well as tax, in terms of restraint in spending, but I do want to spend the rest of the time really focused on tax because it's absolutely critical. Firstly, we need a tax system that drives business investment. We are seeing business investment at record lows, and the incentives for business investment are not there. We know that the tax system, in terms of its high headline rate, is not working, and its complexity is also actually stopping investment at the level that we need to see from both international and domestic companies. This has got to be a key focus for tax reform for the government. This is where I'm urging them to focus. Secondly, I particularly wanted to focus on our income tax system, because we have a tax system that's just not working for every generation. We have a tax system which—I think quite unintentionally—has led to a situation where, in the last 10 years or so, the wealth of households over the age of 65 has grown by around 50 per cent, while the wealth of households under the age of 30 has pretty much flatlined. We have a tax system that is decreasingly relying on older Australians, despite the fact that we know that we are ageing as a population. In the 1990s, around 30 per cent of people over the age of 65 paid income tax. Now, it's only 17 per cent. When we know that our population is rapidly ageing, we've got to know that that is not going to work. We know that our young people are struggling to achieve the same milestones their parents did. They have a 20 per cent lower chance of owning their own home when they're 30 to 34 than previous generations, and this is particularly affecting less wealthy younger Australians. The tax system is really at the heart of this because, currently, the only way that we are ever going to get back to a budget surplus is through indexation, which is an income tax on younger working people. So the only way we're planning to fix our fiscal deficit will actually have more impact on younger working Australians. These numbers do not add up, and this is why serious tax reform is needed. The member for Curtin has been advocating on GST, and I think it is absolutely essential that we do consider the breadth of taxes, not just a narrow cast, which some in this House want to do, because, if we are going to fix this tax system to drive productivity, to drive fairer outcomes for younger Australians and to drive climate action, we're going to have to look at the breadth not the narrow. 15:30 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I want to say at the outset that I really appreciate the constructive engagement from the crossbench on this issue, particularly from the members for Curtin and Wentworth and from so many of the crossbench who have been engaging with this debate in a really constructive and thoughtful way. I know many of the crossbench came into this place because they wanted to ensure we were creating a better place for future generations, and I can say, on behalf of the Labor caucus here, that that is exactly the reason that we are all here. It's certainly the reason I put my hand up to run, and one of the guiding policies that has energised us has been action on climate change. That is the big burden that we will leave for future generations if we do not address it now. Intergenerational inequity, the impacts of climate change and how they will be felt by future generations, I think, are the big, glaring challenges that we have to confront, and they're something that we on this side of the House and, I know, the crossbench are very, very interested in working on. When we think about young people, on this side in the Labor government, we don't have them siloed in one area; we have them throughout our entire decision making process. We have created youth advisory groups to ensure that young people have a seat at the table when it comes to the decisions that we are making about their lives. We also have four millennial ministers on our frontbench, which I think goes to show that, in this Labor government, we have young people who are at the decision-making table as well. And, of course, we've got the youngest senator in Charlotte Walker. I just wanted to read a few lines from her first speech, because I think they're very instructive of how young people feel about politics. She said: What I bring to this parliament is the experience of young people today … Young Australians aren't a side issue. We aren't a future issue. We are Australians now. She also went on to say: … in 2050 I won't be in my late 90s, like some who want to abandon net zero; my friends and I will be in our 40s, and we demand an inhabitable planet. This Labor government is squarely focused on what we need to do to make this world a better place for young people, and part of that will be changes to our tax system, but part of that will also be some of the work that we have already done, including making HECS indexation fairer; wiping 20 per cent off student debt; paying students studying social work, midwifery, nursing and teaching who have to go on prac placements—we heard today that 30,000 people have already taken that up—and also providing fee-free TAFE. These are all measures that are going to directly benefit young people, but I want to address the points around making our tax system fairer. We have taken bold steps to make our tax system fairer for younger generations. We're delivering tax cuts in a way that is going to be more equitably distributed, and the biggest beneficiaries of our changes to the stage 3 tax cuts were young people—99 per cent of gen Z and 95 per cent of millennials got a bigger tax cut because of the Albanese Labor government. That is something that we are incredibly proud of. I do want to remind the House that the coalition opposed it the whole way through. A further change that we are making to make our tax system fairer is around the $3 million super balances. We want to make sure that our tax system is working for everyone, not just the few who have super balances over $3 million. Let's be honest: there are very few young people who will have balances over $3 million. And I want to point out a stat to show the inequity: 43 per cent of super earnings tax concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. This change is about bringing intergenerational fairness into action. 15:35 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I'd like to thank the member for Curtin for bringing this important matter to the House. It's clear that our tax system needs reform. It is not fit for purpose. Taxation is not just about revenue raising; it's an important social policy. If it's done well, it can have the heft to deliver equity and the agility to reduce harms and to enhance public good. But right now our tax system is not doing well. It's too complex. It includes historical measures, concessions and exemptions—and concessions on exemptions on measures—which are simply not achieving their aims. For example, amateur sports clubs were given tax-free charitable status in the 1950s to promote participation in sport. We didn't anticipate then that, one day, billion-dollar professional sports codes would be paying their executives million-dollar salaries with profits made from gambling on those sports—while using those concessions to pay no tax. When a tax concession is no longer fit for purpose, we should change it. To encourage investment in housing, to boost the supply of rental accommodation, landlords were given capital gains tax concessions in 2000. We did not expect then that that would turn Australian homes into wealth creation schemes. When tax concessions deliver unintended consequences, we should abolish them. When we introduced the petroleum resource rent tax in the 1980s to ensure Australians received a fair return from our non-renewable petroleum resources, we didn't foresee then how our energy landscape would evolve, with liquified natural gas now dominating our offshore petroleum sector. Despite Australia being the second-largest exporter of LNG globally, we have collected virtually no PRRT revenue for decades. Under the current PRRT framework, many LNG projects won't pay significant tax until the 2030s. The International Energy Agency predicts that, by the mid-2030s, the global demand for gas will drop off precipitously, so there'll be no tax revenue from these massive LNG exports. The PRRT is designed to tax profits only when projects become cash flow positive. This allows for upfront investment while capturing windfall gains. But LNG projects have high upfront costs, and LNG producers structure their businesses to benefit from this concession. So, despite billions of dollars of our LNG being exported from this country, effectively no tax is being collected. The Albanese government's 2023 changes to the scheme were expected to raise more income, but they have fallen short. It's a massive failure of public policy. We're effectively giving our finite gas resources away for free to multinationals, who are making billions of dollars of profit at the expense of our climate and our environment. There are things that we could do immediately to make our tax system more equitable and more effective. We could ring fence fossil fuel projects to stop companies passing on losses from one project to offset profits on another. We could stop the practice of compounding the value of deductions, a questionable inflation of expenses to offset profits. A simpler and more robust approach would be to simply remove LNG from the PRRT and to apply to it a resource tax that meets the expectations of Australians, pays this country for the resources extracted and delivers revenue that can be used to supercharge the transition away from gas altogether. When a tax measure is failing, we should go back to the drawing board. Our tax system needs reform. It needs to reflect modern circumstances and deliver equity and social benefit. As a nation, we need to embrace the principles that the tax system should be flexible, it should be responsive and it should be fair. It should allow government to get on with the business of delivering those things for people. If only politicians weren't responsible for our tax system—because rent-seeking corporate lobbyists, mindless fearmongering by oppositions and a media that makes a sport out of forcing politicians to promise no new taxes all make tax reform a poisoned chalice. Tax reform takes political courage, but the need for it is evident. We have to wait to see whether or not this parliament will put public interest ahead of politics and get on with that reform. 15:40 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton I want to thank the member for Curtin very much for bringing this important topic to the House today. It's an important topic because taxation is very important to both the social fabric of our country and also the economy. When it comes to this particular matter of public importance, there are two key parts to it—and I want to talk about both of them today. Firstly, I want to talk about tax reform, and I want to look at the difference between our position as a Labor government and the position of those opposite. Secondly, I want to talk about intergenerational unfairness. When you talk about intergenerational unfairness with young people in my local electorate on Brisbane's south side, it is incredibly clear that they bring up a few core things, over and over and over again. The first thing they bring up is housing. Housing is at the heart of the concerns that young people have when it comes to being able to not only put a roof over their head but also set up for their future, set their family up and make sure that they get a flying start to life. The second is the cost of living and making sure that when they think about their hip pockets, when they think about paying the rent, they have enough money to get by—and not just to get by but also to be able, once again, to set up for the future. The final thing is the environment, because the environment is so crucial not only in terms of making sure that people have a good environment to live in going forward and looking towards their future but also in terms of mental health. We know that young people are facing significant mental health challenges when it comes to the climate crisis. It is not just about warming. It is not just about the environment. It is about the mental health of our young people. I think that when we talk about the opposition's position on each of these things, it becomes very clear. On housing, we know what they don't support. They don't support five per cent deposits for first home buyers—a policy which is designed only to allow it to be easier for young people, for people who are purchasing their first home, to get into the housing market. We know what they don't support. They don't support reforms to housing that, again, will make housing more accessible and more affordable—and we saw them team up with the Greens to vote down and to block housing policy, again and again. When it comes to the cost of living, we know what they don't support. They don't support free TAFE—a policy that is only in place to make sure that young people, people going to get skills and build a trade, can access something to build their future on. And we know that they don't support 20 per cent off student debt either. When it comes to intergenerational fairness, we know that the opposition have again and again voted against every single measure designed to create a better life for the future. In terms of tax reform, can I tell you that those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, talked a lot in this place about a talkfest that happened a couple of weeks ago. I don't often agree with the opposition, but I agree that there was a talkfest a couple of weeks ago. But it wasn't in Canberra—it was in Brisbane. In Brisbane, the LNP conference was held, and my goodness it was a talkfest! Did they talk about intergenerational unfairness? Did they talk about tax reform? They didn't. I'll tell you what they talked about. They talked about removing welcomes to country, they talked about lifting the ban on gay conversion therapy and they talked about abandoning net zero. That talkfest really demonstrates what the opposition have in mind when it comes to their priorities. They're about ripping down our pathway to net zero and about ripping down our pathway to making sure that future generations are protected when it comes to the environment. In contrast, what were Labor doing? We were holding an economic roundtable, an economic roundtable that was designed to address these very points: intergenerational equity, a fair go for working people, and including intergenerational equity terms on top of the three—not one, not two, but three—tax cuts for every Australian. Labor is taking this seriously, and the opposition is only against intergenerational fairness. 15:45 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo How income tax is applied in Australia ultimately shapes our society, our economy, where we live, how we live and even our family composition. Over the decades, incentives for living in regional Australia have diminished. Zone tax offsets were first introduced in 1945 to compensate for climatic hardships, isolation and higher living costs in rural Australia. The tax offset amount hasn't increased since 1993-94. That's over 30 years with absolutely no indexation. Current annual offset rates are just $338 for zone A and $57 for zone B. The relative value has eroded over time and now has a minimal effect on migration or residential decisions. We have huge regional workforce shortages despite the regions being the best place to raise families. Advocates are calling for fresh incentives to reinvigorate regional Australia. Westpac's CEO proposed tax-free zones or indexed offsets to attract teachers and nurses to regional Australia. Mark Bouris from Yellow Brick Road suggested revamped zonal incentives—for example, a rebate of $1,500 or $2,000 for regional relocation. This would provide greater equity. Regional Australians do not get a fair share of government spending; in health spending alone, there is a gap of over $8 billion. Meaningful tax incentives for regional Australians will help draw people to the regions and will go some way to addressing this inequity. We have a system that penalises older Australians who are entitled to the pension but who would like to remain in the workforce. National Seniors Australia, with Deloitte modelling, found that, if just 10 per cent of pensioners took up or increased their work hours, the economy would benefit from an additional 209,000 workers and the government would in fact receive a small boost to fiscal aggregates. It would add benefit to the economy and no cost to the government. If the initiative were confined to just the healthcare and social assistance sectors, there would be a boost of 25,000 workers. For example, Heather is 68. She works casually as a registered nurse. She would be happy to work additional hours. Her employer would welcome her increased availability. Heather wants to work more hours to boost her income, but she finds the 50 cents in the dollar punitive and the Centrelink reporting burdensome, so she doesn't take the shifts. Workforce participation in Australia for those aged over 65 is just 15 per cent. In New Zealand it's 25 per cent. Not all but many older Australians do want to continue to be in the workforce in some capacity after age 67. The current Centrelink and tax policies penalise older workers and contribute to age discrimination. Reform would increase incomes and savings of lower-wealth pensioners, particularly women, and help to meet growing demand for care workers, teachers, nurses and a whole range of skill-shortage areas. Australia's fertility rate has dropped to a record low of around 1.5 babies per woman. Our birthrate is a good litmus test, I think, on the confidence of our nation. We want Australian families. We want couples to raise little Australians. Many couples in my community tell me they simply can't afford to have a family. Nearly half, 49 per cent, of young Australians cite the expense of raising children as a major obstacle to doing so. Over half of Australians under 35 have delayed parenthood due to cost pressures. Child care in Australia consumes above the OECD average as a share of household expenses. We provide no meaningful tax incentives for families with young children. We do not offer income splitting, nor do we have any tax offsets. Income splitting—where the burden of tax is shared across a couple, combining their incomes and then dividing—creates fairness, because the same family income can have two very different tax bills. For example, one family with a whole family income of $200,000, with both earning $100,000, will have a combined tax bill of just over $41,000, whereas another family with the same total income of $200,000, but in which one of the parents is raising children at home and the other is earning the $200,000, pays $56,000 in tax. That's nearly a $15,000 difference. This is unfair. There are 13 OECD nations that allow income splitting, including the United States, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Poland and Spain. Australia should be one of them. Out-of-pocket expenses for child care, whether it's day care or vacation care, are a legitimate work expense, yet we don't allow families to claim this expense on their tax return. We should. We should be doing everything we can to encourage working families to thrive. Income splitting and assisting with childcare expenses—classing them as a workplace deduction—would go a long way with regard to tax policy solutions. 15:50 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith I also want to thank the member for Curtin for raising this matter of public importance. My electorate of Griffith is diverse, it's vibrant and it's young. In fact, Griffith has more millennials and gen Zs than both the Queensland and Australian average, with a median age of just 34. Almost half the residents in Griffith are renters, far above the state and national figures. Over months of campaigning, I doorknocked close to 15,000 homes, and I hosted countless mobile offices, 'coffee with Coffey' sessions and free community food trucks. I also spent a lot of time in our local schools and our local educational institutions. I heard time and again from young people that they are struggling with cost-of-living pressures. They are paying rising rents, they are carrying student debt, and they're trying to save for a first home—all while managing the everyday costs of life. Now, as their representative, I have the privilege of standing in this place and ensuring that their voices—the voices of young people in Griffith—are heard. After a decade of coalition neglect, young Australians face greater challenges than the generations that came before them. Housing is harder to access, wages stagnant, student debt has is soaring and the cost of living is biting harder every day. That is why I am proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, a government that is delivering real, practical relief to young people. We are making education more affordable. Over 31,000 students and graduates across Griffith are already benefiting from HECS relief. Indexation is now capped so debt never grows faster than wages, and we are cutting debts by 20 per cent, lifting repayment thresholds and lowering repayment rates. This means young people can plan their futures without being held back by the looming student debt. We are also delivering the new Commonwealth prac payment so teachers, nurses, midwives and social workers can be supported whilst on their placements. With more study hubs across outer suburbs and regions, young Australians can study closer to home and at lower cost. We're investing in free TAFE, with 600,000 places already delivered and more to come. This government is tackling the cost of living head on. Inflation is at a four-year low, wages are growing again and interest rates have been cut three times in six months. More than 1.1 million jobs have been created, a record for any government in a single term. This benefits all Australians, including our younger Australians. We're delivering practical support: increases to the minimum wage and the superannuation guarantee, energy bill relief for households, tax cuts already delivered—with more to come—and support for apprentices entering the housing and construction industry. In Griffith, with nearly half the electorate renting, housing is absolutely front of mind. That's why our government is investing $33 billion in housing and supporting first home buyers with a five per cent deposit scheme with no lenders mortgage insurance. We know this will make a real difference to young people living in the electorate of Griffith and across Australia. These initiatives will help more young people buy a home, and we have also delivered the largest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. The Albanese Labor government is committed to reducing intergenerational inequality. We're creating a fairer tax system, providing relief for student debt, investing in housing, delivering free TAFE and ensuring that wages are growing again. In short, we are backing young people every step of the way, because they are not just the future of this country; they are its present. And, in Griffith, with one of the youngest populations in the nation, that commitment means everything. 15:54 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I thank the member for Curtin for raising this matter of public importance. It's clear that the Economic Reform Roundtable held last month highlighted the growing issue of intergenerational inequality in our tax system. There's a little bit of irony in that coming out so clearly when there were very few young people sitting around the table to give input. It was certainly noted that the same usual representatives were there in relation to industry, unions and other interests. I call on the government: if genuine intergenerational inequality is going to be addressed, there has to be a broader analysis and taking on board of different perspectives. We also saw that there was no consideration of climate resilience, though climate will have the biggest impact on future generations and intergenerational inequity, given the debt and the cost that will come from it. There was no focus during that productivity roundtable on climate risk or on investing in the resilience of the economy. The insurance sector wasn't even at the table, and how we're going to actually mitigate risk was not addressed. What we do know is that Australia's tax system is outdated. It no longer reflects the realities of modern life. Young Australians are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden. They're locked out of homeownership due to an inflated property market and tax incentives that favour investors. Saddled with rising tertiary education costs and student debt, they're struggling to access capital and the supports needed to start businesses and build their futures. They're taxed under a system that rewards asset accumulation over innovation and productivity. The very things that are essential to our wellbeing—housing and education—are the very things that are increasingly out of reach. These issues were raised in the Henry tax review some 15 years ago, and much of it remains unimplemented. And, whilst there's a lot of talk from government ranks around investment in housing supply, there's a complete silence when it comes to really talking about the other demand levers and other pressures. What we need is ambitious reform. We can't have a 21st century economy continuing to fund 19th century industries. We need to move away from taxing income and productivity. We need to unshackle ourselves from legacy policies, industries and vested interests. We know what needs to be done. Earlier this year I released the Re-energised Economy paper developed alongside economist Dr Emma Aisbett. It aims to lift productivity and to address intergenerational inequality and its key drivers—especially around climate risk. To restore fairness and accessibility in housing, we have to talk about phasing out CGT discounts for multiple investment properties. We need to talk about reducing stamp duty to incentivise downsizing and greater mobility and better utilise existing housing supply. We cannot just have a conversation about increasing supply; we have to talk about limiting negative gearing tax breaks to rental properties that meet and ensure minimum energy standards, encouraging greater energy efficiency, solar panels and batteries for rental properties, and making things like the affordable batteries program available to strata. We have to empower young people to be ambitious and economic drivers by investing in STEM education and future skills and reducing barriers for young people to access start-up capital and flexible finance. We need to enhance opportunities for research and development investment, and we have to move away from taxing individuals to instead raising better revenue from key sectors like fossil fuels. We have to introduce a fossil fuel export levy aligned with the Safeguard Mechanism to prevent that cost externalisation that's occurring. We have to broaden the Safeguard Mechanism to an economy-wide reach, because too many proponents and projects are simply not caught. We have to strengthen the petroleum resource rent tax and urgently wind back the fuel tax excise rebate that overwhelmingly disincentivises the mining sector and the transport sector from decarbonising. If we're serious about talking about tax reform and intergenerational inequity, we have to address these issues. We have to reward innovation, not extraction. We have to embrace technology responsibly and create opportunities for all. We have to address all of those looming risks to productivity—especially the climate risk. Yet, whilst the government talks a big game about wanting to do this, it continues to approve projects that will only make the problem worse. I call on this new generation of members of parliament in the Labor government to actually have ambition and drive change. 15:59 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak about one of the most important challenges facing our nation—ensuring our economy and our tax system are fair and that we deliver the opportunity to flourish for all Australians, particularly young people, both now and into the future. There's no-one better placed than our current leadership team of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, as well as the broader Labor government, to ensure our economy and our tax system deliver for all Australians, particularly young people. The foundational principle that drives the Australian Labor Party is the concept of fairness. The Prime Minister has humble beginnings, with his roots in housing commission, as does my family. And, when you come from humble beginnings, you don't forget it. You understand the importance of leaving no-one behind, because you have direct experience of being at risk of being left behind. Social justice is a reality; it's not just a concept. The Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to ensuring our economy works for everyone, especially for young people. Due to this government's good management, our economy is in a strong position: annual real wages have been growing for seven consecutive quarters; the economy continues to expand; interest rates have been cut three times in six months; more than 1.1 million jobs have been created since we came to government; the average unemployment rate is the lowest of any Australian government in 50 years; the budget position has improved by more than $207 billion; and we've found more than $100 billion in savings, while our predecessors had none in their last budget. When it comes to tax, this government has a clear agenda. We are delivering three tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer—one last year, one next year and another the year after. Labor's tax cuts benefit 14 million Australians. We are working hard to make things easier for all Australians. Eight important changes come into effect from 1 July, including an increase to minimum and award wages for 2.9 million Australians, an increase to minimum required super, more paid parental leave, more help with energy bills and more help for people to get into a construction trade. Our focus on the future for our young people leaves the coalition far behind, as they continue to debate within themselves whether climate change needs drastic action—something which our young people understand acutely, because it will have a direct and dramatic impact on their future. Labor is focused on delivering real outcomes for all Australians, especially our young people, and that's why we've delivered on our commitment to cut student debt. Australians around the country will have an average of $5,000 wiped off their HECS debt, and that includes 15,000 people in my electorate of Whitlam. We're also delivering on our promise to make it as easy as possible for young people to build or buy their own home. That is why, from 1 October, all first home buyers will have access to our five per cent deposit scheme. For the average first home buyer, access to this scheme will cut years off the time it takes to save a deposit and will save tens of thousands of dollars on lenders mortgage insurance. The Albanese Labor government understands the challenge that exists within our economy around intergenerational equity. We understand the principle that each generation should have equal opportunities, responsibilities and access to resources. Australia, like many advanced economies, is undergoing significant demographic, economic and social change. We are living longer, birthrates are declining and the structure of our workforce is evolving. This is creating growing pressure on public services, such as health care, aged care and social security, while the tax base that funds these services is shrinking in relative terms. And, while we will need to continue to rely in part on immigration to ensure we can meet the needs of our economy and our workforce, the coalition feeds the lie that immigration presents a problem for our economy and that immigration is causing our housing crisis, which it is not. Fifty per cent of all Australians have a parent that was born overseas, but the coalition is always willing to play the race card to sell down the river Australians who've migrated to this country or who have parents who migrated to this country, despite the fact that this is a reality for so many of us. The coalition is completely out of touch with modern Australia, and that is why they were trounced at the last election. Intergenerational equity is a core focus for this government. It isn't just a policy principle; it's a moral obligation. It means asking not just what we can afford now but what kind of legacy we're leaving behind. Labor will ensure that Australia's tax system and our broader economy reflect the values of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility, not just for this generation but for those yet to come. 16:04 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Young people today will be the first generation in modern history to be worse off than their parents. It's been nearly a quarter of a century since Australia last undertook broad structural reform of our tax system. Over that time, the warning signs have been clear: productivity growth has slowed through the early decades of the 21st century and Commonwealth spending has continued to rise—just as projected in the very first intergenerational report, back in 2002. That intergenerational report made clear that, without reform, our tax system would struggle to support the demands of future generations. It warned: Deterioration of our natural capital would be likely to affect the wellbeing of current and future generations, reduce the economic base and consequently affect intergenerational equity. It also stated: Tax reform is … important in terms of providing a robust tax base that will grow in line with the economy. Then, in 2010, the review of Australia's future tax system, chaired by Dr Ken Henry, laid out another compelling case for change. It warned that our heavy reliance on taxing labour income, transactions and the normal return on capital would ultimately undermine productivity growth and workforce participation—key drivers of future living standards. It identified that a broader, more sustainable tax base, including properly taxing our resources, is essential to meeting the demands of a changing economy. Yet, despite these insights and warning signs over 20 years, we are yet to see the kind of comprehensive reform that matches the scale of the challenges before us. Today's younger generations face a growing set of economic challenges in the rising cost of education, rising cost-of-living pressures and, of course, lack of affordable housing to rent or buy—such that many young people have given up the hope of ever owning their own home. These burdens are compounded by a tax system that leans heavily on income tax. As our population continues to age and spending continues to grow, including for aged care, health and the NDIS, we will become increasingly reliant on taxing an ever-shrinking proportion of income earners. Former Treasury secretary Ken Henry called this an intergenerational tragedy, and I could not agree more. The good news is that there are clear opportunities to make meaningful progress to reform Australia's tax system. Many of these opportunities would raise revenue while improving intergenerational equity and long-term sustainability. Reforming the petroleum resource rent tax, for example, could ensure Australians receive a fairer return for the extraction and export of our natural resources. Norway has built an almost $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund from the proceeds of their resource taxation so that future generations can thrive. We, on the other hand, have an almost $1 trillion debt that will burden our future generations for decades to come. Also, here in Australia, the government currently collects four time as much money from student HECS repayments as it does from the petroleum resource rent tax. This is despite these multinational fossil fuel corporations being amongst the most profitable companies in the world. We've got it backwards. In the area of preventive health, targeted taxes on junk food and gambling could not only reduce harm but also generate revenue to reinvest in public health. What better way to improve the wellbeing and productivity of Australians than to help them live healthy lives? Instead we allow our young people to be the cannon fodder for the profits of predatory multinational gambling and junk food companies at the expense of their health. In housing, we need to discuss reforming the tax concessions, including the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, to help give our younger Australians a fairer go when it comes to buying their first home. This does not have to be an all-or-nothing equation. Reforms could be grandfathered or limited to a set number of investment properties. These are not radical ideas, but we also need to look beyond individual tax reforms. The truth is our inability to deliver fair and future-focused tax policy is a symptom of deeper structural policy dysfunction, which is why I have been advocating for a 'wellbeing of future generations' act and commission. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 70 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 70

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025

Second Reading 70 16:10 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I rise on the matter of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025. The bill adjusts the EPBC Act, specifically in relation to our Commonwealth national parks, including the iconic and deeply loved Kakadu National Park, the alluring Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and the beautiful Booderee National Park. The board management plans for two of these three national parks are due to expire—one later this year, in November, and one early next year, in February—with no new management plans yet approved or implemented prior to the expiries. What that means is that the respective boards will be unable to make any decisions from that period. I'd like to remind the House that these board management plans have, in fact, a 10-year life span. So it does beg the question: why has it taken this government so long? They've been in office, of course, for three years, as Australians are fully aware, and they have overseen the failure of not one but two new board management plans, so the government knew that this was coming. They had three years notice to deliver these new plans. Again, the question is: what have they been doing? To what extent is this legislation just a bandaid solution? It's a bandaid on the incompetence of the Albanese Labor government, some would say, but I would say that you'd need a very large bandaid—I'd go so far as to say that you'd probably need a bandage—to cover up the gaping wounds of Labor's failure to deliver. This isn't the first example of the government's failure to deliver when it comes to the environment. We need look no further than the harmful algal bloom in South Australia, which I've been talking about in this place for some months now. These coastal communities have been completely and utterly let down by this government. It failed to act early and it failed to contain the bloom. Now the bloom is double the size of the Australian Capital Territory, and it can be seen on satellite images from space. Walking on Australian beaches year round is a luxury many of us enjoy; I think 85 per cent of Australians live on the coastline in our great country. But, for South Australians, this luxury has not existed for months and months. The beaches are closed, and warnings are in place to stay clear, with big signs that I've seen for myself on the two visits that I've made to South Australia. The community has been devastated. I met with fishers and members of the community during the two trips. On the first one, I went down to Flinders University and spoke with the scientists there. I also went to the Yorke Peninsula and spoke with the fishers. I also met with heads of industry from Port Lincoln during the first trip, who told me all of their concerns—the fishers who haven't been able to make any income over the period but also the fact that they are devastated. They are devastated for their ecosystems and how long it's going to take them to come back. On the second trip, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Grey—for a second time—and Senators Ruston and McLachlan, senators for South Australia, accompanied me to see the bloom again and to engage for a long period of time. We walked on the jetty at Ardrossan; I myself walked the jetty twice with the member for Grey. The Leader of the Opposition walked the jetty at Ardrossan, but what we didn't see was this Labor government turn up and walk the jetty in Ardrossan. Instead, there was a dash down to South Australia to have a press conference to announce a modest amount of funding. Now there are fresh health concerns for asthmatics. There are members of the community walking their dogs on the beach who have to wear a mask and whose eyes are getting puffy because of the algal bloom. When it's windy, the bloom comes off the ocean and affects their health. My point is that this has become an environmental event that deserves national attention, and it deserves stronger leadership. The Albanese government were very flat footed on this issue. They were late to the party. They were the last to the party. The Prime Minister had a very quick dash down to Kangaroo Island—he didn't tell the press he was going—and announced a very small amount of extra funding, $5 million, to assist. It's not good enough. The scientists that I talked about wrote to the government almost two years ago. What was the government's response to their requests for support to monitor the algal bloom so that they could understand when the bloom was going to pop up, how big it could become and where it would move to and so that they could have and understand baseline data in order to compare it with new data that they could have collected to see what the bloom would do? The government's response to the requests from those scientists almost two years ago was complete and utter rejection. They denied those scientists funding under two ministers—first under Minister Plibersek and now under Minister Watt. I want to say to Australians that this government speaks big on its environmental credentials and loves to harp on about the science. This time they ignored the science. They were late, because they ignored the science again in March when the dead marine animals were washing up on the beaches. They ignored the scientists again when scientists and businesses asked for assistance. They were denied twice. Only after the repeated calls and the pressure applied by those on this side of the House—I've already listed them. The member for Grey was instrumental in that. The new member for Grey is doing a fantastic job speaking up for his community, who were being ignored by this government in South Australia. He spoke and advocated for his community, and what did he get? He got the shadow minister for the environment there, he got senators involved, and he got a visit from the Leader of the Opposition. Two weeks before—or, let's say, a week before—the Prime Minister arrived in South Australia. The funding that was outlined was absolutely welcome, but, as the fishers told us during our two roundtables with them, it's too hard to apply for, it's too little, and it's too late. Those scientists and businesses—and the Red Cross, I might add—are still asking for assistance and still asking for funding from this government. If it were happening on the Great Barrier Reef, if it were happening in Bondi, Freo or Geelong, there would be an outcry, an uproar. If there were a bushfire, or if there were a cyclone or a flood, there's no doubt that the government would have been tripping over themselves to get there and to support those communities. In June, the Marine death toll was at 14,000. It's heartbreaking to now report that that number is at 34,000. It has more than doubled in three months. This number will continue to climb, and there's no end in sight. They now think that the algal bloom may go into spring and then on into summer, which is devastating for the local communities. I'm very concerned about how many more thousands—if not tens of thousands—of animals will die and more marine creatures will wash up dead by Christmas. The impact on our precious Great Southern River ecosystem is indeed devastating. The ongoing pressure on South Australians and their businesses, industry, tourism, beaches, communities, local caravan parks, fish-and-chip shops—you name it. They are all under pressure, and it is heartbreaking. The Albanese government has let this algal bloom blow out of control. There's no way to sugarcoat that. International scientists have now weighed in, and they declare it's one of the worst algal blooms they've ever seen. So buyer beware, because South Australians were ignored when they were asking this government for help. They were failed by this government. This Albanese Labor government continues to fail. They promised to reduce your power bills; they failed. They promised to build more homes; they failed. Whilst blaming broken and outdated EPBC laws, they failed to address the last term as the reason why they're behind on their housing targets. They promised you'd only need your Medicare card to see a doctor. Australians know there's a co-payment. They know they will be out of pocket; they need two cards. You're still paying, and you're still waiting. It's no wonder that Labor have had to bring forward the EPBC board management bill, because they are now forecasting their own failure on managing the environment and the management of our Commonwealth reserves. Labor also has a track record of failure when it comes to environment legislation. It's true. When the coalition was in government, we began the reform of the EPBC Act, under the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the minister. It was the coalition that commissioned the Graeme Samuel review, under the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the environment minister. It was the coalition that introduced legislation to reform the EPBC Act, under the Leader of the Opposition, then the environment minister. There was also legislation commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition that Labor blocked in the Senate. For the last three years, Labor has failed to deliver any environmental reform. During the last term, then environment minister, the member for Sydney, proved completely unable to deliver Labor's promise to overhaul the EPBC Act. She promised multiple times that this overhaul would be finalised by the end of 2023, but we saw deferral after deferral. Her agenda and her proposals were labelled as friendless. The stakeholders didn't agree. Nobody would agree, to the point where the Prime Minister had to step in and stop all reforms prior to the election for fear of losing out when Western Australians hit the ballot box—because, of course, the election was imminent. What we are left with is a long approval process full of red and green tape, resulting in Australia becoming a much less attractive nation for investment, and now we are dropping in the ranks for countries to invest in under this government's watch. We are losing out on jobs, industries and economic activity, and former treasury secretary Ken Henry recently said Australia's environment protection laws 'have both failed to stop the degradation of Australia's natural environment and held back economic growth, and they are undermining productivity'. Businesses putting in applications for environmental approvals under the EPBC Act are happy to do so. They are all very proud and accepting of doing their bit for the environment. They want to contribute, but what they need is certainty. They need to know what the rules are. However, the challenges and roadblocks they face are with the time, the cost and the duplication, along with uncertainty associated with the approvals process. It's important to have an effective process that conserves our environment—which is degrading; we need to conserve our environment—and one that looks after the economy with a sensible balance front of mind. Under Labor, the average time to have an application processed is—wait for it, drum roll!—more than three years! The North West Shelf final application is still pending. Labor are completely divided on whether they support the jobs and wealth created for our nation by the resources sector. They put off a decision on the North West Shelf until after the election. Now, the new minister has provided a preliminary approval for the project. Whilst we welcome the extension, negotiations on the applications of environmental conditions have taken way too long. Three years seems to be the common theme, because it also took them three years to approve the 100 wind turbine projects on Robbins Island in Tasmania, placing a whopping 88 environmental conditions on that project, including potentially stopping the wind farm from operating for certain periods of the year. It shouldn't take three years to get a decision. The list of delays and missed opportunities keeps growing under this government. Let's face it; this is the statement. Environmental reform is too important to get wrong for our future generations. Getting it right is critical for the environment, and it's important for businesses and for jobs. The coalition stands ready to work with Minister Watt and the Albanese government to achieve the sensible reform that Australians want to see and that stakeholders want to see. My door is open, and I welcome the opportunity for engagement on delivering the right reform. I have extended the same offer to the Premier of Western Australia. My door is open to not only parliamentarians on this matter but also stakeholders—the dozens and dozens of stakeholders that I have been engaging with. I've been meeting with them across industry but also across states and territories. They are passionate; they want to be active in this reform agenda. Industry and environmentalists understand the desperate need, the urgent need, for reform that is well overdue, and they understand that we need to strike the right balance for the environment and for business. There is a clear pathway ahead between the government and the coalition. Stakeholders are united on reform taking place to reduce the timeframes for application outcomes, to reduce costs and to deliver certainty. We need a bipartisan approach to this legislation. Having the major parties of government come to the table on EPBC reform would produce the best outcome for our nation. The overwhelming majority of stakeholders are calling for us to work on this together to ensure that approval powers remain with the federal minister and that duplication with the states or other federal legislation be mitigated or removed altogether. On the other hand, there are two outcomes on EPBC reform that would be devastating for our nation. The first would be if Labor were to do a deal with the Greens. This would thwart economic activity and have significant consequences for investment in our country. It would cost Australians their jobs and it would reduce productivity. The Western Australian premier knows it, which is why he made a dash to Canberra last week to speak with the minister. The second devastating outcome would be more EPBC paralysis. We need to get approval processes moving more efficiently. We don't want it to continue the way it has been under the Albanese Labor government in the last three years. We need to get productivity moving, and we must attract investment; create jobs; and conserve, preserve and look after our environment for future generations. I stand ready to work with the Albanese government on EPBC reform; I cannot be clearer. My door is open. It is very important to fix these loopholes in the EPBC board management bill, but it's even more important for the government to do its job and deliver on its environmental responsibilities. 16:27 Ms TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel It's terrific news that the opposition are pro environment after all. I'm new to the parliament, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it was the Liberals that voted against the nature-positive laws in the Senate last year, saying that they went too far, and the Greens voted against them because they didn't go far enough. But it's great to hear that the shadow minister for the environment is very concerned about the environment at long last, and I hope that those changes will come in the near future. Today I rise to speak to the amendment of the existing Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The act is from 1999, of course. It is old and outdated. But this amendment bill is just to tweak an area which is of considerable importance. As the member for Bullwinkel my passion for the environment isn't just a political position; it is a deep seated personal commitment. It comes from time spent on frequent bushwalks, appreciating the ancient jarrah forests and the delicate ecosystems in our beautiful Perth Hills. That intimate connection to the land is what fuels my advocacy for our community. It's what drove me, during my time as a local volunteer, to establish the Darlington Community Garden from which my constituents still benefit today. It also drove me to champion the Darlington Wetland Rehabilitation Action Plan, as well as the friends of the native triangle group, trying to protect and restore our local bushland. Labor is the party that will deliver environmental protection, and this bill is just the beginning. As the member for Bullwinkel, I hold deep respect for our natural environment and the rich cultural heritage that defines our lands and waterways, and I've only lived in this region for 17 years. My electorate encompasses the lands of the Whadjuk and Ballardong peoples of the Noongar nation. It's a place where the connection between land, culture and community is tangible, and that connection has existed for over 65,000 years. It's a relationship that we, in this place, have a responsibility to honour and strengthen. I saw this connection between lands and Indigenous cultures firsthand when I worked as a remote area nurse in the remote Kimberley. The bill before the House today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025, is an amendment to the existing act. It's a time-critical measure that will allow continued significant and positive management of our most precious Commonwealth environmental reserves. The bill directly aligns with the Albanese government's commitment to provide traditional owners with greater control and genuine authority over the management of their country. It is a small but crucial step that supports the improved relationship between the Australian government, the Director of National Parks and the traditional owners of our jointly managed Commonwealth reserves, which is a priority for this government. To understand the necessity of the bill, we must first understand the unique governance model of our jointly managed Commonwealth reserves. These places are of immense national and international significance—Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Booderee National Park. In these reserves, the land is owned by the traditional owners who then lease it to the Commonwealth to be managed as a national park. At the heart of this is a joint management model and a board of management. This isn't just a committee. It's a genuine partnership where traditional owners have a decisive voice. These boards are appointed by the minister and, crucially, are comprised of Indigenous people, as a majority, who are nominated by the traditional owners themselves. Through these boards, their knowledge, wisdom and deep connection with the country informs every decision about its management. Under the current legislation, the boards of management are empowered to make decisions in line with a formal management plan. The problem is that these management plans have a finite life span. When a plan expires, so too does the legal authority of the board of management to make decisions. The decision-making functions cease, and a governance vacuum is created. This bill addresses that very specific and very significant problem. It is simple yet powerful, an easy fix. It amends the EPBC Act to allow the boards of management for these jointly managed Commonwealth reserves to continue to make decisions regarding the management of the reserve after a management plan has expired. The only condition is that those decisions must remain consistent with the most recently expired management plan. It's an administrative fix. This is a measure of common sense and respect. It ensures there is no gap in decision-making authority between the expiration of one management plan and the commencement of the new one. Without this bill a board could be rendered powerless at a critical moment, unable to make a decision on an urgent matter such as fire management, a biosecurity threat or a necessary change to visitor access. Such a delay could have serious implications for the health and public safety of people visiting the area. This bill will support the effective participation of Indigenous people in matters relating to the management of their own country. It will ensure the continuity of decision-making, allowing for seamless governance. It doesn't change the role of the Director of National Parks or any existing arrangements; it simply removes an unnecessary bureaucratic roadblock that hinders the very partnership it seeks to foster. In essence, this bill is an acknowledgement. It is an acknowledgement of the enduring leadership of traditional owners and their rightful place at the centre of conservation. It is an acknowledgement that the knowledge and wisdom that they've passed down for generations is not just history; it is a living, breathing guide for the sustainable management of our lands. In my own electorate and across Western Australia, I have seen the powerful outcomes that are possible when we empower traditional owners and work together in genuine joint partnerships, and this bill is a reflection of that principle. It's about trusting Indigenous leaders and ensuring that they have the tools to continue to care for country, even when a document has reached its expiry date. This is a straightforward bill with enormous purpose. It is about closing a loophole, strengthening a partnership and empowering the people who have been the rightful custodians of this land for millennia. I commend the bill to the House. 16:35 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein On one level, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 is straightforward. On another level, it tells a far more compelling story of the enduring connection to country, of land and purpose, of Indigenous Australians and of our modern management. Every nation has a story. Some are born in revolution; others are born in conquest. Some, like ours, are born in the quiet but profound weaving of traditions old and new into a single tapestry of purpose. In Australia we are blessed not with one creation story but with many. The oldest continuous culture in the world, our First Nations people, give us the Dreaming—a spiritual and moral framework that grounds land, law and life in sacred connection. It speaks of custodianship, of songlines etched into the earth and the soul and of belonging, not as ownership but as obligation. As a nation also built on other traditions, including the Enlightenment and the values of Judaeo-Christian tradition, we carry the stories of Genesis and the covenant of God, who calls humanity not to dominion but to stewardship and who asks not for sacrifice but for righteousness and justice. You could look at the Dreaming and the Book of Genesis and see that they're worlds apart. But, if you look closely, you can see that they speak to eternal truths. Land is not just geography; it is sacred. Time is not just linear; it is also moral. People are not just individuals; they are community. What we see in this legislation is the embodiment of the moral and legal framework of those enduring traditions lived out in what we seek to govern for this country. Yes, it is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025, but what we're actually talking about is how we care for our land. How do we make sure that those who have custodianship of it in an enduring way continue to care, to have ownership and responsibility and to use it for the betterment of future generations? Every day, we start in this parliament with a number of things, one of which is the acknowledgement of the traditional owners, and there is also, of course, a prayer. We do so because we understand that continuing connection and enduring purpose of country, in different ways to different people, but we understand our stewardship, our custodianship and our responsibility. It's so important that we get the framework of law around that custodianship right. But, in addition to that, it's so important that we also get our sense of responsibility as individuals and as community right. I'm bit of a radical on some of these things. I believe very strongly in property rights, not just in contemporary or modern concepts of fee simple but even in some issues around the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to be able to utilise their land for economic development. In a former professional life as Australia's human rights commissioner, I worked with the then social justice commissioner Mick Gooda on the important work of reform around native title to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to use their land for economic development. When we talk about the great issues that confront our First Nations people today, so many of the challenges come from the disruption of connection to country, not just the physical separation but the separation from culture, connection and place, but then also ownership of land and the capacity to use it, ultimately, for economic development to improve their material wellbeing. That cascades on to their economic advancement, to being able to support families and, of course, community and create the nucleus of economic advancement for the wellbeing of people. The more we seek to get that framework of law right, the more we create the operating environment for families and communities to thrive. Unfortunately, I don't think we've been as courageous as we need to be on these issues. We've done great work between both sides of this chamber at different points in our history, but there is a long way to go. My hope is that we get to see more work done in this space and that we sometimes step beyond the traditional comforts that have dominated these discussions. That will mean having some challenging conversations in this place—to stand up and say the direct connection of Indigenous people to their land to use for economic development will be a material pathway to improvement and advancement, not just addressing their economic welfare but their social welfare as well. That, in many ways, is one of the things that disappoints me most out of the failed referendum a couple of years ago. I wasn't in this parliament to discuss those topics, and I will have something to say about that in this parliament yet, because I consider it to be one of the greatest moral failings in this nation's history, by this government, and I really mean that. We took the social solidarity of our most marginalised communities, put it to a ballot paper knowingly and had this government burn it to a crisp. In the absence of that, the burden and responsibility on this government to address and redress the issues that are left behind, that still remain unaddressed, and the wounds that need to be healed is so great. When we look at this bill, it is, in one sense, a simple administrative kind of rollover. But it is also an opportunity for rebirth, if we have courageous leadership, to stand up and do the right thing. Of course, this bill does have embodied in it an opportunity. It has an opportunity in it such that this government can turn around and say, 'These plans can be delivered to manage these national parks, to put them in a better position to be stewarded better by custodians for future generations.' We can turn around and call people to a greater sense of obligation and action so that our natural assets are handed down to future generations in a way that we have not always lived up to with our greatest expectations in the past. We can look at this bill and say it's an opportunity for rebirth, for a relationship with traditional owners, and say how we can be better as a nation in addressing their concerns and also calling them to a greater sense of responsibility to the land that they are custodians to. Of course, we can also make sure that we look to each other and say, 'There is a great project for this country that we all need to be part of the journey of.' There is important work from this bill yet to be done. Too often in the space of the journey towards a greater reconciliation so that this nation can have one destiny and one future together—and we still have a way to go on that; there's no argument about that—and have that one sense of unity, destiny and purpose, we need more than the talking points and the signalling that we have had from this government to date. We need a sense of moral commitment as a people towards a shared destiny. What we've seen too often is that Labor has promised much but delivered little. We have seen this across lots of different areas of policy, but there has never been a time—sadly, I say—where it felt like this country had ever been more divided. This is not just something that relates to the issues in the context of this bill but that relates to the context of the soul of the country, where we've had more and more Australians turning against each other rather than to each other. At the end of the day it's incumbent on everybody in this place, but particularly those who have the great privilege of sitting on those benches opposite, to call our country to that greater sense of purpose and to stand up for the type of country we want to be—to lead, to call people to a greater sense of moral purpose about who we are to and to stare into the future with a sense of clarity, direction and leadership so that we do so as a people without fear. I'm not going to try and suggest that this legislation alone is going to solve that problem. It isn't. But, in the way that this government is conducting itself, it isn't rising to that challenge. I've spoken many times about the great gift this government has been afforded. This government has been afforded a supermajority on a scale that has rarely been seen in this nation's history. When you are gifted such enormous privilege, responsibility and trust, you have a responsibility as a government to use that trust—yes, with caution—but, more importantly, to help steer the future direction of this country in a way that your children and grandchildren would be proud of: to use it to define the future of the country and to build Australia's future. It is very hard to say at this point, at this time, that this government is doing anything other than squandering that opportunity. We have a government that lacks a sense of clarity and purpose about who they are and what they want to do. They might have fallen over the line and they're seeking to figure that out, and they still have a couple of years to decide that sense of purpose. But the nation are looking on, and they're wondering when it is that the government are going to stand up. No matter how many times they carry on in question time, it isn't being realised in their legislative agenda or the policy agenda they're seeking to drive. But one of the things they can do is redress the damage that they did in the last term of this parliament, because, when it comes down to it, after the election of 2022 when the Prime Minister stood up on election night and made a commitment to have a referendum on an Indigenous voice in the Constitution, what he did was set an aspiration for so many Australians—whatever your view on the issue was—that the government would achieve something for our country that would change the character of the country in a way that would enable some people's dreams and visions to be realised. What we saw, through a mixture of a failure of leadership, an arrogance and an unwillingness to listen to the human consequences of the proposals that he was entertaining, was that, over time, support progressively declined. At that point, that was the moment where the Prime Minister had the moral responsibility to turn around and say to the Australian people, 'I don't think that this can go ahead because I don't think it'll get up.' That's what a leader does, because he doesn't govern for just one section of the community; he governs for the entirety of the Australian community. But, instead of being a leader, standing up for the type of country we want to be and steering a nation through difficult times, the Prime Minister went full throttle ahead because he saw it as essential to his own political survival and his own political achievement, and in the process he did huge damage to the social solidarity and reconciliation for this country to come together. Now, I'm not the best person to speak about that; I'm the first person to say that. It's the silence of so many Indigenous Australians who still don't talk about these issues and still don't know what their place is on our national stage as a legacy of that. The scars are not healed, and it is up to this government to show the leadership to fix them. My hope is that they rise to that challenge, because it's not going to be done just through government expenditure—that would be part of it, of course. It always must be part of making sure that good work is done. It is a part of making sure that property can be used in a way that can enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to use the full value of their assets to recognise the important role of culture and languages as part of the enduring connection not just to land but to celebrating history, culture and achievement, and as part of the connection into the future of our country and weaving it in as part of the enduring connection and culture of our country. But it's to actually recognise, and start to understand that there's a need to recognise, the damage that was done as well. This bill will no doubt go through this parliament, because there's an important administrative matter to address, but it is not the end of either the conversation on the substantive issues that are raised by it or the broader conversation on what we need to do as a country. It will go through. My hope is that it will go through in a way that raises the legitimate issues that need to be addressed and that this government will rise to that challenge. 16:51 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt First Nations peoples have been the custodians of this great land for tens of thousands of years. Today we meet on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. My electorate of Sturt is on Kaurna land, the traditional lands of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains. The Kaurna people have been the custodians of this land for 60,000 years. This land stretches from Cape Jervis in the south to Crystal Brook in the north and from the Mount Lofty Ranges all the way to the coast of the Gulf of St Vincent. The Kaurna people have a deep and lasting spiritual relationship with this land and its waters. Their cultural heritage, belief and relationship with the land continue to be important today. So, to any Kaurna people here today, I say niina marni and ngaityalya. First Nations knowledge of the land, of land management and of sustainability is more important than ever. This knowledge includes ecological knowledge, medicinal knowledge, environmental management knowledge, and cultural and spiritual knowledge. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have cared for this country and have played, and continue to play, a momentous role in sculpting the environment and supporting the incredible, distinctive and unique biodiversity we experience in Australia today. The knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, their connection to place and their cultural practices have long contributed to the positive environmental outcomes that benefit all Australians. Our jointly managed Commonwealth reserves—Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Booderee National Park—are located on Aboriginal land. Kakadu National Park is a protected area in the Northern Territory of Australia. South-east of Darwin, it covers an area just shy of 20,000 kilometres, which is actually the size of the country of Wales. Kakadu is the second-largest national park in Australia. It is highly diverse from an ecological and biological perspective, hosting a wide range of habitats, flora and fauna. It is home to four major river systems: the East Alligator River, the West Alligator River, the South Alligator River and the Wildman River. It also includes a rich heritage of Aboriginal rock art, including highly significant sites such as Ubirr. Aboriginal people have been the custodians of Kakadu for 60,000 years. Kakadu is fully protected by the EPBC Act and is listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is also in the Northern Territory. It is a protected area that is home to Uluru and Kata Tjuta. It is almost 2,000 kilometres south of Darwin and 440 kilometres south-west of Alice Springs. It covers just over 1,300 square kilometres and is also listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. One of Australia's most iconic landmarks Uluru is a focal point for the world's acknowledgement of Australia's Indigenous culture. The Anangu people are the traditional owners of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, where, for thousands of years, they have cared for the rare and endemic flora in the park as well as the now rare and endangered species there. Booderee National Park is located in Jervis Bay and is managed as an Indigenous protected area. Located just three hours from both Sydney and Canberra, it is a park with unspoilt beaches, incredible flora and fauna and hundreds of kilometres of walking tracks. Booderee really is one of Australia's most stunning national parks, where crystal clear waters meet beautiful white sandy beaches and high cliffs and historic relics overlook the majestic Pacific Ocean. The traditional owners of the remarkable lands I have described, Booderee National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu National Park are actively involved in the protection of the environment through participation in the management of their land. They are spaces which both sustain and share the experience of Australia's biodiversity and cultural landscapes. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 on which I speak today operates to affect a minor amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It is not part of the broad and far-reaching environmental law reform agenda that the Albanese Labor government is working on and deeply committed to delivering. During the election campaign for the seat of Sturt, my fellow candidates and I participated in five candidate debates. It was illustrative that, as well as the cost of living, the most frequent questions asked of us as candidates related to the environment, including about reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and, importantly, the role of First Nations knowledge of the lands on which we live and work and how that must be deployed in ongoing initiatives to sustain our environment. The minor amendment this bill proposes would allow a board of management for a jointly managed Commonwealth reserve such as Booderee, Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu to continue to make decisions regarding the management of the reserves after a management plan expires. These reserves are managed by the Director of National Parks under a lease with the traditional owners and through a board of management. A board of management is appointed by the minister and comprises a majority of Indigenous people nominated by traditional owners. Each of the boards of management is currently chaired by a traditional owner, and these boards are responsible for making decisions about the management of the Commonwealth reserves. However, the ability to make decisions stops when a management plan expires. Management plans are legislative instruments that outline how a Commonwealth reserve is to be managed and protected and expire after 10 years, unless revoked earlier. Without this bill, when a management plan expires, the decision-making functions of the board will cease. If that occurs, the role of traditional owners in the decision-making process is compromised, reducing that critical involvement in the management of their land. This bill will bridge any gap between a management plan for a jointly managed Commonwealth reserve expiring and a new management plan coming into effect. The bill, therefore, will allow the board to continue making decisions after a management plan expires, provided those decisions are consistent with the expired management plan—just as they would have been consistent with the management plan whilst it was afoot. This is a sensible and reasonable change that will maintain the board's decision-making ability until a new management plan comes into effect. The bill aligns with the Albanese Labor government's commitment to provide traditional owners with greater control over management of their country. It supports the improved relationship between the Australian government, the Director of National Parks and traditional owners of jointly managed Commonwealth reserves, which remains a priority for this government. The bill will support the effective participation of Indigenous people in matters relating to the management of their country, support continuity of decision-making and enable consistency of governance arrangements for Commonwealth reserve management. We know that First Nations knowledge of land management has been curated over tens of thousands of years. We know it was and continues to be developed by observing country, including cultural burning, traditional fishing, water management, plant harvesting and rock-wall construction, in order to regenerate ecosystems and manage resources. We know that land management is not just environmental but deeply spiritual. It's about health and wellbeing of country but also the health and wellbeing of those who are privileged enough to live on country. We know that land management also involves threat management, which is traditional methods that are effective in managing threats like feral animals and weeds that threaten native plants and creating fire breaks, which protect land, people and threatened species. The Burnside city council, located in my electorate of Sturt, is home to several public sculptures, including the newly unveiled Burnside Tamikuru Sculpture by artist Allan Sumner. Allan is a descendent of Ngarrindjeri people, who come from the lower Murray and the lakes of the Murray River along the Coorong of South Australia. I was fortunate to be able to attend the unveiling of this sculpture in June 2025 as part of Reconciliation Week, which had the theme 'Bridging Now to Next', reflecting the ongoing connection between past, present and future. I was able to meet Allan, who is a prominent artist in Adelaide with his meaningful work displayed across the electorate of Sturt, at the Morialta adventure playground and in the Kensington reserve, as well as at Burnside. Allan's work also adorns football and soccer jerseys and can even be seen on the side of Adelaide Metro buses. Allan's art celebrates connection to country and celebrates First Nations knowledge and care of country. At the Burnside Tamikuru Sculpture unveiling, I also met Rayne Simpson, who is the Regional Coordinator for Kaurna, South Australia, for an organisation called Firesticks. Firesticks is an Indigenous led not-for-profit enterprise and registered charity that supports a growing national network of Indigenous communities and practitioners by promoting the revitalisation and use of traditional knowledge systems and practices, particularly culture fire-burning to improve country and community health and wellbeing. Rayne has a background in the banking industry, but, after doing that for 15 years, he decided to start a journey that was much more meaningful to him—a journey which has its foundations in revitalising traditional land-management practices within his community. Embracing the teachings of elders and collaborating with fellow Kaurna men and women, Rayne has integrated traditional fire-management techniques into his approach to work and life. Rayne explained to me that Indigenous knowledge of fire-management techniques is such that, in preparation for bushfire season, a cultural burn is conducted using small, low-intensity fires, known as 'cool burns', to clear undergrowth, reduce fuel and manage the landscape. This technique of low and slow cool burns creates natural fire breaks that allow animals to escape and that promote biodiversity by encouraging the regrowth of plants and then the return of animals to their natural habitat. This low and slow cool burn technique of gentle and managed fires that can halt the spread of larger, uncontrolled fires and cool the earth has been practised for thousands and thousands of years. The continued promotion and meaningful utilisation of First Nations knowledge and land management is absolutely critical in protecting and managing our environment. It is critical for sustainability and for the future of our country. Although a minor amendment on paper, this bill is significant in its acknowledgement and continued support of the unquantifiable value of First Nations knowledge of how to care for country. 17:05 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I heard the member for Sturt mention the eradication of feral pests. This is a debate, after all, and I acknowledge that in her contribution. I well recall when I took then prime minister Scott Morrison to parts of Queensland to look at the drought. We're always in the country of drought. Indeed, as Dorothea Mackellar quite correctly pointed out in her poem, 'Core of my heart', we are a nation of flooding rains and droughts. At any given point in time, somewhere in Australia will be beset by drought. The member for Sturt is quite correct about what she points out about feral animal eradication. The dingo and dog fence that was funded by the former coalition government led to an increase in lambing rates in those parts of Queensland, and elsewhere where we rolled out that fence. Farmers were reaping the benefits. When it comes to the environment, that is a practical means to be able to protect the environment and increase farmers' wealth. When we do that, we're doing a good thing for and on behalf of all Australia. The member for Sturt is from South Australia, quite obviously, and it's really important that, when we look at the context of a bill such as this—a non-controversial bill, perhaps—we look at history. The explorer Charles Sturt made three expeditions exploring the river systems of south-eastern Australia. Quite often, the boats or canoes were carried on people's backs rather than being used to float down the Macquarie, Murrumbidgee and Darling rivers to the Murray River and then on to Lake Alexandrina and the mouth of the Murray River in South Australia. Much has been made, in recent years and decades, of the river system we have in Australia. Unfortunately, there are some in this country who would think of our river systems and think of a European situation. Our river systems are not that. They are very much ephemeral rivers—they'd probably call them streams in other countries—and Australia is not Europe. It is not. We have a situation where we have flooding rains followed by droughts, and we can't convert our river systems, particularly the ones in South Australia, and pretend as though they are a European system, because they are not. In 1828, Sturt followed the Macquarie River through the Macquarie marshes to the Darling River. In 1829-30, he backed it up by tracing the Murrumbidgee River—Murrumbidgee meaning 'deep or wide water'—to its junction with the Murray River and continued down the Murray to its mouth at Lake Alexandrina. It was a crucial discovery that showed that the western-flowing rivers of New South Wales discharged into the Murray River—in good times. In dry times, many of the river systems that Sturt explored were in fact dry gulches or dry river beds. His third expedition of 1844-46 set out to explore the interior of Australia, travelling along the Murray and Darling rivers before the expedition headed north. He crossed the Sturt Stony Desert and pressed on into the Simpson Desert—he was a tough fellow—before being forced to turn back due to extreme conditions and ill health. Once upon a time schoolchildren in Australia were taught about this. I'm not so sure they are now. I speak often to the former Liberal senator Bill Heffernan. He can quote chapter and verse where any river system in Australia flows and how it flows. We have good discussions, but these days I find that children don't know as much as they should about the river systems upon which our nation depends. I see the shadow assistant minister at the table. His communities, like mine, are very reliant on the Murray-Darling system. We have this perception in Australia that, when it comes to the environment, our river communities must cede. But our farmers are the world's best environmentalists; they are. Thank you for nodding, Deputy Speaker Chesters. I know that, at Bendigo, you, too, are very much in the Murray-Darling system. You've got farmers who are very reliant on having sensible policy not just from this place but from our states as well, and I'm not quite sure that our irrigators have benefited all the time from sensible policy from this place. Again, I state that our farmers grow the very best food and fibre, and at times they have been demonised and maligned by the Greens. Thankfully, we have only one representative—probably one too many—in this House of Representatives now. The Greens have bedevilled our farmers. The Greens, by their very policies, want every drop of water to run through our river systems and out the mouth of the Murray, and that's just not how it should be. That's just not how nature was meant to work. Our farmers need that water. They are allocated that water and—here's a thought—they pay for that water. Who would have thought it? They actually pay for that water, and they pay a lot of money to be able to access that water, use that water and work for and on behalf of those people in this country who—wait for it—eat. I don't think that we give them the credit that they deserve. When it comes to our river communities, when we go and buy back large parcels of water and bank them for environmental purposes—and, let me tell you, the government, through the CEWH and other means, is the biggest owner of water in the system—we also take away productive water which can then no longer be used for productive purposes. The EPBC Act is important. The environment is important. But so, too, is making sure that those river communities are functioning. They will do so in an environmentally sustainable way. We sometimes forget our explorers. John Oxley, when he went out to the land beyond Griffith, came out with the statement that no European man—that's what he said; I'm not being a misogynist—would ever see fit to use that land, because it is just beyond use. It was our soldiers who were then sent out to soldier settler blocks, and they turned a virtual desert into a Garden of Eden and grew food. They did so through a channel system. Later on they did so through the decades of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, which was an irrigation system. Those dams were built for irrigation; hydroelectricity was just a benefit of the scheme. They did so with the Barren Jack Dam and, as it later became known, the Burrinjuck Dam, turning what Oxley described as an 'inhospitable environment' into something quite special that we should be very, very proud of. I think sometimes we all take too much consideration of the environment at the expense of those people who eke out a very meagre existence, and it's their relatives, the people who have followed in their family lines, who continue to make sure that the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation systems are vital to our nation. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 does acknowledge that the Commonwealth reserves—namely, Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Booderee National Park—are located on Indigenous land. We understand that. We understand the importance of our Aboriginal people in the context of this particular debate, but we must also not go too far. We must not have overreach. I appreciate people are now forbidden or discouraged from climbing Ayers Rock, Uluru. But these days it's going to cost you money to take a photo of Ayers Rock to post a holiday snap online. Anyone wanting to shoot content at Uluru national park needs to pay for a photo permit. It cost $20 a day for commercial photography or $250 a day for filming. Some might see that as fine. I appreciate that the Indigenous rangers and people who look after the park need to make the most of their investment and their labours; I get that. But the ban that the Victorian government has placed on some of the rock climbing in that state is getting to the point of overreach. It actually is. People who do this as an adventure sport are now forbidden to climb on the various landscapes they once enjoyed. We just need to be a little bit careful about overreach. We absolutely do. When it comes to overreach, nobody does it better than the Victorian state government. I appreciate they've got a mandate to govern, but goodness gracious they do go a bit beyond where their governance should go. This government is currently planning reforms to the wider EPBC Act to be introduced into the parliament apparently in November. I could say I look forward to seeing what that entails, but 'looking forward' would not be probably the correct terminology, because while this bill is not controversial, what may come about possibly is. Even though this government has got a massive mandate in the House of Representatives, 51 seats, it doesn't necessarily have that wide a mandate over in the other place, in the Senate. They have to take legislation through the Greens, and the Greens are a worrying lot. If they were just an environmental party, you could understand it, but these days they have much more of a 'Let's change Australia's social fabric' remit. That's the Greens. That's their mantra. They don't always come with good intent. Once upon a time, under Bob Brown, they wanted to solve the world's environmental problems and the climate et cetera. You knew where they were coming from. These days they want to solve the Middle Eastern situation, they want to cut out traditional sports such as horseracing—and where will it stop? I don't know, but it is a concern. This particular legislation is crucial if it goes through the House—and it will, because the government has a big majority, and we're not objecting to it. But it's also important to note that in government, whilst those opposite might tell you that this is not the case, we had a good record when it came to the environment. The Great Barrier Reef was going well under our government, under the policies that we put forward and under the funding we gave. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Don't shake your head, Member for Hughes; it's absolutely true. But when you've got decisions being made like the McPhillamys goldmine near Blayney being put on hold for no good reason, you start to worry about—I won't say the environmental credentials or the Indigenous credentials—the commonsense credentials of those opposite, if I may, because that was not stopped for any good reason. You've got a situation where winemakers, like Darren de Bortoli, are pulling up vines and where river communities are put on hold because of the Murray Darling Basin Plan. You've got decisions being made by a government that, yes, does have a mandate. But they don't have a mandate to pull apart regional Australia. I know that I, the member for Nicholls and the member for Lyne will fight the government every step of the way if they try to do that. 17:20 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore It is a great honour and privilege to be in this place. But, I must say, it is an absolute sight to behold something so rare: the member for Goldstein and the member for Riverina joining together in unity to express the one thing they do agree on, which is to fill their policy vacuum with their hatred of the Labor Party. I'm not sure of the relevance of some of their speeches, but I digress. I rise today in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025. This bill is small in size but significant in impact. It's about continuity, respect and responsibility. It's about making sure that the way we manage jointly held Commonwealth reserves never misses a beat, even when the paperwork runs behind. Right now, under the EPBC Act, when the management plan for the jointly managed reserve expires, so too does the decision-making authority of the board of management. That means that, overnight, the board goes from being an active, trusted voice to a body unable to make decisions. This bill closes the gap. It allows the boards of management to keep working in line with the most recent plan until the new one is finalised. In plain terms, it keeps the lights on, the wheels turning and the decisions flowing. These boards are not faceless committees; they are made up of people appointed by the minister. Where reserves sit on Indigenous land, as is the case for Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Booderee, traditional owners nominate the majority of its members. That matters. It means decisions are grounded not just in legislation but in culture, knowledge and lived custodianship. It means the people with the deepest connection to country continue to shape how that country is cared for. Without this bill, when plans expire, that authority dissolves. The risk is not abstract. It could mean delays in fire management, cultural site protection or visitor safety. Continuity isn't red tape; it is respect for the land and for the people who have cared for it for millennia. The EPBC Act is the backbone of our national environmental law. At the heart of the act, management plans set out how each reserve will be cared for. They cover everything from heritage protection to weed control, tourism and research. These plans take years to prepare and must be reviewed every decade. Sometimes a plan expires before a new one is ready. That is the gap that this bill closes. This bill ensures Indigenous voices remain central, uninterrupted and authoritative in the management of jointly held reserves. It is about participation but also trust—trust that governance is consistent, respectful and reliable. And it is about stewardship, because good governance is not just paperwork. It is firebreaks cut, sacred sites protected and knowledge applied in real time. It is the everyday works that keep our heritage safe. This bill does not change the role of the Director of National Parks. That role remains as it is today. This is a targeted, standalone fix to a very specific problem. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, I understand the importance of getting governance right. Sometimes the fixes are big—new frameworks and new standards. Sometimes they are small and precise, like this one. Both matter. Both make a difference. In committee hearings, we repeatedly hear from traditional owners and local communities about the need for certainty. Certainty builds trust. Certainty delivers continuity. This bill provides exactly that. Let me stress that this bill is not tied to the broader EPBC reform agenda expected later this year. Those reforms—national environment standards, an EPA and more transparency—are moving on their own track. This bill is separate, urgent and about the here and now. In my electorate of Moore, we don't manage Kakadu or Uluru, but we do know the value of continuity. While this bill speaks directly to Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee, it also speaks to us in Western Australia. Our state has led the way in joint management agreements with traditional owners at Karijini, Kalbarri and Purnululu. Even closer to home, the Pinnacles in the Nambung National Park sit just north of Moore and are one of WA's most iconic tourism drawcards. Visitors come through Moore and, on their way, are staying in Joondalup, eating in our restaurants and fuelling up in our suburbs. The confidence that these treasures are well managed underpins not just environmental protection but also local jobs and businesses. Whether it's a sports club, a lifesaving patrol or a conservation group, if leadership stops abruptly, things fall through the cracks. Safety suffers, heritage suffers and people lose faith. I think of the surf clubs at Trigg, Mullaloo and Sorrento, where volunteers show up, rain or shine, to patrol our beaches. If their authority stopped the moment paperwork expired, lives would be at risk. That is how absurd it would be. Continuity is not bureaucracy. It is safety. Take our conservation groups caring for Lake Joondalup, Yellagonga Regional Park and bush corridors through Craigie and Padbury. If leadership suddenly lost its ability to act, you would see weeds spread, fire risk climb and gains unravel. People in Moore understand that stewardship is ongoing. You do not stop caring for country because a date has passed. In Moore, that principle is lived daily on Whadjuk Noongar country. Traditional owners remind us that stewardship is continuous, not episodic. Whether caring for Yellagonga wetlands, protecting cultural sites or passing knowledge to the next generation, there is no pause button. This bill reflects that reality, not just in Kakadu but across Australia, where Indigenous custodianship guides management. I think, too, of our bushfire brigades across the northern suburbs. When a fire breaks out, no-one checks whether a committee's mandate has lapsed. They just get to work with skill, with courage and with continuity. Having worked for the United Professional Firefighters Union, I know how vital that is. I've seen the risks when coordination falters and I've seen the professionalism that keeps us safe. Fire does not wait, and neither should governance. That is what this bill reflects: uninterrupted responsibility. It's not just in emergencies. At Whitfords Nodes Park, groups run coastal rehabilitation year after year. At the Joondalup Community Coast Care Forum, locals share knowledge about protecting beaches and dunes. At Hillarys Boat Harbour, where tourism and environment are finely balanced, continuity is essential. These groups know from experience that gaps in leadership undo months of effort. One group that embodies this principle is Friends of Sorrento Beach and Marmion Foreshore. Week after week, season after season, they care for our coastline. It is fundamentally about continuity of care for the places we love. Just as these groups in my electorate cannot down tools because a meeting is delayed, boards should not lose powers because a plan has expired. The same is true of Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park, caring for wetlands and bushland around Lake Joondalup. They know that weed control and habitat restoration cannot pause. If those efforts stop, even briefly, damage spreads. Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park understand continuity because their work follows natural cycles. That rhythm of stewardship is what this bill protects. I want to acknowledge the young people who live this principle. At Ocean Reef Senior High School, students are encouraged to study marine and environmental science in a hands-on way. They understand that ecosystems need constant care and that continuity is the difference between thriving and declining. These students are the next generation of stewards. Their teachers remind them, as I remind this House, that you cannot press pause on caring for country. The lesson is simple: continuity matters, whether on the sand at Mullaloo, in the seagrass at Marmion, by the lake at Yellagonga or on the escarpments of Uluru. This bill makes sure continuity is never lost. The heart of this bill reflects the values that guide this government and guide me. Fairness means traditional owners stay at the table. Respect means management of country continues seamlessly. Responsibility means we fix the gaps before they cause harm. These are the same principles I hear echoed back at home in Moore. From parents coaching sport in Currambine to volunteers planting trees in Iluka, and the groups preserving bushland and ocean reef, people know the value of continuity, respect and responsibility. As someone who began his working life as an electrician, I know what happens when continuity is lost. On a job site, when the plan is unclear, mistakes are made. People get hurt. Continuity of leadership is not a nice-to-have; it is essential. Later, as a kidney transplant recipient, I learnt that continuity in care is the difference between life and death. You do not want treatment to stop because a file expired. You need steady, reliable stewardship. That lesson applies in health, in trades and in environmental management. Continuity also matters in policy. When we talk about the cost of living, Australians do not want one-offs; they want certainty. That is why this government delivered direct energy bill relief and is investing in long-term reforms to keep prices down. When we talk about the clean energy transition, Australians want continuity so that, as industries change, new jobs and training are ready. When we talk about skills, continuity in training and apprenticeships gives young people in Moore the confidence to plan a career, whether it's a young sparkie at North Metro TAFE or a nurse in training at ECU Joondalup, continuity turns dreams into futures. The truth is that environmental stewardship is not a stop-start exercise. Country does not wait for paperwork. Fires do not wait for paperwork. Visitors do not wait for paperwork. Government must keep pace with reality. Some might ask why this matters so much. It matters because places like Kakadu, Uluru and the Pinnacles are not only national treasures; they are also cultural treasures. They are living landscapes cared for by traditional owners for generations. Interrupting governance interrupts that partnership; it interrupts respect. These parks are also of international significance. Millions of visitors travel from around the world to witness their beauty, history and spirit. When tourists stand before Uluru at sunset, they are experiencing a living story woven into the identity of this nation. Governance gaps put that experience and that responsibility at risk. Environmental management is already complex. Plans take time. Consultation takes time. Balancing ecological science, cultural heritage, tourism and community needs takes time. This bill ensures that, while that work continues, governance does not stop. It is practical lawmaking. It is careful, considered and respectful. It does not overreach. It simply closes a gap that should never have existed, and, in doing so, it strengthens our partnership with traditional owners. It honours the principle that those who know the land best should always have a voice. It affirms the government's commitment to walk alongside Indigenous Australians. Sometimes we risk treating amendments like this as technicalities. But this is not a technicality. This is about fairness, respect and responsibility. Fairness means ensuring boards can continue their work. Respect means recognising the authority and knowledge of traditional owners. Responsibility means governance does not falter because of a loophole. These values are not abstract; they are lived every day in Moore. They are lived when families in Joondalup support a neighbour, when students at ECU or North Metro TAFE gain skills for a clean energy future, when seniors in Duncraig preserve community spaces, when children at Mullaloo learn about the coast, when volunteers in the Friends of Sorrento Beach and Marmion Foreshore protect our shoreline, when members of the Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park restore wetlands and when students at Ocean Reef Senior High School learn that stewardship is continuous. Continuity, respect and responsibility—these shape both our local life and our national governance. This bill ensures that boards remain empowered even when plans expire. It preserves Indigenous leadership in jointly managed reserves. It keeps governance steady, respectful and consistent. It does all of this without changing the director's role or delaying broader reforms. As someone who has spent his life moving between the tools, the law and now this parliament, I have learnt that sometimes the smallest adjustments keep the system working. This is one of those adjustments. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 82

Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025

Consideration in Detail 82 17:36 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 16), omit "subsections (2) to (9)", substitute "subsections (6) and (9)". (2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 19) to page 5 (line 27), omit subsections 110V(2) to (5). (3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 5) to page 6 (line 24), omit subsections 110V(7) and (8). (4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 32), after item 8, insert: 8A After section 110V Insert: 110VAAA Notification of review rights If a reviewable decision is made, the decision maker must, in writing, notify any person who is affected by the decision of the effect of sections 110VA and 110VAA. (5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 33) to page 9 (line 24), omit the item, substitute: 9 After section 110VA Insert: 110VAA Time limit for making an application for review (1) An application for review of a reviewable decision can only be made within: (a) 6 months after the day the applicant is given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision; or (b) if the Tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that exceptional circumstances exist—such longer period as the Tribunal allows. (2) However, an application for review of a reviewable decision can be made at any time (subject to this Part) if the applicant is not given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision. Lest we forget—just three words, but three extraordinarily powerful words. It is the solemn promise we all make to acknowledge and respect the service of Australian Defence Force personnel and our veterans community. The sentence before that is equally poignant. The words are 'we will remember them'. Those words don't come with a use-by date. There's no caveat. There's no 'we will remember them sometimes' or 'we will remember them as long as it happened in the last 20 years'. We will remember them. Under this legislation, the government is proposing that we will only remember them, we will only recognise their incredible service, if the action occurred in the past 20 years. That is exactly what this legislation proposes in terms of major medallic recognition of acts of bravery and gallantry that have quite rightly been reviewed by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal over the last 14 years and have resulted in some of the most celebrated Australians receiving due recognition decades—decades—after their brave action. But what this government is trying to do is cut this off at 20 years, saying, 'If your action didn't occur as Australian Defence Force personnel in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force in a more convenient timeframe for us—say, the last 20 years—I'm sorry, but you can't review any decision made by the Department of Defence in relation to honours of such great national significance.' This is the most extraordinary overreach by the Department of Defence, and it has found a compliant minister to come in here with a rubbish piece of legislation that should not have seen the light of day. I'm sure the Department of Defence could not believe their luck when this government said, 'We'll run this one out for you and see how we go.' But the legislation presented to us last Thursday, with no consultation, failed at the first test, and every speaker on this side of the House has recognised it. It is a solution trying to find a problem. The member for Indi pointed it out: 'What is the government trying to fix? What's broken?' Other crossbenchers spoke, and members of the Liberal Party and the National Party spoke, but the Labor MPs were missing in action. Now, on this side of the House, we know there are a lot of you. We sit here and we know there are a lot of you. You had a lot of choices—you had more than 90 choices, in fact—and you could only find one person brave enough to back up the minister, and that was the poor first-termer from Sturt! Was there a ballot? Did she get the short straw? How did this poor member for Sturt cop the short straw and have to turn up here? When the division was called this morning on the second reading motion, 90 turned up to vote. They were all here. But then they were missing in action. They had no intention of defending this pitiful piece of legislation, because they know how poorly it will be regarded by their veterans, by their service personnel and by the families in their own communities. I say to those opposite: before you voted, you should have read the bill. You should have had a good look at it, because I can tell you now that, if you'd read the bill, you wouldn't have turned up here and voted for it. The minister knows there's been no consultation with the major veterans groups, he knows that the Australian Defence Force personnel do not support this bill, he knows the families will be furious, and yet somehow he's convinced his colleagues to come and vote for it. They heard the bells, ran in here, voted and had no idea what they had just voted for. There would be no shame in the minister withdrawing this bill. There would be no shame in that whatsoever, because he has not given any explanation as to what he is seeking to fix with the legislation before the House today. 17:41 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I ask this question of any member in the House: what were you doing when you were 18 or 19? I can tell you what I was doing, and I think the member for Gippsland was probably doing the same, because he's about the same vintage: rat-tat-tatting away on a typewriter, producing stories for a newspaper. What we weren't doing was rat-tat-tatting away with a gun. What we certainly weren't doing was hanging off an Oerlikon 20-millimetre cannon and firing away. Teddy Sheean was doing that. Richard Norden was going across no-man's-land, again and again, to rescue comrades. Teddy Sheean, from the Navy, was 18 years young—just 18. It was 1 December 1942; it was the Battle of Timor. He was a Tasmanian—one of the bravest the island state has ever produced. Eighteen years! Richard Norden was 19. As in that famous song by Redgum, he was only 19. They were teenagers, mere boys, lads. As I said, Sheean fought in the Battle of Timor in 1942 and Richard Norden was in the Battle of Coral-Balmoral on 14 May 1968. Years on—decades, in fact—from their gallant actions, those two were justifiably, deservedly awarded Victoria Crosses for Australia—well, their families were, because Teddy and Richard, better known as Dick, were no longer with us. Teddy died on that day; we lost him. Dick died serving in the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, on Hindmarsh Drive in a motorcycle accident at just 24. He continued to serve, even though his days in the khaki were over. Teddy was given what's called a Mention in Despatches. A Distinguished Conduct Medal was presented, at the time, to Dick. These were honourable awards and very well deserved, but they weren't what they should have received. What they should have received was a VC. We don't present VCs lightly in this country, nor should we, but, when we do, it's special. When we do, all the nation knows that that person, through their deeds of valour, through placing their life on the line and through their gallant actions, has saved others, has won the day and in some cases—in many cases—has caused the loss of their own life. We don't give them out lightly. Then, of course, we had the 10 members of D Company from Long Tan. Their actions were on 18 August 1966. They were also given medallic recognition years after—half a century after, in fact—their gallant deeds. Yet now we're being told by the minister that all of those dozen awards would not have been awarded in the future. Why? It's a really easy question, but I just don't know why. I've been administering many portfolios. I've been lucky enough to do so. I know departments will often bring you their letters, their recommendations, their suggestions. You don't have to accept them all the time! You can say no—send them packing! You'll often get bureaucrats, public servants and unelected officials wanting you to change legislation. 'No' is an easy word to say when it's a dumb piece of legislation. That's what this is. Minister, will World War II veterans or Vietnam veterans or Korea veterans have review rights under this bill that you are proposing? Will they? Why, Minister? Why? I just don't understand it. I'm a voice of what I'm sure will be many veterans and many RSL clubs. Good luck when you and members of the Labor Party who've already voted against this go out on any given commemorative day in the future. Good luck. Why, Minister? 17:47 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert To all those that continue to serve, our veterans and your families: the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifice that you have made. On Anzac Day we say, 'Lest we forget,' and we reaffirm our commitment to never forget those who've been killed in battle, died in training or succumbed to their war within back here home soil. On Remembrance Day, we say, 'The guns fell silent,' but the guns haven't fallen silent since. In world wars—World War II, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan—our brave men and women have been there. In peace-keeping missions around the world—East Timor, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Fiji—our brave men and women have been there. In natural disasters—cyclones, fires, floods, COVID Assist—our brave men and women have been there. I don't think it's good enough to push legislation or a bill through this place without going to the veterans and the people that we represent. Politicians are very quick, on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and any other commemorative day, to run to the closest person with medals on their chest to get a photo to put on social media, but then, when it comes to standing up for them in this parliament, they're nowhere to be seen. This bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, should have Labor Defence Force veterans standing up and speaking on it, but today we didn't see that. We didn't see the courage from this government from those who have served, because they know this is a bad bill. They know that there hasn't been consultation. They know that this shouldn't be going through. I often travel around not just the largest Defence Force electorate in the country, that being Townsville, but the country. I speak to many veterans. I've been fortunate enough to have had a coffee with many veterans who have medals of gallantry, such as Victoria Crosses. I've spoken to families of loved ones who have been posthumously awarded these honours. Today, I thought: 'I'm not just going to get up and speak about this bill, when we are debating it; I'm going to call some of these people. I'm going to call those that have been given a great honour—a great honour for their actions on the battlefield.' A great honour is what they are to this nation. I asked them: 'Have you heard about it? Did your RSL send it to you? Did the ex-service organisation you're a part of circulate it? Did they send out the letter or the transcript or any sort of communication that they may have received from this Labor government?' All said, 'I've never heard of this; this is news to me.' One person, Justin Huggett MG, who got a medal of gallantry for fighting in Afghanistan with the Brits on Long Look, laughed when I said it. He said: 'That's not real. That's not a thing. You're jigging me up.' He used more colourful language. He was a good platoon sergeant. If you've ever put a bill through this place that he hasn't agreed with, you would definitely know about it. He gives me free advice. But this one bill, this bit of legislation—he couldn't comprehend that this would actually be a thing, because it hasn't been circulated widely throughout the veterans community. And these are people that have the honours. Now, Afghanistan isn't 20 years past the end of its campaign. But it will be one day. It does take time for people to talk about and remember those significant battles for which these awards would be awarded. My question to the minister is this: what veterans specifically have you spoken to before you brought this bill to this place? 17:52 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I did pause just for a moment to check whether any members opposite were keen to join in the consideration in detail, but I couldn't see anyone on their feet. I will yield if anyone from the other side wants to speak. I'm quite happy to yield. It is clearly not going to be a situation we have to worry about here this evening, because, again, they're missing in action. The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 came before the House last Thursday and was debated today, with one speaker from those opposite. But, on this side of the House, including on the crossbench, every speaker has been asking the same question of the minister and the Prime Minister: what is the actual problem the Albanese government is trying to fix with this flawed legislation? What is the actual problem? You couldn't explain it to the crossbench. I had a briefing on Monday, and no-one could explain to me then what was so badly broken that meant you had to abolish the capacity of a statutory agency—a tribunal, in fact—to review decisions dating back decades. If you couldn't explain to me in that briefing what you were trying to fix, why would you expect the people on this side of the chamber to vote for it? As it turned out, everyone in the chamber voted against it, apart from the Labor Party. The crossbench, the Liberals and the Nationals all voted against it. That's because our system of honours and awards simply isn't broken. The government has not made the case. It isn't broken. This has been a bipartisan position for the entire time that the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal has been in existence—and all credit to the former Gillard government for bringing the tribunal into play in 2011. It brought an end to years and decades of demands for medallic recognition without a proper process for people to pursue that recognition. What it means to have the tribunal is that an action can be brought to the attention of the Department of Defence and it can be considered. And if in fact Defence says no to, say, a Teddy Sheean or a Richard Norden or the likes of Delta Company at Long Tan, if the department says no, then it is allowed to be reviewed by the tribunal, an independent statutory body established by the Labor party for just this purpose. And it has worked. It is not broken. Teddy Sheean would not get a VC under this legislation, because his decision would never have been reviewed, because it was outside the 20-year time limit. Richard Norden would never have gotten a VC under this legislation—again, it's outside the 20-year time limit. And Commander Harry Smith's brave troops at Long Tan would never have been recognised, because that action occurred in the Vietnam War, outside the 20-year limitation. I would like as much as possible to be bipartisan on veterans issues, but the Labor Party has not established a good reason for this reform. The tribunal members, in my direct experience as veterans minister, have acted with diligence, with integrity and with professionalism. They have made weighty decisions about medals. They haven't been out there handing out medals in Weeties packets. They have been exploring these very difficult cases, objectively assessing the cases and then deciding what recommendation they would put forward to government. They weren't handing out Victoria Crosses lightly; I can promise you that. The capacity to review decisions made by Defence is a design feature of the tribunal, which was established in 2011. This bill strips rights away from ADF personnel, veterans and families. The minister continues—he did it again today—to pretend that families will have the right to review of an honour under this legislation, which is simply not true. Look at your second reading speech, Minister. Mr CHESTER IPZ If you want to talk, get to the dispatch box. You are not telling the truth when it comes to families. Prior to the election, why didn't the Prime Minister tell veterans and the families of veterans from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and numerous other conflicts that he intended to remove their right to appeal Defence decisions regarding these major honours and awards? If you were so proud of the legislation, Minister, why wouldn't you have taken it to the election and tested it with the Australian people in the first place? There is no use-by date on, 'We will remember them.' There is not, 'We will remember them sometimes.' This 20-year timeframe is a complete and utter farce. No wonder that Labor Party members opposite are not in here to speak to try to defend it. (Time expired) 17:57 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Gillard government did some good things. And Julia Gillard, had she been given more of an opportunity, would have been a great Prime Minister, but unfortunately we had that cabal of the Greens at the time with the Democrats and others—anyway. She brought in a couple of things which were quite good. One was the Soils Advocate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! The minister for Veterans' Affairs on a point of order. Mr Keogh 249147 I'm sure this contribution to the great sum of human knowledge by the member for Riverina will be amazing, but it's not relevant to the amendments before the House, so I draw that to your attention. If he could be relevant. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I am listening carefully. I ask the member for Riverina to try and be relevant on the amendments. Mr McCORMACK 219646 It's about the minister backflipping on two things which were very good in the Gillard government. He wants to shut me down; I'm talking about positives about the Gillard government. One was the National Soils Advocate, and the other was the ability to review decisions taken not to give veterans medals. They were two good decisions made by the Gillard government. If a Labor minister wants to say that a Nationals member who's praising a former Labor prime minister is not within the standing orders, well, good luck with that. You might have to answer to your future Labor caucus. What really galls me is the fact that we've got a situation where the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, an independent statutory body, was established in 2011 under the Gillard government. And it was a good thing, as the shadow minister for veterans affairs has just outlined. It was put in place under the Defence Act to consider defence honours and awards matters, and it has both a review and an inquiry function. What the minister proposes to do with this legislation is allow it to overturn decisions made, but only to allow reviews in a 20-year timeframe. That will ensure that veterans who fought in Vietnam, Korea and certainly World War II will not have their actions able to be considered. As of mid-2025, DHAAT reported, it had conducted 483 reviews, of which it had affirmed the original Defence decision 283 times and had triggered a change in decision on 136 occasions, with the remaining withdrawn for consideration. This represents about a quarter of decisions taken to the tribunal having been wrongly decided by Defence, because the decisions were overturned, only further proving the importance of the tribunal. In those cases which were overturned, those awardees deserved their recognition, but, under the situation that the minister is proposing, they will not be considered unless it's within that 20-year timeframe, and that is such a shame. As the shadow minister quite correctly pointed out, some veterans don't like to talk of their war service. But I'll tell you what they do want to do, and that is make sure that their comrades who have gone above and beyond with their gallant actions are recognised. If they deserve to have the awards that they were given uplifted, or, indeed, to be given an award that they weren't presented at the time, if it's not done within that 20-year timeframe, they won't get it. The minister who is proposing this needs to really think about the loyalty, the service, the sacrifice, that these people have made for and on behalf of our nation, for and on behalf of our flag, for and on behalf of what we are here for, and that is to ensure that we give a free and fair and democratic society a fair go. This isn't giving veterans a fair go. This isn't giving the RSLs a fair go. Australia should be all about a fair go. I again ask the minister: why have you reached this decision? We're not seeing any Labor member, apart from the first-term member for Sturt, backing you up, Minister. I ask again: why has this decision been taken? Why are you backing up the bureaucrats instead of backing up the veterans, backing up the RSLs, backing up the communities who quite rightly think that this would be an absolute poor decision made in haste? (Time expired) 18:02 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert 'For the most conspicuous gallantry and a pre-eminent act of valour in the presence of the enemy during a Japanese aerial attack on HMAS Armidale in the Timor Sea on 1 December 1942.' On 1 December 1942, during operations in the Timor Sea, HMAS Armidale came under aerial bombardment and torpedo attack from Japanese aircraft. Shortly after the commencement of the attack, Armidale was hit by a torpedo and began listing to port. One minute later, the ship was hit by a second torpedo which broke the vessel's back, causing the captain to order, 'Abandon ship!' Ordinary Seaman Sheean, one of the youngest and most junior ranked members of Armidale's ship's company, made his way to the stowage position of the motorboat and assisted in its launch. As the enemy continued to fire upon the ship and his shipmates, who were already in the water, Ordinary Seaman Sheean decided to forgo his opportunity for survival by not abandoning the ship and by returning to his action station to man the gun, where he was the loader, not the gunner. Despite being wounded, he strapped himself into the gun and commenced firing at the enemy, damaging at least two enemy aircraft. Ordinary Seaman Sheean's actions disrupted and distracting the enemy from strafing and killing his defenceless shipmates in the water. He sacrificed his life to save his shipmates and, despite his wounds, continued firing the gun until the ship sank and took him to his death. His pre-eminent act of valour and his most conspicuous gallantry saved Australian lives. His heroism became the standard to which the men and women of the Australian Defence Force aspire. That act of bravery and gallantry is something that you read about or watch in movies. Under this bill, sadly, Teddy Sheean would not have been recognised with his VC. My question to the minister, halfway through this, is: under this bill, would Teddy Sheean be posthumously awarded the VC? As I read and understand it—I know I'm just a simple soldier—this bill would not allow that because it is outside the 20-year parameters and it's outside of what the bill clearly states. I do not think it is appropriate that brave war heroes like Teddy Sheean be forgotten. This bill will do that. I reflected today in my speech. When I was wounded overseas—I sent the video to my medic—I was flown back and was laying on my back after being blown up by a bomb in the ground. My medic, Tom Howell, jumped through the dust and the flames with no regard to his own safety. He put his life at risk and did that without thinking about himself. He did it for his mate. I still haven't sat down and gone through this with him. We haven't had the discussion, because when you think of what happens in war you don't automatically go, 'Someone should get a medal here.' I can tell you there was no senior officer on that mission. They weren't there; they spent less time outside the wire than anyone else. There were a bunch of enlisted soldiers there. I fear that if someone were to sit down, 20 years post the Afghanistan war, go through the heroism and gallant actions of the brave people and want an assessment done, that that assessment simply couldn't be done. I think it's silly that the CDF, a senior officer or the minister, who takes guidance from the CDF, would agree to that. This is a bad bill. 18:07 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I'd just like to check to make sure no-one else wants the call. I do respect the right of other members to speak, and I thought members of the Labor Party, having realised the gravity of the bill before the chamber tonight, for consideration in detail, would be putting down their glasses and rushing down to the chamber to make a contribution, but that's clearly not the case. The minister has tried to claim that the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal itself wanted the changes which are included in the bill. In his second reading speech, the minister said: After well more than a decade of operation, it is necessary to ensure that the tribunal remains fit for purpose and to address a number of concerns that have been raised by the tribunal itself and others over time in relation to its operation. That sounds reasonable. But what would you expect next? After saying that the tribunal has raised issues and that others, over time, have raised issues, you'd think the minister would produce some evidence to make his case. You'd think that that's what he'd do. But the speech goes on with no further reference to any great contribution from the tribunal about asking to have itself cut off at the knees. There's no mention of that. So I wanted to check what the tribunal has been saying. It was very interesting to read the evidence given by the tribunal to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system. In that inquiry, the tribunal actually exposed the minister's deception from his second reading speech, because the tribunal expressed its opposition to a 20-year timeframe being imposed on it. It specifically expressed its opposition to the 20-year timeframe. Yet, in the minister's second reading speech, apparently the tribunal wants the changes. An honourable member: It doesn't add up. Mr CHESTER IPZ I don't know. What's true? Perhaps, if the minister had expanded on his claim about the tribunal wanting the changes, we could test his reference point. But no. We had the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system, and the tribunal specifically told the Senate inquiry that introducing a 20-year time limit for a tribunal review would 'abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award'. It can't be any clearer: the tribunal that the Labor Party is trying to cut off at the knees here tonight has said expressly that it does not support the imposition of a 20-year time limit on the assessment of reviews for Defence honours and awards, and the reason why it doesn't want that 20-year time limit, from my experience in dealing with the tribunal, is that its members have always acted diligently, professionally and with integrity, and they have done a difficult job very, very well. They have an objective. They have searched through additional information and research and reports, and they have come up with decisions which have stood the test of public scrutiny. I know they've stood the test of public scrutiny because this minister, his prime minister and his defence minister are all happily out there cheering it on when Teddy Sheean gets a VC or Richard Norden gets a VC, because the tribunal had the capacity to review decisions made by Defence dating back decades. I'll say it again: 'We will remember them' does not have a use-by date. It's not, 'We will remember them sometimes,' 'We will remember them when it's convenient,' or, 'We will remember them as long as it happened in the last 20 years.' 'We will remember them' is our solemn oath and our duty to recognise and respect servicemen and servicewomen throughout our nation's history, and this tribunal has the capacity to review Defence decisions dating back decades for a very good reason. So I ask the minister: why is the government ignoring the advice of an independent statutory agency and taking rights of appeal away from Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families? (Time expired) 18:13 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina One of my most recent proudest moments as a parliamentarian was standing beside the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on Remembrance Day, 11 November, last year, when Richard Leslie Norden of Gundagai was announced as the latest Victoria Cross for Australia recipient. The actions for which Dick Norden received the award came at the Battle of Coral-Balmoral. On 12 May 1968, Australian and New Zealand forces set up Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral in Bien Hoa, Vietnam. As part of the daily routine at FSB Coral, Richard Norden took part in infantry patrols, where the soldiers ventured kilometres away from base doing reconnaissance and seeking contact with the enemy. On 14 May, Richard's platoon sustained heavy fire during one of a series of contacts outside the FSBs, and these contacts were part of the larger Battle of Coral-Balmoral. Using his pluck and showing care for his mates, he rescued a wounded soldier and recovered the body of another with little cover and under intense enemy fire. The rifleman's audacious actions prevented further casualties; he saved lives. Army headquarters announced the names of Australian casualties in the Bien Hoa reconnaissance, with the Canberra Times reporting Richard as 'wounded but in a satisfactory condition'. Amongst the many 1RAR who were wounded that week, but in a very satisfactory condition, were two of Riverina interest: Private John Milton Rands, 21, single, of Temora; and—wait for this; the Nationals in the room will be keen to know this—one Second Lieutenant Timothy Andrew Fischer, 22, single, of Boree Creek—later, of course, Australia's 10th deputy prime minister. I rang Tim's widow, Judy Brewer, earlier this year and recalled the fact that Richard and her late husband were in different platoons, but, as she reminded me, they were still good mates. When Richard returned to Australia, he continued serving with the Australian Army. Nineteen years young he was. He was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal, and that is etched in gold on the cenotaph on the eastern end of Sheridan Street—facing Canberra, if you like. I encourage the minister, when the statue on Sheridan Street is unveiled next May, to come along and take a look for himself, because those initials etched in gold, DCM, are going to be replaced with VC. They should have been VC back in 1968. He got a Distinguished Conduct Medal, and he was very proud of that, but he should have gotten Australia's highest military honour. Thankfully, and appropriately, because we had a system in place—a process, a pathway—he has now posthumously—because he died in a motorcycle crash patrolling with the ACT police when he was 24—been awarded, or his family were awarded, a Victoria Cross for Australia. The minister and I were there that day, along with Prime Minister Albanese and the Governor-General, Sam Mostyn AC, when that announcement was made. I was very proud, and I'm sure the minister was too; he's nodding. He was very proud, and he made some very good comments. But, Minister, had that process, that pathway, not been in place—and, under this bill that you are proposing and that you've put before the House, it will not be in the future—the Richard Nordens of the world would not be granted a Victoria Cross for Australia. This is wrong. This is not right. This is not Australian, and I just don't understand why, when there are so many other things we could be discussing, you've brought this bill, as a minister, to this place. It's not too late, Minister, to admit that this bill should not be taking effect. It's not too late to say that you were wrong. It's not too late, and I'm sure we will not criticise it as coalition members if you do admit that this is not, and will never be, the correct time to put in place this sort of legislation, which would prevent the Richard Nordens of the world getting their rightful recognition. 18:18 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put.  

The House divided. [18:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

90 AYES Abdo, B. J. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. 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, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. 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. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 49 NOES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. (Teller) Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:28 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Gippsland be agreed to.  

The House divided. [18:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 50 AYES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. (Teller) Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 87 NOES Abdo, B. J. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. 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, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. 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. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 90 18:34 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 90

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025

Second Reading 90 18:35 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to speak to this amendment to the EPBC Act. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 extends the existing arrangements for management of several jointly managed Commonwealth reserves, the Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Booderee National Park—all of which are located on Aboriginal land. These reserves are managed by the Director of National Parks under a lease with Indigenous people and through a board of management with majority traditional owner management representation. Each of those boards of management is currently chaired by a traditional owner. The management plans for these reserves are about to expire, which is why we're addressing it with this amendment to the EPBC Act 1999. As the minister has said, it's very appropriate that we legislate to continue the critical role of the traditional owners in the decision-making processes around the management of their land. However, the House needs to note that this amendment is necessary only because the Albanese government has not yet addressed the broader reforms to the EPBC Act as it promised in its last term. The current Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is failing on all fronts. It does not adequately protect our environment, and its uncertain and unpredictable assessment and decision-making processes are hindering investment. The Clean Energy Investor Group recently reported on major bottlenecks in environmental assessments under the EPBC Act, finding that many projects now wait more than two years for federal decisions—projects which might only take 18 months to build. The uncertainties of these approval processes can mean that there's no reliable pipeline of work for communities or for traineeships and apprenticeships in important and related industries. These bottlenecks are delaying the transmission projects which are required to support renewable energy projects and to facilitate the clean energy transition. These delays in EPBC reform have become the single biggest barrier to timely, environmentally responsible renewable energy development in Australia. This is why, in recent years, in the face of the escalating impacts of climate change and rapid loss of biodiversity, we have seen industry, community and environmental organisations all uniting to call on the Albanese government to deliver this once in a generation opportunity to reshape the laws around our environment and nature as a matter of urgency. These laws need to enable faster, more efficient and more transparent assessments to improve nature protection. They need to build greater confidence and trust within our communities, including within Indigenous groups, in decision-making around our land, air and waterways. They have to include a real commitment to the protection of our extraordinary cultural heritage, particularly with respect to that of Indigenous Australians, who represent the oldest continuing civilisation on this planet. Meaningful reform of the EPBC Act has to include the establishment of an environmental protection Australia as an independent regulator with power to oversee national environmental laws. It must include national environmental standards with more transparent and reliable data collection to inform community engagement planning, assessments and decisions and to direct adequate resources to agencies to enable faster, more transparent decision-making and monitoring. The Commonwealth environment protection framework must take an integrated approach to the environment. The matters of national environmental significance listed under the EPBC Act currently include land and water. They must be expanded to include air. The air we breathe affects every aspect of our health, our quality of life and our environment. The new EPBC Act has to establish air quality standards to protect public health, to prevent environmental degradation and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The appalling revelations this week that huge quantities of hazardous methane have been leaking from a huge storage tank very close to Darwin for 20 years is all the demonstration that we need that Australia's environmental protections are failing. The likely impact on human health and the surrounding environment of this and other forms of air pollution by gas fracking and storage in the Northern Territory and other sites around Australia is a deeply serious concern. Methane is a volatile organic compound. Volatile organic compounds are associated with a range of health problems. They irritate the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, leading to exacerbations of lung disease like asthma and COPD. Long-term exposure to VOCs causes injury to the liver and to the kidneys. It increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and of cancer. Methane is the major precursor of ground level ozone, which we generally refer to as smog, which is a toxic air pollutant that causes chronic irritation of the lungs. Just this week in the Medical Journal of Australia, researchers have described the significant public health impacts of mining in this country. They found that exposure to agents released during mining operations such as cadmium, iron, manganese, zinc, arsenic and lead are associated with neoplastic—that's cancer—and non-neoplastic diseases in adults and children. Mining of lead is specifically associated with a decrease in fertility for men and with intellectual disability and impaired immune function for children. Asbestos mining is associated with higher morbidity and mortality due to respiratory and non-respiratory cancers. Recent analyses have a higher risk of severe respiratory and circulatory diseases in communities which are proximate to coalmines. Children and women in mining regions are especially vulnerable, with a higher risk of perinatal conditions and of respiratory, blood and immune diseases. Unconventional gas extraction, or fracking, is associated with a higher risk of hospitalisation of all courses and with circulatory, respiratory, blood and immune diseases—again, particularly affecting children. And, as a potent greenhouse gas, methane acts to speed up climate change, which results in an increase in extreme weather events, decreased agricultural productivity and an increase in the global burden of disease. Climate change will increase the pressure on air quality. Bushfires like those in 2019-20 expose huge areas of Australia to dangerous levels of smoke, which has a really significant impact on the air that we breathe. It was estimated that we lost 445 Australians to smoke related lung injury in that black summer alone. A warming climate will also lead to increased smog in summer. Droughts will lead to dust storms. Emissions and air pollution, smog and dust don't respect lines and borders on maps. They affect us all. Santos's addition of thousands of tonnes of the most damaging of all greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, unmeasured, unreported and unregulated is an immediate and emergent proof of the need for supervision and enforcement of air quality standards at a national level. The environmental impacts of greenhouse gas induced climate change are devastating. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that, in the near term, forests and terrestrial ecosystems, fresh water, coastal coral reefs, kelp and seagrass, and marine ecosystems are all at high or very high risk of biodiversity loss and that continued and accelerating sea level rises will submerge low-lying coastal ecosystems, with devastating implications for our Pacific neighbours. Our coral reefs, our wetlands, our bushland and our unique wildlife are at risk. We cannot have meaningful protections for our environment if we do not include safeguards for air quality. The world is watching. We've put our hand up for COP31, and it is a wonderful opportunity for us to demonstrate real commitment to global climate leadership and our value and strength in the region. But meaningful reform of our environmental legislation—to protect our land, sea and air—is vital to our international reputation, as well as to our national heritage. To that end, I commend the bill to the House. 18:44 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan 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: (a) in the words of the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance, the current approach is 'largely focused on regulating the destruction of First Nations Cultural Heritage, rather than its protection'; and (b) that decision makers have prioritised the profits of gas cartels and climate wrecking projects at great cost to the world's oldest continuous culture, including the entirely legal destruction of 46,000-year-old caves at Juukan Gorge by Rio Tinto in May 2020 under outdated laws; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) deliver on the long overdue cultural heritage reforms that support and empower the traditional owners and communities to preserve their connection to their ancestors and protect their rich, historic and vibrant culture from inappropriate developments; and (b) ensure that First Nations communities have autonomy and control over decisions concerning their own heritage by guaranteeing free, prior, informed consent is a fundamental element of all EPBC decisions". The appalling destruction of the Juukan Gorge site in 2020 by Rio Tinto was all the more shocking because it was entirely legal and it was not an isolated event. First Nations cultural heritage is being destroyed, damaged, degraded and displaced every day across this country. Rio Tinto was widely condemned after it was legally allowed to blow up the 46,000-year-old caves in May 2020 under WA's outdated Aboriginal Heritage Act. The Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples were left devastated, while Rio Tinto tried to save face by overhauling its executive team and admitting it had breached traditional owners' trust. The inquiry into the destruction of Juukan Gorge recommended stronger overarching heritage legislation, co-designed with Indigenous people, that provides minimum standards for all states and territories. Australian legislation to protect First Nations cultural heritage is failing; it is just not working to support the rights of First Nations people. Many sacred First Nations sites across the country are currently under real and serious threat, like the sacred rock art at Murujuga and in Darwin, sacred forests in the Pilliga, caves along the Great Australian Bight and burial grounds and songlines in the Tiwi Islands. Rather than keeping First Nations cultural heritage safe, our laws are enabling its destruction. Current cultural heritage protection arrangements are creating real uncertainty for First Nations people and for proponents. Cultural heritage is considered way too late in assessment and approval processes, often even after those processes have been basically completed. Labor committed to strengthening cultural heritage protection laws nationally. Tragically, rather than doing that, they have so far been complicit in the destruction of cultural heritage, by prioritising the profits of the gas cartels and their climate-wrecking projects. This comes at a great cost to traditional owners and is an affront to First Nations people around the country. We are talking here about the destruction of some of the world's oldest rock art, created by members of the world's oldest continuous culture—and our laws allow it! It is legal! Labor must deliver long-overdue cultural heritage reforms that support and empower traditional owners and communities to preserve their connection to their ancestors and to protect their rich, historic and vibrant culture from inappropriate developments. We must ensure First Nations communities have autonomy and control over decisions concerning their own heritage by guaranteeing free, prior and informed consent as a fundamental element of all EPBC decisions. The fight for better protection of cultural heritage is one that all Australians can get behind. First Nations cultural heritage is Australian cultural heritage. We need real reforms to the EPBC Act that protect First Nations cultural heritage, our forests, our seas and our animals for future generations. But we have a deforestation crisis on our hands! Congratulations to us! Here in Australia, we are responsible for more deforestation than almost any other country on earth. And the Labor government wants to make it worse. Australia is a major global deforestation—shame, shame, shame—rivalled only by Brazil and Indonesia. Every year, hundreds of thousands of hectares of Australia's unique forests and bushland are bulldozed. In Queensland alone, shamefully, analysis from the Wilderness Society shows that every four minutes threatened species habitat the scale of the Sydney Harbour Bridge area is bulldozed for beef. When allowed to thrive, Australia's precious forests and bushlands provide habitat for threatened species like the koala, the greater glider and the red goshawk and serve as water filters and carbon sinks. My electorate of Ryan is absolutely blessed with large areas of bushland, beautiful creekways and wildlife, and many active volunteer environmental groups working tirelessly, in a volunteering capacity, to preserve, nurture and restore our precious natural environments. But, as usual, the Albanese government is kowtowing to vested interests and lobby groups to further trash nature protections. As usual, they're trying to rush a deal through without addressing the deforestation crisis, and it is a very serious crisis in Australia. The Albanese government must strengthen federal environmental protections and close damaging deforestation loopholes that have allowed this terrible destruction to go on for way too long. A report released just today showed that Australia's natural environment contributes half a trillion dollars to our economy annually. That's as much as the mining and finance sectors combined. But this huge contribution to our economy is under threat from climate change, of course, and other environmental damage. The report recommends that the government adopt Greens policy to spend one per cent of GDP, which is around $3.4 billion, on protecting nature so that it can still be enjoyed by generations to come. We also got shocking revelations this week about just how much environmental damage big corporations are getting away with under the current laws—yes, legally. Is that a leak I smell? A gas leak? No, sorry; it's Santos again. Their LNG storage facility in Darwin has been leaking methane for 20 years, and they've been covering it up for 20 years with the help of the very regulators who are supposed to stop this from happening. This is an environmental disaster. No-one knows how much methane has leaked from this facility, but conservative estimates say that it's the emissions equivalent of adding 8,000 cars to the road. And here's the worst part: the tank is currently sitting empty, but it's about to be used again as part of the huge climate-wrecking Barossa gas project. Even though it's empty, the environmental regulators are just not forcing Santos to replace or even repair it. They're also not forced to measure the actual scale of the leak, because that would be such an inconvenience for poor old Santos. How is this legal? It is absolutely outrageous. The Australian state is completely captured by the gas industry. By the way, Santos also gets away with paying no corporate income tax most years, and they pay no royalties on all of the offshore gas that they export overseas, reaping enormous profits for themselves. No matter how you look at it, ordinary Australians lose from this crazy deal. And I'm sorry to keep bringing bad news stories this evening, but there's another really bad news story for the environment that we just found out about this morning. Labor has just approved another coal mine—a thermal coal mine, the Ulan mine in New South Wales. This is going to allow the extraction of another 18.8 million tonnes of coal. That's around 50 million tonnes of emissions that will result from that. What an absolute joke! What a slap in the face of all Australians for this government to do that while congratulating itself, while patting itself on the back for acting on climate! And, to add further insult to injury, this is also going to clear up to 37 hectares of precious native vegetation, putting threatened species like koalas and swift parrots further at risk. Labor approved over 30 new coal and gas projects last term, and they're showing no signs of slowing down. They already approved the extension to Woodside's North West Shelf project within 15 days of winning re-election. That project will produce equivalent emissions to all of Australia's coal-fired power plants. This is criminal. The government keeps talking about believing in science. We know the consequences of climate change. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is endangering lives. Labor knows this; they're well aware of the science, but they continue to approve new coal and gas while being absolutely fully aware of the dangers of the dire consequences. Really, are these the acts of a responsible government that should be looking after all Australians? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the amendment moved by the member for Ryan and I reserve my right to speak. 18:55 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The government is committed to providing traditional owners with greater control over the management of their country. This Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 will contribute to that goal. It will allow the boards of management of jointly managed Commonwealth reserves to continue making decisions after a management plan expires, provided those decisions are consistent with the plan. This would maintain the board's decision-making ability until the new management plan comes into effect. This bill supports participation by traditional owners in matters relating to the management of their country, continuity of decision-making and consistency of governance arrangements for Commonwealth reserve management. In relation to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Ryan, the government won't be supporting the motion. This bill is a standalone and time critical to the EPBC Act. It's unconnected to broader reforms being progressed separately at this time. The government is committed to delivering environmental and cultural heritage law reforms in this term of government. The Minister for the Environment and Water is working in partnership with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance and consulting with First Nations stakeholders, conservation and environmental organisations and industry. I thank the members for their contribution and commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Ryan has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 94 18:58 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026 94

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026

Second Reading 94 18:59 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley The Albanese Labor government is aspirational, and it is a reflection of the community of Dunkley, which has got a big heart and lots of opportunity. Dunkley is home to a tight-knit community of families, children, older people, key industry workers and students. It is an emerging regional centre for many community organisations working to support those most in need, small-business owners and everything in between. I am very proud to call Dunkley my home. It's a place close to me, as I have lived and worked in the community for 30 years. Frankston, affectionately known to locals as Franga, has often borne the brunt of jokes. It has had a reputation of being a rough area because of its location at the end of the train line. Up until about 10 years ago, there was an underinvestment in the community, but that has slowly but surely changed. Dunkley is an incredible community with a can-do spirit. We're proud people. We care about each other. We help each other every day. We are demographically diverse. I saw a mix of wealth, poverty and everything in between as I doorknocked in every suburb around the electorate; 37,000 doors, 30,000 phone calls and 20,000 conversations gave me a really solid picture of who our community is and are. Talking to locals involved in community sport, service clubs and organisations highlights time and time again that we punch above our weight as a community. We are, despite our reputation, an ambitious and motivated lot of people. Indeed, there is no better symbol of our community's improvement than the recent success of our much-loved Frankston Dolphins Football Netball Club. Our community gathered when it was failing, and it was backed by the local state member Paul Edbrooke advocating to ensure the club's viability. Now our beloved Dolphins are in the qualifying finals, and the community is buzzing with excitement at the prospect of the club taking out the VFL title. Good luck to the Dolphins team, players, coaches and board. All you have achieved these past eight years has landed you in the qualifying finals this weekend. Things are changing. The Dunkley community is transitioning from a town to a city. We are dusting ourselves off as individuals and a community, standing taller and prouder as we think big and implement our vision for the future in so many different ways. In the last decade, thanks to investment from the federal and state Labor governments, we have seen record investment in the area, and it is paying dividends in improved public transport, better connectivity, the redevelopment of Chisholm Institute and the soon-to-be-completed $1 billion Peninsula University Hospital. It means our community can access world-class health services and education and make Dunkley their home without compromising their living standards. Thanks to the work of the late Peta Murphy from 2019 to 2023, $220 million worth of funding commitments have continued to materialise into some incredible facilities and services for the people of Dunkley. We've got the Jubilee Park Stadium, the Frankston district netball and basketball stadium redevelopment, Emil Madsen Reserve and the Ballam Park redevelopment. We've got the First People's Health and Wellbeing clinic, a new Medicare urgent care clinic and car parks at both Frankston and Kananook stations. Our aspirations to grow from a town to a city have been further supported through the endorsement of the Frankston Metropolitan Activity Centre. A plan for the ongoing revitalisation of Frankston was signed off by Frankston City Council and the Victorian state government earlier this year. This vision for growth and revitalisation has been supported by the federal government. These past 18 months, the Prime Minister himself has visited the community seven times, as he understands the opportunities and ambitions of our community. Since the by-election, he has supported my advocacy efforts, ensuring we build a thriving, inclusive community. This year alone, $109 million has been invested into Dunkley thanks to the Albanese Labor government. We have critical infrastructure projects: a $50 million investment into the Nepean Highway and Overton Road precinct; a $7.6 million investment into the much-deserved Bruce Park and Len Phelps reserve; $25 million for Thompsons Road upgrades; and over $1.7 million for the Frankston bowls club, which is a hub for so many older people in our community, who love to come together and bowl on the weekends and during the week. And it doesn't stop there. There's almost half a million dollars for SmackTalk, Wayne Holdsworth's work, nearly $1 million for the Brotherhood of St Laurence for their Thrive Hub and funding for the McClelland gallery. Dunkley is a hive of volunteer and community organisations that work with people from all walks of life. I have been a volunteer in the community for many years and know there are so many people who give up their evenings and weekends to run the widest range of organisations and activities that you can imagine—basketball, bowling, cricket, football, netball, scouts, soccer and tennis, not to mention art, ballet, theatre schools, swimming groups and service clubs. In Dunkley, we've got it all. And, at a time when volunteering across Australia is at its lowest, in Dunkley it's as strong as ever. In my first speech, I spoke about our volunteer community and about volunteers being the backbone of our community. To the volunteers of Dunkley: you are amazing. I love coming to visit you at your different activities to see the incredible work you do for so many that we need to support. This past six months, this government has committed $147,000 to 43 organisations through volunteer grants and stronger communities funding. We've invested $85,000 for stronger communities organisations and $62,000 for volunteer groups. Congratulations to all of you for the incredible work you have done to deliver much-needed services and support to people in Dunkley. You are local champions, and I thank you. But I'm not done there. I'm acutely aware of the significant challenges surrounding men's health nationally—predominantly in Dunkley. Dunkley, unfortunately, has higher-than-state-average suicide rates. It is imperative for me that I do what I can as a local MP to facilitate and support conversations in my community about suicide so that people understand and are able to address this issue locally. On 12 November, I will be hosting a men's health and wellbeing forum with the Special Envoy for Men's Health, Dan Repacholi. We will be inviting men, including young men, from the community, community organisations and schools to come together so we can hear their thoughts and ideas about what we have and what we're missing. We are also working towards a local Louisa Dunkley roundtable with the Minister for Social Services and the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence in early 2026. The event will provide agencies working with women and families that have lived experience an opportunity to come together and share their experiences and their solutions and to understand what more we can do as a government. For 20 years of my career, I worked with young people from all corners of this country, youth dealing with trauma who wanted to climb out of the clutches of disadvantage that comes with abuse, domestic and family violence, substance abuse, unemployment and learning difficulties. Young people are increasingly passionate and committed to social justice, equity and fairness, doing their bit for our great country. To ensure more young people have the life and employment skills and confidence to lead and navigate the complex issues we face now and into the future, we must invest in them. We need to provide spaces and places that give them hope and a sense of possibility through the provision of programs such as leadership initiatives that build them up and keep them connected, creating hope and a sense of possibility—because you can't be what you can't see. I remain committed to working with all stakeholders and community groups to deliver the best outcomes for Dunkley. I will work to offer young people opportunities to learn, to live to their potential and lead through the Dunkley Emerging Leaders Program. And while we are supporting young people to learn, grow and lead, we need to work on providing people with every chance to have a roof over their head. During the by-election and recent election, I heard so many stories that illustrated the scale of the challenges we face on housing affordability—women forced to move house with their children due to rent increases; women that are fleeing domestic and family violence; a young trainee childcare worker whose rent had increased so much that they were now selling personal items to be able to afford their next rent. These past 18 months the federal government has invested $43 billion into housing—that is an incredible investment. We have an ambitious target of building 1.2 million homes. We've got the Crisis and Transition Accommodation Program. We've got the Help to Buy scheme that will enable first homebuyers to purchase a home with just five per cent deposit. This initiative, this week, has been brought forward to commence in 2025. We have a target in Dunkley to build 33,000 homes. We have a range of organisations—with land, a vision and some money to invest—that are keen to help build more homes and to ensure that we have roofs over people's heads. It's time we bring all of these stakeholders together to work on a solution to build a mix of homes for people from all walks of life in Dunkley. Throughout my career I've worked with organisations and communities to build local, state and national-level programs that provide solutions to a social issue—or what we call 'a wicked problem'. Housing is a wicked problem. Creating solutions to this problem means bringing people with aspirations and ideas together, and that is what I intend to do in Dunkley. In November, the Minister for Housing will bring together local, state and federal government, community organisations, housing providers and investors and those with land, business plans and a commitment to invest in housing. There are significant gains to be made with regard to meeting housing supply targets. We need a mix of housing for a range of people from all walks of life. Transitional housing, veterans' housing, aged care, retirement villages, key worker housing, and social and affordable housing; the list is long and broad. As we work towards this transition, we must build a climate-resilient community and infrastructure and look after our best natural asset in Dunkley—the bay—so everyone can enjoy it. We need to be respectful of the environment and our waterways, while ensuring we maximise renewable energy projects, which will be critical in this transition for generations to come. No one level of government or organisation is going to be able to achieve the target of 33,000 homes on its own. We need all players to come together as a collective to understand the appetite and opportunities—the innovators, the investors, the community organisations and the community leaders who are committed to laying and building firm foundations—lots of them together, not in isolation. Labor's achievements in Dunkley since 2018 make me very proud, but I know that the people of Dunkley re-elected me to continue bringing to life our bold and visionary agenda. To all the residents from Chelsea to Carrum Downs, Mount Eliza to Patterson Lakes and Karingal to Langwarrin—I am committed to delivering for Dunkley, now and into the future, by being a strong local voice in Canberra. Now is the time for us to walk the talk, work together and deliver the outcomes our community needs—outcomes on the land of the Bunurong people, the land by the sea, the best place to be. 19:14 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne I rise tonight to speak on probably the most important issue for Lyne residents, certainly the one that is raised with me every day, and that is the state of roads right across the Lyne electorate. When I'm at mobile offices it is always an issue that comes up, and that was before we faced those terrible, catastrophic floods in May this year. The roads across the Lyne electorate were already in a pretty bad condition, but the floodwaters have made those roads significantly worse. It is a real challenge for all of my constituents to deal with the roads in the condition that they are in. MidCoast Council certainly copped the most impact from the floods. They have recently completed an impact assessment on the event, and I read this very detailed document about the damage to the transport network in the MidCoast Council area, which is certainly the largest LGA in the Lyne electorate: the Pacific Highway, the region's major logistics route, was flooded and closed for five days; 2985 new road defects have been identified, with a further 376 existing issues worsened; 450-plus bridges are affected and undergoing engineering assessments; two bridges require full replacement at an estimated cost of $60 million, and seven additional bridges require major repairs; there have been 23 landslips, each estimated to cost $3 million to $5 million to repair; $258 million is required for immediate transport infrastructure repairs, and $265 million estimated for resilience and betterment works to prevent future disaster related damage. I have seen both the two bridges that have been completely destroyed, the Bight and Tyrone bridges. It is unbelievable to see structures—particularly the Bight bridge, which was a significant bridge structure—left in pieces, with pieces washed down the river taking out the amenities block at Wingham Brush. Basically it has divided the town. From the same report, some of the impacts that have been noted are students needing to change schools as a result of the bridge being destroyed. This impacts on the social connectedness of students. It also impacts on enrolment numbers both positively and negatively for impacted schools, where subjects may be offered and teachers not required. The dairy truck every second day has to go via Gloucester Road from Dollys Flat to collect milk on the other side of the Manning River, impacting on transport timeframes by over 30 minutes. Postage delivery has been reduced to two days per week for those on Tinonee Road to collect mail not delivered from the postage office in Wingham. The travel time is 40 minutes each way. School bus drop-off and pick-up times have also been impacted. Tinonee Public School to Wingham typical times provided are, via Bight Bridge, 12 minutes; via Gloucester Road, 24 minutes; and, via Taree, 24 to 30 minutes. The impacts of the damage are very significant. When you talk to constituents, you just feel the challenges they are facing and the concern they have that funding is not flowing to the council and to other councils across the electorate to fix the problem. The conversations I'm aware of that councils are having are certainly not delivering the funds they need, and the issue around betterment funding is a major one. So far the New South Wales government, to my knowledge, have not responded in a positive fashion. But further afield from the MidCoast Council, I want to highlight a very recent case study of the impact of what is happening on the roads. A constituent of mine's son recently had a head-on collision. I'm just reading the text message he sent me: 'Jack had a head-on. The other car was on his side of the road between Clarence Town and Seaham a touch before 7 am on his way to work at Phoenix Park. He somehow dodged being killed, with the airbags in the pride and joy 20-year-old Jeep deploying and breaking his nose. It crumbled beautifully, and if you look closely it looks like it's bent around the long axis. Ambos cut his Angels T-shirt off, which he didn't appreciate.' We could have had one less National Party voter because of this accident. The reason the car veered was a huge pothole. A huge pothole almost caused an accident and killed a young man in his prime. Frankly, I hear these stories all the time of people having to dodge potholes effectively the size of craters. A small car can fall down them. It's a huge issue across the electorate, north to south. Other examples are on Harrington Road, a road that I drive quite often. Again, there's significant damage from the floods, when already the pavement was deteriorating. On Stroud Hill Road, a road I travel when I go to Dungog—which I actually did only on Saturday this week—there are more and more signs that council is having to put up to say, 'Potholes ahead'. These are roads where you could normally drive 80 kilometres per hour. You're slowing down to 30 kilometres per hour to ensure that you're not doing damage to your vehicle. There's also The Lakes Way. This is a major road. I know some members holiday in the wonderful electorate of Lyne, and particularly those in Sydney, who often travel up to Forster and Pacific Palms and that area, will turn off the highway onto The Lakes Way. That is now a shocking road. And it's a local road. It used to once be the Pacific Highway, but it's now under the management of MidCoast Council. One of my staff members, who lives out that way and has to travel on The Lakes Way, actually even sent me an email as her local member to let me know what the challenges are. She says: 'Driving home on The Lakes Way, typically a 100-kilometre-an-hour highway, cars had to slow to 30 kilometres an hour for prolonged periods due to severe potholes and road damage. The surface is so bad that the safest option is often to drive on the wrong side of the road or hanging partly off the road to avoid car damage.' My state colleague, the member for Myall Lakes, has recently called for the New South Wales Minns government to take action and declare The Lakes Way a state road, and I fully support that call. This is a significant piece of infrastructure that is beyond the means of MidCoast Council, a council that has a road network—I think some of the city members in this place might be interested to understand the extent of the road networks that councils to have deal with in regional and rural areas—which is 3,643 km of roads and 667 bridges. With the rate base of MidCoast Council, it is frankly beyond them to continue to maintain the roads to the standard that the community rightly expects. There's a lot of anger in the community about the state of our roads. Rates keep rising, but roads keep getting worse. It's not just MidCoast Council; Dungog Shire Council has in excess of 70 km. This is a very small council area with a very significant concessional rate base, and they struggle to continue to be able to maintain their roads. These councils are raising the issue of the Local Government Financial Assistance Grants, the grants that are provided to local governments through the NSW Local Government Grants Commission. It's become clear that the financial assistance grants are no longer fit for purpose. They no longer serve the interests of regional councils in particular. I understand, particularly from Dungog, who I have had a number of conversations with, that there are councils in this country that receive more money from their parking meters than the entire budget of Dungog Shire Council. Yet these councils get significantly more from financial assistance grants. It simply isn't fair. The grant system is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be overhauled. I will move on, in the time I have remaining—and I could talk about all of the problems on roads for a much longer period—as I want to raise the Pacific Highway. The Pacific Highway and its duplication was a great achievement of the coalition in the Howard government era. It came in response to some terrible bus crashes at Kempsey and Grafton. I did, in my first speech, acknowledge the work of the former member for Lyne, the Hon. Mark Vaile, in the work that he did to get that duplication started. But in 1996, when the work was done, there was an urgency to get the duplication completed, so the decision was taken at the time to do the four-laning and then come back to do the integrated overpasses. But, in the passage of time, the work to come back and do the overpasses has been overlooked by successive governments. It was an issue that the former member for Lyne, the Hon. Dr David Gillespie, raised in this place, and I intend to do the same because, again, this goes to the safety of residents across the Lyne electorate and visitors to the Lyne electorate. I was very pleased, during the federal election, that one election commitment I made was supported by those on the other side. It goes to planning and design work for an integrated overpass at Medowie Road and at the Bucketts Way with a service road to Italia Road. Again, the Bucketts Way itself is a major issue, with significant need for repair, but these intersections are very dangerous. We've got fast-moving traffic and a lot of load coming onto it from the catchment areas. A lot of schoolchildren now are going to Medowie private schools and Catholic schools, and they're coming out of areas in my electorate, so these two overpasses are dangerous. People say to me quite often that they hope that we do not need one more death on the Pacific Highway at these interchanges for work to be done. So I was very pleased that there was one commitment that was supported by the other side, and I followed up with the minister. I'm very grateful to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for her drop-in sessions. At the very first one she held after I was elected, I went to see her and spoke to her about the timetable for the work here at Medowie Road, Bucketts Way and Italia Road. I understand—and I'm very grateful for and acknowledge—that the Commonwealth has provisioned the funding, but we're awaiting confirmation on delivery timeframes from the New South Wales government. I hope those timeframes will be expedited. There are a number of other intersections that need to be dealt with: the Myall Way, the Lakes Way, Failford Road and two more, in particular. One is the Harrington-Coopernook interchange. In 2021, under a coalition government, we committed $48 million to get this interchange completed. What has been done? Nothing. Nothing has been done. I can tell you that the anger in the community in Harrington is extreme. There have been two ramps there for over 20 years, and yet there has been no work done, despite the fact that the money is there. There is also the Houston Mitchell Drive interchange. This is the most dangerous intersection on the Pacific Highway. It should be a priority for an interchange, but no commitment from the other side for funding has been made. I finish with this point on the Pacific Highway: under the coalition government, our commitment to funding work on the highway was 80 per cent Commonwealth, 20 per cent New South Wales government. But, under the Albanese government, it's now fifty-fifty. The Albanese government has slashed funding for work on the Pacific Highway. This is putting people's lives in danger, and I will continue, for every moment that I have a breath in this parliament, to raise the issue, because it is of such significance to the people of the Lyne electorate. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 98 ADJOURNMENT Taxation: Unions, Australian Society 98 19:29 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's time to cut out the cartel tax. What is the cartel tax? The cartel tax is the uplift we all pay when Labor governments entrench favour to union bosses. In return, unions repay graft so Labor can stay in government and keep the cartel going. This cartel hides in plain site between Labor governments, industry super and the unions, and the premiums are all paid for by us. Don't think workers get any benefit. It's largely about those at the top getting to the front of the trough. For example, the CFMEU's own reports show that, from 2019 to 2024, their officials got a 26 per cent salary increase while construction workers' real wages went backwards by nearly five per cent. The cartel tax is trickle-up economics. Unions campaign to get state and federal Labor governments elected. Federal Labor governments compel workers to pay more of their wage into a super fund that a union controls. These funds shower your super, as marketing expenses, back onto unions. State Labor governments commission projects using industry super funds to finance them and compel union workers to be employed on them at inflated prices. Taxpayers and their super funds get left with the bill, and the public and future generations get left with the debt. The cartel tax flows through the economy, increasing prices for everyone, but the few who collect it are quite happy to finance the campaigns of Labor governments to get re-elected to keep the cartel going. Based on the CFMEU's impact in Queensland, it could push up the costs of construction by 30 per cent. On the cost of new projects, on the cost of new houses for first home buyers—it doesn't matter where it occurs; the cartel tax hits. The cartel tax is corruption. To stop the cartel tax, we must remove the cartel. The cartel is led by this Prime Minister, and he must go. The authority of the prime ministership is more than being the head of government. It is a secular pulpit to rally our nation to a higher calling. I don't know where this prime minister or this government is taking our nation, but it has never felt so weakened spiritually, economically or morally. The insiders who sit on the government benches seem deaf and blind to people's concerns. Australians are rightly anxious. The world that surrounds us is becoming less certain. Those in charge seem disinterested in steering Australia on a clear course. There has never been a time when our national yearning for leadership has been so misaligned with the offering of our institutions. Australia's Prime Minister should never hesitate to say that they love our country or its people; that we can look to our past with open eyes, be proud of our Indigenous heritage and our European settlement, acknowledge blemishes of the past as part of a continuing journey of improvement, and be proud of our achievements; or that our modern nation was founded in a cultural faith worth fighting for if we're to have a cohesive future. Our prime minister should thread a national story that new Australians want to integrate into and that celebrates us as a people. Our story must believe that individuality depends on a unifying culture based on a commitment to dignity and respect. The Prime Minister should start by believing in us, not by bullying us. When Australians exercise their voice, he should listen, not sneer at them with his how-dare-you quiver in his lip. He should be respecting that every generation has wanted sustainable migration to conserve a decent standard of living for citizens today and for generations to come. It is not too much for Australians to want our government to be in control but not our master. As our security environment deteriorates, as our energy base declines, as our social cohesion fades and as households fall further behind, now is a time that compels leadership, and our prime minister should be calling us to a common future. Now is a time that Australia needs leaders who rally our nation to cock our heads higher, look to the horizon and call us as one people to a common destiny. It has become clear to me that neither our prime minister nor his government will provide this leadership. He is more comfortable getting Australians to turn on each other than to each other. That is why the defeat of this government is no longer a political imperative; it is a moral one. It can be done. It must be done. It will be done. Homelessness, Domestic and Family Violence 99 19:34 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner I rise to shine a light on an issue that continues to impact thousands of Australians: homelessness, particularly among women and young people. During Homelessness Week, I had the privilege of attending the Lady Musgrave Trust annual homelessness forum. The forum had one shared goal—ending women's homelessness. The forum was not only informative; it was deeply moving. We heard from women with lived experience, service providers on the ground and sector experts confronting the harsh reality that homelessness is not just sleeping rough. For many women, it means couch surfing, staying in unsafe relationships or living out of their cars, often with children in tow. The Lady Musgrave Trust is one of Queensland's oldest charities, and it continues to lead the way. For nearly 140 years, they've supported women and young people who are at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Their work is practical and life changing, from providing safe accommodation and tenancy support to publishing the Handy Guide ofWomen's Support Services, which is also available online, connecting vulnerable women to essential services. I thank them for their tireless work. Homelessness is not inevitable; it is the result of compounding issues such as domestic and family violence, rental insecurity, poverty and a lack of affordable housing. While organisations like the Lady Musgrave Trust are doing truly exceptional work, they cannot do it alone. Governments at all levels must step up with long-term investment in social and affordable housing, greater support for frontline services and policies that prevent homelessness before it begins. I'm proud of the work this Labor government is doing to that end. We're delivering real outcomes in Bonner. Since coming to government, 391 people in Bonner have bought their first home, thanks to Labor's Home Guarantee Scheme. We've delivered rent relief through back-to-back increases in Commonwealth rent assistance—an increase of nearly 50 per cent. Today, over 6,700 people in Bonner receive this support. We're funding more homes for women and children fleeing violence, in Wynnum, Manly and Mount Gravatt. Just this year, 24 new homes are being delivered through the Albanese government's crisis support accommodation programs. We're supporting the construction workforce, too, with over 400 construction apprentices in Bonner benefiting from the incentive payments. Labor's key apprenticeship program also offers up to $10,000 for those starting careers in housing construction or clean energy. But homelessness and housing security are only part of the broader issue. Domestic and family violence continues to devastate lives across Australia. I want to take a moment to recognise the tireless efforts of a local group in my electorate, the Rotary Club of Wynnum and Manly, who are making a meaningful difference in this space. Every Friday morning, every week, Rotary members gather not just for coffee but for a cause. Their weekly catch-ups are part of an ongoing commitment to raise awareness, in my local community, of domestic violence—a quiet, consistent and powerful act of service. Domestic violence does not discriminate. It happens in every postcode, including beautiful bayside suburbs like Wynnum and Manly. Its effects are long lasting, and addressing it requires action from governments through to grassroots organisations. The Rotary Club of Wynnum and Manly understands this. Their visible and vocal presence reminds our community that domestic violence is not a private issue; it's a community one. I thank every member of their club for their unwavering commitment. Their simple, quiet acts of solidarity speak volumes. Raising awareness of domestic and family violence must also go beyond a single month or campaign. That's why I was proud of Labor's announcement this week to stop the social security system being weaponised against women experiencing violence. The social security system, like many government systems, can be complex and, sadly, at times manipulated by perpetrators. That's why the Albanese Labor government is reforming the special circumstances debt waiver, giving Services Australia the power to waive debts incurred as a result of domestic and family violence. These reforms build on the already agreed National Cabinet work, including a comprehensive audit of Commonwealth systems to ensure they cannot be used to harm victims-survivors. As a former domestic violence lawyer, I have seen too many women leave relationships, particularly where there has been financial abuse or coercion and controlling behaviours, only to later discover debts they didn't even know existed. The reforms introduced this week are a vital first step in putting control back into the hands of victims-survivors and ensuring our system supports safety and dignity. Our community cannot tackle domestic violence or homelessness alone, but together, through strong policy, comprehensive and compassionate leadership and grassroots commitment, we can make a difference. Gambling 100 19:39 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher We all arrive in this place because we want to make a difference. We come in here as one of 150 members of parliament, and we strive to make our country a better place. I've advocated for a vast range of issues since I arrived here in 2016, but one particular issue that I'm proud to have acted on—in fact, to have fought against—is the alarmingly high rate of gambling addiction. Gambling addiction is a curse in Australia. The economic toll of gambling is equally staggering. Australians are losing more than $25 billion a year to gambling, leading the world in per capita losses. The everyday Australian knows this. We're addicted to gambling, whether it be in person or online, and it's only getting worse. Australian governments can act to stop this addiction and to end the curse. Curiously, we have a history of governments not acting strongly enough. I'm proud to have led the way in the fight against gambling in my own electorate of Fisher. I fought against the building of a casino on the Sunshine Coast, and I'm very proud to have led the finally victorious battle. It was soon after my election that there was a proposal to allow the construction of a casino on the Sunshine Coast. I began a petition in 2017, calling on the Sunshine Coast Council, which owns the CBD site where it was going to be built. The Sunshine Coast Daily agreed that the coast was no place for a casino. I held many listening posts all over my electorate and received overwhelming, direct feedback from local residents stating that they did not want to see a casino on the Sunshine Coast. This, along with the great many individual conversations I had with local residents on the subject, convinced me that the overwhelming majority of people who live on the coast opposed this threatened casino development and they wanted me to fight to do whatever I could to prevent it going ahead. As we know from other Australian cities with a casino, it would have almost absolutely attracted organised crime gangs, who use casinos to launder money, and would have led to increased family breakdowns. There are numerous studies that look at the impact of gambling, and all of them report that gambling is a huge, troubling and growing problem. Last week I was able to attend an important roundtable on gambling harm. The roundtable demonstrated once again the importance of this issue, especially the worrying connection between sport and gambling. It breaks my heart—Mr Speaker, you're about the same vintage as me. When we were kids, we'd exchange football cards. We had our favourite players. We'd know who'd won. We'd know who was the good, the great or the not-so-great. But kids these days seem to be incapable of distinguishing gambling from sport. That really upsets me because it demonstrates to me and so many other people that these gambling companies have infiltrated the lives of our children such that they cannot differentiate between sport and gambling. I think that that is a travesty. According to polling conducted by the Alliance for Gambling Reform—and I want to send a shout-out to the Reverend Tim Costello; you are an absolute legend—more than 70 per cent of Australians believe there is too much gambling advertising in sport and want it to be banned. After almost every NRL or AFL grand final, I get emails from parents saying, 'When are you guys going to ban gambling ads?' Online gambling ads are relentless, whether you're watching your favourite team play on TV, mindlessly scrolling through social media or even trying to scan an important document. On what you thought was a credible app, up come flashy, high-octane gambling ads that are almost impossible to skip. 'You bet big, you win big,' yadda, yadda, yadda. We have to do more to protect, particularly, young children from gambling. I did a report in this place in 2020, Protecting the age of innocence. We've got to stop kids from gambling before they turn 18. Middle East 101 19:44 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Let me state this clearly and unambiguously at the start of this contribution: Hamas is a terrorist organisation; what it did on 7 October 2023 was an abomination; Hamas should be held to account for its actions; and all Israelis taken hostage by Hamas must be released immediately. I also want to state clearly and unambiguously that innocent Palestinians should be protected; they should not be targeted by actions in Gaza. I made comments like this in this House back in October 2023, and I've expressed similarly repeatedly since the horrific events of October 7. Since then, I've stressed we should be conscious of the humanity of others. My stance has been utterly constant and steadfast, but it's gotten stronger and stronger as I've witnessed the suffering of the innocent and the starvation of kids. Starvation shouldn't be used as a weapon against civilians. Civilians, aid workers and journalists should be off limits. It's just wrong, and we can't turn away from that. This has remained the case, even as the supporters of a foreign government here and abroad have consistently sought to deny, deflect or outright misrepresent my position and those who share my views about preserving and protecting innocent life. They do that because it's easier than confronting the morally challenging reality that 63,000 Palestinians have been killed as a result of the Netanyahu government actions since October 2023. Nearly 70 per cent of those killed are women and children, and there are more child amputees and orphans in Gaza per capita than anywhere else in the world. I think it's important for the parliament to note that the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, believes it's plausible that the acts of the Netanyahu government could amount to genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide requires countries, including ours, to take steps to prevent genocide, not just punish it. The Netanyahu government is planning to seize and control entirely Gaza city. It's also mobilising recruits to join the IDF, and there's resistance to this from within Israel itself. In these circumstances, it's not unrealistic to expect that dual nationals from our country may be called to serve in the IDF. We should be sending a clear message—please don't join. Some dual nationals have already left Australia to join the IDF, prompting concerns in civil society. For example, three months ago, the Australian Centre for International Justice wrote to the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs, plus the AFP, asking that we send unambiguous public warnings about the legal implications of joining IDF actions in Gaza. The ACIJ emphasised it was troubled by statements from Netanyahu government officials highlighting an intent to pursue the systemic and widespread transfer and deportation of Gazans from territory in which they lawfully live. Why is that an issue? It's a crime against humanity, specifically the deportation or forcible transfer of population as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and it's an offence under our own Criminal Code Act. We don't need Australians placed in a position where they witness, abet or participate in what will likely be deemed a genocide. I'm also concerned about the impact of trauma on those returning after witnessing what they would have seen in Gaza. I note, in the Australian today, ANU professor Donald Rothwell stated: Because it is such a high-level political crime, I would find it most unlikely … Individual soldiers who are members of the IDF could rarely be held responsible individually for genocide. However, a counterweight to this position is the ACIJ view that any Australian participating in action in Gaza risks being held liable via what they state are a number of modes of liability, including as direct perpetrators, as well as aiding and abetting through the provision of logistical, material or operational support. Indeed, they highlight that the International Criminal Court Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia previously considered even lower ranking individual soldiers can potentially be held responsible for the crime against humanity of forcible transfer, notwithstanding any attempt at utilising superior orders defence. I urge our government to send a clear statement surrounding the risks of participating in IDF actions in Gaza. I also urge our government to consider reforming our laws to prevent dual nationals joining a foreign force in cases where a body with the weight of the ICJ believes plausible genocide could be occurring in a part of the world where a foreign force is operating. Both of these steps are actions we can or begin to take right now. They're sensible, measured steps that will be welcomed by fair minded people who believe we should do everything we possibly can to end the tragedy we witnessed for far too long. Grey Electorate: Community Events, Rural and Regional Health Services 101 19:49 Mr 315434 Grey VENNING () (): September is the best month of the year. It's finals time. From football and netball to soccer, hockey and golf, this is the business end of the season, and everyone wants the chocolates. To players, coaches, umpires, trainers, team managers, timekeepers and supporters: this is your month, and we reward you after months of hard work and commitment. Behind every club stands an army of volunteers. Running a sports club takes commitment and countless hours from canteen helpers, bar operators, gatekeepers, committee members and sponsors. There is a role for everyone who wants to contribute. This season, I've enjoyed lending a hand with my local footy club. I played a couple of games when not travelling and even managed not to burn the chips at the Port Pirie netball courts. I look forward to continuing to support these clubs now and into future. To all teams heading into the finals: I wish you the very best of luck. To every volunteer: thank you for everything you do to keep our clubs strong and our regional committees connected. Next week marks the return of the Yorke Peninsula Field Days, a cornerstone of agricultural excellence and innovation. This three-day event is the oldest of its kind in Australia, and it has grown to be the largest in the Southern Hemisphere—a remarkable achievement. I am honoured to officially open this year's event. I'll be hosting a stall alongside more than 600 exhibitors, and I look forward to hearing directly from constituents about the issues that matter most to them. Events of this scale are only possible thanks to volunteers. More than 400 local volunteers have worked tirelessly to bring the field days together. I especially want to thank President Greg Stevens, whose leadership and dedication have been outstanding, securing 680 grand for a new function centre. This year's field days are a celebration of not just agricultural excellence but also the resilience of our regional communities, which are still battling drought conditions and now facing further pressure from Labor's superannuation tax on farmland and the ute tax. We recently held a Vietnam Veterans' Day event, marking 50 years since the end of the war. I was proud to join more than 700 locals and veterans in Edithburgh for the official opening of the Vietnam War Memorial Walk. It was a moving occasion. We even had a Vietnam-era Huey helicopter there, landing on the grass. It's such an iconic noise. We were also joined by special guests General the Hon. Sir Peter Cosgrove and Australian War Memorial Director Matt Anderson. The memorial walk itself is a remarkable community achievement. It was the idea of Vietnam vet and local Roger Hogben, who, together with John Edwards, worked tirelessly to make this a reality. Roger is a man you cannot say no to. Their passion and persistence has delivered something truly special for the Yorke Peninsula, something we can be proud of. The 3.7 kilometre long coastal trail between Coobowie and Edithburgh features 29 laser-cut signs, bench seats and, most importantly, recognition of every single unit that served in Vietnam. This is the first war memorial in Australia to do so, making it a project of national importance as well as local pride. I rise to raise a matter that has been consistently pursued by the hardworking member for Frome, Penny Pratt, which is the urgent need to upgrade regional helipads across South Australia. In 2022, the Liberals committed to upgrading these helipads in their second term, to meet CASA requirements. Let's be clear. This was not a Labor initiative. Once elected, Penny Pratt rightly called on the Labor government to match the commitment. Yet, for two years, nothing has happened. Only early last year did Labor finally announce $23 million to upgrade the helipads, promising completion by the end of this year. But the reality has been far from that promise. We've seen high fences installed, only to be lowered against because they make take-offs unsafe. How does that happen? It was a costly engineering blunder with a true expense still unknown. We've seen ongoing uncertainty with air ambulance contracts, with changes made but little real progress on the ground. As for the consequences, a football game in Balaklava had to be stopped for an emergency helicopter landing because the local helipad was not operational, and that was not the first time. Delays have become the norm. Communities have been left waiting for vital infrastructure that underpins timely emergency retrievals and life-saving medical care. In my electorate, only three helipads are currently in operation. Sites at Clare, Port Pirie and Port Broughton and others across the state remain idle. Every delay erodes the confidence of rural South Australians who depend on these services. They deserve better than promises unmet and timelines ignored. Parents and Carers, Canberra Electorate: Karinya House 102 19:55 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra ():  In a few weeks I am due to welcome a new baby into this world. To be a mother is something I am deeply thankful for. Preparing for the birth of a baby brings a profound sense of both privilege and responsibility; a new life, a new human story, is about to begin with you, for better or worse. Mothers desperately want to give their babies the very best start—the best foundation—that they can for that life. As an expectant mother, I am thankful to have a supportive and loving partner and family around me, to have a secure roof over my head and not to worry about where our next meal will come from or about providing the things I need for this baby or my other children. Bu the reality is that, for so many mothers in our community, this is not the case. Karinya House is an inspiring Canberra organisation that believes no woman should navigate parenting alone. For over 27 years they have provided safety, accommodation, support and community to thousands of women impacted by violence, homelessness and disadvantage while pregnant or parenting. They are a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service and the only service of their kind specifically for pregnant women, their babies and young children in our region. I want to begin by acknowledging the work of their CEO, Lavinia Tyrrel, and their whole team, including the volunteers who create this peaceful home, as Karinya is for the women there and their families. This September they will hold a major new fundraising initiative, the Walk for Hope, with all funds raised going to Karinya House to directly support pregnant and parenting women in crisis. I am proud to have signed up as a community champion for the walk, and I encourage anyone who is able to do so to support this wonderful organisation. I want to acknowledge the other around 20 champions—there are too many to name—and their generous commitments. It's an honour to join them. The walk will be held on 14 September and is open to our entire community. The aim of the Walk for Hope is not just to raise the much-needed money for Karinya House's vital work but also to walk alongside pregnant women and new mothers as a community. Many will be walking with weighted vests to represent the weight of a pregnancy—I won't be doing that! We often use the phrase these days, 'It takes a village,' and this is about putting meaning to that. As Karinya's CEO, Lavinia Tyrrel, has said: …there's no place for disadvantage for children, pregnant women and women raising children in Canberra. I hope this is a statement that we can all agree with, for women not only here in Canberra but all around our country. Karinya House faces a waiting list of women needing support. It is important we focus not just on supporting incredibly important work like what they do but also help prevent women from facing violence, poverty and disadvantage in the first place. I, like many in this place, am here in parliament because I believe that government has a role in preventing poverty and disadvantage. The Albanese Labor government has focused on building an inclusive Australia where no-one is left behind or held back. I am proud of our commitment to ending violence against women and children in a generation and of the extensive and multifaceted policies we are pursuing to support that. I am particularly proud that we restored single parenting payments to sole parents up until their child is 14, and I am proud of the substantial increases to rent assistance we have delivered. Currently, however, the key payment for a single woman who is unemployed and not yet a mother—including if she is pregnant—is the JobSeeker payment, which is currently around $390 per week. If the recipient is under 21, they receive the lower youth allowance, which is currently around $332 per week. I note that a single person paying $75 per week in rent will be eligible for rent assistance up to a maximum of $106 per week but only where their weekly rent is $216 or more. Finding or maintaining a job while pregnant can obviously be challenging, especially when someone is also dealing with other complex circumstances, like family and domestic violence. I think it is easy to see how homelessness becomes a real possibility for someone trying to survive on that income. I think if we as a society agree that there is no place for disadvantage for pregnant women and newborn babies—that there is more that we can do to make sure these women don't fall into poverty and homelessness—I know many in my community would support this. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 103 NOTICES Presentation 103

Wednesday, 3 September 2025

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 104 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Mount Barker Aquatic and Leisure Centre, South Australian Living Artists Festival 104 09:30 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Last Friday was a big celebration in my community. We had the official opening of the new Mount Barker Aquatic and Leisure Centre. This replaces our old mountain pool that was built in 1956 and was still in yards. I can tell you from personal experience that our old pool was freezing cold. I was chatting with Jock and he was telling me that, even before our old pool was built, people used to just swim in the creek, and they even used to have celebrations in the creek. But we have a new pool. This has come from the hard work of my whole community—real community advocacy. There are a few people I would really like to acknowledge: first of all, South Australian Independent MP Dan Cregan, the member for Kavel. Dan Cregan and I have worked tirelessly for years to make this happen. There was $15 million contributed by the federal government; this has been going so long that that was contributed back in 2018-19. I would also like to acknowledge Mount Barker District Council—both the current mayor, David Leach, and the former mayor, Ann Ferguson, who worked tirelessly to make this happen. This new pool not only has 25-metre swim lanes and an indoor pool for us— in the Adelaide Hills it's freezing, so we desperately needed an indoor pool—but also has much-needed hydrotherapy and a fantastic place for children. So this will be a fantastic facility for all of us for decades to come. I'd also like to acknowledge SALA. SALA is a wonderful festival that happens all throughout South Australia in the month of August. It's the South Australian Living Artists Festival, with more than 700 events and thousands of artists—actually, more than 9,000 artists. It started in 1998, and it's always in the month of August. I'd like to acknowledge one particular event I went to. I went to quite a few SALA events in my community, but there was one that I opened, and that was the Season's Bounty art exhibition at Bethany Hall in Willunga. It really recognised and celebrated the wonderful produce that we create in Mayo. It was wonderful to see so many artists. It's my birthday in August, so I actually bought myself a beautiful little birthday present: some chickens, a beautiful piece of chicken—not the real thing; I lost those to foxes. It's just wonderful to have this platform for visual artists right across the South Australian community. Congratulations to all of the artists that exhibited right across South Australia with SALA. It's a very exciting exhibition. For those who missed the SALA exhibition, please make sure that you get along to SALA. There are schools and different community groups. There's something for everyone. Migration 104 09:33 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Last weekend, a handful of speakers stood on the steps of our cities and shouted slogans against immigration. Their words weren't new. Some echoed the racist cries that have haunted Australia since the days when the White Australia policy was law. But their vision of a closed, fearful country isn't the Australia we live in today, because modern Australia is a multicultural success story. Nearly one in two Australians either was born overseas or had a parent who was. My wife was born overseas, so that includes our three children. Australia is home to hundreds of ancestries and we speak hundreds of languages in our homes. Surveys show that nine out of 10 Australians believe multiculturalism is good for Australia. Think of Frank Lowy, who arrived as a refugee from Hungary and went on to co-found Westfield; Tan Le, who came as a Vietnamese boat person at age four and is today a global leader in neurotechnology; Anh Do, who fled war-torn Vietnam and became one of Australia's best-loved writers; or astrophysicist Brian Schmidt, who built a global team to win a Nobel prize. Consider sport. At the very moment anti-immigration rallies were taking place, the Sydney Marathon was being won by Ethiopia's Hailemaryam Kiros, who ran the fastest marathon ever on Australian soil, and Sifan Hassan of the Netherlands. As we waited in the starting pen I chatted with athletes from India, Spain and the UK. The biggest cheer was for Kenya's Eliud Kipchoge. My friend Arsenio Balisacan, a senior official in the Philippines government, was one of the many international runners who joined the race. That's what it means to be a World Marathon Major. You welcome people from around the world. This weekend also saw the Canberra Raiders become NRL minor premiers for the first time in 35 years. The Raiders' line-up includes New-Zealand-born Josh Papalii, English-born Morgan Smithies and Samoan-born Ata Mariota. The Green Machine are stronger because they draw on migrant talent. Across the economy migrants are on average younger and more likely to start a business than Australian-born people are. They pay more in taxes than they draw in benefits. Migrants aren't just mouths to feed but muscles to build and minds to inspire. Our universities thrive because international researchers bring ideas and energy. Our hospitals and aged-care centres depend on migrant workers who care for our most vulnerable. So, when the voices of hate call for exclusion, we must answer with evidence and with pride: pride for an Australia where people from around the world come together to build something bigger than themselves, pride in a multicultural nation that's more open, more dynamic and more generous than those who peddle fear will ever understand. That's the real story of Australian immigration—not division but unity, not weakness but strength. E-Bikes 105 09:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I recently co-hosted a community forum with the NSW member for Pittwater, Jacqui Scruby, to discuss the evolving use of e-bikes on the northern beaches of Sydney. E-bikes are a fun and clean way to get around, and their use in the electorate of Mackellar has exploded. But with this rise in popularity has come a rise in concern about safety for both riders and pedestrians. We heard directly from young riders, parents, police, pedestrians, e-bike retailers, transport experts, trauma physicians and school principals about the growing use of e-bikes. A 14-year-old local, Tilly, shared how her e-bike has given her independence, allowing her to explore her community, connect with friends and get to school on time. This sentiment was echoed in a Northern Beaches Council youth survey which found that, for young people aged 12 to 17, transport is their second-most-important issue. We also heard from pedestrians who are fearful for their safety on footpaths. This is particularly acute for people with hearing and vision impairments. We heard from trauma surgeons who spoke of the rise in critical injuries: head injuries, spinal trauma and fractures. We heard from parents who are confused about what is legal and what is not, and we heard from local police who are grappling with enforcement challenges. Pedestrians are fearful of being hit by speeding bikes, riders are fearful of being hit by a car, and drivers are fearful of hitting a rider. I do not want to see any fatalities or serious injuries in Mackellar on my watch. All levels of government, together with community, need to step up to make e-bikes safe for the whole community. At the federal level the problem is that currently e-bikes do not have to meet any minimum safety or quality standards when being imported into the country. This has led to an explosion in the number of bikes that can be easily modified to go at speeds well above 50 kilometres an hour—without any peddling at all. This makes them more motorbike than bicycle. We also heard from a local bike retailer who has found that, when servicing e-bikes, around 80 per cent of bikes have been modified in this way to exceed legal speed limits. A legal e-bike is one where the electric motor only assists the rider when they are pedalling and cuts out at 25 kilometres an hour. That's why this week I introduced the Road Vehicle Standards Amendment (Safer E-Bikes) Bill 2025, which would legislate a national standard for the importation of e-bikes, ensuring that only compliant, safe devices enter the country. E-bikes are a clean, accessible and empowering form of transport, but we must act now to make sure they are safe for both riders and pedestrians alike. Housing, Renewable Energy 105 09:39 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The Albanese government is delivering the largest investment in new affordable housing since the postwar housing boom. As part of that work, we're supporting priority social and community housing projects across Fremantle, East Fremantle and Cockburn, in my electorate, through the Social Housing Accelerator. That includes projects in White Gum Valley, Treeby, Hamilton Hill, Fremantle, North Coogee, and Coolbellup. This new housing is being complemented by a number of other key measures. For example, we've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by more than 40 per cent, we've introduced a new Commonwealth shared-equity scheme and we've provided strong incentives through the build-to-rent program and the expanded five per cent home deposit scheme for first home buyers, which will save thousands of dollars for those seeking to buy a new home. We know the availability of affordable housing has reached crisis levels, and that's why we've provided $43 billion in record funding across a range of programs to deliver more dedicated social and community housing and more support for renters and first home buyers. The Albanese Labor government knows that household solar energy and battery storage is also making a big difference to Australia's clean energy transition, and we're leading that transition because it represents Australia's strongest and most sustainable future. We've already seen a 45 per cent increase in renewable energy generation since the election of the Albanese government, and of course about half of Australia's renewable energy actually now comes from home solar. At the beginning of the Rudd Labor government, back in 2007, only one in 1,000 homes had solar PV. But, thanks to the sustained effort of two Labor governments, now one in three Australian homes benefit from home solar, and in WA it is two in five homes. Australia has become the world leader in distributed solar energy, and now we're working to make sure that generation is matched with battery storage so we can get the maximum benefit from our abundant sunshine. Our Cheaper Home Batteries Program has already seen more than 40,000 batteries installed, and there are nearly 10,000 registrations under the WA government's battery rebate scheme, which operates alongside our 30 per cent subsidy. The other day I was rapt to deliver on an election commitment to provide a community battery in Coogee, in my electorate. It is one of five new community batteries in WA, adding to the 13 that have already been installed. In March I was glad to join the minister for energy in announcing four new big batteries that will come online by 2027 to serve Perth and the south-west. That careful planning and investment, working with the Cook WA Labor government, has made WA the leading large battery jurisdiction in Australia and will support Western Australia becoming the first state to move out of coal-fired power generation. That work is key to reducing emissions as we tackle dangerous climate change and key to creating a cheaper, cleaner and more self-sufficient energy system as Australia achieves our potential to be a renewable energy superpower. Sandringham Primary School, Goldstein Electorate: Sport 106 09:42 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein From small beginnings, Sandringham Primary School recently celebrated its 170th anniversary in August. Originally a Church of England school located in what was then known as Gipsy Village, it started in 1855 with just 11 boys and nine girls. With the evolution of public education, it became a state school in 1875, and in 1911 it exchanged flags with the Sandringham school back in merry old England. After the Second World War it grew to 800 students, but it's closer to 500 now. In early 2020 and coinciding with the arrival of a new principal, most of the school sadly fell victim to arson. I remember the day well because, like many other community members, I helped move furniture to temporary facilities so students didn't have an interrupted education—though COVID took care of that. Now rebuilt, on 8 August the community held a birthday party to celebrate the 170th anniversary, which included a history of the school, performances, cake and the opening of a time capsule by Principal Louise Neave. It was a wonderful celebration connecting the school's long history with the present, with a lot of singing, more cake and a lot of high fives from students. Happy 170th, Sandy primary. On Saturday at Hurlingham Park in Brighton East, the dads of the Brighton Beach Primary School Boomers, captained by Jay Pavey and Hugh O'Brien, valiantly took on the dads of the Brighton Primary School Lions, captained by David Mason and Nik Kemp, in an epic footy contest that tested both teams. The annual contest, which has seen a roundabout of winners in different years, saw the Brighton primary Lions claim victory against the Boomers. It was also a day of friendly rivalry and fun between friends and families and over a few bottles of bubbles on the sideline—I saw a few! It was also an important day to remember the importance of physical activity for us blokes who have to balance busy family and professional lives. We also saw, at Williams Street Reserve in Brighton, the dads of St Finbar's Primary School, captained by James Adams, take on the dads of St Joan of Arc School, captained by Troy Legudui, in their annual grudge match of physical prowess and performance to see who could claim victory on the ground. This year St Joan of Arc reigned supreme on a tough ground surrounded by hundreds of families and supporters, all keen to cheer the dads on in their varying degrees of fitness. It was played in good spirits, and it was moving to watch St Joan of Arc run onto the ground supporting the brother of one of their former teammates who lost their life this week. Of course, it's a reminder of the importance not just of physical health but also of the benefits to mental health of physical exercise. It's particularly important for men as they enter their 40s and 50s. Just remember: if you need help, don't be afraid to ask for help, because it's important to take care of your physical as well as your mental wellbeing throughout all stages of your life. Racism 106 09:45 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne What we witnessed recently in Melbourne and across Australia was disgraceful. These marches led by neo-Nazis and anti-immigration extremists were a shameful moment for our city and our nation. Like many in my electorate, I was sickened when black-clad agitators descended on Camp Sovereignty, a peaceful First Nations cultural and political gathering place created to honour Aboriginal resistance and survival. The irony is blunt. Australia's first people were expressing culture while thugs pretended to march for Australia, causing on the violence. This was not a protest; this was an attack. They were trying to split our community apart, shut down voices that deserve respect and bring back hurt for people who have already been through too much. This is not the city I know. I know a Melbourne that is a city of welcome; a place where people from all backgrounds live side by side, learn from each other and share their stories; a place where neighbours help one another no matter where they come from or what language they speak. Even though what we have seen this last weekend has shocked us, we cannot let it define us. We can't let hate and division win. The answer to hate isn't more hate; it's unity. It's people standing side by side and saying racism, fascism and violence are not welcome here. We all must stand up to hate, raise our voices, stand together with our neighbours and show pride in who we are as a community. Showing strength in the face of bullying shows us a path forward where we stand together, speak with one voice and make it clear that hate will never win in Australia. We know what happened on the weekend was shameful, but how we respond matters even more. The truth is that Australians stand up again and again to say: 'We will not accept racism. We will not let extremists take over our streets.' Saying no to hate matters, but what is more powerful is when we back up that 'no' with what we do in our daily lives. We must see it in our schools, we must see it in our workplaces and we must see it in our neighbourhoods. That is how we show unity not only in speeches here but in the choices we must make by living with respect and fairness. Hate is not welcome here. Fadden Electorate: Community Events 107 09:48 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden This morning I rise to pay credit to the wonderful Coomera Cubs Baseball Club. I visited them recently to hand over a cheque for a $3½ thousand volunteer grant that is well deserved. This club is doing an incredible job at the northern end of the Gold Coast, and full credit to President Nick Day, Vice-President Andrew White, Head Coach Case Bunting and all of their team of trainers and volunteers. They've been going on the northern Gold Coast for nearly 20 years and, on the weekend, they took out three of the 2025 winter series grand finals—the majors, the minors and the masters—so they are doing extremely well. You go out there, and this place looks immaculate. Its professional and it's giving our kids a wonderful opportunity to play baseball. I recently visited the Northern Gold Coast Netball Association and caught up with Vice-President Melissa Roberts. Of course, I should give a shout-out to President Anne Blom as well. This is one of the largest netball associations on the Gold Coast, and I was very pleased to present them with a $3½ thousand volunteer grant to help them strengthen their programs and help with officiating by volunteers. Their twilight season starts on 9 October and caters for players aged nine to 14 years old, providing a social netball experience. These wonderful volunteers at all of the clubs, helping with playing and training, have a fantastic spirit, and full credit goes to the association for doing such a wonderful job for our young netballers. The Southport Labrador Cricket Club is one of the icons of the northern Gold Coast, and the mighty Tigers have roots in the Gold Coast back to 1883. They play out of Morrie Glasman Oval at Arundel, which is a wonderful venue, and they recently had their AGM in August. Congratulations to continuing President Dean Johnson, Vice-President Don Gumm, Junior Vice-President Joel Smith, Secretary Terry Blacktopp, Treasurer Sherelle Gumm and the members of the general committee. I visited them recently to present them with a cheque for $3,000 to assist with the automation of their scoring system onto iPads, which, of course, will make things a lot easier for those hardworking volunteers. The scores will be uploaded online straightaway. One of the wonderful local clubs in the electorate of Fadden is the Paradise Point Sailing Club, and I recently caught up with President John Murphy to present him with a $3,000 cheque for training and essential equipment to help their volunteers. Recently they held their famous midwinter cup in August, and a big shout-out goes to Max Latt, who took out the John Murphy perpetual cup, and to Jack, Joshua and Leila, who also won that day. South Australia: Italian Community 107 09:51 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Last year marked the 70th anniversary of the St Francis of Assisi Catholic Community of Newton and the important role of the Capuchin friars in the parish throughout those years. The history and growth of the parish was recorded in a 320-page commemorative book published in 2024, titled 70 Years: A Celebration of Faith, Mission and Fraternity. On 26 July, the Campania Sports and Social Club in Modbury celebrated its 50th anniversary with a sold-out gala dinner, at which the member for Sturt and I were privileged to attend. Later this month, on 28 September, the annual religious celebration of the Madonna Di Montevergine held at the St Francis of Assisi Catholic centre—possibly the largest religious event of its type in Australia—marks its 70th anniversary. At Adelaide's Glynde Corner proudly stands an award-winning landmark stone monument as a symbol and reminder of South Australia's migration story. The common thread and primary driver of the examples I've just cited have been the Italian migrants from the Campania region of Italy, who came to Australia in the 1950s and 1960s and settled predominantly in the eastern and northern suburbs of Adelaide. They came with very meagre possessions but with a will to succeed in the land of opportunity, and succeed they did. Today Italian Australians of Campania origin can be found in successful businesses, professions, academia, trades, food production, politics, entertainments, sports—in nearly every sector of South Australian life. But they did not just succeed for themselves; they made a real difference to life in South Australia. For example, their community facilities at the Campania club at Modbury, San Giorgio La Molara Club at Payneham, Altavilla Club at Beulah Park and Molinara club at Holden Hill are regularly used by the wider community. In 2003, a book was published titled I Campani in South Australia, documenting their extensive history and contribution to South Australia. At the recent 50th anniversary celebration of the Campania club, the large number of dignitaries—which included Governor of South Australia, Her Excellency Frances Adamson; Premier Peter Malinauskas; and Italian consul Ernesto Pianelli, with congratulatory messages from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Senator Francesco Giacobbe from Italy—highlighted the deserved recognition of the migrants from Campania in South Australia. The Campania club, initially developed through the drive of John Di Fede and some 14 other founding members and now led by a next generation club president Ross De Ieso, today stands as a visual example of the presence, determination and influence of the people who came from Campania. My thanks to all of them for all they have done. They have so much to be proud of. Bribie Island and Caboolture Seniors Expo 108 09:54 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise today to remind all those seniors in my electorate of Longman that the very popular seniors expo that I've held since I was first elected in 2019 is fast approaching. This year these events will be held on Tuesday 23 September at St Columban's College in Caboolture and Thursday 25 September at Banksia Beach State School on beautiful Bribie Island. These expos are more than just events; they are vibrant, welcoming community gatherings that reflect the appreciation and care we have for our seniors in Longman, and they have been well attended in the past. One of the reasons I run these events is that I understand that many seniors struggle with computer literacy. They were raised in a time when people dealt with other people face-to-face and not through a keyboard or electronic device. By having stores manned by actual people—a new concept, I know!—they can ask questions and, hopefully, get answers to questions they may struggle to find in the online maze. Each expo will feature over 80 informative stall-holders offering services and advice on health, lifestyle, aged care, community programs, travel, hobbies and more. Whether it's finding support services, joining a local group or exploring new ways to stay active and engaged, there's something for every senior and every carer. This year, we've listened to feedback from previous years, where we were told that many grandparents have to look after grandchildren during the school holidays in this modern age. So we're going one step further: we're making it a day for the whole family. For the first time, we're introducing a kids' area and a petting zoo with llamas, goats, baby lambs, ducklings and more. An honourable member: When is it? Mr YOUNG 201906 You're not old enough! While grandparents take their time exploring the expo, the grandkids can have some hands-on fun, making it a day for every generation to enjoy together. We'll also have outdoor seating, live entertainment, a barbecue area, a coffee cart and a refreshment station because these expos are also about relaxing, socialising and enjoying a good day out. I'd like to thank both St Columban's College and Banksia Beach State School for their generous support and for welcoming the community onto their grounds. These expos are perfect for seniors, carers and families; they're a chance to connect, discover something new and share in the spirit of community. And, best of all, entry is free—including a ticket to our lucky door prize. I'm a proud advocate for seniors in Longman. I believe in old-school values—values that respect and honour our elders. Seniors have worked hard and paid their dues, and they deserve peace of mind in retirement. These expos are a small way to show our appreciation and support. I encourage everyone to come along, enjoy the day and celebrate what makes our community great. I look forward to seeing you all there. Kolbe Catholic College: Walk against Domestic Violence, Elevation Secondary College 108 09:57 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell At Kolbe Catholic College in my electorate, I had the pleasure of joining students, teachers and staff for the school's feast-day celebrations, which included a walk against domestic violence. Dressed in purple, carrying the words 'Not now, not ever', students took to the streets to send a powerful message: violence has no place in our homes, in our schools or in our community. The statistics show why this leadership shown by the school was so critical. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that one in four women and one in 14 men have experienced a form of violence from an intimate partner since the age of 15, nearly a quarter of women and 14 per cent of men have experienced emotional abuse by a partner and more than 1.6 million women and 745,000 men have endured economic abuse. These are disturbing figures, but they are not just numbers; they represent neighbours, friends, colleagues and families in every community. The truth is the cycle of violence can only be broken by education, prevention and cultural change; that is why what I saw at Kolbe mattered so much. Education leadership provided for and by young Australians, like that shown by students in my community, is the key to ending this awful cycle of abuse. I congratulate the students, teachers and staff at Kolbe for the incredible work done to highlight such an important social issue and for their ongoing advocacy—a truly grassroots effort, real action on the ground, one step at a time. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Elevation Secondary College in Craigieburn, where I met with the student leadership team. Elevation is a school that lives its vision: to be an inclusive, outward-looking community committed to improving student learning, wellbeing and outcomes for every young person. The school values are clearly lived out by the students I met, who represented this school with pride and with purpose. The student leaders I met are amongst our community's brightest, and Elevation is helping to grow the next generation of our leaders: young people who are not only academically capable but also community minded, outward-looking and determined to make a difference. That is why I'm so proud to represent Calwell, a place that embodies the values of fairness, opportunity and solidarity. I will continue to fight for policies and programs that give every young person in our community the chance to live out their potential and to tackle every opportunity, engage in study, work and build independent lives. I congratulate the students, teachers and all staff at Elevation Secondary College for their ongoing commitment to continuous learning and academic excellence. Micah Australia, Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria 109 09:59 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise today to speak on the commendable work of two outstanding organisations—Micah Australia and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria—and their tremendous contribution in serving communities both here in Australia and across our region. I've had many years working with Micah Australia. I recently had the privilege to meet with the Micah Women Leaders Delegation in Parliament House, and can I say they were very impressive and very passionate. These advocates set a compelling agenda centred on the modern case for Australian aid, grounded in the values of compassion and global responsibility. The delegation highlighted how effective aid fosters not only prevention but also, very importantly, stability. It also bolsters security, aligning with Australia's strategic interests in the region. Their key priorities include building broad bipartisan support for aid, advocating for its restoration to one per cent of the federal budget, and advancing an urgent humanitarian package for Myanmar. We have the Minister for International Development in the Chamber, and I'm sure she will look at that very closely and compassionately, as Myanmar is facing a very large humanitarian emergency. Micah's Safer World for All campaign—I must say that, when they first said it to me, I though it was 'safer world for oil', but it's actually Safer World for All, and I had to clarify that with them—reminds us that aid is not a charity; it's a strategic investment in peace, stability and prosperity. The work underscores the strong public support for aid, reflecting the values of compassion and solidarity that define us as a nation. In another significant engagement, I had the honour of meeting Lady Roslyn Morauta, chair of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. She briefed me on Australia's impactful partnership with the global fund, particularly in the pivotal role of pandemic preparedness. Australia stands as one of the most valued and longstanding partners of the global fund in the Pacific region. It's great to have the member for Riverina here today; he's a former shadow minister for the Pacific. With Australia's support, the global fund has saved an astonishing 26.4 million lives in the Indo-Pacific, including 210,000 lives in the Pacific alone. Over two decades, every dollar Australia has contributed to the global fund has returned over US$13 in value to our priority countries. That is not just good policy but exceptional value for money, and any government would be very proud of that. Both Micah Australia and the global fund exemplify how thoughtful partnerships and sustained aid investment can promote a safer, healthier, more secure world for all Australians and our region. I thank Micah Australia and the global fund for their leadership and look forward to working with them in the future. As I said before, I recommend that the minister look closely at the Myanmar funding. Mills, Mrs Lorraine Patricia 109 10:02 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I want to pay tribute today to an extraordinary woman in my electorate, Lorraine Mills. Lorraine will probably be horrified I'm mentioning her, but that's who Lorraine is. She's humble and practical, never seeking the spotlight. When I told her that I wanted to acknowledge her, she said, 'But I haven't done anything like jump out of a plane or fight a bushfire.' But that's exactly why I speak today, because Lorraine has spent more than three decades serving her community in quiet, generous ways—a true unsung hero of Cowan. I first met Lorraine in 2017, and she struck me as fresh, energetic, funny, smart and never afraid to speak her mind. When a local paper stopped delivering hard copies in her suburb, Lorraine instantly thought of older residents who would be left behind. She came to my office every week, filled her car boot with newspapers and made sure that those residents didn't miss out—no fuss, no fanfare, just Lorraine being Lorraine. One of the greatest contributions that she has made has been as a justice of the peace. For more than 30 years, she has certified countless documents. She's supported police, hospitals, courts and families, taking calls at all hours of the day—even at two in the morning. For 15 years she even ran a JP desk at Newpark Shopping Centre, come rain, hail or shine. Lorraine is beloved by police officers, whom she affectionately calls 'her coppers'. Lorraine's service follows a family tradition; she was inspired by her father, Max, who was awarded an Order of Australia. Unfortunately, health and age has required that Lorraine step back from her active—really active—work across Cowan. Her remarkable chapter of service is ending, but her impact endures. Lorraine Mills is loyal, fierce, funny and kind. Lorraine: on behalf of all of Cowan, a huge thank you for your decades of service and selflessness. In true Lorraine style, I will finish my speech as she so often finished her letters to me—with words of encouragement. Lorraine, you are loved, you are appreciated and you will never be forgotten. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 Thank you, and thank you to Lorraine. Riverina Electorate: Wind Turbines 110 10:05 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is an odd thing to have a constituency statement where I cannot and will not name the constituent to whom I refer. I cannot and will not because, if I do, this constituent will then probably face the fury of his neighbours and, potentially, of a company that is threatening to cover—litter—his farmland and that of others with these insidious wind turbines. They'll do it on his farmland only if he allows them, but what is happening in the Riverina and regional Australia is we are getting wind turbines all over the place. It's turning it into an industrial junkyard on the back of this pursuit of net zero. My constituent lives in Old Junee. It's an area I know well, because the McCormacks have been farming there for more than 100 years. My great grandfather James and my grandfather Tom are both buried in the Old Junee cemetery. Tom's son, Tony—my late uncle—and his son John have farmed there near Coffin Rock Lane. My constituent says: 'While it's in the very early days of discussions, and my conversations with him—' a neighbour '—are amicable at the moment, I fear that I will eventually have a falling out with neighbours that I have had a close and good association with for many years. I find this unfair given that I am at a stage of my life where I'm currently looking to retire.' He has been a generational family farmer. He says, 'Apart from the undesirable aesthetics of the turbines and fins themselves, my biggest concern lies with the battery storage facility. This is because: (1) most grid-scale battery energy storage systems today use lithium ion batteries, containing lithium iron phosphate, nickel, manganese, cobalt et cetera; (2) if a cell overheats it can trigger thermal runaway spreading to other cells; and (3) this creates intense heat-up to 1,000 degrees Celsius via the venting of highly toxic gases. In addition, fire services are generally unable to control these fires and they allow them to burn out, which means there is a long toxic smoke exposure, and the land, livestock and humans for hundreds of metres to many kilometres down could be severely affected. Even though the risk is said to be minimal, any risk at all of this happening is totally unacceptable.' That's the sad reality—we've got volunteer rural fire services that are saying they are going to refuse to go out to these fires. This is the sad reality of the pursuit of net zero in the Riverina. We are going to be covered with these industrial turbines. People don't want them—some do and others don't. The fact is, it is dividing families and it is dividing family friends who have been friends for many years. The minister might have a mandate to govern, but he doesn't have a mandate to ruin my electorate. Barton Electorate: Australian Chinese Soccer Association 110 10:08 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton On 30 August 2025 it was an honour to celebrate 30 years of the Australian Chinese Soccer Association in Hurstville—three decades of passion for football, community spirit and friendship. When the association was first registered in 1995 after several months of hard work and preparation, no-one could have predicted the scale of its growth. What began as a humble initiative has today become a thriving community organisation built on the dedication of presidents, patrons, sponsors and committee members and the relentless commitment of players and supporters. Over the years, ACSA has documented an incredible journey. From local matches to international competition, it has left a powerful imprint not only on the Chinese Australian community but also on Australia's broader sporting and multicultural landscape. For 30 years, ACSA has proven that football is more than just a game; it's a way to unite cultures, generations and communities. From local leagues to international tournaments, ACSA has carried the pride of our community onto the world stage. Even through the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, when international competitions had to pause, ACSA found ways to keep the spirit very much alive by promoting senior football locally and investing in referee training to secure the future of the game. Now, post pandemic, the association has returned stronger than ever, with six teams in Penang in 2023; five teams in Nanchang in 2024; and excelling at the Taipei Masters Cup in the 65 and 70 age groups this year. These are remarkable achievements. But ACSA's contribution goes beyond tournaments. From supporting Eastwood Harmony Day, the Lebanese ALFA Cup and Home 789 to hosting international friendlies, ACSA has demonstrated what sport does best—it brings people together across cultures, generations and borders. ACSA's legacy isn't measured in goals and awards but in the friendships, connections and community spirit it has built. ACSA has shown us that, when people come together for the love of the game, they also build stronger and more inclusive communities. Starting an organisation is hard, but sustaining it for 30 years takes vision, dedication and heart, and that's exactly what this association has shown. The Australian Chinese Soccer Association's 30-year journey is a story of dedication and perseverance. It is a legacy that inspires future generations not only to engage in football but to carry forward the values of community, respect and cultural pride that this association represents. Congratulations, ACSA, and Mr Kim Mok, the chairman of the association. I wish it every success as it continues to grow, compete and inspire for the next 30 years and beyond. Moncrieff Electorate: Australian Football League 111 10:11 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff On 2 April 2011, the Gold Coast Suns played their first AFL game against Carlton at the Gabba. Their first true home game, at the then Metricon Stadium in Moncrieff, came over a month later, on 28 May, where 155 players have since been and gone. The club has seen six coaches, slotted 3,576 goals and played 327 games at 22 different grounds in every state and territory. The club also played two games in China against Port in 2017 and 2018. The grind has been well and truly worth it. Now we're finals-bound! It's a journey that started when the AFL issued the Gold Coast Football Club a licence on 31 March 2009. That was 5,993 days ago. I'm full of status this morning! It may have taken us a little longer than our brothers at the Titans to secure a finals birth, but we did it! Raw heart, passion and emotion in the heart of the Gold Coast—three things we're not short of on the Goldie. That translates when our Suns take to the field. It also translates to our membership, which is evident in the all-time membership record that reached new heights on Monday—30,107 members! We certainly hold our own with a membership figure of that size. It's a well-deserved additional feather in the cap for this historic year. This marks six years in a row of membership records for the club. Our Suns keep going from strength to strength both on and off the field. Let me run through a few more club records. We have a 15-to-9 win-loss ratio, which is four wins up on the club's previous best last year. We have a percentage of 124.9, which is up 22.1 per cent on the previous best in 2022. We have an average score of 94.5 points, which is up on the previous best of 87.2 points, way back in season 2, in 2013. We have an average score against of 75.7, which, on an adjusted basis, is better than the 64.6 recorded in the short games of the 2020 COVID season. These are absolutely unreal states. And I have no doubt that they'll be all gas and no brakes when they play Freo on Saturday night. The whole of the Gold Coast is absolutely 100 per cent behind you. Up the Suns! Go the Suns! We are the Suns! World Suicide Prevention Day, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month 111 10:14 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Over seven million Australian adults are close to someone who has died by suicide or who has attempted suicide. One in two people are impacted by suicide by the time they turn 25. Men are three times more likely to die from suicide than females, with men aged 55 to 59 representing the largest increase in the age-specific suicide rate for Australians aged 15 and over. The Dunkley community is disproportionately impacted by suicide and higher-than-state-average suicide rates. This is an issue close to me and my community, and that is why I've invited Dan Repacholi, the Special Envoy for Men's Health, to the electorate in November. We will meet with local secondary schools and host a forum with men from local organisations, businesses, sporting clubs and young men 16-plus to discuss men's health and wellbeing by bringing together representatives from community groups and schools and working with men and boys to identify what is working, explore the challenges, share personal experiences and present ideas on what is missing. The forum will be powered by The Man Cave and Movember, along with SmackTalk and the Mental Health Safety Net. These organisations deliver great programs at a local, state and national level, providing awareness on mental health and wellbeing and the importance of reaching out for help if you are not travelling well. In light of World Suicide Prevention Day on 10 September, checking in on our mates, our female friends and those that are close to us has never been more important. It's Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. It is a disease that one in six Australian men are diagnosed with by the time they are 85. I currently know four men who have been dealing with this issue. Dave, my husband, was fortunate to survive prostate cancer. 'It all started with a finger up the clacker' is the name of my husband's memoirs that track his journey with prostate cancer over eight years. Raising awareness this September could mean a father, brother, partner or son is diagnosed earlier, and survival rates could be higher; 3,330 men die each year from prostate cancer—more than the number of women killed by breast cancer. This is unacceptable. I want to use my voice in this chamber and my experience as a wife to encourage all men over 40 to talk to their GP about prostate cancer testing as part of their regular checkups, because you never know; a finger up the clacker may save your life. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 Luckily now there are blood tests. World Suicide Prevention Day, Drouin War Memorial, Monash Electorate: Community Services 112 10:17 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash Can I associate myself with the fine remarks of the member for Dunkley, particularly in relation to her comments as we prepare for World Suicide Prevention Day. As a former board member of Lifeline Gippsland, this is an issue I'm particularly passionate about, and I want to recognise the very, very fine work that many mental health organisations in my electorate of Monash undertake. Tragically, it is the leading cause of death in Australia for those aged between 15 and 44. We still have a rate of suicide in this country that is far too high. On Sunday I had the great privilege of attending the unveiling of the Drouin military memorial, which is an amazing project that has been put together by the Drouin Anglican Church, veterans from the Drouin RSL and the broader community. They've done an absolutely magnificent job of planting elm trees which link to the Drouin RSL and other local community monuments like the cenotaph. It commemorates the Centenary of Armistice for the First World War, from 2014 to 2018. There are a number of veterans that I want to recognise, including Rod McNab and Graeme Watts, who was in charge of the Drouin veterans welfare centre. He has done some remarkable work over 30 years in advocating for veterans in our community. I want to acknowledge that today the national accounts will be released. For me, it's a question of: are we better off? Productivity has been going backwards, and in the last national accounts we saw a growth rate of 0.2 per cent in the March quarter. This has a really big impact on local organisations that look after people in my electorate of Monash who are really struggling. I particularly want to acknowledge Frankies Community Kitchen. I went there with my mum earlier this year to peel vegetables and to support their kitchen crew. They do an amazing job of giving unused food from supermarkets and local restaurants a second chance in our community, and demand for their services has never been so high. I also want to acknowledge the Baw Baw Food Relief centre, run by the four big Cs, the four local churches in our community, and the Corinella food bank, which I visited with Senator Jane Hume during the election. They do an absolutely magnificent job. More broadly, though, sporting infrastructure is incredibly important in the Monash electorate. I want to affirm my very, very strong commitment to fight for new infrastructure at Mirboo North, with their sporting oval; Fish Creek, with their football club; and Moe, with their swim club getting shade cloths and solar heating, and all of the other magnificent sporting clubs right across the Monash electorate. Illawarra Light Railway Museum, Bowral & District Art Society: 75th Anniversary 112 10:21 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam I rise today to recognise the volunteers who operate the Illawarra Light Railway Museum, which is located at Albion Park in the electorate of Whitlam. A huge crowd attended the opening of the museum on 10 November 1984, and four decades later it attracts an extraordinary 40,000 visitors each year. These visitors come to see the wide range of historic light railway locomotives on exhibition, including some powered by steam, as well as passenger cars and other rolling stock. There is also the 1890 Yallah Railway Station building, which stood on the Illawarra main line between Dapto and Albion Park before it was close to traffic in 1974, and a 1915 signal box from Otford, which was closed in 1985 due to electrification of the Illawarra line. The Ken McCarthy Museum, named after the museum's foundation chairman, features a fascinating collection of photographs, artefacts and memorabilia. Visitors can enjoy a miniature train ride and, on allocated days, can experience a slice of history by taking a steam- or diesel-driven journey on the museum's own narrow gauge track. I was delighted to visit the Illawarra Light Railway Museum in June and discovered its volunteers are passionate about educating the public in relation to the role of both steam engines and other mechanical devices in light railway operations and industry in general and the use of railways and tramways in the Illawarra Region, in particular. In today's fast paced world, I congratulate these volunteers for preserving this important part of our history while educating and entertaining tens of thousands of visitors each year. I rise today to pay tribute to the Bowral & District Art Society, which recently celebrated an extraordinary milestone: its 75th anniversary. The organisation was founded in 1950 as the Berrima District Art Society and held its early meetings in the Country Women's Association rooms in Moss Vale and then Berrima Courthouse before moving, in 1970, to its current premises in Bowral, thanks to the generosity of the Bent family. The name was changed from Berrima District Art Society to Bowral & District Art Society in 2006 and has been known as Bowral Art Gallery since 2016. However, the gallery's contribution to the committee extends far beyond Berrima and Bowral. It's valued by all villages and towns in the Southern Highlands. Bowral Art Gallery provides a much-loved space for the community to view works of art, and, just as importantly, it supports, nurtures and inspires both established and emerging local artists. I recently visited the gallery and learnt that this not-for-profit organisation has over 500 members, that it holds over 30 exhibitions each year and that hundreds of art students develop their practice annually by learning from over 30 tutors. Economy 113 10:24 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn It's not often that the gods of politics smile upon me, but right here before me I have the member for McMahon, who is the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who I've got some questions for. It's all in relation to the 'Decarbonising diesel industries' report written by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. What they're proposing is decarbonising diesel industries and, in fact, taking away the diesel fuel rebate scheme from both the mining resource sector and the agriculture, fisheries, forestry and transport industry. Their conclusion says by 'increasing the cost of diesel in a targeted and balanced way, Australia can accelerate its industrial decarbonisation'. Now I would like to know, Minister, exactly what this is going to cost the economy. There are 300,000 registered businesses that use the fuel tax credit scheme, and I declare I have one of them, as do my sons. I want to know how this is going to affect the economy. If you take away this diesel fuel rebate scheme, it will cost all of those producers more, and they will pass that cost on to consumers, and ultimately that will drive the cost of living up even further. Furthermore, in this report they go on to propose we lower the threshold of the safeguard mechanism—the cost impost on companies emitting over 100,000 tonnes, which will affect 215 of the biggest companies in Australia—down to 25,000 tonnes. Again, that will affect many, many more businesses in Australia. We know in Central Queensland 30 per cent of those big businesses are affected now. How many more will now be affected, and what will be the economic cost? This is an important topic to discuss because the government simply will not answer the question: what is the economic cost of the road we're going on to decarbonisation and of trying to achieve net zero by 2050? So I say to the minister, who is here listening to me, he should come out and tell us exactly what this is going to cost the economy, tell us how many businesses will be affected and tell us how that will transfer itself to the cost of everything for consumers, to whom that cost will be passed. So here we are, and I wait for the minister's reply. Sudan 113 10:26 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon In a world replete with humanitarian crises from Gaza to Ukraine it's sometimes very difficult for other crises to get attention in the world or, indeed, here. Today I want to highlight just one: Sudan. Sudan is currently facing the world's largest hunger crisis and the world's largest displacement crisis. The scale of suffering is unimaginable. Over half the population live in acute hunger, struggling each day for enough food to survive. Eleven million people have fled their homes—that's somewhere between half and a third of our population—often with nothing but the clothes on their backs in search of safety and stability. You might ask what this has got to do with Australia. Well, every humanitarian crisis impacts on every human in the world. Fatima Zakria from Blacktown, in my electorate, recently lost her sister and all eight of her sister's children in an artillery strike—eight of her nieces and nephews, dead. This is not an isolated incident. Over 15,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed in Darfur alone since the conflict began. Many members of my community have lost family. Many think they've lost family but are unable to make any contact. On 1 or 2 December last year, the Zamzam camp came under heavy shelling. Located near Al Fasher, the camp hosts 500,000 people. And it came under shelling. According to humanitarian agencies access to food, clean water and medical treatment in Zamzam is now almost non-existent. Tragically, five people were killed and 18 were wounded. The list of incidents and tragedies goes on. On 24 January an attack occurred at the Saudi Teaching Maternal Hospital in Al Fasher. I'll say it again: an attack on a maternal hospital. The attack was carried out by the Rapid Support Forces and claimed the lives of at least 70 patients and wounded dozens. This was the only functional hospital in El Fasher, and it was attacked. And, once again, the Zamzam camp came under attack, and this time 2,000 people lost their lives in this one attack. As I said, this is one of the world's worst humanitarian crises and I haven't seen it reported anywhere, really, in Australia. I'm not being critical of journalists—it's a very busy international environment—but it's right that it be noted, at least, in this parliament. I want to thank my friend Musab Hassan, the chairperson of the Sudanese Zaghawa Community Association in Australia, for talking to me about this, and I extend my best wishes and condolences to his entire community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 114 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS National Skills Week 114 10:30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 Are there any statements? There are no further statements by honourable members. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 114 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility 114 10:30 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Since being appointed as the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Defence, Veterans’ Affairs and Northern Australia in July last year, I've been working with stakeholders and with governments, including local government, to deliver real outcomes for northern Australia. These outcomes mean jobs, much-needed infrastructure and long-term prosperity for our northern Australian communities. It's been a busy week in Darwin—my home and the place that I'm proud to represent here—and a big week for resources industries across the north. I attended the Bush Summit on Monday in Darwin, and NT Resources Week kicks off today at the fantastic Darwin Convention Centre. I want to give a shout-out to Peter Savoff and the multi-award-winning team at the Darwin Convention Centre for the great work they do. NT Resources Week focuses on driving resources, industry, investment and trade opportunities in northern Australia, and it combines three conferences in one. The first is SEAAOC, the South East Asia Australia Offshore and Onshore Conference, which is northern Australia's largest and longest-established petroleum conference. The second is the Mining the Territory conference, which is northern Australia's leading mining conference, taking a deep dive into our north Australian industry. The third is the Clean Energy and Decarbonisation conference. We all know that the Northern Territory is at the forefront of Australia's energy transition, with projects like SunCable leading the way and tapping the incredible potential of solar energy—what I like to call 'Territory gold'—to power local industry and the energy needs of our neighbours, such as Singapore and others in the future, and to help assist us all to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The Albanese Labor government is fully committed to northern Australia. We have worked to ensure that the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility, or NAIF, is supporting key projects that help unlock the north's potential and deliver tangible benefits to northern communities. We've also amended the NAIF Investment Mandate and Statement of Expectations so that the NAIF is able to invest in a much broader range of projects, ranging from resources and energy to airport upgrades, agriculture, aquaculture and social infrastructure, including social housing and university accommodation, which are so much needed. To date, NAIF has committed over $4.3 billion to 32 projects across Northern Australia. I'm pleased to say that the NAIF has supported eight projects in the Northern Territory, with loans totalling around $0.9 billion. We look forward to getting up over the billion-dollar mark soon. These 32 projects in the north are forecast to generate more than $33 billion in public benefit and support thousands of jobs in the north. One of the most exciting developments is Arafura Rare Earths' Nolans Project, located north of Alice Springs. The Australian government is proud to have invested in this project with support from the NAIF, Export Finance Australia and the National Reconstruction Fund. This rare earths mine and processing facility will supply materials essential to electric vehicles, wind turbines and defence technologies, to name a few. It is expected to create hundreds of jobs and deliver long-term economic benefits to the Territory, particularly Central Australia, through logistics services and training opportunities, strengthening our human capital and building skills for the future. The Nolans rare earth project directly supports key government agendas, including the Critical minerals strategy 2023-2030, the Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve, the Building Better Regions Fund, building the Future Made in Australia and the G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan, to name a few. The NAIF is also supporting smaller innovative projects such as a local Territory start-up called Environmental Keystones, which is leading the country with a groundbreaking green energy project. Environmental Keystones, supported by the CSIRO and Pyrochar, is building a world-first pyrolysis plant to convert green waste—palm fronds, clippings, wood chips—into biochar, syngas and bio-oil. This $8 million project backed by the NAIF will create 30 construction jobs and 12 ongoing roles. It is clean, smart and Territory made, showing the world the north can lead on innovation, not just playing catch-up as we have done in the past but leading. We are proud to be doing so. I spoke earlier about how the NAIF investment mandate and statement of expectations have been amended so that the NAIF is able to invest in a broader range of projects, including agriculture, as I might have mentioned earlier, and social housing. When it comes to social housing and social infrastructure, this now is a very important mandate or focus for the NAIF. We know that housing supply issues are important not just for the big cities in the south but for the north as well. If we are to grow and prosper in the north—and we need to to grow the population—we need investment in housing and community infrastructure to attract workers and capital. People want to come live in northern Australia, but we need to catch up in our social infrastructure and housing. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit in Cairns the Seniors Community Housing Project, which was funded with a loan of up to $140 million in partnership with Housing Australia and Queensland's Housing Investment Fund. This is Queensland's biggest social and affordable housing project. It will deliver a whopping 490 homes in Woree, a suburb to the south of Cairns. Using innovative construction methods, they have already installed more than 20 housing models at the site, and it's currently on track for construction to be complete by the end of 2026. This project is a great example of how the NAIF can boost social infrastructure and genuinely make lives better for people living in the north. This particular project in Cairns is very special because it addresses housing challenges for senior members of the Cairns community, the elders of the Cairns community, who can be vulnerable to risks of homelessness and, of course, loneliness. The seniors community village that we're building there with NAIF support will address that. Importantly, using innovative construction methods, it provides a powerful model for other parts of northern Australia, and I'm very eager to promote those. Certainly, in Darwin we have similar challenges, and I'm very keen for the proponent in Cairns to look a bit further to the west for another great opportunity, hopefully backed by the NAIF. To ensure that the NAIF remains fit for purpose, last year, our government appointed an independent expert panel to review the NAIF Act. The panel was chaired by my good friend and former colleague, a former member of this place, the former member for Lingiari, the Hon. Warren Snowdon, working alongside Dr Lisa Caffery and Professor Peter Yu, all long-term champions of the north. Their review recognises the importance of the NAIF in northern Australia and makes 21 recommendations aimed at strengthening the outcomes that the NAIF can deliver. Our government is currently considering these recommendations and will respond in due course. Our focus will remain on ensuring that the NAIF can continue to deliver real outcomes for the north. To inform its recommendations, the panel received 40 written submissions and held 85 targeted meetings with stakeholders from all levels of government, industry, First Nations organisations, research groups and regional development bodies. They attended six site visits to consider current and potential outcomes of NAIF investments as well. To further secure Australia's position in the global critical minerals market, our government is establishing a $1.2 billion Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve, which I mentioned earlier, stockpiling essential minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite and rare earths; ensuring more supply chain resilience; and supporting advanced manufacturing, clean energy and defence. This reserve will also incentivise domestic exploration and production, creating new opportunities for Territory based projects and projects across the north, and reinforcing our role as a reliable global supplier. Finally, I want to thank the staff of the NAIF that not only live in the north but around Australia; in particular, CEO Craig Doyle, who's done a fantastic job and is now retiring. Long may the NAIF deliver for the north. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Agriculture Industry 115 10:41 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak on the important matter of agriculture. People often may see the seat of Fisher for its glorious Sunshine Coast beaches, but they don't actually go west of the highway. But you don't even have to go west of the highway; we have some fantastic agricultural businesses operating in my seat of Fisher, including one of the largest eastern seaboard fisheries, operating out of the Mooloolaba harbour, in prawns and tuna. I want to send a shout-out to Heidi and Pavo Walker of Walker Seafoods, who are fantastic local businesspeople in my electorate. They are a sustainable fishery and they do a great job, so a shout-out to all of them and to all the people that work on our wharves at Mooloolaba. I also want to take the opportunity to welcome my friends from the Queensland parliament that are here today. I think they're here to learn all about the Federation Chamber, so I'm hoping that they're acting like sponges and taking in all of this wisdom that they're no doubt hearing. I want to send a shout-out to my good friend in particular, the member for Glass House, Andrew Powell, who's doing a great job as the state's new tourism and environment minister. It's a good segue when we're talking about agriculture, because all people see in the federal seat of Fisher are the beaches, as beautiful as they are, but the seat of Fisher is still classified by the Australian Electoral Commission as a rural seat. Some of my rural colleagues and my state colleagues might have a bit of a chuckle about that, but the seat of Fisher still holds very important agricultural industries in the farming of pineapples, bananas, strawberries of course; so many different industries that are the lifeblood of Australia. The Sunshine Coast could very well be the fruit bowl and the food bowl of our country. The challenge that we face, of course, is that our real estate prices are so high that it is very difficult to make a go of farming on the Sunshine Coast on a broad scale. But if you go to any farmers market on a Saturday or Sunday morning, you will see so many small farmers and boutique businesses that are selling their wares. It is a great privilege to be the member for Fisher because, while agriculture is a smaller part of what we do in Fisher, it is a very important part. Mr McCormack 219646 Hear, hear! Mr WALLACE 265967 Of course, the member for Riverina would be much more qualified to speak about agriculture, and I'm very pleased that he's made it into the Chamber to talk about agriculture. That said, I come from a small farming family. We had a farm on the Mornington Peninsula with about 280 acres, which for the member for Riverina and many of the people that he represents would be a postage stamp. We have some fantastic cattle growers in Maleny and west of Maleny in places like Conondale and Cambroon. While they are small, the quality of their produce is incredible. I send a shout-out to Clif Hefner and Theresa Craig, who are stalwarts of the LNP but who also have a stud farm on the way to Conondale. They do a terrific job, not just in their own farming practices but in helping many other farmers as well through their consultancy work. So I give a shout-out to them. To all those people in Fischer or right across the country who are toiling right now, whether they are working on the land or on a tractor, farmers are the salt of the earth. They work damn hard to put food on our tables. I wish that more people in the city could actually see and experience what it's like to have to earn a living from working with their hands and growing the food and fibre that Australians rely upon. I want to send a shout-out to each and every one of them. It might sound a little strange, but, in my experience, many of these people who are working on the land actually listen to parliament as they work. I know I used to when I was on the tools. So I want to send a shout-out to them and thank them for their service to this country. It's often a bit of a lonely existence doing what they do, but I take my hat off to them and I thank them for their service. I'm very pleased now to hand over to the member for Riverina. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 116 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Queensland: Parliamentary Delegation 116 10:47 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 Before I call the next member, I would like to acknowledge in the Federation Chamber gallery members from the Queensland Parliament. Welcome to the Federation Chamber. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 116 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Agriculture Industry 116 10:47 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina When it comes to the state of agriculture, I don't believe that we have seen before as wide a chasm between city and country, and that is a great shame. I appreciate that we've got many people here for whom agriculture is their livelihood, whether they're in the bureaucracy or elsewhere. But out there, often listening to these broadcasts, are people working the land, farmers, and we owe a debt of gratitude to those farmers. At last count I think there were 135,000 famers in Australia, tilling the soil and making sure that they grow the food and fibre to feed and clothe not just our nation but many others besides. They are under threat like never before, and they're under threat from a number of things. They rely on the weather to make money. My late father, Lance, farmed at Marrar and Brucedale, midway between Junee and Wagga Wagga, all his life up until his death in 2008. He always said that, in any given decade, there'd be three very good years, three average years, three very bad years and the other year—just take your pick. That was up to the vagaries of the weather. It was a mere matter of luck. I can remember he only ever protested once, and that was when he came to Canberra. Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister. The farmers ringed Parliament House. They were very concerned about the policies of the then Labor government. Lo and behold, it rained, and Prime Minister Hawke took the credit for it. The farmers went away and did what most farmers do—and that's not complain as a matter of demonstration but just get on with the job. We're very lucky that we've got the world's best farmers, but government policy is important. It's also very important that the agriculture minister goes and visits farms—not just the ones that are environmentally friendly, not just the ones that might be doing wonders with organics, not just the ones that might be tilling the soil and putting soil science front and centre, but also those generational family farms that, at the moment, are doing it as tough as they ever have. When it comes to farming, I do really worry about the continual impacts of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan upon irrigation farmers. I worry about how they are demonised—not just irrigation farmers but also those who grow fruit and vegetables in the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally Irrigation Areas and down in the Goulburn and Murray Valleys in your state of South Australia, Deputy Speaker Sharkie. Our cotton growers out west too are maligned continually for the role that they play. Our farmers are expected to grow more with less—and when I say 'less' I mean less water. Famously, it has been said that, 'Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.' Mark Twain apparently said that. It was as true then, when he said it in the 19th century, as it is today. The water battles will go on. Every valley thinks that the farmers north of them, or the farmers living wherever the water is otherwise coming from, are pinching the water and that those below them are wasting water. But they think: 'We're okay. We're doing everything right when it comes to utilising the water that we have or have been allocated.' That is, the water they have bought—I shouldn't say 'allocated', because they pay for every precious drop. We very much need to continually look at the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I know Darren De Bortoli, a wine grower from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, has made a lot of comments about water and about its allocation. Sadly, this week he pulled out a lot of his vines, and that should not be happening. It should not be happening in Griffith, a place that produces, last time I looked, up to a quarter to a third of all the wine bottled in Australia. They produce some of the finest wines not just in Australia but in the world. And when you've got one of the biggest wine growers, one of the most established winemakers—as De Bortoli is—pulling out vines, what does that tell us about government policy? I know Darren would point the finger, long and loud and passionately, at both sides of government—and, yes, both sides of government have been at fault in not having the best water policies, particularly for our irrigators. But I was proud to say that I was the one who put in the disallowance motion back in 2012 against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I see the member for Makin over there. He was in the parliament at the time and he no doubt voted against it too. I think there were only five who voted with me at the time, and that included the then member for Melbourne, who did so for the complete opposite reasons; the member for Kennedy, who's still in the parliament and probably still will be for quite some decades to come; the then member for Murray, Dr Sharman Stone; and the late Alby Schultz, who was the member for Hume. That was the five. There was a celebrated photo of us five. Mr Bandt was very much up the back of the chamber. I don't think he really wanted to be associated with our disallowance. Then, of course, we had everyone else on the other side—everyone else from every other part, and the Independents. But we made the point. And I know that, when we got into government, we stopped the buybacks. Stopping the buybacks is important. Buybacks divide and conquer irrigation communities. It's not just the farmer. The farmer is well looked after. They get their price bought at a premium amount. It's the hairdresser. It's the mechanic. It's the schoolteacher—because they have fewer children to teach, the school decreases in size. That is the peril that is facing and awaiting our river communities. At the moment, we are in a drought in the Riverina. When I say 'the Riverina', I represent the electorate by name these days, not necessarily by nature. Not much of the Riverina geographical area, or any other quantum you put on the place, is actually in the boundaries as determined by the Australian Electoral Commission. My electorate now wraps around Canberra and goes all the way into Whitlam and Illawarra. Go figure that one! But the country people that I represent are proud and passionate. Many of them are farmers, and they are having their areas carpet-bombed with wind turbines. That is a huge challenge when it comes to agriculture. I think the greatest challenge that is facing humankind—people say it's the weather; people say it's climate action et cetera—is actually growing food to feed a hungry world, and Australia can play a big part in that. People will say that the two are linked. They'll say, 'Well, without good action on climate, you won't be able to grow the food.' Yes, there's an argument to that, too, but you can't grow food and produce fibre if you're going to carpet-bomb one of the best growing areas, which is the Riverina, whether it's the AEC boundaries or the geographical boundaries. If you cover that area with wind turbines and pit farmer against farmer and family member against family, how on earth are you going to continue to grow the world's best food and fibre? Our farmers will desert the land. Many of them will lease the land to companies that represent overseas superannuation companies, who send out these spivs and shysters, who then divide and conquer. An Old Junee farmer told me that he'd phoned five of his neighbours. Three knew about the wind turbine proposals and the others didn't. That area doesn't have great ridgeways. It isn't a very windy place. But these companies come in and buy off farmers. They are cruelling our area. I won't stand for it. That's why I'm against the net zero proposals being put forward by this government. It is going to ruin our farmland. We're going to carpet-bomb our pristine farmland, our wonderful producing farmland, with wind turbines—and for what? It's not going to change the weather. It's not going to lower the temperature. It is a nonsense and it is a crock. 10:57 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I welcome the contingent from the Queensland parliament. It's nice to see you folks here. This is about the agriculture statement, but what it should be about is how Labor has failed the agricultural sector in this country. In my neck of the woods, lets start with the fishing industry. In the last term of parliament, the then environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, decided to shut down the fishing industry, the gillnet fishing industry within my electorate, where fisherman for many decades have been catching barramundi, salmon and flathead. This is all about supposedly looking after the Great Barrier Reef. Let me tell you that a gillnet goes nowhere near the Great Barrier Reef. They're more than 60 miles away from the Great Barrier Reef. They're used in inshore fisheries. They were shut down. The fine fishermen and women are actually monitored. They have cameras on them. They have to log in when they go fishing, and they have to log out. It's a fully licensed and fully sustainable wild-caught industry—but, no, it's totally shut down. So then what happens? The chandlery shops, the boat builders, the outboard mechanics and the ice-makers all go to the wall as well. It's just an absolute disgrace. Let's have a look at the live sheep trade. They shut down the live sheep trade last year. And why did they do that? It was done to keep their mates the Greens happy and to make sure that all those little preferences came sneaking through—a little belly tickle to make sure everything was going alright there. This wasn't done because of science. The only science involved in this was political science. I've been over and had a look, as part of the inquiry into live sheep trade, and there were less than one per cent mortality rates. When the sheep are travelling across on the boat, they are actually better looked after than they are in the paddock. There's a higher mortality rate in the paddock. I've seen fourth and fifth-generation farmers in tears about potentially losing their farms—all for this absolute nonsense. I've been on the boat. I've seen the ventilation. I've seen the food and water supplies. There are vets on board. There are people walking around monitoring the sheep on the ships. It's a world-class industry and it's been shut down for no good reason. Let's have a look at biosecurity. The Albanese Labor government has brought in biosecurity measures that have never been seen before. The biosecurity measures now are making our Australian farmers pay for the biosecurity risks of their competitors. It's absolutely disgraceful and unheard of. Let's look at labour, because you can't run a farm without a labour force. We had a PALM scheme with our Polynesian neighbours that was working exceptionally well, but Labor came in and they had to change it. Where I come from, if it's not broke, you don't try to fix it. We had the ag visa. We're calling on the Albanese Labor government to bring back the ag visa. When farmers don't have enough workforce, the fruit and veggies fall on the ground. What does that mean for you at home? That means your produce will be more expensive in the supermarket. It's that simple—supply and demand. What's even worse is, if the farmers haven't got a workforce that they know is going to be there to harvest their crop, they won't plant as much. They scale their business back. So this is bad for productivity and bad for the farm, but it's also bad for the consumer because you pay more at the check-out. Every time people go to the check-out now to buy their fruit and veggies and see how much extra these will cost them, they should see Prime Minister Albanese's face on that receipt. They're just paying too much. Energy costs under this government have gone through the roof, and farmers use a lot of energy. Farmers use a lot of electricity. I'm a farmer myself, so I'd know. When you pick the crop and cool it down, that takes a lot of energy. But this Albanese Labor government's reckless race to renewables has seen the energy costs go through the roof. I've got canefarmers in my area that can't irrigate their cane, because they simply can't afford the energy cost. This is crazy when you think about it. If you had cheaper energy costs, they could pump more water and grow more crops—crops that photosynthesise, that pull carbon dioxide out of the air and turn it into oxygen. Why wouldn't you want to do that? If you're interested in saving the planet, that to me sounds like a very, very good idea. Where else has this government let the agriculture sector down? The supply chains. In the last season alone, the Bruce Highway in my electorate, the electorate of Dawson, was cut in six places. In one spot, it was cut four times. There was an announcement at the election for $7.2 billion, and we welcomed that. Thank you very much for that. But, again, the little secret behind that is there's only $336 million available. The rest of it has been kicked out to the never-never. That was never really told. When we talk about renewables and transmission lines, this reckless race to renewables is taking up so much good quality agricultural land to put solar panels and wind turbines on it. And let's not forget the 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires. That's going through agricultural land, land that should be used for growing the food and the fibre for this nation. I'm not against renewables in the right spot. I think we need an energy mix. We need to make sure we can have the electron deliver to the farm, to the household and to the business as cheaply as possible. I'm agnostic to it. What I'm against is when you put solar panels all over good-quality agricultural land. They should be on rooftops, they should be on top of parking lots at Coles and Woolworths, and on top of those buildings—not on good-quality agricultural land. Certainly, the transmission lines for 28,000 kilometres are absolutely ridiculous. This is pitting mate against mate and family members against family members within the area—not good enough. In other industries, the Mount Isa copper smelter is almost at the point of closing. We've called the government and asked for a Senate inquiry about metal manufacturing in Australia. Why is this so important agriculture? The gas from that smelter is the byproduct used for making MAP and DAP, the sources for soluble phosphate. That's very important to Australia, and we need to get behind these industries. We talk about a manufacturing plan to have more things made in Australia—which we should have, we should be sufficient. It should not be used by name alone; it should actually have something done about it. Talking about farmers at risk, you need to listen to this one. Farmers are at risk because this is what your government is about to do. It's going to tax unrealised capital gains on the family farm. I'll explain to you how that works. When you've got a farm and you've got that in your super fund, and a valuer comes along and says, 'That's worth $2 million more,' that farmer might not have that in cash—you might have a really bad season—but you have to pay the tax bill on that, so where do they get the money? We really need to take this on board, and I urge you to vote against this when you think about it, because the taxing of unrealised capital gains is an absolute nonsense. In summing up, I urge the Albanese Labor government to rethink what they've done to the fishing industry, rethink what they've done to the live sheep trade, rethink the biosecurity—because no-one else in the world does that. It's an absolute disgrace to make our farmers pay for their overseas competitors—absolutely ridiculous. Get the PALM scheme back on track and the ag visa back on track, look after our infrastructure and look after the farmers, because without farmers, you'll all be starving, naked and sober. Debate adjourned. STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 119 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Srebrenica Genocide: 30th Anniversary 119 11:08 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin It has been 30 years since the 11 July 1995 Srebrenica massacre, when 8,372 men, women and children were mercilessly killed by Bosnian Serb forces under the leadership of Radovan Karadzic, the then president of the self-declared autonomous Bosnian Serb republic. It was the worst massacre of civilians since World War II, yet outside of the communities affected there is very little awareness of what is a very dark chapter in recent history. For the people of Srebrenica who fled and survived the massacre, and for the Bosniaks more broadly, Srebrenica is a memory that will never fade and a grief that torments them daily. Each year on 11 July I attend the annual Srebrenica commemoration service at the Bosnian and Herzegovina Muslim Society of South Australia community centre at Royal Park. I hear the heart-wrenching stories from survivors, I see the tears in the eyes as they tell their stories, I see the grief in their faces for the family members and friends they have lost, and I feel the anger that such murderous brutality took place whilst the world looked away. According to a UNHCR research paper, between 1992 and 1995 around 100,000 people were killed in what is referred to as the Bosnian War. Of those killed, around 80,000 were Bosnian Muslims, more widely referred to as Bosniaks. By 1995, when the fighting ended, of a Bosnian population of around four million, 1.3 million had been internally displaced and 900,000 had become refugees. Subsequent war trials and investigations by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia have concluded that the killings, the destruction of Bosnian culturally significant buildings and the expulsion of some 20,000 Bosniak civilians from the area amount to genocide. It was very much an attempt to drive Bosnian Muslims out of Bosnia. Catholic Croatians were also driven out. The International Court of Justice, in its judgement of 26 February 2007, states: The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995. The judgement goes on: … the Court considers that it has been established by fully conclusive evidence that members of the protected group were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm, during the conflict and, in particular, in the detention camps. The United Nations has since designated 11 July as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica. To date, some 30 people have been indicted for participating in or complicity in genocide. There are still hundreds if not thousands of bodies that have not been recovered and that possibly lie in mass graves. The search for them continues. Each year, more bodies are recovered and identified and their names added to the list of those killed. With the passing of time and the benefit of hindsight, there is no doubt that the Srebrenica genocide was a dark chapter in recent history. The world failed the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina when it could and should have intervened. The killings, the brutality, the rapes and the humanitarian disaster could have been prevented. The lives lost for ever, for those who survived but who live with the horrific memories of the atrocities or the daily absence of the loved ones that they lost, gave rise to a hope that Srebrenica would never happen again—to no-one and nowhere. Yet credible claims of killings, oppression, persecution and brutal violence continue each and every day—in Gaza; in Syria, where the Druze community in Suwayda is under attack; in Sri Lanka; in Iran; in Afghanistan; in Ukraine; in Myanmar; and in so many parts of Africa. Indeed, only earlier today we heard from the member for McMahon, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, about the horrific situation in Sudan. It seems to me that humanity never learns. Human behaviour never changes. But what happened on 11 July 1995 at Srebrenica will not be erased from history and will continue to serve as a reminder to us all of the global failures at the time and that we all have a responsibility to do what we can. As a global community, we must do better. Women's Health Week 120 11:14 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton It wasn't very long ago that women's health was completely taboo. It wasn't very long ago that, when health issues were spoken about, they were spoken about quietly, in hushed tones, secretively and privately. When it comes to women's health issues, women's voices weren't heard, because words like 'miscarriage', words like 'endometriosis' and words like 'menopause' weren't shared and their experiences weren't shared. Women dealing with medical issues often felt like they faced stigma and were coping alone. Many of them still do to this day. Many women suffered from delayed diagnosis for their conditions because the issues were not spoken about, or they had their pain dismissed. Many struggled to receive the support, care and medical attention that they desperately needed. I'm pleased to say that this is starting to change under a Labor government. Labor has listened to Australian women and is delivering more choice, lower costs and better health care for women and girls right across their life span. It is not surprising that this movement comes at a time when, in this place we are standing in right now, the House of Representatives and the Senate have more women's representation that we have seen in generations—the most we have seen ever. Ensuring that women's voices are heard in parliaments and ensuring that women are represented so that our parliaments and democracy are reflective of our communities is critical to ensuring that women's health is brought to the forefront and that it is given the funding and attention that it truly deserves. I had the great pleasure this morning of standing at a press conference with the member for Lyons and many, many women across Australia coming together to talk about not just Women's Health Week and the women's health package that Labor has put forward but also the many thousands of women that this is impacting every single day, in many different ways for all different ages. That's what Labor reforms have done in the space. We've made the biggest investment in women's health ever, and it is changing lives. Women's health is now part of the national conversation, and it is timely to reflect on that this week, during Women's Health Week. Women now feel empowered to discuss their health concerns, to talk about them and to advocate for change. Importantly, the Albanese Labor government has boosted this with more funding and more services for women's health. I want to acknowledge the fact that the contingent from Queensland parliament was here earlier today. As a sign of how much our things have changed when it comes to misrepresentation, not very long ago there were more people in the Queensland parliament with the name 'Mark' than there were women in the Liberal Party. That is a pretty stark example of how, by ensuring that in this place women's representation is front and centre, women's voices are more likely to be heard and indeed are heard. In February this year, Labor announced a historic half-a-billion-dollar investment in women's health. A crucial part of this was adding medicines to the PBS. This includes the first PBS listing for new oral contraceptive pills in more than 30 years. Women who rely on Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda—there are 150,000 of them across the country—are now saving hundreds of dollars a year. Additionally, two national trials for contraceptives and uncomplicated UTIs will benefit 250,000 concession card holders. Under that trial, users will be able to consult a trained pharmacist at no cost, and, if medications are required, they will pay only the usual medicine cost. An additional 150,000 women are benefiting from the addition of new menopausal hormone therapies to the PBS for the first time in a long time. There are further supports for women going through menopause, with over 20,000 women undergoing a Medicare funded menopause health assessment since they became available on 1 July. Labor has provided funding to train health professionals and supported the development of the first-ever clinical guidelines and a national awareness campaign, making menopause an open conversation. This is really relevant because, for so long, when many women have walked into their doctors' offices and consulted with their clinicians, they have simply not been taken seriously. This work makes it clear that they deserve to be taken seriously and, when they are taken seriously, that that work is backed up by funding. That's what Labor's done. There is also more affordable and earlier access to Pergoveris, a fertility treatment for Australian women undergoing IVF. It was added to the PBS, and the number of pens per script was doubled to four. A new endometriosis treatment option, Ryeqo, was also added to the PBS. What this means is significant financial relief for women. At a time when the cost of living is the number one issue facing our community, that is more important than ever. When you consider that, from 1 January 2026, the co-payment for PBS medicines will decrease to $25—and never any more than $25 per script—the savings just keep adding up, particularly for women. Around 8,500 Australian women suffering from endometriosis could save more than $2,300 a year. Additionally, women who use Yaz and Yasmin contraceptive pills will pay nearly one-quarter of the original amount from 1 January 2026. The opening up of more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics only bolsters the support that Labor is delivering for women in this crucial space. I want to specifically mention Labor's initiative in supporting those women with endometriosis, because endometriosis is complex, debilitating and chronic, and it can be hard to diagnose. It takes an average of six to eight years to diagnose this progressive condition. At least one in nine girls, women and those assigned female at birth suffer from endometriosis. In February this year, the Albanese Labor government announced an expansion to the number of endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. This includes 11 new clinics, bringing the national number to 39, the largest number we have ever seen. These are clinics that provide multidisciplinary care with a focus on improving diagnosis timelines and promoting access to intervention, care, treatment options and referral services for endometriosis and pelvic pain. They also build the primary care workforce to manage this chronic condition. Of course, all these initiatives come on top of Labor's enormous investment in Medicare—an investment that has not been matched since Labor introduced Medicare all those years ago. Labor is making the largest investment in Medicare since we created it over 40 years ago. It bears repeating, because, when it comes to Medicare, when it comes to health care and when it comes to making sure that health care is affordable and accessible, it is in our DNA. Our DNA has always meant that Labor prioritises health, and making sure that that health support extends to women's health is so important. With the aim of delivering an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits annually, we are investing $8.5 billion to expand bulk-billing. By 2030, we expect nine out of 10 GP visits to be bulk-billed, tripling the number of fully bulk-billed GP practices to nearly 5,000 nationally. I'm also really proud of Labor's urgent care clinic program. Many constituents in my electorate of Moreton, on Brisbane's southside, have benefited from both the urgent care clinic in Oxley and the Buranda urgent care clinic, across the road at the PA. Fundamentally, we know that Labor will always prioritise health, and this week we acknowledge that women's health is an important part of that priority. 11:24 Mr MATT SMITH 312393 Leichhardt I rise today to take note of the statement made by the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care for this Women's Health Week. I recognise that I am the only man speaking on this statement. This should not be unusual. It should not be strange. What is strange is that we as a species essentially sidelined half the population for millennia and thought we would get a good outcome. Making sure women get quality health care like all Australians is not just the job of women, just like it's not just the job of women to call out domestic and family violence or to make sure women's voices are heard in discussions on important policies. It should be expected that men stand with women. Women shouldn't be forced to fight alone for the laws they need. Whether for health care, housing, education, or any part of government big or small, it is the job of every member in this place to make sure it responds to the needs of every single person in our community. Sadly, this has not always been the case in important policy areas. Health care is one such example. Health care excluded women for much of its history. Even when women were included, there were some gross generalisations made about anatomy, not to mention the horrific health advice given to women such as: delayed childbearing causes illnesses like breast cancer and endometriosis and will be cured by pregnancy. Or we have the situation where women were pegged as suffering from hysteria due to symptoms ranging from anxiety and fainting to shortness of breath and loss of appetite. Perhaps showing that women used to be seen only as obedient wives and mothers, hysteria could also be diagnosed on the basis of impulsive sexual desire or a loss of appetite for sex—diagnosed by men for the purposes of men. In extreme cases of hysteria, the woman may have been forced to enter an insane asylum or undergo surgical hysterectomy. While this might seem a thing of the distant past, this is not the case. These colossal stuff-ups in our medical history still have real-world impacts today. Diseases present differently in women and are often missed or misdiagnosed, and those diseases affecting mainly women remain largely a mystery—understudied, undertreated and frequently misdiagnosed or undiagnosed. Women still too often experience delayed diagnoses for conditions such as endometriosis and heart disease. They have their pain dismissed and struggle to get support for issues such as unplanned pregnancies, menopause and miscarriage. These bad outcomes are multiplied exponentially when you look at women who are of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent or at women living in rural and remote access with limited access to health care. Clearly things need to change. There are so many tireless advocates championing better health care for women, whether they are dedicated GPs, nurses, midwives or other healthcare heroes. There are so many members of this chamber who I know are committed to delivering better health care for women. It is in part due to their advocacy that Labor has been able to deliver so much positive reform in the healthcare space specifically targeted at women. I will also add that it helps that we are the first government made up of a majority of incredibly powerful, competent and dedicated women. We look like modern Australia. Our reforms in this space are targeted at delivering more choice, lower costs and better health care for women and girls. The Albanese Labor government has listened to Australian women and announced half a billion dollars of new investments for women across their life span. Hundreds of thousands of Australian women are now accessing cheaper medicines and better health care due to our government's commitments. Those measures include things like more support for women going through menopause, with a new Medicare rebate for menopause health assessments, funding to train health professionals, our first-ever clinical guidelines and a national awareness campaign. This measure also includes the first PBS listing for new menopausal hormone therapies in over 20 years, with around 150,000 women saving hundreds of dollars a year on the listings of Prometrium, Estrogel and Estrogel Pro. We've also delivered the first PBS listing for new oral contraceptive pills in more than 30 years, with the listing of YAZ, Yasmin and Slinda. There are more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics treating more conditions with the opening of 11 new clinics, and we are ensuring all 33 clinics are now staffed to provide specialist support for menopause. There are new endometriosis treatment options through the PBS listing of Ryeqo. Australian women undergoing IVF will receive earlier and more affordable access to fertility treatment, adding Pergoveris pens to the PBS and increasing the maximum number of pens to four instead of two per script. Importantly, we are delivering more choice, lower costs and better access to long-term contraceptives, with larger Medicare payments and more bulk-billing for IUDs and birth control implants, saving around 300,000 women a year up to $400 in out-of-pocket costs. We can't talk about these important reforms to women's health without also talking about Labor's other important changes to the healthcare system in Australia. Women go to GPs—shocking, I know!—they get medicines off the PBS and they go to hospital, so every step we can take to improve Medicare will benefit all Australians. For the benefit of those present, let's just run through the greatest hits of delivering better health care for Australians. We've got $8.5 billion to invest into 18 million more bulk-billed GP visits each year, hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors in the largest GP training program ever. For those playing along at home, this investment will mean nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030. Other hits include 90 Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, serving more than 1.8 million Australians receiving treatment. Fun fact: in Queensland there have been more than 367,000 presentations through an urgent care clinic, with one of the busiest being the Cairns South Urgent Care Clinic in my region, and we're getting another one for the northern suburbs as well. We've also delivered 60-day prescriptions—saving time and money for Australians with ongoing health conditions—phased in from September 2023. We froze the cost of PBS medicines, with copayments not rising with inflation at all at the start of this year, for the first time in 25 years. And, just this week, we have been able to pass laws to go one better, and cut the general patient copayment from $31.60 to $25 from 1 January next year. These are bigger hits than Guns N' Roses'. My staff advised me to make a funny KPop Demon Hunters reference instead of Guns N' Roses, but I didn't understand it. They tried to show it to me, but I went with Guns N' Roses. I don't care—I'm generation X. But the thing to remember here is that the real winners from all of our reform are the Australian people. They're getting cheaper medicines, they're getting more bulk-billed visits to see the GP, they're getting to access Medicare urgent care clinics across the country and, in the case of women, they're getting more access to better health care than they ever have. Instead of just talking the talk, we're delivering real outcomes. The Albanese Labor government is strengthening Medicare with more doctors, more urgent care clinics and even cheaper medicines. We have made the largest investment in Medicare since its inception more than 40 years ago. That's real help—more money in the pockets of everyday Australians. This year's theme for Women's Health Week is 'Say yes to you'. Too often, women put aside their own health—for care, work, the pressures of kids, the pressures of school, looking after parents, whatever it may be. But I want to say this, and I want to make sure it's being heard: you can't look after others if you're not looking after yourself. These investments allow women to look after themselves, to be who they want to be and to shine the brightest that they can. So, please, look after yourself. For centuries, women's health has been neglected, gaslit and ignored, but we have come to make these changes. So, this Women's Health Week, say yes to you. Women's Health Week 123 11:33 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Women's Health Week is not just a reminder for women to prioritise their own health; it's a call to confront the sexism that still runs through our health system. And I must say that the former speaker, the member for Leichhardt, expressed it so beautifully as a great ally amongst the men in the Labor Party, and it's great to see that the men are now comfortable speaking about these things. See what happens when you have a majority women government? I know the sexism that runs through the health system not just from my experience as the former assistant minister for health but also from my own life and from my decades as a nurse, and I am surrounded by my women colleagues here today whom I know have had their own experiences. Too many times I saw women in tears; they were dismissed and ignored, their pain left untreated until their health worsened. I also experienced it in my own life, and it was then that I truly understood how it felt. In my 50s, I thought that heavy periods—or, as they're medically known, menorrhagia—and exhaustion were just a normal part of menopause. And then I found out that they weren't. But it took me collapsing at work with a haemoglobin level that was 'simply not compatible with life', as the doctor told me, before something serious had to be done. Just how far do women have to go? How bad does their health have to get, before it's taken seriously? I know my story is not uncommon. Almost every woman I speak to has their own version. The #EndGenderBias survey found that two in three women had experienced discrimination or bias in the healthcare system, with 70 per cent saying that that experience was via a GP clinic and half saying that it happened in our hospitals. Women have told me stories of being told their pain surely wasn't that bad or that they were exaggerating it somewhat. There were stories of being shamed by family and friends for actually speaking up. This isn't just bad luck or bad practice; it's what we call medical misogyny. It's why conditions like endometriosis, PCOS and chronic pelvic pain take years and years, sometimes decades, to diagnose. It's why too many women still, to this day, feel shame when talking about their menopause symptoms. It's why too many unplanned pregnancies happen, simply because women can't afford the contraceptives that work best for them. But something is changing. For the first time, I believe Australia is turning a corner. The Albanese Labor government has made the single biggest investment in women's health in our nation's history—almost $1 billion worth. This investment comes from the incredible advocacy of Labor women, many of whom are in this room, because when a government has more women in the room, its priorities change—and what a change we've made. Our investment in women's health is delivering real, practical change, including cheaper contraception, with more pills on the PBS and higher rebates for IUDs and contraceptive implants. This has been decades in the making, particularly with listing these drugs on the PBS. We have better rebates for GPs now to insert IUDs or contraceptive implants. This is going to make a huge difference for women, for whom the cost of having an IUD or long-term contraceptive was absolutely prohibitive. Nurse practitioners will be able to provide the service to women to insert IUDs or contraceptive implants, which means access will be greater. This is going to be a great boost, I believe, for rural and regional women who simply cannot access their GPs in a timely manner. The cost of contraception, the cost of unplanned pregnancies—these are costs that are predominantly borne by women. This has definitely been a gendered issue that the Labor government has been absolutely prepared to address—and we have. There's expanded menopause care, including new PBS listings, Medicare rebates for longer consults and our first national menopause guidelines. I can't tell you the difference this has made to women's lives. Women have been going to the chemist, taking a photo of their receipt and sending it to me, saying they cannot believe their menopause treatment is now accessible and so much cheaper. One lady said she just wanted to smother it all over herself! I didn't advise that; just take the recommended dose. But she was so happy, absolutely so happy with that. Our national menopause guidelines will mean, hopefully, that more health professionals will understand menopause and will understand how to treat women appropriately. Something that I am particularly proud of are the 33 new endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. These will now be supporting women with perimenopause and menopause. So many women have told me the huge difference this has made to them. They walk in to get health care, they are heard, they are believed, their pain is validated, and they get expert treatment. I want to give a big shout-out to all health professionals working in those endometriosis clinics, who are trying new, innovative and very holistic ways to treat women with that disease. Medicines will be capped soon at no more than $25, giving women across the country real cost-of-living relief. We have had some data released today that shows more than 715,000 cheaper prescriptions have been accessed, including contraceptives, menopause therapies and endometriosis treatments. Since July, my goodness, the Medicare funded menopause health assessments have seen 20,000 women access those services—20,000 women who now are getting better care for menopause. From 1 November, even more changes will take effect, with women accessing those IUDs and contraceptive implants at a much cheaper rate. The cost of medications will reduce even more because we've passed a bill to freeze the cost of medicines at $25. This builds on our broader agenda of making health care affordable for all Australians right across the country. These are life-changing reforms, and this is why leadership matters. This is why having strong advocates in this space matters. And there's no stronger advocate than the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Rebecca White. The assistant minister is not just a leader; she is a change-maker. With years of experience and a deep understanding of the barriers women face, Assistant Minister White will combine compassion with determination. She will fight to ensure that women's health is never pushed aside again, and I know she will make the system fairer, and she will ensure that every single woman, no matter where she lives or who she is, will get the care she deserves. As for me, I'll be working closely with Assistant Minister White on the intersections between health and family and domestic and sexual violence, because we know violence and trauma can be incredibly detrimental to a woman's physical and mental health, and often health services are victims-survivors' first point of contact when disclosing violence. This government has already invested record amounts of funds into family, domestic and sexual violence. It's over $4 billion. But we aren't stopping here. The Minister for Social Services, Tanya Plibersek, the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, the Assistant Minister Rebecca White and I are determined to end the scourge of family, domestic and sexual violence in this country. We want all women to be healthy. We want women to feel safe. We want women to live their very best lives. As a government, we have introduced so many measures, including great measures through the health system. We are the party that built Medicare. We are the party that legislated paid family, domestic and sexual violence leave. We are the party that had the first woman prime minister. Now we are the party that is championing women's health, safety and economic equality. This Women's Health Week, we are absolutely determined to make sure that we will celebrate how far we've come. We will absolutely commit to finishing this job, which may never be finished, but we need Labor governments, like our government, the Albanese Labor government, that has a majority of women, that has an equal number of women in cabinet, that is sitting around the table, that is changing the priorities and that is fairly and squarely putting women's issues on the agenda. Whether it is health, family and domestic violence or women's economic equality, we are standing up for women all the way. We are a government that is majority women, and we are a government that has great allies in the men in the party as well. We are determined to lead—and that's just what we will do. 11:43 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah For too long, issues that impact women's health have been ignored. With more women in parliament, there is no doubt that we are seeing more focus on women's health issues. After all, women make up 51 per cent of the population, and, despite tremendous strides in health care, women's health continues to be an area that needs more attention. Physical health issues like endometriosis, perimenopause and menopause affect half the population. We will all go through it. Yet, they are surrounded by stigma and silence, and that has been the case for too long. We must remember that mental health issues should not be ignored. We need to look at complete body health, both mental and physical. In fact, this week is Body Image and Eating Disorder Awareness Week. It is a timely reminder of the importance of having a healthy body image. It's also a reminder that mental health challenges, particularly around body image, are especially confronting for young women. In Warringah, we have over 78,000 women. These women are mothers, sisters, wives, carers, professionals and volunteers. Our electorate is fortunate to have outstanding organisations that show the value of early intervention and compassionate care. I've visited some of these organisations recently, and I want to give them a special mention. For generations, Tresillian has provided support to families adjusting to the challenges of early parenthood. I recently visited their facilities, and it was incredible to see the level of support that they have been offering for so long for young mothers and young families. The Gidget Foundation—again, out of an incredible tragedy has come the most amazing organisation, which offers trusted and specialised mental health care for new and expecting parents. The Butterfly Foundation, which is an incredible organisation as well, provides essential treatment, resources and support for those affected by eating disorders and negative body image. These organisations demonstrate a vital truth: women's health cannot be separated into physical and mental health boxes. They're deeply connected, and in our policies and health services we need to reflect that reality. It's as true for young women struggling with body image as it is for midlife women navigating menopause. While there is access to these important services in our electorate of Warringah and in urban and city areas, the same is not true for First Nations women, and we must always be incredibly conscious that we still do not have parity in Australia when it comes to access to health services for all Australians. We also know that, for remote and regional committees, it is incredibly difficult to access that same level of care. When we think of that access to health, it's incredibly important to look at making sure we have culturally safe, comprehensive health care for First Nations women. We know, for example, that around one in nine Australian women live with endometriosis and often have waited years for diagnosis. In fact, it affects around 80 per cent of women who have experienced menopausal symptoms, and one in four experience it severely. Eating disorders are among the most fatal of all mental health conditions, disproportionally affecting women and girls, and yet there proportionally are still very few services available for support. With these realities, women's health has historically been underresearched, underfunded and underrecognised. For decades, women were told their symptoms were just part of life or sometimes dismissed without proper consideration. In fact, menopause will impact all women at some stage in their life. It's mostly between 45 and 65 that the perimenopause period occurs, but, of course menopause and postmenopausal periods will also occur, and it often impacts women at the peak of their careers. It's often misdiagnosed and poorly treated. There is too often inadequate treatment. This all has adverse impact on women's careers and health, and it all contributes to the unequal economic outcomes that we know women in our society still suffer. Whilst I do commend the government for there having been an increased focus in spending on those aspects, it must continue. Celebrating small gains is not sufficient until we get to the parity that is necessary. We need to elevate and make sure there is awareness of these issues and health conditions and to make sure our GPs are much more cognisant of these more specific issues when it comes to women's health. For wellbeing, for workforce participation, for families and for communities, we need to ensure that all areas of women's health are properly addressed. What can we do? Of course, the government funding Medicare rebates for longer consultations that address mental health concerns is something to consider. We continue to partner with proven committee services, and I urge the government to support services like Tresillian, like the Gidget Foundation, like the Butterfly Foundation, who build out holistic, family-centred models of care. We need funding for genetic screening for ovarian cancer. It still has the most horrendous outcomes and will devastate families. It has huge consequences for the broader family unit. We need to track outcomes. Women's health must not remain invisible in national reporting. There is still a long way to go, but it is good to finally have women's health on the table, being discussed in this place. I do think it is overwhelmingly because there are more women in this place, whether it is in the government ranks or the crossbench ranks. It is still falling pretty short in the coalition ranks, but that is something for them to address. We know that, if we fail to act, women will continue to be dismissed, symptoms will be minimised, their health outcomes will be compromised and we will all suffer as a nation. If we act, we can deliver equity, reduce stigma and build health systems that value women's wellbeing at every stage of life. Finally, we can't talk about women's health without talking about intimate partner violence. We know intimate partner violence is the leading cause of death for women aged between 25 and 44. It's a pretty sobering fact, when you think of all the other aspects of women's health, that it's actually at the hands of intimate partners that those women are most at risk. It causes a huge number of hospital presentations and disruptions, and it's horrific to think of the fatalities that are still occurring. There's still a lot more work to do. We are in a decade where there's a plan from the government, but it's lacking KPIs and underpinning policies to actually achieve the stated outcome of eliminating intimate partner violence and fatalities from domestic violence this decade. I urge the government to consider the independent recommendations that have been made—for example, the rapid review commissioned just last year in response to the spate of horrific killings. Experts came together to quickly provide a key roadmap to the government of how they could act promptly. Unfortunately, key recommendations have not been acted upon. These include restricting access to alcohol, especially home delivery of alcohol, and restricting gambling advertising. These areas have direct, statistical links to increased rates of domestic and intimate partner violence. You can't pick and choose which issues are more politically easy or convenient to address. If we're going to talk holistically about women's health, we have to address all of the factors that impact that. So I urge the government to not be selective and to tackle the hard ones, like gambling advertising and access to alcohol, because of their impact on intimate partner violence. 11:52 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I'm really proud to be part of a government that is delivering more choice, lower costs and better care for Australian women. I think this delivery is demonstrative of what happens when you have women at the table making decisions and a government that represents the communities we come from—with over 50 per cent of the population being women across Australia. This is a really important issue for my community. We've held forums and conducted surveys around women's health in the last term of government. I was stunned at the volume of responses that people shared, and I was so grateful for the generosity of the stories that were told about people's personal experiences. It made me even more determined to advocate, alongside my colleagues in government, for better treatment for women. I've met with a number of women's health researchers over the years, and I am so encouraged and inspired by the work they do every day with their colleagues to encourage people to better listen to women and to help our communities be healthier and stronger. The reality is that it has been for too long that women have not been listened to and their health issues not taken seriously. I remember studying 19th century history and feeling so shocked at the brutal way the scientific and medical communities treated women at that stage. Unfortunately, there have been so many examples of women not being listened to and being treated poorly in our own times. I'm glad that, after hundreds of years—a period that would have extended to well before the Victorian era—women are now starting to be listened to and taken seriously by the scientific and medical community and, of course, by governments. Like so many women in this place and in our communities, I have my own experiences of this. A number of years ago, I presented multiple times to an emergency department in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I was given many blood tests. It was really clear that something was wrong. All that could be suggested—after I'd been turned away many times but the medical professionals also realised that something needed to be done—was that my appendix should be removed. My appendix was perfectly healthy. I did not have appendicitis. But they eventually found out what it was, which was great of them. It was an incredibly common condition that affects around two in three women between the ages of 30 and 50. I hope that, through our investment and through the advocacy of so many in our communities and in the research community, more is done to educate doctors on women's health, in particular, and on the importance of listening to women. It shouldn't be the case that people are subjected to unnecessary surgery, which has its own risks, in this day and age because there is perhaps a gap in knowledge in relation to women's health. But I'm really pleased to be talking about a much happier outcome for women's health today, which is that hundreds of thousands of women are now able to access cheaper medicines and better health care due to our landmark women's health package. I thank everyone—Assistant Minister Kearney in the previous parliament, Assistant Minister White in this parliament and Minister Mark Butler—for their work in delivering this package. Since announcing our women's health package earlier this year, more than 365,000 women have accessed more than 715,000 cheaper scripts for new oral contraceptives, menopausal hormone therapies and endometriosis treatments listed on the PBS. Before the listings of Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda on the PBS, women were paying $380 per year for their contraception. Now they're paying less than half—$126.40 or just $30.80 a year with a concession card. Before the listings of Estrogel and Prometrium on the PBS, women might have paid up to $670 a year. They are now only paying $31.60 per script or $7.70 if they are a concession card holder. Over 20,000 women have undergone a menopause health assessment, covered by Medicare, since they became available on 1 July. We can see here that women's health is actually quite expensive, and so we're making it easier and cheaper for women to get access to the health care that they need. We're going to continue to strengthen Medicare for women. From 1 July this year, further MBS changes will take effect, giving women access to affordable IUDs and birth-control implants. From the forums and the surveys that I conducted in my electorate, there were so many heartbreaking stories of women not getting the help that they needed, not being listened to, and having to go back and forth to doctors for years and years without establishing a diagnosis. For some conditions, the average period of medical consultation before a diagnosis has been a decade. That's a very long time to be struggling and suffering with a health condition. It is really hard. I'm really proud to be part of a government, though, that is working to improve women's health outcomes by listening to women and by addressing systemic bias in the health system. Assistant Minister Kearney outlined that very well in her contribution. We know that right across the country delayed diagnoses for conditions from endometriosis to heart disease—which does sometimes present differently in women—have taken place. Women have had their pain dismissed, and they really do struggle to get support for issues like menopause and miscarriage. A very common issue that women experience is polycystic ovary syndrome. It does not even involve cysts on ovaries, yet the very poor understanding of this condition in the health system has meant that women have not been diagnosed properly—in fact, the condition has been named incorrectly—and that their health systems and their endocrinology have not been understood well enough. I'm really pleased that there are researchers in my part of the world, in Melbourne, who have been working hard on not just the local or national stage but the international stage to help address this and find not just a more appropriate name for the condition but also a greater understanding and treatment for the condition. This will mean that people don't have to have the delayed diagnoses that we've seen over time. Of course, all healthcare interventions that our government has made will benefit women, beyond our specific package, such as our commitment to strengthen Medicare and to make medicines cheaper. We're making sure there are more doctors, more urgent care clinics and even cheaper medicines for all Australians. We're making the largest investment in Medicare since its creation over 40 years ago. We're investing $8.5 billion to a deliver an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits each year. We're delivering hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors in the largest GP training program ever. We're investing in a way that will mean nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030. We expect this investment of expanding the bulk-billing incentive to boost the number of fully bulk-billed practices to around 4,800 nationally, which is triple the current number of practices. We're building more urgent care clinics. I am very proud to have advocated successfully for an urgent care clinic in Mount Waverley, and we're going to get an additional urgent care clinic in the Stonnington council area too. I have heard from so many people in my community how valuable the urgent care clinics have been. They provide bulk-billed care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions seven days a week for extended hours, with no appointment needed. We've now opened 90 Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, which has meant more than 1.8 million Australians have been able to receive treatment in those facilities. They're taking pressure off hospitals, which means hospitals can spend more time on the life-threatening emergencies they are built for. We committed at the last election to 50 new Medicare urgent care clinics, with more clinics in every state and territory. Once all of the clinics are open, four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic. In Victoria we know there have been more than 393 presentations. This is a really important investment for our communities. We have made medicines cheaper overall. We are making sure that PBS medicines are going to be no more than $25, which is what they were more than 20 years ago. We're committed to health, we're committed to cost-of-living relief and we are particularly committed to making sure that we listen to women. 12:02 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner This week is Women's Health Week. It is Australia's largest event dedicated to the health and wellbeing of all women, girls and gender-diverse people. It is a reminder that women must be heard and supported in the health system. Women face a range of significant costs simply by virtue of being women. In fact, 60 per cent of all health services in Australia are consumed by women. However, for decades, women's health has been ignored. Women have asked government to take their health seriously, and the Albanese Labor government has listened. That is why Labor delivered the almost $800 million women's health package, one of the largest investments into women's health by any government. It is changing the lives of women across the country. Hundreds of thousands of Australian women are accessing cheaper medicines thanks to the women's health package. With more medicines listed on the PBS, it has enabled more than 365,000 women to access more than 715,000 cheaper scripts for oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapies. Labor has invested more than $49 million to provide around 430,000 more services to help women across the country with complex gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and chronic pelvic pain. The package includes the first listing of new oral contraceptive pills in more than 30 years, with the listing of Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda saving 150,000 women hundreds of dollars every year—more choice, lower costs and better access to long-term contraceptives. On 1 November this year, further changes to the PBS will take effect, giving women access to affordable IUDs and birth control implants, saving around 300,000 women up to $400 in out-of-pocket costs each and every year. There will be more Medicare support for women experiencing menopause with the new rebate for menopause health assessments, funding to train health professionals, the first ever clinical guidelines and a national awareness campaign. Over 20,000 women have undergone a menopause health assessment covered by Medicare since they became available on 1 July. We have the first PBS listings for new menopausal hormone therapies in over 20 years, with around 150,000 women saving, again, hundreds of dollars each and every year. Women might have paid up to $670 these medications; now they are only paying $31.60 for a script, or $7.70 if they are a concession card holder. As we know, from 1 January next year they will be just $25. We will also see more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics treating more conditions, opening 11 new clinics and ensuring all 33 clinics are staffed to provide specialist support for menopause and new endometriosis treatment options through the PBS. We will see contraceptives and treatment for uncomplicated UTIs directly from pharmacies, with two national trials to benefit 250,000 concession card holders who will be able to consult a trained pharmacist at no cost and, if medications are required, pay only the usual medication costs. Australian women undergoing IVF will also receive earlier and more affordable access to fertility treatment. We're adding onto the PBS new medications, and the access to those items available per script will be increased. We know that, too often, women are seeking treatment from a doctor for conditions ranging from endometriosis to heart disease. We know that, too often, women have their pain dismissed and struggle to get support for issues such as unplanned pregnancies, menopause or miscarriage. Endometriosis, for example, affects one in nine women, and currently takes an average of seven years to diagnose. This is simply unacceptable. The new PBS items will help by giving Australian women more treatment options for pain management, and will deliver better healthcare services for Australian women and girls to support them during pivotal life stages, particularly with their gynaecological health. Four in 10 Australians don't know what health checks they need, and one in three are overdue. Jean Hailes, for women's health, is a national not-for-profit organisation dedicated to improving women's health across Australia through every stage of life. This week I had the pleasure of attending the Jean Hailes launch of Her Health Check. It is a free digital tool for women in Australia outlining which health checks and screenings women might need, and the tool is based on current medical guidelines and reviewed by clinical experts. I encourage people in my community back home in Bonner to check out Her Health Check online. It's a valuable resource and takes only a few minutes to use. Labor's investments into health seek to make health care more accessible and equitable for all women, right across their lives. It means women and girls get appropriate assessments sooner, ensuring they aren't waiting for critical diagnoses and treatments. Sex and gender bias in the health system is real. Women shouldn't be going go back and forth between doctors to be taken seriously. Labor is righting that wrong. This year Women's Health Week's theme is 'Say yes to you.' For Labor, this has been about more than just awareness; it has been action. For me, it is also personal. Almost 12 months ago, I lost a dear childhood friend from Yeppoon in Central Queensland to uterine sarcoma. Her name was Amy Cullinan. She was just 39 years old, and she was one of the funniest and most caring people I've ever met in my life. She was also a loving auntie, sister and daughter. From her diagnosis to her passing, it all happened so quickly. In just a few weeks we will mark the anniversary of her death. Amy was someone who loved politics. She would have been so proud to see me standing here, and I know she would want me to use my voice to speak up for women's health—not just during this week but every week that I have the honour to be here. Amy's story is a painful reminder of why this work matters. It's about real people—our friends, our sisters, our mothers and our daughters—and making sure their health concerns are never again ignored or dismissed, particularly if they live in a regional part of our country. So today I speak in memory of Amy and in honour of every woman whose voice has been silenced too soon. We owe it to them to keep raising our voices. I am proud to be part of the Albanese government, which is helping put women's health first, and I'll continue to do all I can to make sure every woman is seen, heard and supported. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 298800 Amy sounds like an incredible friend. 12:10 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I'd like to thank the member for Bonner for sharing her deeply personal story that beautifully explains the importance of Women's Health Week. I speak with a little authority, I hope, on the topic of women's health. I have decades of personal experience—I'm not going to tell you how many decades—with the health system as a woman, through puberty, decades of polycystic ovary syndrome, fertility, high-risk pregnancy and childbirth, postpartum care—that would take a couple of hours to talk about—and, dare I say it, perimenopause and menopause. In a past life I also ran women's health and safety services in the central northern Adelaide health service, a unit of SA Health, providing services to two-thirds of the female Adelaide population and also statewide breast screening. My portfolio included two women's health clinics that specialised in working with women who faced additional barriers to accessing health care, particularly preventive and screening services, through their cultural background, poverty, domestic violence or coercive relationships. I ran a community midwifery service, two domestic violence services and a perpetrator rehabilitation unit as well as multiple BreastScreen sites and buses that travelled to remote areas such as the APY Lands. The experience of women in the health system is often one of not being believed. Their pain isn't believed or is minimised, and their symptoms aren't believed or are normalised. I recall taking a call from a family whose 14-year-old daughter was having her first period and was in severe abdominal pain. We sent a doctor out, who told her that her pain was normal and that she'd get used to it over time—that this was what being an adult woman was like. She was crying, guarding her stomach and very distressed that this was the future that she was looking at for her adult life. When she was still getting worse a few hours later, her parents arranged for her to see another doctor, who diagnosed her with appendicitis and sent her to hospital for an emergency appendectomy. Her pain, unrelated to her women's issues, had been normalised and minimised, and the rationale of period pain meant she had a substandard medical experience that could have been life threatening. It's little wonder then that women with endometriosis typically take up to seven different doctors and between seven and 10 years to get a diagnosis, let alone an effective treatment plan. Improving the health and wellbeing of all women is a key priority for the Australian government. The experience of women in the health system is not the same as the experience of men. Women experience delayed diagnosis across a wide range of conditions and diseases and tend to use healthcare services more than men. This includes GPs, specialists and hospital admissions. Women spend more on out-of-pocket healthcare costs than men, and younger women spend more than men their age, partly due to maternity care and the higher prevalence of chronic illness. In 2023 the #EndGenderBias survey looked at the unique barriers and gender bias women face in Australia's healthcare system. From across the country there were 2,570 responses about women's own experiences. Two-thirds of women reported that they experienced health care related gender bias or discrimination. Gender bias in health care has a far-reaching impact on women's lives. Women report feelings of abandonment, shame, blame and self-doubt. If you're repeatedly told that the pain isn't real but in your head, where do you take that? Women report significant financial burden and lost educational and career opportunities from untreated or ineffectively treated conditions. Delayed diagnosis and treatment lead to disease progression, fewer treatment options and worse health outcomes. Conversely, women recounted positive health experiences that stemmed from strong interpersonal interactions and relationships. When you find a good doctor or a good midwife who you gel with, that's gold. We also know that medications and treatments are standardised on men. It used to be that medications were trialled on male uni students, typically white, wealthy, 21-year-old men—hardly a standard population, let alone relevant to women, who have different hormone profiles, which interact with medication. We know the classic heart attack symptoms that get taught—crushing chest pain, shortness of breath, pain radiating to the shoulder or jaw—are the symptoms of men, and this a significant impact on the treatment and care you might get if, for instance, you're a woman with typical women's heart attack symptoms, which are often much more subtle and different. A Sydney university study found that women are half as likely to receive an appropriate diagnostic test and treatment for heart attacks. It's little wonder that women have much more poorer survival rates than men. Six months after a heart attack, women are twice as likely to have died than men. Of course, women with other barriers—language barriers, cultural barriers, poverty barriers, social isolation barriers, geographical isolation barriers—and those experiencing domestic violence or coercive control, or a combination of all the above, experience even worse health outcomes. We know that women of colour are even more likely to have their pain ignored. The Albanese government's National Women's Health Strategy outlines a national approach to improving health outcomes for all women and girls, particularly those at greatest risk of poor health, and aims to reduce inequities in health. The Australian government is investing $792.9 million through the 2025-26 budget to increase the capacity of the primary care workforce to support women's health needs, increase access to services and make both services and medicines more affordable. This includes $159.9 million to make it easier for women in Australia to access and afford long-acting reversible contraception, LARC, one of the most effective and reliable methods of contraception. LARCs are extremely effective and reliable and are a cost-effective way for women to manage their fertility and contraception, but the uptake in Australia is considerably lower than comparable countries around the world. We have around a 10 to 11 per cent uptake, whereas in Sweden, the UK and parts of Europe it sits just under 30 per cent. Needless to say, when choosing contraception, the woman's doctor plays a fairly important role. If your doctor doesn't feel confident inserting the LARC, than you probably aren't going to have it offered to you. So this women's health package includes $71.5 million to increase four LARC item fees in the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the creation of new items for nurse practitioners to claim these services. This measure will incentivise healthcare professionals to provide LARC insertions and removals with no out-of-pocket service costs through better remuneration. We're also providing $64.5 million for increased endometriosis and pelvic pain, perimenopause and menopause management and support, including another 11 new endometriosis clinics on top of the 22 that are already in existence. We have an endometriosis clinic in Glenelg, in my electorate, and the stories I hear from women who've found their way there are inspirational. In many cases, they've suffered for decades. It affects their ability to hold down a job and therefore to have income and retirement savings, to have a social life or an intimate relationship and to exercise or maintain their general health. They spend their lives at home curled in a ball on medication. The endometriosis clinic is Multi-D. It not only helps people through a coordinated care plan between the GPs and the specialists and the allied health professionals but helps them develop plans, similar to an asthma plan, to work out their triggers, recognise early symptoms and know what to do when that happens and went to seek further help. For many of these women, the most important part is finally being believed and then putting all of the other symptoms together and understanding they're all part of the same condition. We're investing $26.3 million to implement a temporary new health assessment MBS item for women experiencing menopause or perimenopause. This will be introduced for an initial two-year period. This is another area where women get substandard care. They're expected to just continue on, yet there are often long-term, life-impacting health impacts from not managing your menopause symptoms. So to be able to have a doctor spend that time to have a look at what is actually happening in your life and provide you with the treatment that you need so that you can manage the symptoms and any long-term health effects that come out of that is so important and will be life changing for so many women. Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas, this is Women's Health Week, and I'd like to say to you and to all the women here, 'Say yes to you.' It's time that we looked after ourselves. 12:20 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton I couldn't be prouder to be standing here today, as one of the women who form 56 per cent of our Labor government, addressing Women's Health Week. For too long, women's health issues have not been adequately addressed, but on this side of the chamber we know that women matter, and we're investing in landmark commitments to women's health. Before the Albanese Labor government came into government, there had not been a new contraceptive pill listed on the PBS in 30 years, there had not been a new endometriosis medicine listed on the PBS for 30 years and there had not been a new menopause hormone treatment listed on the PBS for 20 years. Without women in this place to advocate for our own needs, women's health had fallen by the wayside. This government is taking a new approach to women's health, putting our health at the top of the agenda and ensuring that discussions about women's health are welcomed. This government is working hard to reverse decades of neglect to women's health. Since 1 May this year, 365,000 patients have benefited from more than 715,000 new medicines that we have been able to list on the PBS. We're delivering cheaper medicines, which will make an impact on their ability to stay in the workplace and save money in their household budgets. We're seeing more women access longer appointments with their doctors, because we know that you can't deal with the issues that surround perimenopause and menopause in a brief appointment. We've invested $573.3 million to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women. This government is introducing the first new contraceptive pills added to the PBS in 30 years: Yaz, Yasmin, and Slinda. That's because this government understands that for women contraception is a necessity, not a luxury. Access to contraceptive pills is not only incredibly important for women's sexual health and autonomy; it can also represent a lifeline for many women struggling with debilitating period pain. We understand this. We understand how important contraceptive pills are to women's health and women's lives, and we are ensuring that the pill is more affordable and more accessible for women in this country. More than this, we are also ensuring that there's better access to IUDs and birth control implants for women in this country. We recognise that not every contraceptive method is ideal for every woman, and we want to ensure that women can access the long-acting contraceptive methods they need. Further than this, this government is also introducing the first new menopause treatments on the PBS in 20 years: Estrogel, Estrogel Pro and Prometrium. We've heard many women in this place today speak about how little women going through menopause are heard and considered in our society and how important it is that there is real discussion and action to address women's needs during menopause. We're leading by example here, inviting discussion about menopause in this place and taking real action to ensure that necessary treatments for women going through menopause are affordable and accessible. This morning I had the honour of meeting the incredible Robyn Smith. She recently joined tens of thousands of runners for the City2Surf run a few weeks ago. Not only did she complete the 15-kilometre course; she ran bare chested to raise awareness, proudly showing off the scars from her double mastectomy. Robyn decided to have the procedure when she found out that she had inherited the BRCA2 gene mutation which significantly increases the lifetime risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers. After removing her ovaries and fallopian tubes to manage her high inherited cancer risks, Robyn went into immediate menopause. Robyn is one of the people directly benefiting from the government's decision to list some of the menopausal hormone therapies on the PBS. She has access to both Prometrium and Estrogel, two medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. These important medications help people to manage menopausal symptoms. They also benefit women's long-term bone health and help manage CVD risk. Robyn is now not having to pay $500 or $600 to access these treatments; she's only having to pay $30 every couple of months, which is much more accessible for people like Robyn to help manage their menopause. This is a really proactive step to make women's health more accessible for all Australians. I've talked to a number of young women in my electorate who live with the pain and suffering of conditions like endometriosis every single day. All of this comes alongside the opening of 22 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, with 11 to be opening soon. Women with endometriosis and pelvic pain have suffered in silence for too long without safe places to seek support and treatment. Clinics like these improve access for women to diagnostic, treatment and referral services for endometriosis and pelvic pain. They also build the primary care workforce to manage these conditions and improve access to new information and care pathways. For women suffering from endometriosis and pelvic pain, this kind of care can be life changing. This government understands how important access to this kind of care is to women, and that's why we've invested to open new endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics for women. Mental health is another significant side of women's health. We often put it to one side as we focus on the others around us. That's why we're also opening a number of mental health urgent care clinics, where you can walk in and immediately receive the mental care you need. This will make such a difference to the lives of women across our country. We also understand that girls and women facing mental health challenges still see very real discrimination and obstacles in society. This all comes alongside this week's announcement that the Albanese Labor government is strengthening its world-leading online safety laws to protect Australians from the harms of predatory technology. Nudification and deep fake apps are abhorrent technologies that are designed to turn photos of someone into sexually explicit content without their consent. It's absolutely disgusting. As a young woman, I find this really scary. In Australia, too many women experience sexual violence. It's a huge issue, and it's a women's health issue. That's why the Albanese government will work to restrict access to nudification and undetectable stalking tools, engaging closely with industry on how best to achieve this. These are proactive steps to addressing current gaps in the law when it comes to preventing abuse facilitated by evolving technologies. These technologies have a huge impact on the mental health of women. Thanks to these initiatives, Australian women and their families will save thousands of dollars on health related costs across their lifetimes. Women will be safer as we legislate around the dangers of evolving technologies, and women will have access to more and better care closer to home. This is what happens when we elect women; women's issues become the forefront of the government's agenda. I couldn't be prouder to be part of a Labor government made up of 56 per cent women, because, when we elect women, we legislate on women's issues. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12 : 29